Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Non-Aikido Martial Traditions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-22-2007, 09:57 AM   #1526
Chuck Clark
 
Chuck Clark's Avatar
Dojo: Jiyushinkan
Location: Monroe, Washington
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,134
United_States
Offline
Re: Baseline skillset

Quote:
Budd Yuhasz wrote: View Post
Course, I also think everybody should grow up having done hard, manual labor, participated in combat sports and contributed to a theatrical or musical production (we all have our own biases) . . .
Sounds like we had a similar background in those activities, Budd. When I was fourteen, my dad and I, along with one of his brothers and two sons, cleared five acres of blackjack oak... stumps and all. I became very proficient with a double bit axe, crosscut saw, an old John Deere tractor, and a team of Arkansas mules (along with many ways to survive blisters and assorted ailments. I also worked on my grandparents farm every summer helping with harvest from age 8 until 17. I also took a very active part in many years of vocal music training, competitions, freestyle and dance skating, and ballroom dancing for many years. At the same time, I was learning budo in the form of (old style) judo, jujutsu, and karate-do and beginning aikido in my late teens. I'm not doing farming anymore, or dancing, or skating, just a bit of singing around the house, and have never stopped budo practice.

Thanks for igniting some old memories...

Chuck Clark
Jiyushinkai Aikibudo
www.jiyushinkai.org
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 10:02 AM   #1527
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Baseline skillset

Hi Ron:

I think I mentioned this in some earlier articles, videos, etc., but the idea is still valid. One of the great obstacles to learning ki/kokyu skills is what we call "SPD" or "Self Perception Disorder". It turns out that everyone sees himself as a nice guy and the new stuff.... well, they're already doing that, or close enough that there's no real difference. Being motivated and willing to question oneself (as well as others) is actually pretty rare. ..... But enough of these armchair musings......

Best.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 10:07 AM   #1528
Budd
 
Budd's Avatar
Dojo: Taikyoku Budo
Location: Williamsville, NY
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 931
United_States
Offline
Re: Baseline skillset

Thank you, Clark Sensei . . . My Dad had me in judo then later wrestling since I was school-age, my grandparents had me working their 400-acre tree farm since about that time as well.

When I got to high school, it turned out that there was a sincere lack of men anxious to be in the theatre productions. Simple mathematics calculated that the guy:girl ratio made the activity at least worth exploring (plus, I've never had a problem looking dumb - pretending to do it intentionally came easy). Which continued into college, which led to voice/singing and dance training -- that circled back into how I paid attention to breathing and different aspects of movement in sports and budo.

I still swear that they're all related - can't claim greatness in any of them, but I can think of pieces that have contributed to where I've progressed on my budo journey.

Thank you, Sensei, for sharing your perspective.

Best/Budd
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 10:18 AM   #1529
Ron Tisdale
Dojo: Doshinkan dojo in Roxborough, Pa
Location: Phila. Pa
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,614
United_States
Offline
Re: Baseline skillset

Don't sweat it Budd, I'm just jealous! I always wanted to be in productions, but have a devil of a time memorizing lines. Finally, in college, I was in Finnegan's Rainbow as the college educated waiter. Very few lines, but big laughs! Heck, you may have even seen it! Would have been around '82 or '83...

Best,
Ron (Story of my life, few lines, big laughs...)

Ron Tisdale
-----------------------
"The higher a monkey climbs, the more you see of his behind."
St. Bonaventure (ca. 1221-1274)
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 10:40 AM   #1530
Budd
 
Budd's Avatar
Dojo: Taikyoku Budo
Location: Williamsville, NY
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 931
United_States
Offline
Re: Baseline skillset

Dude, no offense, sweat or anything negative taken! And I probably should clarify (so I don't commit any more of an SPD) that I don't think it's necessarily something that makes you understand "the baseline skills" so much as it encourages you to 1) Be well-rounded 2) Used to working hard on seemingly endless mundane tasks 3) Unafraid to step outside one's comfort zones.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 11:06 AM   #1531
gdandscompserv
 
gdandscompserv's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,214
United_States
Offline
Re: Baseline skillset

