Aikido: The learning of natural movement

David Orange wrote: But here are the quotes to which I was refering: Mike Sigman wrote: Even the "demo's" of qi abilities are the same in Chinese and Japanese. Every demo Tohei and Ueshiba did has an obvious counterpart in China. You simply are missing the obvious, no matter what you think you know of Aikido. How do you explain Ueshiba's demo's being pretty much exactly the same as the Chinese coincidence in every case? Coincidence?...You seem to want to forget the almost complete dependence in Japanese lore and cosmology on the Chinese way of doing things.... including in the Kojiki. Not "equatable"????? This is crazy.

But here's what you claimed for me:

David Orange wrote: Several posts back, the idea was brought up by Mike Sigman that China is the source of all things Japanese.

Note that there is a difference between "all things Japanese" and Japanese lore and cosmology, David. I.e., you falsely attributed something to me.

So that's exactly what I was refering to and I gave examples countering your claims. I don't see anything more than passingly similar in Ueshiba and Tohei's demos and Chinese-style exhibitions.

So far your ideas of what "jin" are and a number of other things have turned out to simply be wrong, David. Same with you knowledge of what common Chinese demo's are. For instance, Tohei's demo's are and have been common demonstrations for centuries among qi afficionados in China. You simply don't know what you're talking about, but you get an "A" for your personal enthusiasm.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Erick Mead wrote: Japanese language is related, if is related to anything, to the Altaic tongues of Mongolia. Korean is likewise uncertainly placed in a language family but the Altaic languages are generally deemed to be most likely closest relation to it as well. The Japanese and Koreans have a consitutional dislike of each other that is just too intense for there not to be some close relation back there.

I think both genetic and archaeologic studies have found that the early Japanese imperial family was directly related to the Koreans. Mochizuki Sensei used to talk about the origin of the Japanese people in dim prehistoric times. The way he saw it, people from China, Korea, Russia and elsewhere found their several ways to the Japanese islands and slowly built a life there, finding, in the process, that they had to rely on one another to survive. The intermarriages of this group within a narrow geography largely isolated from everyone else, eventually resulted in the Yamato "race" that we think of today as the Japanese.

Erick Mead wrote: ...oddly enough one can see in the movements of Boke, traditional Mongolian wrestling, strong elements that hark to both sumo and judo/jujutsu, and very much in line with David's observations on the differences between Chinese and jujutsu lineage arts. Look here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wB6WISba5M It is not hard to see in this a harking back to some common progenitor.

Yes, I think that Japanese arts and culture were strongly influenced by China and Korea as well as Mongolia (Mochizuki Sensei was deputy governor of three provinces in Mongolia during WWII). In fact, as you mentioned, those clips really looked more like judo to me than like sumo, but very interesting. And I do think that all those arts look as if they developed naturally from children's wrestling in their dim prehistory.

Still, my main point is that the Japanese developed/evolved their arts in a different way with different strategies and motivations than the Chinese, resulting in a very different general approach--though still based on the "center" and on ki.

Best to you.

David

Cady Goldfield wrote: ...Tung Ying Jie advised students several decades ago that, in the beginning, a student should concentrate on listening and learning the correct forms from a competent master before getting too involved in pointless discussions on theory or the philosophy of Taiji. A certain maturity of practice is needed for one to be able to comprehend and discuss principles of the practice. There is no shortcut around long, hard, lonely practice.

Cady, very true. Especially on learning the correct forms from a competent master.

However, Erick has over 20 years of experience. Why do you mention this to him?

Best wishes.

David

Mike,
I realize that one of the shortcomings of these infernal Internet forums, is that a lot of words get bandied around, but there is no real way of knowing who's who, who can do what, and who talks a good game but can do nothing of substance. Of course I wouldn't expect you to have any grasp of Ushiro's or Dan's or anyone else's skill level if you have never met and trained with them. In turn, we know nothing of what you are physically able to do, or how you apply what you know, other than to make assumptions based on what you post (or have written in articles, etc.). A lot of assumptions and question marks would be erased by a congenial day on the mats together.

