Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?

Peter Rehse wrote: I think Erik's uber-technical description can be a bit off-putting but that's his kettle of fish to boil. I personally don't need the level of jargon to get where I want to go and I am pretty sure that's true for most of us. BUT "No that ain't it" just begs the question. "What is?". From a physiological point of view (once you wade through the jargon) I don't think he is far off.

Erick's description of the demonstration being the result of reflex action may seem overly reliant on technical terms, but 5 or 10 minutes on Wikipedia looking up a few terms makes it a whole lot clearer. As to your question "What is?", if history is any indicator your request will be met with deafening silence or explanations as to why there won't be any explaining of "what is".

Ron

Ron Ragusa wrote: I think Erik's uber-technical description can be a bit off-putting Erick's description of the demonstration being the result of reflex action may seem overly reliant on technical terms, but 5 or 10 minutes on Wikipedia looking up a few terms makes it a whole lot clearer. As to your question "What is?", if history is any indicator your request will be met with deafening silence or explanations as to why there won't be any explaining of "what is".

No, no. He's right.

I will refrain in future from technical jargon such as "Fizzy Lifting Drinks."

It is a known cause of serious controversy.

Ron Ragusa wrote: Erick's description of the demonstration being the result of reflex action may seem overly reliant on technical terms, but 5 or 10 minutes on Wikipedia looking up a few terms makes it a whole lot clearer. As to your question "What is?", if history is any indicator your request will be met with deafening silence or explanations as to why there won't be any explaining of "what is". Ron

Actually, some very detailed explanations have been posted by people who have shown that they can actually do these things, demonstrating the model in open rooms. Here's one that was posted some two years ago.

Does the jargon explain the same thing? Maybe - but that has yet to be shown, by Erick, or by anyone, no matter who good it may look on paper.

Best,

Chris

First, To dip into a Dan moment, I think there is a clear set of expectations and opinions expressed by some posters dead-set on pointing to "that ain't it," with regards to what he does. Frankly, there seems to be a lot of anxiety concerning what Dan says is aiki; I am not sure if this anxiety is expressed with the same vigor towards others. I think the "what is" question is a great one to answer with the same scrutiny given to the bunnies who dance with drums and ribbons as is given to the internal power models. The problem is (as Chris points out), that is not true - we give far more [disingenuous] scrutiny to what we don't want to hear. An inconvenience of fact, as it were.

Second, I want to continue to apply pressure to separate aiki and those who can demonstrate it. There are lots of ways to explain aiki, the problem is when we start changing the definition of aiki to meet our explanation... We have a name for people who teach about things but cannot do them... College Professors. Sorry, sorry - two in the family. I have to take my shots when I get the chance...

Being an engineer I am not one to shy away from a purely technical/scientific discussion. I wonder though if Aikiweb is the right platform for it. If somebody is utterly convinced that he can explain in purely scientific terms what IP proponents are doing (or some other complex biomechanical skill), then he should get serious and publish a paper in a proper engineering or scientific journal so it's put through the necessary peer review.

I like to think Aikiweb is mainly composed of a Martial Arts audience interested in MA-related discussion. Unlike purely scientific discussions, MA theories should be accompanied by at least a tenuous relation to practical skill/understanding (via direct proof, accounts, history, etc.), and show its value as a transmission model (show that said theory can be used to teach others, otherwise what is the point - for budo).

Gerardo Torres wrote: Being an engineer I am not one to shy away from a purely technical/scientific discussion. I wonder though if Aikiweb is the right platform for it. If somebody is utterly convinced that he can explain in purely scientific terms what IP proponents are doing (or some other complex biomechanical skill), then he should get serious and publish a paper in a proper engineering or scientific journal so it's put through the necessary peer review.

If practitioners cannot even yet agree on a set of objective terms and parameters -- how can you even set up a measurable experiment ? That's all I'm I am working on -- the baby steps of useful description.

Besides, I have it on good authority engineers hate people 'cause they're messy and have no respect for their design spec's.

Erick Mead wrote: If practitioners cannot even yet agree on a set of objective terms and parameters -- how can you even set up a measurable experiment ? That's all I'm I am working on -- the baby steps of useful description. Besides, I have it on good authority engineers hate people 'cause they're messy and have no respect for their design spec's.