I grew up milking cows and bucking hay. Put myself through college twistin mink necks. Was studying kung fu, Wun Hop Kuen Do style, way back then. Now, I'm a desk jockey learning aikido. Sure do miss farming.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 12:09 PM   #1532
Budd
 
Budd's Avatar
Dojo: Taikyoku Budo
Location: Williamsville, NY
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 931
United_States
Offline
Re: Baseline skillset

Ricky - Cool, so if you have a diverse background and a genuine interest to seek out this stuff (which I assume you do, since you seem to keep posting those "look at me" one-liners in threads on this topic), what's stopping you?

Or are you just looking for attention? I don't take it seriously or with offense (nor do I mean to give any), it just sorta has me scratching my head . . .
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 12:17 PM   #1533
Erick Mead
 
Erick Mead's Avatar
Dojo: Big Green Drum (W. Florida Aikikai)
Location: West Florida
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,488
United_States
Offline
Re: Baseline skillset

Quote:
Ron Tisdale wrote: View Post
Look, they don't hand out fancy belts or awards. It's a discussion group. And the reason it is private is responses like the I'm quoting above. And the fact that this is happening here is exactly the point of why these kinds of threads are better in the private venue, which in turn drives this information under ground. Counter productive, don't you think???

If we didn't have responses like these, maybe the information wouldn't be in a private discussion group.
I might tend to agree, but when those who participate in these discussions are asked to discuss matters in terms of reference that do not reflect a self-enclosed jargon, there is resistance to the very idea that it MIGHT just have a more general physical basis that can usefully be examined in more generally accessible terms. When some discussions do tend that way, the fall-back is into areas that are less than generally accepted, such as "fascial" theories of action. I do not deny that there is some basis of biomechanical action that is not muscular in the leverage sense, but that does not mean it has no adequate basis for description in physical mechanics.

The implication is that generalizing the debate surrenders control over the terms of reference -- which is true, and a strong hallmark of concern. One can avoid any critical question if you get to define the terms of reference, or if they are so ill defined as to make any answer impossible to question further. The history of jargonized charlatanism in this arena is too well documented (and deep in history even in China and Japan) to allow for breezy dismissals of the "uninitiated."

Holistic terms of traditional understanding are fine as far as they go, but they are not in opposition to or incompatible with western mechanics. The Chinese have a space program, you know. Japan has submarines and its own satellite programs.

When you hear hooves think horses not zebras -- that's all I am saying. Lectures from anyone about what I or anyone does or does not hear, are worse than pointless, as are suggestions that only certain people can allow me to hear them, or that useful descriptions of even extremely subtle physical action are not within the realm of physical concepts. I have heard them -- now let everyone get down to the taxonomy of the equine hoofbeats already, and leave the classification of the snarkbeasts for some other forum..

Cordially,

Erick Mead
一隻狗可久里馬房但他也不是馬的.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 01:03 PM   #1534
Budd
 
Budd's Avatar
Dojo: Taikyoku Budo
Location: Williamsville, NY
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 931
United_States
Offline
Re: Baseline skillset

I think there's jargon in any discipline, depending on what/whom you learn from. The most scientifically accurate description of what the throat/diaphragm are doing when singing correctly might not help anyone actually "do it".

By the same token, I'd be willing to bet that plenty of budo practitioners that have been around the block have techniques/principles that result in certain effects without them being precisely aware "why" they happen. Or they may offer a pseudo-scientific reasoning that may or may not be factual of complete.

But then I also think it ultimately comes back to learning to replicate desired skills from the people that "have" them. Again, like many disciplines worth studying, it's usually going to be on the teacher's terms, not the student's.