My comments were intended to be more in the general sense, that as an obviously knowledgeable/apparently skilled person with a lot of time-in, you would surmise that in a healthy training environment students would be introduced to progressively higher levels of challenge and method to push them to the next level. Unless the person running the show has the kind of delusional ego that makes him or her have the intent of taking students just so far, and presenting himself as some uber-goddess whose abilities those poor schmoes could never hope to attain. It happens.

Then again, just because someone "knows stuff" doesn't mean they're obliged to share it; and if they do, they are not obliged to share it with everyone. I would not share information with someone whom I believed would abuse it. There are plenty of good, sound systems in which some people "have it," and others, no matter how long they train, never "have it." Sometimes it's lack of ability, other times, it's because their teachers don't let 'em have it, for whatever reason.

As far as people being able to learn it all in a short time, and the ability to reverse techniques, etc. maybe your curriculum is smaller than others'. We don't know quite how much you know or how you utilize it. The philosophy of "combat" is likely completely different than that of others here. If you're teaching little bits and pieces as "tricks," then sure, I'm certain one could quickly learn the individual action and its reversal. Hey, I was doing amazing "tricks" my first day in the dojo. They were explained them to me and why I could do them, but, those many years ago, at the time, they were about as disjointed and lacking in a realistic application, to me, as my high school courses had been (in which you're studying all these different subjects, but no one shows you the common thread that binds them as a holistic body of real-world knowledge).

To fully comprehend the full use of such a body dyamic and how to apply it in a freeform, less predictable "non-parlor" situation (e.g. combat) takes while. To someone unindoctrinated in an art, there are fundamentals to be learned and ingrained as a foundation first, before "higher" applications of them are introduced.

Thanks for your interpretation of "tricks" for me. I'd go along with the derision toward those who like hocus-pocus and pretent that they are the masterly possessers of "Seeeeeecret secrets."

Regards,
Cady

David Orange wrote: Cady, very true. Especially on learning the correct forms from a competent master. However, Erick has over 20 years of experience. Why do you mention this to him? Best wishes. David

Because it sounds like he likes to talk more than seek an experiential answer to his questions. He is trying to intellectualize his way into an understanding of principles and methods that are unfamiliar to him, and I am saying (as are others) that he really needs to feel and experience them, hands on, instead of creating lengthier and lengthier verbal interpretations of what he thinks he understands.

I'm saying, if you really want to understand, then seek a place to learn the answer, and DO. Thought the taiji fella said it better.

David Orange wrote: I think both genetic and archaeologic studies have found that the early Japanese imperial family was directly related to the Koreans. Mochizuki Sensei used to talk about the origin of the Japanese people in dim prehistoric times. The way he saw it, people from China, Korea, Russia and elsewhere found their several ways to the Japanese islands and slowly built a life there, finding, in the process, that they had to rely on one another to survive. The intermarriages of this group within a narrow geography largely isolated from everyone else, eventually resulted in the Yamato "race" that we think of today as the Japanese.

Actually, IIRC, there were genetic studies done about ten years ago and instead of a nod of archeological approval that the Japanese are indeed descended from Koreans, there was outrage. Not a calm nod of understanding at all, by the Japanese... they really believed that they were singular and had nothing to do with Korea. There was a very nice article covering the general points in "Discover" magazine at one time. I beleive all this stuff about the origins of Japan and the relationship of Japanese martial arts to Chinese, etc., stuff has been covered fairly completely in previous threads. Ellis contributed a sort of coup de grace with the mention of Chinese texts, etc. Don't forget that whatever you can find out about the earliest history of Japan will be written in Chinese characters. Sumo? Look at the characters. The "ju" arts refer to arts that used internal strength, at one time... not just "soft". Were there wrestling and fighting arts in Japan before that... yes, but they weren't the true "ju" arts and besides, remember the characters for "Sumo". There is a lot stronger argument for pronounced Chinese influence on Aikido than there is argument for the pronounced influence of children.

