View Single Post
Old 02-10-2008, 07:24 PM   #35
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
Re: Freeform Bokken Drills to Develop Aiki Flow

Chris Parkerson wrote: View Post
Lets avoid I Li Chi for a moment then and just call the sequence in simple English.
Actually, Chris, exactly what the chi is in relation to strength is fairly straightforward, but it appears to not be what you think it is... hence the confusion. You've basically made the statement that the chi is what follows and I have a problem understanding any other way you could arrive at that point unless you have the wrong idea about what chi is. However, *you're* the one that made the statement. You're either making a joke, you don't understand what chi is, or you need to clarify exactly what you mean. Something along those lines. Because you're the one that made the statement; not anyone else.
How about: The mind directs the body mechanics and mechanical force follows.
That's not what qi is, though, so your statement is still hanging out there.
Robert Smith wrote under the pen name of John Gilbey for a while. Two books… One was something like "Secret Fighting Arts of the World". They were meant to be funny but each chapter had a kernel of real truth in them as well.
This is even worse. Robert Smith was a writer. He didn't know what qi was and he pretty much broadcast that by what he wrote. He certainly was no expert in Xingyi. He was only on Taiwan between 2 and 3 years... his pronouncements on various Chinese martial arts don't make him an expert. The point being that when you pull up a source like some of the ones that you have mentioned (I'm assuming as some sort of appeal-to-authority argument), it doesn't do a lot for your debate points. Why not argue the issue that you made rather than go off on tangents?
On a sidebar note, since about five years ago, the acupuncture points in the human body are actually moving a bit. At least that is what I was told by some very sensitive practicioners.
More experts, but sensitive ones!
Perhaps our disagreement is just about words. certainly no call to accuse someone of being a sham.
I just looked.... can't find where anyone called anyone a "sham". But maybe by making such a point we can get off the issue and get into personalities? I'm basically not interested. Why not just say you were making a joke, talking about something you didn't really know about, or some approach like that, rather than try to deflect the responsibility to someone else? The bit about the mind, qi, strength is very straightforward, easy to demonstrate, and is also found in numerous classical writings. It's not a matter of "here's my take on it".


Mike Sigman

Last edited by Mike Sigman : 02-10-2008 at 07:26 PM.
  Reply With Quote