And I guess in some areas, I would rather train to be able to replicate a skill, then follow-up with polishing and making it my own - than necessarily be able to describe it in terms that will pass muster with the scientific community. I agree that the latter concept is worthwhile, but maybe secondary, depending on one's viewpoint.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 01:11 PM   #1535
Ron Tisdale
Dojo: Doshinkan dojo in Roxborough, Pa
Location: Phila. Pa
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,614
United_States
Offline
Re: Baseline skillset

Eric,
Sorry, but I have no clue what you are talking about...

Best,
Ron

Ron Tisdale
-----------------------
"The higher a monkey climbs, the more you see of his behind."
St. Bonaventure (ca. 1221-1274)
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 03:50 PM   #1536
gdandscompserv
 
gdandscompserv's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,214
United_States
Offline
Re: Baseline skillset

Quote:
Budd Yuhasz wrote: View Post
Ricky - Cool, so if you have a diverse background and a genuine interest to seek out this stuff (which I assume you do, since you seem to keep posting those "look at me" one-liners in threads on this topic), what's stopping you?

Or are you just looking for attention? I don't take it seriously or with offense (nor do I mean to give any), it just sorta has me scratching my head . . .
Budd,
I don't know if my background is diverse or not.
Money and time are the only things that keep me from seeking "this stuff" out, whatever "this stuff" is. But don't get me wrong, I spent 10 years in Okinawa learning "this stuff." I am actively seeking a job at Yokosuka Naval Base so's I can learn some more of this stuff. I am nothing but a sincere student of budo.
I regularly train at as many different dojos as I can. Don't know if I'll ever get "this stuff" but it won't be for a lack of trying.
Don't scratch your head over me, I aint nobody.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 05:33 PM   #1537
Erick Mead
 
Erick Mead's Avatar
Dojo: Big Green Drum (W. Florida Aikikai)
Location: West Florida
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,488
United_States
Offline
Re: Baseline skillset

Quote:
Budd Yuhasz wrote: View Post
I think there's jargon in any discipline, depending on what/whom you learn from. The most scientifically accurate description of what the throat/diaphragm are doing when singing correctly might not help anyone actually "do it".

By the same token, I'd be willing to bet that plenty of budo practitioners that have been around the block have techniques/principles that result in certain effects without them being precisely aware "why" they happen. Or they may offer a pseudo-scientific reasoning that may or may not be factual of complete.
I do that (sing) actually. And it is true that imagery used in voice coaching can be quite figurative, even silly-sounding. I do not disparage that, but it is acknowledged as imaginative feedback on actual quality of sound and associated sensation, and the imagery is wholly arbitrary, even when effective.

As to the latter -- you might be surprised at what has been learned and applied: http://www.inner-act.com/Media/Artic...ia:11:status=1

http://content.karger.com/produktedb...L2006058005363

Quote:
Budd Yuhasz wrote: View Post
But then I also think it ultimately comes back to learning to replicate desired skills from the people that "have" them. Again, like many disciplines worth studying, it's usually going to be on the teacher's terms, not the student's.
On this we differ. I think there is a basic aspect of fundamental human movement that is involved and is a natural as singing and as basic in its mechnics as it is potentially superlative or as near effortless in its performance as human movement can be when handling a given load. This occurs when given right attention (nen) with an openennes to the right intuitive sensibilities (kan) working toward effortlessness. If it was too hard, basically it was done wrong, now we figure out why it was too hard and don't do it that way again. The mind/body refines itself to the shape of the energy of the interaction with enough repetition and attention to critical form. I actually do not think that the methods used or discussed by those here are bad at all, I just think they are unduly exclusive in their assumptions of effectiveness.

Technical training is largely critical -- in "unlearning" bad habits that result in unneeded effort (a thread of this discussion that does keep cropping up) or inelegant form (always a measure of efficiency) . In singing as in physical movement, attention to form and effortlessness brings sure results. Effort for efforts sake, regardless of the form of training does not necessarily bring anything, except general fitness, other than by happy accident.

