Baseline skillset

Dan Harden wrote: Like I said 5 minutes into a conversation I know if someone is on the right track with certain things. Ten minutes into reading Feldankras I said '...Naw'

I like Feldenkrais' writing style, but the real Method is very much like what you do: it can't be expressed in words. You can only understand it when you feel it. Some people have approached you with some knowledge, but they obviously came in on an angle of trying to show you how to apply force, which you obviously already know. That's not how I approach it and I don't think Moshe Feldenkrais would have approached you in that way, either. You have to feel it to know what it is. And no one has shown you yet.

Dan Harden wrote: You just aint doin- what I'm doin.

Well, if I were, I wouldn't be looking for a way to come and see what you're doing. And I am working that out.

I'm not saying that Feldenkrais "is" what you're doing. I'm saying it's something that, if you experienced it as it should be experienced, you'd find it a pretty interesting tool to enhace what you're doing.

Earlier you said "the proof is in the pudding," (I think that was it), but again, I have to say, "Proof of what?" As to what I'd like to to with what I know of Feldenkrais' methods (not Method (c)), I'd like it to help me understand more quickly what you're doing by more accurately perceiving what you're doing and more subtly attempting to do what you show me. Along the way, I'd like to make someone in your group two inches taller on one side of his body than the other. Could be your folks are all very well organized already and that potential doesn't exist in them. But understand that I'm not saying that Feldenkrais' methods = what you're doing. I'm not.

Best to you and may we meet sooner rather than later.

David

Mike Sigman wrote: Feldenkrais "got" his impression of how *some* of the ki things actually work from Kano.

Again with the tearing down of the things you don't understand and things of that nature. If you'd read the article, you'd know that Moshe Feldenkrais dismissed "ki" as some mysterious force and didn't even spend time on it. But some of Kano's top students endorsed his explanations of the mechanics of thought translated into movement.

Mike Sigman wrote: even worse than western Aikidoists, western judokas dropped the ball on the ki aspects that were in ju jitsu and judo.

That's small potatoes compared to how judo dropped the ball on Kano's original intent as a method of physical/mental/moral education because of the increasing focus on competition and the necessary limiting of technical range for the average player.

Mike Sigman wrote: I've read Feldenkrais's takes on a lot of things and frankly, I think he got some things and missed others.... but the next generation simply blew it and Moshe probably wouldn't approve of a lot of what is being called Feldenkrais nowadays.

That is assuming you really understand what Moshe wanted his Method to do. I've met some people who were really fantastic with it. It seems to have been destiny that the first practitioner I met was one of the best I've met to this day. He did a tremendous amount for me and was very subtly powerful (but not in the way you think of "power").

I've met lots of people since then who were, frankly, disappointing, compared to him, and if they had been the first practitioners I met, I probably wouldn't have pursued it further or bothered to read as deeply Moshe's his writings as I have. But I think that even they can accomplish a lot for people in the line that Moshe intended. Not everyone can be a master, but everyone can do some good.

Mike Sigman wrote: Regardless, the main point that gives away the big "miss" is the point about "intention". It didn't make it into Feldenkrais. Ergo, Feldenkrais doesn't hack it for the Asian martial arts.

Read his article. Kano and some of his top students endorsed what he was doing and he was the first to successfully propagate judo in France. All before him had seen their efforts fizzle out. When Mochizuki taught in France after the war, it was Feldenkrais' students that he met. Of course, they weren't up to the level of someone like Mochizuki, who was uchi deshi to Kyuzo Mifune and who had really never done anything but martial arts. But since you can't lay hands on Moshe and prove him wrong, I'll rank you with him when you have a following of thousands in Europe.

Mike Sigman wrote: Which means, as I stated, that it's *you* who is confusing the purpose of Feldenkrais when you try to conflate it with martial arts, David.

"Conflate" it? Er.....con....flate.....huh?