Still, my main point is that the Japanese developed/evolved their arts in a different way with different strategies and motivations than the Chinese, resulting in a very different general approach--though still based on the "center" and on ki.

Sure... and the Japanese evolved their own customs and strategies for the use of chopsticks, too.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman wrote: Many of your early examples indicate that your own students, etc., could not move you... in which case you were either not showing them how to do something or you were magical or they are slow-witted, etc. The "of course you're showing" has been obvious to me, but not to the dear readers of the forum.

How do you know that, Mike? You're assuming a level of naivete or stupidity to characterize everyone else on the forum.

However, with both you and Dan, the posts often read as if you can do your things with "anyone." Just a few posts back, you, yourself, said "Either you do these things or you don't." You specified that it wasn't a matter of circumstances. Either you do it or you don't.

That implies that it always works for you and leave no room for someone who "does it better." This is another case, as I have cited before, when you criticize Dan for something you frequently do, yourself. That's what I was talking about. Not bragging--just saying the same sorts of things you say, yourself.

Mike Sigman wrote: It's not a case always of "who can do it better", because there are levels of skills and various tricks .... it's not some simple subject that someone can learn and add to their already fine martial arts. In many cases it takes a number of years to get beyond these simple jin tricks, so maybe "who can do it better" is sometimes applicable, but often it's "who knows how to do more skills with these things.... skills that are difficult to find out how to do, etc.".

There's really no distinction there. It's just a matter of who has more skill.

And on that line, nothing either of you has written convinces me that deeper skills cannot be developed, like Ushiro Sensei says, through dedicated training in the traditional methods.

Both of you refer to judo men, but which judo men? Of what level? Is there a level of judo man that you can't weaken on contact? Then maybe his judo taught him something as great as or greater than what you're teaching. Maybe you just stopped training the traditional arts before you reached that point.

Like Cady Goldfield said, you have to learn first from a competent master.

David

Cady Goldfield wrote: As far as people being able to learn it all in a short time, and the ability to reverse techniques, etc. maybe your curriculum is smaller than others'. We don't know quite how much you know or how you utilize it. The philosophy of "combat" is likely completely different than that of others here. If you're teaching little bits and pieces as "tricks," then sure, I'm certain one could quickly learn the individual action and its reversal. Hey, I was doing amazing "tricks" my first day in the dojo. They were explained them to me and why I could do them, but, those many years ago, at the time, they were about as disjointed and lacking in a realistic application, to me, as my high school courses had been (in which you're studying all these different subjects, but no one shows you the common thread that binds them as a holistic body of real-world knowledge). To fully comprehend the full use of such a body dyamic and how to apply it in a freeform, less predictable "non-parlor" situation (e.g. combat) takes while. To someone unindoctrinated in an art, there are fundamentals to be learned and ingrained as a foundation first, before "higher" applications of them are introduced.

Thanks for the lesson, Cady. We are sort of ignorant out here in the sticks, but we apply our little noggins as best as we're feebly able to try and understand these things. A few pointers from the cognoscenti, such as yourself, does a lot to help us along and don't thing there's a lack of gratitude for your crumbs, either!

BTW... what happened to our bet?

Regards,

Mike

David Orange wrote: you have to learn first from a competent master.

This always assumes that a "competent master" never had any dumb students, inept students, or student whom he didn't show much to. What I just said is know as the bane of most "lineage" claims.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

David Orange wrote: You're assuming a level of naivete or stupidity to characterize everyone else on the forum.

That's not true, David. I wouldn't characterize everyone on the forum like that.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

I wouldn't consider Durango to be the "sticks." A lot of people would kill to live there (okay, maybe Telluride would get first dibs...).

"Our" bet? I don't remember spitting in my hand and shaking with you! And I don't claim to be an expert in anything, though I know what I know and I can do what I can do. When I wrote that earlier post, my intent wasn't to explain what -I- know or what -you- know, I was using "I" and "you" in the context of "in the system in which I've come up" and "collectively, you, the man on the street." My apologies for coming off as though I were braggin' on myself. I wasn't. Just trying to say, "in this system, one common method/fundamental is to enter and control..." etc.