Quote:
And I guess in some areas, I would rather train to be able to replicate a skill, then follow-up with polishing and making it my own - than necessarily be able to describe it in terms that will pass muster with the scientific community. I agree that the latter concept is worthwhile, but maybe secondary, depending on one's viewpoint.
But polish requires finer and finer grit. Physics is the finest grit we got. It has its uses even in less refined settings, too.

Cordially,

Erick Mead
一隻狗可久里馬房但他也不是馬的.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2007, 06:25 AM   #1538
Budd
 
Budd's Avatar
Dojo: Taikyoku Budo
Location: Williamsville, NY
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 931
United_States
Offline
Re: Baseline skillset

Erick - fine, but on one hand you're acknowledging that the way certain things are transmitted comes from hands on re-wiring and feedback based on focused imagery that yields the correct results (am I talking about singing, teh Internals or both). Most everybody here working on these things has said that it needs to be felt in person.

On the other hand, the attention to form and effortlessness is in both activities, but you think the vocabulary used to describe the latter is too exclusive. That's your opinion and you have your right to it, but I don't think much of the discussion here, in general, is doing a lot more than giving people the indication of whether or not they want to follow up in person and "feel" what people are doing (okay, admittedly, I'm projecting, cause that was the case for me).

At some point, these things may be talked about more openly and may adhere to the finest grit of descriptive physics. Someone may in fact spearhead the analysis of the natural laws that are applicable in the Western sense of understanding. I know this, based on my dismal performance in the natural sciences, it ain't gonna be me. Meanwhile, I wanna just keep working to learn how to "do it".
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2007, 07:02 AM   #1539
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Baseline skillset

Quote:
Budd Yuhasz wrote: View Post
At some point, these things may be talked about more openly and may adhere to the finest grit of descriptive physics. Someone may in fact spearhead the analysis of the natural laws that are applicable in the Western sense of understanding. I know this, based on my dismal performance in the natural sciences, it ain't gonna be me. Meanwhile, I wanna just keep working to learn how to "do it".
The problem is that not all the exact processes are known which contibute to the total strength. I have some theories about how some of the things *may* work, but no studies have ever been done on the full mechanisms of breath strength, etc. So to talk about a rigorous exposition is sort of silly. Besides, as has been noted before, a number of us unrelated "searchers" seem to communicate reasonably well without needing matrices and linear determinants. Not only that, but the "path" idea is the one that I have a number of illustrations for in China and Japan, so using that approach isn't some innovative new idea, by any means.

Lastly, I'd say that even if someone has all the math and physics in the world at their disposal, if they don't know how to do it physically then all that math and physics is a waste of time and won't help them learn diddly-squat.

Best.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2007, 07:19 AM   #1540
Budd
 
Budd's Avatar
Dojo: Taikyoku Budo
Location: Williamsville, NY
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 931
United_States
Offline
Re: Baseline skillset

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Lastly, I'd say that even if someone has all the math and physics in the world at their disposal, if they don't know how to do it physically then all that math and physics is a waste of time and won't help them learn diddly-squat.
Yeah, that was kind of my original point (and I apologize for beating the singing correlation past the point of demise), but I had or knew more than a few "voice" teachers that I didn't think could sing worth a damn. They all had scientific diagrams/explanations of the mechanics involved, blah blah, but they lost credibility quickly when the music started.

On the flip side, there may be coaches in plenty of activities that can't necessarily perform at certain levels, but are able to train people to elite levels. But, per one of your other points, I'd guess that would be in areas where the exact processes involved that contribute to overall performance are more widely known and catalogued.