I've said that the Feldenkrais Method is a good aid for anyone in any mental/physical endeavor as it does get to the very heart and essence of "intention." You, for instance, should read "Higher Judo: Groundwork," where he talks about crossed motivations. He uses the word "motivation" where I think you use "intent". You seem to have a great intent to develop internal methods, but you suffer from the competing cross-motivation to elevate yourself in some very strange ways. I'm sure you're a likeable guy to people who, in whatever way, manage to start off on a good foot with you. But you cloud and muddy your internal development by having that other motivation which seems to be nearly or equally strong. So for all your attempts to advance what you're doing, you weaken it by attempting to advance yourself.

That kind of thing. You reject what could do you some good because it doesn't inherently glorify Mike Sigman.

Mike Sigman wrote: If you now want to pronounce Feldenkrais has some other purpose,fine.... but you're the one who introduced it as a companion to Aikido.

No, I don't "now" want to pronounce that Feldenkrais has "some other purpose." You have to understand that his Method is not judo or any other martial art. Its purpose was never fighting or competition or grappling or moving people at all. On the other hand, for someone whose purpose was grappling, it could help them become more efficient and clear in that purpose and in their efforts in that field. For dancers, it helped them move more lightly and gracefully. For musicians, it helped them become more fluent in their interactions with their instruments. For actors, it helped them become more believable in their roles. It helped David Ben Gurion to be a better Prime Minister of Israel.

That improvement in the fundamental level of human living is the "purpose" of the Feldenkrais approach, as I've gleaned it from my experiences, training and reading in the subject. That it also helps aikido or any other martial art or athletic training is only to be expected.

Best to you.

David

Mike Sigman wrote: But I've been through this with others, like Peter Lim. First the denial that there is such a thing and then when a number of actual experts say it's in all the literature, all that's left is to say... "Oh... pengjin.... sure, but Sigman doesn't really understand it." ....It's the basis of Taiji. And Aikido.

I don't think anyone's denying that pengjin exists. Even that you have developed some of it...but then you go beyond what you should and try to overlay it on Japanese martial arts....and that's where your claims fall down.

Also, the illustration of the "suit below the skin" is misguided since the fascia is not contiguous, but wraps each individual muscle of the human body separately. So it's like hundreds of little balloons stretched over the body. Call it an illustration only, but you need to develop your thinking more if you can't come up with a better way to relay it than that.

David

David Orange wrote: He uses the word "motivation" where I think you use "intent".

David,
not to put words in Mike's mouth, but I can say with 99.99% confidence that that's not what Mike meant by "intent".
The thing he's talking about is "ishiki" ("意識"), the chinese refer to it as simply "i"("意.")

Per the pengjin thing, I've felt both sides of the fence. From accomplished CMA guys to JMAists other than Ark.
It's mostly the same stuff.
There are different ways to manipulate it, use it, train it, but it still boils back down to connection in the body and creating a certain kind of bodyskill fused together with "Ishiki."
I think to a large degree Japanese arts would get muddled in transmitting this stuff since they never really made a set vocabulary like the chinese. Things like "kokoro" and "ishiki" would be confused and sometimes referred to as the same or seperate things.
Where the chinese would define something as "Kei"/"Jin", a japanese guy might call it "Chikara," or "Aiki" or "toumei na chikara" or "bujutsu teki chikara" etc etc
Basically there never was a set term. Just one teachers' interpretation of what he could do.

In anycase I'd get out and feel both sides then come back and tell us what you think.

Mike Sigman wrote: Heh. "Pengjin" is used in Cheng Man Ching's own books ..

That may be Walter, but we were talking about "Ueshiba, Kano, Mifune, ...". Is it used by any of them?

and in every other acceptable source of Taiji commentary.

Ah, there's the rub. I'm guessing your def of "acceptable" is 'one that uses 'pengjin'. I guess that books before ~1963 aren't acceptable to you then.