OK that's nice - to aim for a common terminology - and all, but going back to my original post, I have two caveats:
1. That the person putting forth the terminology can actually do/understand the material in question. To be perfectly honest some of the very elaborate scientific descriptions I've read here are recipes for how "normal" bodies operate, the exact opposite of what something like IP is trying to achieve.
2. That such descriptions have any value for budo, which by definition has to be linked to practical results and consider transmission and learning curve. For example you could write a 500 page tome on how to lift an arm and yet be of no help whatsoever on how to learn to lift an arm in practical terms; imagine trying to explain something more complicated than that. Thinking and sharing ideas is fine, often fascinating affairs, but at some point a budo practitioner has to consider the real practical value of a theory or model.

That said despite the lack of a universal language for something like IP and aiki, from what I've experienced there doesn't seem to be a lack of success in experimentation or learning. I also think that through increasing interactivity and available information and training opportunities, its different styles and practitioners will continue to improve communication.

Christopher Li wrote: Actually, some very detailed explanations have been posted by people who have shown that they can actually do these things, demonstrating the model in open rooms. Here's one that was posted some two years ago. Does the jargon explain the same thing? Maybe - but that has yet to be shown, by Erick, or by anyone, no matter who good it may look on paper. Best, Chris

As Ron said;

"Erick's description of the demonstration being the result of reflex action may seem overly reliant on technical terms, but 5 or 10 minutes on Wikipedia looking up a few terms makes it a whole lot clearer."

The same cannot be said for Dan' post as it is not a detailed explanation that could be clarified so easily.

dps

Christopher Li wrote: Does the jargon explain the same thing? Maybe - but that has yet to be shown, by Erick, or by anyone, no matter who good it may look on paper.

I remember the linked quote when it was written. Perhaps so, perhaps not. But the parallels in choice of concrete images for observations from what are admittedly very different initial schemes of reference are -- in my mind -- very encouraging.

A few points drawn from that:

Aiki as a clash of forces Ueshiba and generations of giants before him focused on power (soft power-not normal power) and solo training to achieve power...for a reason. It was the central pillar of how to make aiki happen. You need a profound "neutral" in order to demonstrate and manipulate force within you, in order to create change in the forces outside of you that are attempting to enter in. The more developed you are, the more those forces are never allowed to enter in and are dealt with by your making change in you on the supported surface. This occurs first by generating power from dantian in opposing forces, and then manipulating them. That is the floating bridge. If and when you encounter someone equal or superior, who might have the capacity to enter you, you then have management within and movement to deflect forces. ... you to create a disruption using a balance of in/yo in internal and surface movement, that is all but impossible for them to track. This leaves them continually reacting to your movement and trying to respond to a non sourced change they cannot apply force on.

Key points:
-- Profound "neutral" to manipulate force within you,
-- Surface critical
-- create change in the forces outside of you
-- making change in you on the supported surface.
-- First generating power from dantian in opposing forces, and then manipulating them.
-- That is the floating bridge.

I have come to see the "floating bridge of heaven" Ame-no-Ukehashi as a distinct description of a striking natural event in its "divine" significance. That is, in traditional Japanese culture when something is divinized or treated mythologically, it becomes a generalized or abstract case or perfect exemplar (kami) of something that described in the imagery of the myth. We have rationalized this process in science in what we call natural laws, but as a cognitive process, it is not actually that dissimilar -- though the traditional mode is much less categorical in its references.

So what is this "Floating Bridge of Heaven"? Kojiki -- the Founder's source of generalized imagery -- says this:

All the Heavenly Deities commanded the two Deities, His Augustness the Male-Who-Invites and Her Augustness the Female-Who-Invites, ordering them to "make, consolidate, and give birth to this drifting land." Granting to them an heavenly jewelled spear, they [thus] deigned to charge them. So the two Deities, standing upon the Floating Bridge of Heaven, pushed down the jewelled spear and stirred with it, whereupon, when they had stiffed the brine till it went curdle-curdle, 4 and drew [the spear] up, the brine that dripped down from the end of the spear was piled up and became an island.

Breaking this down we have:
"Male" -- Yang "who invites" (evokes a response) - Extension - Thrust
"Female" -- Yin "who invites" (evokes a response) - Contraction - Receiving
The hachi-riki pairs, etc.

We have also:

-- conventionally translated --"The jeweled spear"
-- pushed down from the Floating Bridge of Heaven
-- stirring the sea,
-- until it went "curdle-curdle"

The last is an onomatopeia, some say, and may also be rendered "a curdling sound" which the kanji justify, though this is not the more common view.