Anyhow, I'm sure not in any position speak about what I can "do" or how the heck it definitively "works". I guess I just keep circling back to my original position of "get out there and see what people are doing".
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2007, 07:45 AM   #1541
gdandscompserv
 
gdandscompserv's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,214
United_States
Offline
Re: Baseline skillset

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Lastly, I'd say that even if someone has all the math and physics in the world at their disposal, if they don't know how to do it physically then all that math and physics is a waste of time and won't help them learn diddly-squat.
That's quite a bold statement there Mike. I think math and physics is rather important to our development and well being as human beings thereby giving us more time for luxury's like budo training and blogging. Granted, it is a two-edged sword, but I certainly would not dismiss it as a waste of time.
And what should we be learning in our study of budo?
Does one have to be able to manifest something "physically" for it to be of worth. I have enjoyed many a good book that defy that reasoning.
I'm still not quite sure what I should be physically manifesting in my training. The thing that I am ultimately curious about is what I feel like. One can never really know that. We are always relying on someone else's opinion of what we feel like. If the budo Kami would grant me one wish it would be for me to be able to feel me. Oh what progress I would make then.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2007, 07:52 AM   #1542
Erick Mead
 
Erick Mead's Avatar
Dojo: Big Green Drum (W. Florida Aikikai)
Location: West Florida
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,488
United_States
Offline
Re: Baseline skillset

Quote:
Budd Yuhasz wrote: View Post
Erick - fine, but on one hand you're acknowledging that the way certain things are transmitted comes from hands on re-wiring and feedback based on focused imagery that yields the correct results (am I talking about singing, the Internals or both). Most everybody here working on these things has said that it needs to be felt in person.
Two points. One-- Nobody is saying that one can sing in theory. At the same time what works in coaching typical singing is not descriptive, but affective (and maybe even effective) in other words, adjusting "feel" of the action in a non-descriptive way.

Good examples are singing "through the top of your head," and things like "head voice" and "chest voice." which bear, at best, only a passing attachment to what is physically occurring in the body. Most of the training methods or modalities discussed here are affective in that way, adjusting a non-descriptive "feel." The reason for this is simple. The body does not have fine sensory neurons in the deep tissues to provide direct detailed feedback. Since it works for many people here, apparently, they defend it for what it does for them, but I think, in my case in anyway, it is not actually being attacked, only their understanding of what it means in concrete terms is being critiqued.

Second point. The assumption of many in this discussion is that the course of aikido training in the major schools CANNOT show "it." I deny this. I have practiced many places, in different traditions and have experienced or felt all I need to feel to know what it is that I am working on. I have no idea if my experience is typical, but then neither do those on this discussion who feel that they have missed somethign that they dimly perceived along the way to be importnat but did not get. Whether or not any one person's practice is "typical" is beside the point since the issue is not resolved by a poll.

Quote:
Budd Yuhasz wrote: View Post
At some point, these things may be talked about more openly and may adhere to the finest grit of descriptive physics. Someone may in fact spearhead the analysis of the natural laws that are applicable in the Western sense of understanding. I know this, based on my dismal performance in the natural sciences, it ain't gonna be me. Meanwhile, I wanna just keep working to learn how to "do it".
That is why I am working on it at this level of detail, in a way different from the level of detail you may be working on. That's why I am working on it from a concrete physical perspective.

To you or me in practice our own feeling has immediate concrete meaning even if it is only affective, as with singing, because we do not have the sensory apparatus to directly sense what is physically occurring to make the movement, we only sense the resulting kinesthetic change flowing from the movement. We will it, and we move and our motor cortex does not do a lot of talking back about what it is doing, moving or why. That is one level of subjective disconnect from objective reality in "feeling."

A further level of disconnect exists in trying to "feel" it from anyone else. To anyone else another person's feeling is just a ghostly outline, a faint sketch. A good teacher is imaginative and adaptive and can give good affective corrections based on their "feel" and make that ghost a very lively and brightly colored image to try and replicate. But it remains an image. Most aikido, and most martial arts for that matter, is taught in this way, and has been for a very very long time.

Sometimes the flights of imagination used in training may seem silly to those who have not trained in that particular paradigm of imagery. Thus, we have frequent snarkfests about people's training and "those idiots" trying to "sing through the top of their heads." The critique is both valid and completely misplaced at one and the same time.