Anyway, any curious student of any discipline might enjoy an opportunity to get on the mats and sample other people's skills. It's enormously educational, and usually fun. I wish I had the income right now to go the places and do the things that draw me in! But I haven't been to Colorado in 10 years, more's my misfortune.

Regards,
Cady

Mike Sigman wrote: Several posts back, the idea was brought up by Mike Sigman that China is the source of all things Japanese.

Mike Sigman wrote: Note that there is a difference between "all things Japanese" and Japanese lore and cosmology, David. I.e., you falsely attributed something to me.

Well, I can hardly quote everything you've said on the subject. That little snip followed all you'd said about Japanese martial arts being essentially the same as Chinese arts, that ki and qi are the same, which I admit, but implying that the Japanese and Chinese expressions of that energy are the same, which they assuredly are not.

Mike Sigman wrote: So far your ideas of what "jin" are and a number of other things have turned out to simply be wrong, David.

I said that jin is the Chinese concept of martial strength--not mere muscular power, but muscular power combined with ki. Or qi, if it's necessary to make the distinction.

Mike Sigman wrote: Same with you knowledge of what common Chinese demo's are. For instance, Tohei's demo's are and have been common demonstrations for centuries among qi afficionados in China.

Can't accept that as neither you nor I have been watching qi demos in China for centuries. But when you say "common" Chinese demos, then you're undermining your own statement because the "common" demos are push hands, repelling, withstanding sharp edges and points, punches to the body, etc.

I don't recall Tohei's ever doing a demo of being punched in the stomach. Do you? And I've never seen a Chinese demo of the unbendable arm. Never seen the Chinese show "the jo trick." I've explained important differences in how Ueshiba and Shioda did the "chest push," which not only produce different effects in the attackers, but also require a good bit more movement from the defender and an obvious push. Also, Ueshiba and Shioda always show that when the attacker has a good bit of movement going already. I've seen the Chinese masters pop people up and back when there was almost no momentum to work with.

[quote=Mike sigmanYou simply don't know what you're talking about, but you get an "A" for your personal enthusiasm. [/quote]

There you go again, Mike.

You're really one of the few on these boards who gets a lot of his validation from tearing others down. Almost everyone else, Dan included, manages to disagree and assert his own point without resorting to "You simply don't know what you're talking about." That's just a form of distorting what the other person has said and it reminds me of Neil Mick's methods more than anyone's.

You can dismiss what people say, but it doesn't actually get rid of the truth that was spoken. It's not something I expect to see you change because I mention it, but I did feel it appropriate to point it out just so you don't feel no one really notices. I think you know a good bit about Chinese arts but you weaken your position by over-reaching in your claims and the need to deny truth when it isn't signed "Mike Sigman."

Best wishes.

David

Cady Goldfield wrote: I wouldn't consider Durango to be the "sticks." A lot of people would kill to live there (okay, maybe Telluride would get first dibs...).

Telluride is a beautiful place, but it's also small, isolated, and the repository for umpteen-zillion fourth or fifth homes for the very rich. I love driving through the villages around the ski-lifts and looking at the huge number of empty multi-million-dollar homes that might be used 2 weeks out of the year.

Anyway, any curious student of any discipline might enjoy an opportunity to get on the mats and sample other people's skills.

"Mats"??? I thought you were talking about "combat"?

I wish I had the income right now to go the places and do the things that draw me in! But I haven't been to Colorado in 10 years, more's my misfortune.

Please... I heard that if I had your money, I could throw my money away! I know about you rich, educated folks in Massachusetts. You're legendary out here in the sticks. Just kidding. Head on out here sometime and see if you can handle the altitude.