The "jeweled" part is an old word for what is now called tama, a stone gem in the comma-shape of one half of the spiral Taijitu. The shape implies a spiral action or form.

So in modern terms this might be rendered --

"a spiral shaft pushed down from a horizontal line of cloud that stirs the surface up, makes a god-awful noise, and when it pulls back up drops down solid objects in its wake."

Sounds like this.


A tornado vortex begins as a solid body air rotation that gets sheared and turns back on itself -- it has not one but two spiral airstreams that structure and stabilize it -- one outer and descending - one inner and rising -- and at the ground both are at maximum in angular velocity. A vortex tube device has the same configuration of separation of the air streams.

To tie this concrete imagery to the practical application noted in the original link Chris gave above -- when one is overstressed in compression from a push -- to push back just increases the stress of the push -- and reaction forces further complicate toppling stability.

Torque it a bit, though, by stretching or extending the coordinate tension spiral and the applied compression stress is routed in the other spiral -- and compression is relieved or compensated by the perpendicular tension stretch on the opposed perpendicular spiral. This is an applied version of the Poisson effect in torque. (Poisson effect is the tendency of most materials to extend out in perpendicular directions when squashed in one axis.)

The resultant reaction is "non-sourced" to the opponent because it is at right angles to his perceived action. There is no force applied to him directly at all -- it is quite correctly "in you" where the resolution of the imbalance of forces occurs. If you train for a natural or even reflexive torsional response to any input then the forces and resolving action are mainly carried on the surface.
Or in technical terms AIki -- inyo ho-- is thus the manipulation of the spiral mechanics of torsional shear stress, rotational moment, and angular momentum. Simultaneous tension and compression spirals at right angles (+) (juji).
https://www.dropbox.com/s/t51rtn9gfq...shaft.JPG?dl=0

FWIW -- torsional shear is a surface-dominated phenomena, with maxima of both perpendicular stresses at the surface and zero or neutral shear at the core of the torqued body.

And -- the shape of torsional shear stress -- and of multiple-pendulum harmonics (Lissajous curves) -- tight body (stress) and loose-limbed (movement) mechanics,respectively -- are all combined in one system of reference:


And since physicists like to work with spherical chickens in a vacuum -- (which in this instance merely means that our bodies have topological end points where these inverse internal perpendicular forces must ultimately resolve) -- roughly, this:

David Skaggs wrote: As Ron said; "Erick's description of the demonstration being the result of reflex action may seem overly reliant on technical terms, but 5 or 10 minutes on Wikipedia looking up a few terms makes it a whole lot clearer." The same cannot be said for Dan' post as it is not a detailed explanation that could be clarified so easily. dps

But it has things to recommend it, too, just like the traditional modes -- which have valid (though misunderstood) content. And he has put it into useful practical effect, which cannot be denied. There is no either-or here. Everything can be made better.

David Skaggs wrote: As Ron said; "Erick's description of the demonstration being the result of reflex action may seem overly reliant on technical terms, but 5 or 10 minutes on Wikipedia looking up a few terms makes it a whole lot clearer." The same cannot be said for Dan' post as it is not a detailed explanation that could be clarified so easily. dps

I can't understand advanced mathematics in five or ten minutes with Wikipedia either, but that doesn't mean that it isn't worthwhile. The claim was that there is a "deafening silence", which is just false. Very clear explanations have been posted on a number of occasions - if they require a little work on the part of the reader, well, that's inherent in the difficulty of the material.

As numerous people have stated right here on Aikiweb - Dan is and has been demonstrating that the model works in practice. From Erick and most others I see a lot of fancy ideas - but where are the testimonials saying that there is any meat behind the theories?

Best,

Chris

Christopher Li wrote: I can't understand advanced mathematics in five or ten minutes with Wikipedia either, but that doesn't mean that it isn't worthwhile. The claim was that there is a "deafening silence", which is just false. Very clear explanations have been posted on a number of occasions - if they require a little work on the part of the reader, well, that's inherent in the difficulty of the material. As numerous people have stated right here on Aikiweb - Dan is and has been demonstrating that the model works in practice. From Erick and most others I see a lot of fancy ideas - but where are the testimonials saying that there is any meat behind the theories? Best, Chris

Any demonstration without a clear and concise explanation is bordering on useless.
Most people would prefer an explanation that does not require learning phrases or terms in languages and cultures not their own. They simply do not have the time to invest. If it could be explained in terms and phrases already know or readily learned, that would be more useful in learning what is being demonstrated.