My study and my practice is in trying to put some objective flesh on the wispy ghost of subjective "feeling," in order to make both perspectives -- in one's own individual practice and in trying to receive or give teaching -- more effective. It should not supplant imagery of feeling, especially not those of long tradition in their effectiveness, but will better map that imaginitive feeling onto an objective foundation.

It can make the imagery used in training MORE real -- with fewer castles built out in the thin air, or at least they will be more obvious and therefore more easily avoided. And "more real" should not be suspect in terms of its likely efficacy. It is about the only common ground where the very different affective training modes can meet and discuss real questions to help one another out instead of snorting and laughing over beer at one another (not that there's anything wrong with that) .

Last edited by Erick Mead : 08-23-2007 at 07:56 AM.

Cordially,

Erick Mead
一隻狗可久里馬房但他也不是馬的.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2007, 08:02 AM   #1543
Budd
 
Budd's Avatar
Dojo: Taikyoku Budo
Location: Williamsville, NY
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 931
United_States
Offline
Re: Baseline skillset

Quote:
Ricky Wood wrote: View Post
I'm still not quite sure what I should be physically manifesting in my training. The thing that I am ultimately curious about is what I feel like. One can never really know that. We are always relying on someone else's opinion of what we feel like. If the budo Kami would grant me one wish it would be for me to be able to feel me. Oh what progress I would make then.
The irony here is that it seems one of the main points of "this stuff" (caveat emptor, my opinion based on my very limited knowledge and exposure to it) is to work on you, to allow you to get better in synch with you, so that under pressure you're still working on maintaining you . . . you, you, you . . . me, me, me (I swear I'm not singing - okay, maybe a little).
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2007, 08:15 AM   #1544
Budd
 
Budd's Avatar
Dojo: Taikyoku Budo
Location: Williamsville, NY
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 931
United_States
Offline
Re: Baseline skillset

Quote:
Erick Mead wrote: View Post
My study and my practice is in trying to put some objective flesh on the wispy ghost of subjective "feeling," in order to make both perspectives -- in one's own individual practice and in trying to receive or give teaching -- more effective. It should not supplant imagery of feeling, especially not those of long tradition in their effectiveness, but will better map that imaginitive feeling onto an objective foundation.
I can't argue against your desire to improve the pedagogical method of transmission and delivery. I believe that was one of Kano's aims for judo. But I think in order to have the "moral authority" to improve upon an existing concept, or the transmission of said concept, there, in all likelihood, needs to be a recognized proficiency in said concept.

If your practice has already included the development of this proficiency, then maybe the next logical step would be to get together with people also on this specific path (working the "baseline skills") to work stuff in person, since most practitioners still seem to be on the level of believing and applying the mantra, "it needs to be felt".

To be clear, I'm not trying to tell you what to do by any means, just musing out loud.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2007, 08:45 AM   #1545
Erick Mead
 
Erick Mead's Avatar
Dojo: Big Green Drum (W. Florida Aikikai)
Location: West Florida
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,488
United_States
Offline
Re: Baseline skillset

Quote:
Budd Yuhasz wrote: View Post
I can't argue against your desire to improve the pedagogical method of transmission and delivery. I believe that was one of Kano's aims for judo. But I think in order to have the "moral authority" to improve upon an existing concept, or the transmission of said concept, there, in all likelihood, needs to be a recognized proficiency in said concept.
And in traditional terms of various approaches to affective trainng for the "feeling" you would be right. There have been many castles of charlatanry built on air, as I indicated earlier. Persuasive imagery without pedigree or demonstration is lacking in bona fides, and it requires that vetting to give some witness to its basis in truth and usefulness. Even with demonstration, though, it may not be a hedge against mere clever showmanship (which you must admit is a historically significant risk of the "you have to go see X, who has 'it' " school of thought. This is expressed by some critics here, causing a degree of distaste among others. On this point, though if you have not watched Derren Brown's show, you really should. People can be manipulated in the most startlingly simple ways, and the concern is not overstated as a general case.