But I've been through this with others, like Peter Lim.

Right, but you left out the parts where he corrects misunderstandings. Here it is for you: http://www.itcca.it/peterlim/pjcf.htm

It's the basis of Taiji. And Aikido. And Xingyi. Etc.

[/quote]

Yes, we know what you believe. Again, where did Ueshiba talk about pengjin? Where did the creator of xingyi talk about it?

Sometimes called "neijin" or often just "jin".

Um, you're saying pengjin is now the same as neijin or jin? This is too much.

Mike Haft wrote: I disagree. While I agree with your point concerning aikiken vs other JSA. I think speed is less advantageous than power IMO. I've found that internal skills help prevent people from striking you, which balance out against speed of attack. So if you want to win by attacking, speed. If you want to win by waiting for the other guy to screw up, power. Though as with all things of this nature there is a balance to be struck I think, and of course a knowledge of both sides of that particular equation is needed. IMHO Mike

Apologies for interrupting the Mosha-madness...

I picked up Shou-Yu Liang and Jwing-Ming Yang's Hsing Yi Chuan: Theory and Applications not too long ago. The authors address this concept directly. To paraphrase: everything else being equal, speed is more important than power is more important than technique. Any one aspect of one's martial ability can make up for other areas (in other words, someone with AMAZING technique may be able to overcome someone with great speed...) but generally speaking the order is: speed > power > technique. If you think about it, this makes a lot of sense. If you're faster than the other guy, you will get what you know in, and he will have difficulty doing anything to you. If you have a lot of power, what you can pull off will have a great effect, you may only need one blow to finish things. And technique will only get the job done if you have enough speed to have the opportunity to use it and can generate enough power for it to be effective. A good training *system* will develop all three aspects. Different schools will go about this differently, and will have different goals. I think a lot of Japanese arts (particularly the koryu) *tend* to focus on technique over power or speed. This is OK if the system is designed correctly, in other words that the way one studies technique also serves to develop speed and power. I think many of the Chinese based internal styles *tend* to develop power as their focus. They do this with with a relatively simple technical syllabus (in terms of fighting techniques). I think that these lessons also serve to increase speed, but more through efficient movement and immediate power delivery. If you don't have to wind up at all in order to strike, your movements seem faster than they in fact are. And if a glancing blow doesn't affect your core movements much, you don't need to work as hard to avoid everything coming at you. I found it refreshing to have someone acknowledge the advantage that speed and power play in the martial arts right from the beginning. I think in the aikido world, there is a false reliance on technique and a dismissal (or even avoidance) of speed and power.

Something else I took from this book (and a few others on Chinese arts) was an underlying assumption that all martial arts boil down to the same thing. I think this is fundamentally different from the Japanese budo view, that all arts are fundamentally different. If you look at the goals for the different culture's martial traditions this makes both assertions true in their own context. The Japanese arts come from the ryuha system, trademarked strategies and movements with a strong emphasis on preserving tradition and a unique identity. The Chinese arts started with the goal of developing effective soldiers as quickly as possible, but have shifted over time to developing individuals into strong fighters (really an extension of the original intent). Most Chinese systems could be considered MMA to some extent, combining elements of internal training (bagua, hsing yi, tai chi...), chinese grappling (chi na), weapons styles and more practical striking methods.

All the usual disclaimers apply folks, I'm painting fleas with a 5" brush...

Robert John wrote: I can say with 99.99% confidence that that's not what Mike meant by "intent". The thing he's talking about is "ishiki" ("意識"), the chinese refer to it as simply "i"("意.")

Well, of course, "motivation" isn't the same as "intent" itself, but we form intentions from motivations. We want to stop a bully, we intend to smack him. That's clear enough and I think "i"("意") does well convey that meaning of "intent."