I would prefer an explanation I understand than a demonstration with no coherent explanation.
So how about a video accompanied by a understandable explanation?

dps

Christopher Li wrote: Very clear explanations have been posted on a number of occasions - if they require a little work on the part of the reader, well, that's inherent in the difficulty of the material. Chris

If the explanations are very clear than why are there still people that don't understand what you are explaining.
If you want others to understand what you are selling then it is up to you to do the work to make the material less difficult to understand to the audience you are pitching to.

dps

David Skaggs wrote: If the explanations are very clear than why are there still people that don't understand what you are explaining. If you want others to understand what you are selling then it is up to you to do the work to make the material less difficult to understand to the audience you are pitching to. dps

First of all, I'm not selling anything. Secondly, there are always people who don't understand things, no matter how clear the material. If you don't understand physics then you don't go online and ask people to spoon feed you - you study up. This is no different.

The material is out there, and people are teaching publicly - the rest is up to the people who are interested in it.

Best,

Chris

David Skaggs wrote: Any demonstration without a clear and concise explanation is bordering on useless. Most people would prefer an explanation that does not require learning phrases or terms in languages and cultures not their own. They simply do not have the time to invest. If it could be explained in terms and phrases already know or readily learned, that would be more useful in learning what is being demonstrated. I would prefer an explanation I understand than a demonstration with no coherent explanation. So how about a video accompanied by a understandable explanation? dps

There are plenty of words in Erick's explanation that most people won't understand. I'm not sure that I understand the difference - either way people will have to do some work.

If people just aren't interested enought to invest the time - then all that I can say is that I wish them luck.

Best,

Chris

Christopher Li wrote: There are plenty of words in Erick's explanation that most people won't understand. I'm not sure that I understand the difference - either way people will have to do some work. If people just aren't interested enought to invest the time - then all that I can say is that I wish them luck. Best, Chris

The difference is the explanations to Eric's words are readily available to anyone via internet. The words used by yourself and others in the ip/is community are not.

It is not interest that prevents a lot of people from investing time, it is not having the time, money and having obligations.

A video with an explanation would be helpful to us who are interested not fortunate to have the time and money to travel.

dps

David Skaggs wrote: The difference is the explanations to Eric's words are readily available to anyone via internet. The words used by yourself and others in the ip/is community are not. It is not interest that prevents a lot of people from investing time, it is not having the time, money and having obligations. A video with an explanation would be helpful to us who are interested not fortunate to have the time and money to travel. dps

Erick's words may be easier (for you) to understand (I think they're more difficult, myself), but they're useless unless they're going to take you where you want to go, and that's something that neither Erick nor anybody else has been able to demonstrate.

Most of the basic literature for internal arts is available on the internet, for those who put in the time to do the research. Yes, even the words used by the IP community. Quite a lot of it is here on Aikiweb. I published a number of articles on it myself. And even Morihei Ueshiba laid things out quite clearly, IMO, if you put in the time to study what he said, and quite a lot of that has been translated and is easily available.

Videos aren't going to help - there's plenty of video of Morihei Ueshiba (and other well known internal-type guys) and that hasn't settled anything yet.

Other than that - you have to go get it - I wouldn't think that I could learn Judo without going to meet a Judo guy, no matter that all of the information is publicly available for free.

If someone's really interested, they'll go get it - how much time and money have you spent on training over the years? How much time and money do you continue to spend each year? If you wanted to, you could convert that into a trip to see Dan or Ark or Sam or Mike or CXW, or whoever....if you really wanted to.

Every workshop we have here people fly in from around the world looking for it - last time we had folks from Japan, Thailand, Australia, and more, - if you're in Ohio then you're no more than a couple of hours away in your car, not 18 hours and two international flights away as some of the folks that come here are. It's all publicly available, for those who want it.

Best,

Chris

Christopher Li wrote: Actually, some very detailed explanations have been posted by people who have shown that they can actually do these things, demonstrating the model in open rooms. Here's one that was posted some two years ago. Does the jargon explain the same thing? Maybe - but that has yet to be shown, by Erick, or by anyone, no matter who good it may look on paper. Best, Chris

I have never understood why you have considered this or any post of Dan's to be a "detailed explanation." It is basically a soup of non-concrete terms describing difficult to imagine processes.

"You need a profound "neutral" in order to demonstrate and manipulate force within you, in order to create change in the forces outside of you that are attempting to enter in. The more developed you are, the more those forces are never allowed to enter in and are dealt with by your making change in you on the supported surface."