That's the advantage of physical mechanics as an approach. There is no moral anything, and no authority either, for that matter. Either a physical description is accurate and can be observed just as accurately by someone else looking at the same thing it describes -- or it isn't. No vetting required. Also no personality contests or "my Shihan's physics is better than your Shihan's physics." It may or may not be true -- but it can be shown whether it is or isn't true -- regardless of one's loyalties or lack of reasons to trust a proponent on a given point. It does not require math, just a knowledge of the physical principles used to described motion and their known operations and relationships, although math can be used to check the descriptions more rigorously if one wants.

Cordially,

Erick Mead
一隻狗可久里馬房但他也不是馬的.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2007, 09:24 AM   #1546
Budd
 
Budd's Avatar
Dojo: Taikyoku Budo
Location: Williamsville, NY
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 931
United_States
Offline
Re: Baseline skillset

I don't know that people are arguing against physical mechanics being "bad", maybe just not as useful, at this point, since it seems to be a phenomenon that needs to be "felt", rather than observed - at least until the experts agree on all the physical mechanics and appropriate methods to measure them - not to mention the agreed upon crtieria for one's qualificaitons to even be able to "observe" the phenomenon with any degree of accuracy.

But now we're really just waxing on and off about stuff that might not be relevant if we can't actually "do" any of it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2007, 12:39 PM   #1547
MM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,996
United_States
Offline
Re: Baseline skillset

Quote:
Erick Mead wrote: View Post
That's the advantage of physical mechanics as an approach. There is no moral anything, and no authority either, for that matter. Either a physical description is accurate and can be observed just as accurately by someone else looking at the same thing it describes -- or it isn't. No vetting required. Also no personality contests or "my Shihan's physics is better than your Shihan's physics." It may or may not be true -- but it can be shown whether it is or isn't true -- regardless of one's loyalties or lack of reasons to trust a proponent on a given point. It does not require math, just a knowledge of the physical principles used to described motion and their known operations and relationships, although math can be used to check the descriptions more rigorously if one wants.
I disagree with your points. There are always personality contests and there are most definitely my teacher's physics is better than your teacher's physics. Groups of physicists have disagreed on theories for as long as they've been alive and kicking.

Physical descriptions can be inaccurate. And can be wildly inaccurate at that. Ask law enforcement about it. What one person sees is not necessarily what another person sees. Not only that, but some things can be missed entirely.

Here, take this example:

Person A is young and weighs 90 pounds.
Person B is bigger and stronger and weighs 270 pounds.

Now, person A stands with feet side by side in a relaxed posture. Person B stands behind A. B puts his hands under B's armpits.

Now, B lifts A into the air about 2-3'. B puts A down. A again stands the same way. B tries to lift A and can't. B strains and his face turns red. A stands relaxed. Looking at the scene, there is no difference in A. The difference is that B picks up A and then B can not (as in physically unable to) pick up A.

There is no physical principles of motion here. A does not move, but merely stands relaxed. Anyone viewing from the outside (someone who is neither A nor B) would have no clue as to what is going on. Video will show nothing at all on what is really happening (In fact, most will not believe what they are seeing and think it is staged). All anyone will see is first A is picked up and then second B is straining with A not moving. Unless you are either A or B, you have no clue as to what is really going on. And even B doesn't necessarily know what's happening.

Mark
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2007, 02:18 PM   #1548
Erick Mead
 
Erick Mead's Avatar
Dojo: Big Green Drum (W. Florida Aikikai)
Location: West Florida
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,488
United_States
Offline
Re: Baseline skillset

Quote:
Mark Murray wrote: View Post
I disagree with your points. There are always personality contests and there are most definitely my teacher's physics is better than your teacher's physics. Groups of physicists have disagreed on theories for as long as they've been alive and kicking.
and those debates have been immensely fruitful, but truly, we are talking about classical mechanics here, and these are very well understood in their operation. Hawking and his detractors may still go toe to toe, but the mechanics at issue here are not remotely that debatable.

