View Single Post
Old 11-06-2012, 05:32 PM   #59
ChrisHein's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Fresno
Location: Fresno , CA
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,646
Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Hey Dave,
Again, I think we need to get appearance out of the equation to better understand what is going on.

Dave de Vos wrote: View Post
I think structure and alignment is the normal way to prevent your body from buckling and toppling. I think structure and alignment is expressed in the physical orientation of body parts, like stance and bracing.
I agree, and would say something very similar myself.

I think most people can recognize it for what it is.
Here we are getting back to appearance, which will get us in trouble in short order.

With internal training you condition your body. Over time it changes your tissues. It unifies your body.
This is also true of "external training", your muscles and body tissues change, becoming stronger, and more able. The unification of the body as it is used here is also no different than any other external methods, this is improved structure. From what I'm reading here, internal training and external training do basically the same thing. Is this correct or incorrect?

This allows you to use your body in ways that would not work with a normal body, because the physical orientation of the body parts would preclude stability from structure and alignment. In those circumstances a normal body would buckle or topple.
I'm not sure what is meant by "normal" body here. I also think you are suggesting that with an "internally trained body" physical orientation of the body parts is no longer important. If this is what you are saying, we seem again like we are getting away from "body skill", this is because if the orientation of the body is not important, it's not something the body is doing. To me this would mean that another force, other then the body is at work, and we are not talking about a "body skill". How do you feel about this?

So I think it is the body itself (lead by the mind) making itself physically stable, but structure and alignment is not all there is. A conditioned body can derive a lot of physically stability from its own integrity and organisation, independent from stance and bracing.
This would suggest that the ground is not important to internally trained body, at least not as a stabilizing factor. That would mean that an internally trained body would not need to be connected to the ground in order to be unmovable. Is this what you mean to say?

  Reply With Quote