"Moving in accordance with in/yo means you now have a supported neural tangent point that is supported from dantian -in itself that is created in a balanced state- that now allows you to create a disruption using a balance of in/yo in internal and surface movement, that is all but impossible for them to track."

"Add to this the ability for explosive force (force that need not cause any harm at all) and you have a nice package that is devastatingly effective."

I am sure this jargon makes perfect sense to people who attend Dan's seminars, but not to the rest of us. I can't even tell if there is internal consistency to the way he uses terms. It seems like supported and neutral have two different shades of meaning in just the part that I quoted. And I don't know what any of these words actually refer to.

What Erick wants to do is to figure out a way to describe internal power in a way that does not require attending the seminar and drinking the Kool-Aid. This is a goal that transcends IHTBF. You are missing the point if you think Erick hosting a seminar where he would give physical demonstrations of his terminology is where this goes.

To be clear, I don't think Erick's approach is appropriate for martial arts training. Objective analysis leads to objective training methods that foster objectively measurable skills. How do you objectively measure a student's ability to use their musculature in a new way? Is internal power something you can measure in terms of foot-pounds or newtons, without another human body to operate on?

And this is just my opinion but we're all supposed to be doing Budo here - improving ourselves through earnest effort and all that. Figuring out how to drink when you are led to water is part of that. Carsten said something a couple of weeks ago that I really liked:

Carsten Möllering wrote: I think what you understand as imprecise, vague or ambiguous actually was intended. This language is a vehicle of transmission of knwoledge in itself. It is my actual experience that most important parts of the transmission get lost when it ist "demythologized" by converting it's meaning into only physical aspects.

Important parts of the transmission get lost, I think it is the part where the student discovers their own knowledge rather than having the work done for them.

(But then again...it would be nice if we could at least agree on a broad categorization of aiki. My teachers explain it as an effect, not a "skill" and definitely not a "power." )

Cliff Judge wrote: I have never understood why you have considered this or any post of Dan's to be a "detailed explanation." It is basically a soup of non-concrete terms describing difficult to imagine processes.

Well, there are any number of advanced academic texts that would make no sense to me - but that's not the fault of the material, it's my fault, my level of knowledge that's insufficient. FWIW, I've spoken to any number of non-Dan related internal folks who have no problems understanding what he's talking about, which is actually coached in very classical and widely used terms.

Cliff Judge wrote: What Erick wants to do is to figure out a way to describe internal power in a way that does not require attending the seminar and drinking the Kool-Aid. This is a goal that transcends IHTBF. You are missing the point if you think Erick hosting a seminar where he would give physical demonstrations of his terminology is where this goes.

No need for Kool-Aid, at least not around here. I understand what Erick is trying to do, my point was that it's like someone who doesn't know how to cook writing a cookbook. They wouldn't even have a basis from which to start.

Cliff Judge wrote: (But then again...it would be nice if we could at least agree on a broad categorization of aiki. My teachers explain it as an effect, not a "skill" and definitely not a "power." )

I can't recall anybody defining it as a "power". People in Aikido and Daito-ryu define it as an effect, IMO, because they usually don't have the language to express a definition.

Since it's something that some people can do after some amount of training - and certainly not something that everybody on the street does (whether you ask Daito-ryu or Aikido folks), I don't see how you get around the "skill" part.

Best,

Chris

Cliff Judge wrote: I am sure this jargon makes perfect sense to people who attend Dan's seminars, ...

This "jargon" makes perfect sense to people who practice certain koryû, certain lines of daitô ryû, certain forms of qi gong, tai chi, bagua ... and other ICA. Using a slight different dialect it makes sense to lots of body workers, physiotherapist, and the like. It makes sense to people who are educated in traditional Japanese or Chinese healing methods.

This "jargon" is used in uncountable books and documents. And it was used for centuries now. Sure, it is a language that has to be learned. But it's a language that can not only be replaced by the "jargon" in which Erick talks.

I have a lot of very intense discussions with physicians and body workers about this issue. They understand this "jargon".
I have a whole bookshelf with literature, written in this "jargon".

And I don't know what any of these words actually refer to.

This was true for me, when I started to learn the language you are speaking and using here in this forum. Aber ich habe versucht, deine Sprache zu lernen, damit ich dich verstehen kann. Sure, I'm not perfect ... but at least communication became possible, weil ich mich bemüht habe, herauszufinden, worauf sich die Worte, die du benutzt, beziehen. Um zu verstehen, was du meinst.