But Feldenkrais also covers that. Whatever we "intend" to do, whatever is in our "i"("意"), we make the physical actions to carry that out. Children are very good at doing directly (is somewhat shakily) what they conceive in their minds. Most adults, though, suffer from crossed motivations, as I described above and that is where Feldenkrais works. By leading a person into unusual positions, then requesting a simple movement, like lifting the head, Feldenkrais shows one directly and unmistakably if he is not using his muscles as he should. He puts people into a position, for instance, in which one can lift his head only if he is using the correct muscles for that effort. And if he is not using the correct muscles, he won't be able to lift his head. But by numerous small changes and repeated efforts, he suddenly feels what he is doing wrong and learns to activate a muscle that he has left slack because he was using other muscles to achieve that action (which he can do in ordinary postures, but not in the unusual position).

Then the person recognizes that he has not been aware of his own intent. He has been doing something without intending to do it. And thereafter, he has the choice to do it the natural way or to do it by his habitual way. And he invariably recognizes that the natural way works better and also feels much better. So his posture changes, his way of movement changes, his way of feeling changes--all for the better, and all to a more natural state.

What I also addresse with Mike is the problems that arise with crossed motivation: we not only want to smack the bully, but we want the pretty girl to see us do it and we also want to see the look of admiration on her face when we do it....

If we have only one motivation, we have only one intent and we can express that intent very powerfully, with a clean act with full commitment, which will feel and appear very easy. I think that's the essence of xingyi.

But when we have crossed motivations, in order to satisfy them all, we have to set up a much more complex action, which will be much harder to pull off and will therefore be much less likely to succeed.

Where Feldenkrais excels is in making people aware of how many crossed motivations they carry around in life and that they carry all those crossed motivations in their muscles and postures and ways of moving. They can never really act on their true motivation when it has to compete with other motivations. Gaining awareness through movement, one chooses which motivation to follow and acts only on that motivation. Then action becomes easy and natural and far more efficient and effective.

So I think that Feldenkrais does very effectively deal with ""i"("意").

Robert John wrote: Per the pengjin thing,...It's mostly the same stuff...There are different ways to manipulate it, use it, train it, but it still boils back down to connection in the body and creating a certain kind of bodyskill fused together with "Ishiki."

Now people have been mistaking my ("意") to be that I think Feldenkrais is the same as developing those body skills, which is not exactly correct. Feldenkrais does stimulate a direct connection between yi and xing, but it is not primarily related to the kinds of power development you refer to. Still, it is such a powerful tool for finding the inner workings of the mind/body connection that it should be very useful for anyone wanting to develop those skills. It's like you're a watchmaker and Feldenkrais is a magnifying glass.

Robert John wrote: I think to a large degree Japanese arts would get muddled in transmitting this stuff since they never really made a set vocabulary like the chinese...Where the chinese would define something as "Kei"/"Jin", a japanese guy might call it "Chikara," or "Aiki" or "toumei na chikara" or "bujutsu teki chikara" etc etc...Basically there never was a set term. Just one teachers' interpretation of what he could do.

I can agree with most of that except equating "aiki" with "chikara" or "jin". But it still leaves Mike trying to put his own spin on things that don't necessarily spin that way. I'm sure what he's doing is strong, but a lot of what he's saying is wrong.

Robert John wrote: In anycase I'd get out and feel both sides then come back and tell us what you think.

Well, as I've said, I've felt a marked difference between the Chinese and Japanese expression of power. I don't claim to have met everyone in Japan, of course, but I did meet some heavy hitters and nothing they did felt like what I got from the most advanced Chinese stylists I've met.

I'm working on a trip to meet Dan and I do want to meet you and Ark, but Massachusetts is hard enough to swing and I just don't know when I'll be back in Japan.

So until then.