Regards,

Mike

David Orange wrote: But when you say "common" Chinese demos, then you're undermining your own statement because the "common" demos are push hands, repelling, withstanding sharp edges and points, punches to the body, etc. I don't recall Tohei's ever doing a demo of being punched in the stomach. Do you? And I've never seen a Chinese demo of the unbendable arm. Never seen the Chinese show "the jo trick." I've explained important differences in how Ueshiba and Shioda did the "chest push," which not only produce different effects in the attackers, but also require a good bit more movement from the defender and an obvious push. Also, Ueshiba and Shioda always show that when the attacker has a good bit of movement going already. I've seen the Chinese masters pop people up and back when there was almost no momentum to work with. There you go again, Mike. You're really one of the few on these boards who gets a lot of his validation from tearing others down. Almost everyone else, Dan included, manages to disagree and assert his own point without resorting to "You simply don't know what you're talking about." That's just a form of distorting what the other person has said and it reminds me of Neil Mick's methods more than anyone's. You can dismiss what people say, but it doesn't actually get rid of the truth that was spoken. It's not something I expect to see you change because I mention it, but I did feel it appropriate to point it out just so you don't feel no one really notices. I think you know a good bit about Chinese arts but you weaken your position by over-reaching in your claims and the need to deny truth when it isn't signed "Mike Sigman."

David, I don't try to tell a long-time Japanese martial-arts expert the common demonstrations he's going to find in the small villages of Japan because I know I just might get told that I don't know what I'm talking about and it would be a valid point. You make assertions about things Chinese that are simply not true. What would you like me to tell... that they're true??? If I do, I look like a chump with no expertise and that goes against all my self-esteem training.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Cady Goldfield wrote: Because it sounds like he likes to talk more than seek an experiential answer to his questions. He is trying to intellectualize his way into an understanding of principles and methods that are unfamiliar to him, and I am saying (as are others) that he really needs to feel and experience them, hands on, instead of creating lengthier and lengthier verbal interpretations of what he thinks he understands.

Well, as long as we're on the net, none of us is "doing". It's all talk here. I don't really relate to most of Erick's mechanics explanations, myself, but he's talking about what he's got 20 years of experience in, so I don't discount it. By the same token, a lot of the other stuff that's said on here is "justified" by a claim to scientific or rational analysis as opposed to the traditional Asian ways of understanding. There is a current of thought that we can explain better than the traditional teachers did and I don't much accept that idea, either.

Cady Goldfield wrote: I'm saying, if you really want to understand, then seek a place to learn the answer, and DO. Thought the taiji fella said it better.

Yeah, but we can't be on the mat all the time and if we were, this net forum would not be here and none of us would be exchanging ideas on it. So....whatchagonnado?

Best to you.

David

Mike Sigman wrote: Telluride is a beautiful place, but it's also small, isolated, and the repository for umpteen-zillion fourth or fifth homes for the very rich. I love driving through the villages around the ski-lifts and looking at the huge number of empty multi-million-dollar homes that might be used 2 weeks out of the year. "Mats"??? I thought you were talking about "combat"? Please... I heard that if I had your money, I could throw my money away! I know about you rich, educated folks in Massachusetts. You're legendary out here in the sticks. Just kidding. Head on out here sometime and see if you can handle the altitude. Regards, Mike

Mats... just a figure of speech. I hear you guys have a lot of knock-down-drag-out saloons. Tell you what, we go into one, I go up to the biggest, meanest, drunkest guy in the place and point to you and say you're bugging me. Then you can show me your best stuff!

Money... you must be thinking about the OTHER people in Massachusetts. I am ed-jee-katud up the wazzoo, but have never earned squat because I'm a "creative" person, not a "High Tech" maven. If you work with stuff that isn't electronic, related to engineering and technology, or isn't real estate or contracting/development of some sort, you do not get rich here. At least, not by legal means.

I live at sea level. Colorado would probably give me nosebleeds...

Best,
Cady

Mike Sigman wrote: ...there were genetic studies done about ten years ago and instead of a nod of archeological approval that the Japanese are indeed descended from Koreans, there was outrage. Not a calm nod of understanding at all, by the Japanese... they really believed that they were singular and had nothing to do with Korea.