If you don't know the technical terminology because your are not well-read in a special subject, you simply have to learn. There is only little chance to use a different jargon to express the same things with the same accuracy.

What Erick wants to do is to figure out a way to describe internal power in a way that does not require attending the seminar and drinking the Kool-Aid. This is a goal that transcends IHTBF. ...

He does not reach this goal. Because his jargon does not apply to what he is trying to describe.
Knowledge of the use of tissue like fascia, the connection and working of myofascial meridians and the like still is meager. And it is my experience that physiotherapists are watching what the internal arts do, to get a deeper understanding of what is possible. Even if you can't really explain, how it is working by now.
Well, and they often ask to experience how it feels ...

David Skaggs wrote: The difference is the explanations to Eric's words are readily available to anyone via internet. The words used by yourself and others in the ip/is community are not. It is not interest that prevents a lot of people from investing time, it is not having the time, money and having obligations. A video with an explanation would be helpful to us who are interested not fortunate to have the time and money to travel. dps

i thought i posted Mike Sigman blog awhile back, http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21855. the information is on the internet. he got crayon pictures and video and so on and so forth. quite a bit of details on the how and why and what and so on. how much more do you want? anymore than that would be spoon feeding.

as far as time, money and obligation go, many of us do have them, in spade. *playing the violin softly in the background*

most of aikido seminars, some by very high rank aikido folks, had been a waste of my time and money. so far, none of the ip/is seminars that i went to was a waste.

Carsten Möllering wrote: This "jargon" makes perfect sense to people who practice certain koryû, certain lines of daitô ryû, certain forms of qi gong, tai chi, bagua ... and other ICA. Using a slight different dialect it makes sense to lots of body workers, physiotherapist, and the like. It makes sense to people who are educated in traditional Japanese or Chinese healing methods.

Ah. This is where I will once again slowly edge towards the door, if we are saying that Dan's rambling, differently-coherent forum posts are the true speech of the Chinese classics.

Kind of reminds me of that episode of Star Trek the original series, "The Omega Glory," where the Enterprise crew finds themselves on a planet of people who worship the US Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the US Constitution but do not understand what they actually mean.

Christopher Li wrote: I can't recall anybody defining it as a "power". People in Aikido and Daito-ryu define it as an effect, IMO, because they usually don't have the language to express a definition. Since it's something that some people can do after some amount of training - and certainly not something that everybody on the street does (whether you ask Daito-ryu or Aikido folks), I don't see how you get around the "skill" part. Best, Chris

I will just invite you to give this very thread a re-read, plenty of folks asserting quite stridently that aiki and IP are "power."

If Aiki is an effect, then you can have skill in causing it. You might even have "body skill" in causing it. But there can be some problems when you confuse the cause for the effect. For example, some people seem to think that aiki doesn't happen until contact.

Cliff Judge wrote: I will just invite you to give this very thread a re-read, plenty of folks asserting quite stridently that aiki and IP are "power." If Aiki is an effect, then you can have skill in causing it. You might even have "body skill" in causing it. But there can be some problems when you confuse the cause for the effect. For example, some people seem to think that aiki doesn't happen until contact.

You're confusing IP and power, firstly, and secondly I don't accept your premise that all power is monolithic, or anathema.

I haven't seen anybody here asserting that aiki doesn't happen until contact (it's easier to discuss what happens after contact, of course). Enough with the straw men?

Best,

Chris

Carsten Möllering wrote: There is only little chance to use a different jargon to express the same things with the same accuracy.

In every culture people expressed the same things with words and terms that originated from their own social environment and tradition.
In every part of the world myths describe the origin of the universe, how heaven and earth seperated, but use their own words and pictures, and also in one and the same cultural context meanings have changed, having been subjected to several external and internal influences.

How I always have stated, in their deepest inner being and in their hearts all people are the same and search for the same answers, but are educated in different cultural and social environments.
Human bodys follow the same laws everywhere in the world, so how they work can certainly be described in qualitative terms from the respective culture, apart from the fact that all words, terms ore jargons are unseless, untill no personal instruction happened.

Wheather one would read Dan's or Erick's words, ore a book like transparent power (what is completely useless because the author page by page talks around the bush), Takemusu Aiki ore other books, it does not help him if he has no bodily experience ore instruction as a base to build on.
Heaving a base in a special cultural context of course is unseful to understand writings that originate from this context. but it is not strictly neccessary.