I remember bucking hay as a lad. I would watch my "sempai's" throw heavy bales of hay to height's I could not fathom. I not only wanted to learn how to do this but needed to in order to avoid words of encouragement from sempai's such as, "Send a boy to do a man's job," as he would pick up the bale I couldn't handle, and toss it almost effortlessly to the top of the wagon. My first inclination was to muscle it up. Not the way to go. Makes a lad very tired by the end of the day. So I watched and trained. It wasn't long until I too could toss heavy bales of hay almost effortlessly to height's well above my head. I suppose there are an almost infinite number of methods for developing baseline skills, but in my mind it's all about training the body in a way appropriate to the task at hand. Simple as that.

David Orange wrote: We want to stop a bully, we intend to smack him. That's clear enough and I think "i"("意") does well convey that meaning of "intent."

Rob, Dan, and Mike,
If you do not mind throwing the forum at large a bone please elaborate on what you mean by intent, in the context of internal power. My view on intent has changed.....or perhaps expanded is a better word, in the last few years. I am curious to hear each of your thoughts if you do not mind sharing.

I highlighted the above statement by David because from my current perspective it highlights a common error or limitation in understanding intent and it's affect. Agree or disagree?

Take care,

Mark J.

Not that I can help you. But intent is everything. What you do with it inside the body is the difference.
The quickest way I demonstrate intent as “mind moving the body” is have someone push me and I stand there. Without me moving externally they feel weight at their feet, then they feel it cutting at their feet. then...lifting, then pressing down on them. They cannot explain what I am doing inside to cause all these changes. Next I place my hands on their stomach and without chambering or a wind-up I either cast them off or knock the wind out of them. But then I take the mystery away and have them start learning what I do. Once folks know what, is doing what, it is all rational and understandable. Doesn't mean they can do it right away though.
Ya need to find someone who is less concerned with impressing you and more concerned with helping you.
With those who are limited in their view and can ONLY think and consider ideas in "Japanese" terms. You can demonstrate it in Kokyu ho, or aiki age- where you are grabbed and they start to rise before I start to move. Or you can give them whiplash when you do. The truth is none of the power comes from, nor relies on, the muscle chaining that people do. I am moving other things.
If you want a bit of a challenge- or to frustrate yourself- you can try our wall-work. Most people have an amazing amount of slack in their bodies. Slack, by the way, is not to be confused with relaxation. It is easily revealed in wall work. One thing we do. is a training exercise where you learn to hold certain things together while you make pressure on the wall with a single hand while having the body in a relaxed and swimming fashion. You then have to switch feet and maintain that pressure on the single hand while you "add" the other hand with no noticeable change in pressure on the first hand. Then with both hands on the wall (with equal pressure) you start to move your feet and change your body angle and position. Anyone can "copy" the movement and mimic me. When I get them to start to feel it, all of a sudden they stop and realize the trouble and difficulty they are now facing.
At the end of it I say place both hands on the wall and now "pop off" without moving.
They can't.
What "pops?"
How? Intent
What they do is clearly demonstrate their slack or muscle chaining. Various parts of their bodies will peel off as they try and force the wall or they get better and sort of do a shoulder-heavy step back. Over time as you re-tool your body to identify and maintain currents or "pathways" throughout the body you build up that hard rubber/flexible cable feel. Then you find certain exercises rudimentary.
I invented that one wall exercise years ago with the help of a certain teacher to solve my dilemma with Daito ryu's model of "kuzushi on contact" and kuzushi maintained throughout movement. For the most part I found the "idea" to be B.S. outside of kata -in sustained and quick-change grappling. Kata is kata but coming home and having to "test" and train the theory on collegiate wrestlers and judoka who didn't give a rip about any japanese "aiki", and my failing continually and resorting to muscle myself forced me to look for a faster method to train my body.
Anyway there's now plenty of men and women who read here who have felt and done the above.