Yes, I think that came out while I was living there. It wasn't well accepted.

Mike Sigman wrote: Don't forget that whatever you can find out about the earliest history of Japan will be written in Chinese characters.

Which the Japanese immediately proceed to pronounce in their own way and infuse with their own meanings in addition to their version of the Chinese pronunciations and meanings. There's no question that China is there at the root, just like Child movement is at the root of the Chinese methods. But it is refined into something so different that most will not only not see it, but will be shocked at the suggestion that it's even there.

Mike Sigman wrote: Sumo? Look at the characters. The "ju" arts refer to arts that used internal strength, at one time... not just "soft". Were there wrestling and fighting arts in Japan before that... yes, but they weren't the true "ju" arts and besides, remember the characters for "Sumo".

Yes, but as Kano said, I think that any internal aspect to those arts was developed in a uniquely Japanese way for reasons including that they changed everything to fit their sense of superiority and also to make it "stronger" for fighting and conquering the people from whom it came.

Mike Sigman wrote: There is a lot stronger argument for pronounced Chinese influence on Aikido than there is argument for the pronounced influence of children.

...except that child movement influenced the Chinese methods as well...so either way, it goes back to toddlers.

Mike Sigman wrote: Sure... and the Japanese evolved their own customs and strategies for the use of chopsticks, too.

One thing that wore me out over there was the relentless insistence on doing everything "just so." Whatever you were doing, there was a Japanese way for doing it and there was always pressure to enforce that.

But again, I do think that the Chinese methods reflect an older, broader culture with a deeper understanding and better results in the long term. I think that highly developed Chinese martial artists tend to live longer with better health than similarly developed Japanese martial artists, and I think that comes from the very different qualities of the two approaches to martial power.

Best wishes.

David

David,
Erick may have 20 years "in" in his discipline, but not in the one being discussed. I have 25 years' professional experience in public relations/communications, but that isn't gonna make me conversant in mechanical engineering.

Erick -- sorry we're talking about you in the third person. Hope you're away for the weekend and having fun instead of hanging out on Internet forums like us poor schmoes.

Mike Sigman wrote: This always assumes that a "competent master" never had any dumb students, inept students, or student whom he didn't show much to. What I just said is know as the bane of most "lineage" claims.

But your saying it assumes that others can't recognize that fact. So you're passing on the crumbs as you say Cady is doing and its another example of a kind of distortion that you use to "weaken" a statement that disadvantages you.

The point is not that a competent master can't have unworthy students but that even a worthy "student" will not learn properly unless he first gets the basics from a competent master who really understands the whole picture where a given art is concerned.

The fact that one learned whatever he knows from a great master of an art does not mean that that person is a great master, himself, but if a talented person learned what he knows of an art from people who are, at best, mediocre in that art, then can he really claim to understand the art better?

It may be that weak students of great masters are the bane of "lineage," but how can one really comment on "what Ueshiba did" when he never really knew anyone who really knew Ueshiba?

In other words, just because there may be many weak students in a lineage it doesn't mean that someone outside that lineage really has a better understanding of it.

Regards.

David

Cady Goldfield wrote: Mats... just a figure of speech. I hear you guys have a lot of knock-down-drag-out saloons. Tell you what, we go into one, I go up to the biggest, meanest, drunkest guy in the place and point to you and say you're bugging me. Then you can show me your best stuff!

I dunno, Cady, you might just be being kind a letting me off easy out of politeness. I'm quite sure that in a one-on-one you'd be all over me like a Pit-Bull on Granny. That is, if you didn't seize control of my body at the first move.


Mike

Mike Sigman wrote: David, I don't try to tell a long-time Japanese martial-arts expert the common demonstrations he's going to find in the small villages of Japan because I know I just might get told that I don't know what I'm talking about and it would be a valid point.

So have you traveled to these small villages in China and commonly witnessed such demos? If you have to go to China and visit remote villages, then those things are hardly common. There are hundreds if not thousands of Chinese martial artists who consistently demonstrate as I've said. What you're refering to now would have to be considered "rare".

