A discussion cam up in our dojo the past few days. One individual asked whether certain exercises were meant to specifically train the Facia & Anatomy Trains discussed here. This led to some discussion which led one of our resident "experts" to share some clarifying working definitions of Facia, etc. provided by several surgeons.
I won't post our full discussion since I have not sought or attained permission from the participants to do so. However, I thought that my response to the original question (for which I can give permission to post
) might be of interest or prompt further conversation:
"OP: Are (certain specific exercises we do) aimed at developing or conditioning Facia & Anatomy Trains as discussed on Aikiweb?
My answer to the OP: I don't know.
My more detailed answer to the OP: I don't know and I seriously doubt that those that came up with the original exercises knew specifically what they were doing within a Western Anatomical context/model and using Western Anatomical Nomenclature.
Rather, they probably knew, over time, what specific results they wanted and found out, over time, what specifically needed to be done to achieve and reproduce those results. Could that be further streamlined and made even more efficient? Perhaps so, but I am still struggling to grasp what it is (all that is) that is being achieved and how it is to be achieved. In other words, I have not experienced (all/most of) the changes in my body yet, only the changes in another's body AND have had limited hands on time feeling the attributes, and anatomy of that body as well.
Further, it would only be natural for the people in specific cultures at specific times (throughout history) to attempt to express their experiences and understandings in terms of their cultures models of reality and nomenclature. This is what they seem to have done several times, hence the differing cultural models and nomenclature being applied to a phenomena. This is also what WE are doing BTW. We are taking our experiences and trying to comprehend them in terms of our present models of reality and we are trying to apply our present nomenclature . . . and failing for the most part. Some of this is due the lack of experience, some of this is probably due to lack of understanding. Some of this will necessarily be due to the need for specific nomenclature, which is why we find our selves "borrowing" nomenclature from models belonging to different cultures and times as well as struggling to use specialized nomenclature from our present culture and time.
Things become more complicated when one considers: a) We may not fully understand the models and nomenclature that we are borrowing from. b) We may by falsely manipulating understandings and nomenclature from cultures and times unwittingly (and probably unavoidably) coloring them with the hues of the models and time through which we "see" these models and nomenclature. c) We may not fully understand our own cultures models and nomenclature. This is especially true for specialized models and nomenclature. And finally, d) We are in all likelihood (understandably) trying to explain with specificity something that we have yet to fully comprehend.
What I think we should be careful not to do is: a) For the sake of creating a working model "break" the reality of the phenomena to conform to how we wish to conceive of it. I think it would be better to PRESERVE the phenomena that we wish to reproduce and "break" limitations in models representing it, remembering that the *representation* is not the thing itself. Also, I think it would be a mistake to assume that, because a model is different or old, it is therefore inferior or lacking. It may be, but it would be a mistake to assume so out of hand, particularly if one fails to produce a superiorly functioning model.
So, to my mind, first we need to reliably be able to exhibit/display the phenomena that we desire to reproduce. (Not all people may agree on the phenomena they wish to identify BTW. This will be further complicated if it is an amalgam of phenomena and even further complicated when diverse individuals pointing to diverse phenomena, or collections of phenomena, use similar or identical nomenclature to identify that phenomena or collection of phenomena.) Then we can study the phenomena and either a) attempt to understand the existing models representing the phenomena, or b) create a new model representing it.
More than likely what will take place though is most of us will try to recreate the phenomena we wish to understand and explain, and IN THE PROCESS of TRYING to recreate (or in some cases produce for the first time since they have never experienced the phenomena first hand even as experienced via the direct observation (feel) of another) that phenomena we will create necessarily limited and flawed models (is there such a thing as a perfect model?) of the the phenomena and process to produce and reproduce that phenomena and consequently will end up taking one step forward and two steps back, over and over again."
The above is pretty much a description of learning in general. However, while that description of learning generally applies, it is not to say that all schools or teachers are the same. It is important to note that some schools and certain teachers seem to consistently and reliably produce more individuals that can exhibit desired results. While they may not be "perfect," it makes sense that one would wish to investigate what is "working" in those cases.
My coffee is getting cold . . .