Now if you like, all of this begins and is trained all the time by using in/yo ho. Moving energy and focus around in your body while sitting, standing, whatever. It can be very enervating and even give you a buzz.
To make old world myths and stories come alive in the modern era consider this.
We have all heard stories of the guys who trained outside in the snow while it melted off them. Most scoffed-while others were confused. The readers here have now heard any number of folks who have written about doing some of our exercises (while standing still) and in about 5 minutes being covered in sweat, while not moving. In fact they came alive-on the inside and were moving a bone-tendon-fascial chain by....intent. So here we have modern men and women using intent to move and manipulate energy paths in their bodies, and getting real results in the 21 century.
I think the Indian/Chinese/Japanese were right after all. They just didn’t teach it openly. And Sagawa was right when he said you had to get inventive and doggedly pursue it by using your mind.

Dan Harden wrote: Not that I can help you. But intent is everything. What you do with it inside the body is the difference.

Quick note: wanting or trying desperately to do something and having the proper intent manifest in your body may be two different things at first.

Why Tom...what could you possibly mean?
I thought the internet solved everything by descriptions!
"Motion in stillness /stillness in motion."
See
We read it, now we get it.

Thank you very much for the post Dan. Interesting stuff, I appreciate the time it took to write it.

Mark J.

No problem. Mike may have more of the correct CMA classical model. Try P.M.'ing him.

David Orange wrote: I don't think anyone's denying that pengjin exists. Even that you have developed some of it...but then you go beyond what you should and try to overlay it on Japanese martial arts....and that's where your claims fall down.

Take something very simple in the qi/ki/jin/kokyu topic. Say, Tohei, Ueshiba, or others standing immoveably against a push. It's an Asia-wide demonstration of a basic concept. You're saying, in essence, that because Aikido uses different terms, the way they do the demo is actually different. How does that work? It doesn't. You just got shown to be wrong, using a very simple example. So logically you don't understand these things, which are part of basic Aikido. The rest follows.

Mike

David Orange wrote: Well, of course, "motivation" isn't the same as "intent" itself, but we form intentions from motivations. We want to stop a bully, we intend to smack him. That's clear enough and I think "i"("意") does well convey that meaning of "intent."

David, once again you're not making any argument, even though you think you are. Your very first words show that you don't understand these things, so any argument is obviated.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

[quote=Dan Harden;181990]At the end of it I say place both hands on the wall and now "pop off" without moving.
They can't.
What "pops?"
How? Intent
[quote]No, instead of using normal muscular strength you use jin (don't think that completely precludes any muscle of course). The way you conjure up the jin is with your "intent". So jin/kokyu-power is initiated by intent.

The old saying goes roughly like this:
The heart (the desire to do something) triggers the mind. The mind's intent triggers the qi. The qi leads the strength/jin.

Of course, they shorten that often to read:
heart-mind; yi-qi; qi-jin.

Best.

Mike

Mark Jakabcsin wrote: I highlighted the above statement by David because from my current perspective it highlights a common error or limitation in understanding intent and it's affect.

Mark, having read Dan's detailed description, I have to say, intent is still "what you intend to do." Whether that is a very big thing, visible to everyone around you, or a motionless, invisible inner movement, intent is "what you want to do."

And while Feldenkrais doesn't, in itself, develop the kinds of things Dan describes, it can help one perceive on that minute inner level far more effectively than if you had not had the Feldenkrais experience--and far more effectively than if your only approach to effort is the progressively-greater kind of exertion involved in weight-lifting or other "increasing" kinds of practices.

Best wishes.

David

Mark Jakabcsin wrote: Rob, Dan, and Mike, If you do not mind throwing the forum at large a bone please elaborate on what you mean by intent, in the context of internal power. My view on intent has changed.....or perhaps expanded is a better word, in the last few years. I am curious to hear each of your thoughts if you do not mind sharing. I highlighted the above statement by David because from my current perspective it highlights a common error or limitation in understanding intent and it's affect. Agree or disagree? Take care, Mark J.

