View Single Post
Old 05-15-2008, 12:26 AM   #29
Erick Mead
Erick Mead's Avatar
Dojo: Big Green Drum (W. Florida Aikikai)
Location: West Florida
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,619
Re: Taiji Motion study

Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
since when did Berkeley, Isaac Newton, et al demand that qi be defined
They never heard of it.

Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
... no one else seems to be *demanding* how things are described, except for you. ... These demands and assertions have gotten you nowhere in several years, but they have convinced the growing number of people that see/understand the effects that you have no idea of what you're talking about.
Really Mike, If I could just rely on your level of mind-boggling clairvoyance then I could dispense with physics. On the other hand, maybe not. "Proof" of physical skill (vice concept) by forum discussion -- I love it. Will you sip a mint julep through a DSL line next?

Demands? I demand nothing. I have a point of view and a line of thinking about relating things. You don't have to agree or disagree with it, take it for what it is or not as it suits you. I expect question challenge and even pushback on the merits. I try to respond in kind.

All I showed was the very basic elements of correspondnce for my line of thought from the most traditional understandings of Qi, as making essential correspondence with moment/momentum. And of course it is incomplete because the two systems are not completely correspondent, or at least not trivially so.

But. Why the acid? I've never challenged nor much care about your bona fides which are certainly not at issue. You seem to feel mighty free in slapdash judgment. I don't. I would not do that even if I had no basis to believe you were bona fide. This is a realm of ideas and ideas stand or fall on their own merits.

So, why the so routinely predictable attack on me with such unsupported judgment ? Not that I care -- and feel free to keep doing it. I just wonder why, that's all. Pretense about relating physicality here when we cannot agree on the language or grammar for representing that physicality is utter and complete nonsense. Even video is not sufficient because we cannot analyze it except by language means, so we are right back where we were. That is actually the point of the remedy I am working toward. Then you could insult and debase me in quantitative terms, and wouldn't that be fun ?

Last edited by Erick Mead : 05-15-2008 at 12:36 AM.


Erick Mead
  Reply With Quote