Mike Sigman wrote: You make assertions about things Chinese that are simply not true. What would you like me to tell... that they're true??? If I do, I look like a chump with no expertise and that goes against all my self-esteem training.

Well, the fact is, you've referred very vaguely to "common" demonstrations without any specifics and you critique my examples as "assertions about things Chinese that are simply not true," but again, no specifics. At least when I contradict you, I have specific examples. If you think they're not correct, you should specify which you mean and explain what the real truth is.

For instance, the other day, I mentioned that, as an aikidoist, I would never tell a tai chi man not to use roll-back because in aikido we use tai sabaki. You replied that I was confusing tactics with the strategic methods. I was not. What you did was generalize my one example as representing my full understanding of tai chi. Of course tai chi is more than that one thing, but characterizing it as you did is a distortion that helps you to dismiss my statement without really addressing the substance.

Just the same, you've referred to "assertions about things Chinese that are simply not true," but that's only dodging the subject if you can't provide specifics and specific counter examples.

Best to you.

David

Mike,
Well, I'd be sure not to use deoderant or to bathe for several weeks first, just to give myself an edge.

Dang. I just gave away my best secrets.

Cady Goldfield wrote: Erick may have 20 years "in" in his discipline, but not in the one being discussed.

Aren't we discussing aikido? I see the title above this message is "Aikido: The learning of natural movement".

Cady Goldfield wrote: Erick -- sorry we're talking about you in the third person. Hope you're away for the weekend and having fun instead of hanging out on Internet forums like us poor schmoes.

You weren't supposed to let him know we were talking about him!

Indeed, I have to go make some eggplant chicken for my wife's birthday dinner in a moment. I didn't get to interact with this thread much during the week and I grabbed this hour between her coming home and my cooking dinner to catch up on some ideas.

Cheers.

David

David,
Maybe I was hallucinating (at my age, it happens) -- but I thought we'd been discussing some physical principles that currently are outside the aikido curriculum. If that's not the case, then, in the words of the old Saturday Night Live character, Rosanne Rossannadanna (that dates me): "Nevermind."

David Orange wrote: Yes, but as Kano said, I think that any internal aspect to those arts was developed in a uniquely Japanese way for reasons including that they changed everything to fit their sense of superiority and also to make it "stronger" for fighting and conquering the people from whom it came.

David, this is absurd. The Japanese copied everything that the really Big Dog did... there was no sense of superiority by the Japanese. The hair-do's, the clothes, the systems of measurement, the cosmology, the building techniques, the swords, the naginatas, the writing system, the manufacturing techniques, the ceramics, etc., etc., were all copied from China. What "superiority" are you talking about from a people that copied everything they thought was worthwhile? Some interpretations and divergences from the Chinese? Yes. But on the whole the structure is so manifestly Chinese that any discussion of Japanese "superiority" is an empty rhetoric.

...except that child movement influenced the Chinese methods as well...so either way, it goes back to toddlers.

That's your theory, David, as everyone knows. We could argue that tennis-players use natural movement derived from children, too.

One thing that wore me out over there was the relentless insistence on doing everything "just so." Whatever you were doing, there was a Japanese way for doing it and there was always pressure to enforce that.

Weird how the ways they insist on doing things so often reflect the ancient Chinese ways, eh?

But again, I do think that the Chinese methods reflect an older, broader culture with a deeper understanding and better results in the long term. I think that highly developed Chinese martial artists tend to live longer with better health than similarly developed Japanese martial artists, and I think that comes from the very different qualities of the two approaches to martial power.

Not to be contrary, but I disagree with the idea that the Chinese longevity is any more than the Japanese martial artists'. Abe Sensei would be a good example. Ueshiba did quite well. I see an increase in expected longevity and quality of life through martial arts, but I have never seen anything to suggest that the Chinese ways of doing qi/ki exercises makes for any difference in longevity. Note, BTW, that Abe's "macrobiotic" lifestyle is really just a take-off on old Taoist stuff.

Regards,

Mike Sigman