It's a common error, Mark. I have had some fun conversations with Asian m.a. experts about some of the way the traditional sayings are butchered by westerners trying to appear knowledgeable. The saying I remember the most (although the conversation of the moment was about double-weighting) was "if it was that simple, everyone would already do it and why would we talk about it in the old sayings? Were they that stupid in the old days? No. ".

FWIW

Mike

Justin Smith wrote: That may be Walter, but we were talking about "Ueshiba, Kano, Mifune, ...". Is it used by any of them?

Well, good. You admit that Cheng used 'pengjin' as common term (the westerners usually mistranslated it as "ward-off energy"). Then you should know what it was. You obviously don't. Ergo, your teacher defrauded you and what you know about internal martial arts is zip. Give us the name of your teacher. In any art.

Kind Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman wrote: David, once again you're not making any argument, even though you think you are. Your very first words show that you don't understand these things, so any argument is obviated.

What do you form intentions from, Mike? Do your intentions arise straight from the fascia?

David

Mike Sigman wrote: Your very first words show that you don't understand these things...

Yet, you rephrased my words for your own argument 10 posts later!

You really are funny, Mike!

#1082 David
"… we form intentions from motivations."

#1091 Mike
"Your very first words show that you don't understand these things..."

#1092 Mike
"… (the desire to do something) triggers the mind. The mind's intent triggers the qi."

In short, the desire to do something (motivation) triggers the mind's intent...

You're saying the same thing I said, which you also said proves that I don't understand.....so.....come on, now. You can figure this out: you're saying YOU don't understand. I know the saying is, "Don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing...." but you're coming right down the middle contradicting yourself.

Always enterntaining, Mike. Thanks.

David

Dan Harden wrote: If you want a bit of a challenge- or to frustrate yourself- you can try our wall-work. Most people have an amazing amount of slack in their bodies. Slack, by the way, is not to be confused with relaxation. It is easily revealed in wall work. One thing we do. is a training exercise where you learn to hold certain things together while you make pressure on the wall with a single hand while having the body in a relaxed and swimming fashion. You then have to switch feet and maintain that pressure on the single hand while you "add" the other hand with no noticeable change in pressure on the first hand. Then with both hands on the wall (with equal pressure) you start to move your feet and change your body angle and position. Anyone can "copy" the movement and mimic me. When I get them to start to feel it, all of a sudden they stop and realize the trouble and difficulty they are now facing. At the end of it I say place both hands on the wall and now "pop off" without moving.

Thanks Dan.
That makes alot of sense.

David: here is the difference in your position vs Mike's, in plain English and without judgement:

David Orange wrote: intent is "what you want to do."

Mike Sigman wrote: The heart (the desire to do something) triggers the mind. The mind's intent triggers the qi. The qi leads the strength/jin.

You're referring to the first step ("heart") in Mike Sigman's quote above, not the second step: intent (yi). Actually nobody really gives a damn about why I want to do move my arm, maybe I'm reaching for a donut, who cares. The real issue is, "okay, now my brain is wanting to move my arm. HOW am I going to ACTUALLY cause my arm to move?"

Untrained way (strength/li): "contract your bicep and your arm will move"
Semi-trained way (intent/yi): "focus on a particular visualisation/state of mind that will trigger structures in your arm that are not under direct conscious control, thus make it 'move by itself' "

I call it the semi-trained way because I think once you reach a high level all that "visualisation" stuff is instantaneous so that long-winded description is not accurate.

I am not really sure about this, so please correct me if I'm off base.

Thanks for pointing that out, Howard.

Incidentally, I see a lot of comments about "the Chinese perspective" and the implication is that the Japanese perspective is somehow different. It's not. They are the same thing, although I admit it's confusing for someone who encounters a lot of terms, choices in translation, and so on in *both* Chinese styles and Japanese styles that are all talking about the same thing.

A good example is this idea of "yi" or "intent". In O-Sensei's douka he refers to the "Divine Will". He's referring to "intent".

Best.

Mike