Quote:
Mark Murray wrote: View Post
Physical descriptions can be inaccurate. And can be wildly inaccurate at that.
Who said that they could not be? A description in physical terms can be repeatedly compared to the thing described , and if accurate, the comparison maps to a high degree -- objectively. If not, it doesn't. No one said that mechanics is a fool-proof method if there are poor observations, just that it helps to remedy poor observation and potentially make it more critical and observant of relevant detail.
Quote:
Mark Murray wrote: View Post
Person A is young and weighs 90 pounds.
Person B is bigger and stronger and weighs 270 pounds.

Now, person A stands with feet side by side in a relaxed posture. Person B stands behind A. B puts his hands under B's armpits.

Now, B lifts A into the air about 2-3'. B puts A down. A again stands the same way. B tries to lift A and can't. B strains and his face turns red. A stands relaxed. Looking at the scene, there is no difference in A. The difference is that B picks up A and then B can not (as in physically unable to) pick up A.

There is no physical principles of motion here. A does not move, but merely stands relaxed. Anyone viewing from the outside (someone who is neither A nor B) would have no clue as to what is going on. Video will show nothing at all on what is really happening (In fact, most will not believe what they are seeing and think it is staged). All anyone will see is first A is picked up and then second B is straining with A not moving. Unless you are either A or B, you have no clue as to what is really going on. And even B doesn't necessarily know what's happening.
I beg to differ, the mechanical principles are quite well understood -- even if their application is matter of art.

The unliftable body (a showmanship demonstration) uses the simple fact that the only way for two people to lift another person from either side holding his arms is to form a stable arch across his shoulder girdle. If the liftee ensures that he maintains at least four relaxed hinge joints in that chain -- he cannot be lifted, because a four hinged arch is a mechanism and will not bear any load using arch action. Since the joints are under voluntary control, the configuration of hinges can be constantly adapted to shifting conditions of lift to defeat a load path. In mechanical terms, angular momentum (free rotation) is being used to defeat the moment (pinned potential rotation) that creates arch action.

In your specific example -- by one person lifting from the armpits from behind -- you are trying to establish the same arch action across the shoulder girdle between the lifting hands. There are the following exploitable hinges, 1) where his hands connect to you, 2) your rotator joints he is lifting against, and 3) the complex scapular/clavicle/cervical joint, or six in all. Two can become isolated and locked and the remaining four are still in play. Each of them is three dimensional in its play. And the head can serve as a counterweight to control weight distribution.

By adaptively relaxing these joints so as to put his lifting force out of plane in any of the three axes available, his lifting energy cannot be applied directly upward -- sapping his effective force. By adaptive altering of the relaxations/tensions in these joints -- weight can also be distributed to one side and then the other by selectively isolating hinges -- while exposing the only potentially liftable load path on the fully weighted side, which of course he cannot lift with only one arm in play, as he has no leverage.

Defeating a lift denies a useable load path and/or movement that constrains the lifting options to unmanageable positions. I will grant that what is being done in defeating a load path is more subtle, but it is not done without betraying the movement used to achieve it, nor in violation of any mechanical principles. It is an adaptive problem, but knowing the principles that are in operation makes it easier to train for the necessary real-time adaptations. .

Conversely, there is no principle, physical or otherwise, to keep someone of suitable strength from lifting another person from behind in a bear hug grip. There is nothing you can do in the manner described above because the connection is unitary and you cannot develop mechanical hinges to defeat the load path. Nothing. Not that there are not adequate and (devastating) defenses to defeat this attack, but they all involve definite movement to defeat the lift initially or allow the lift and defeat it in spite of that fact.

Last edited by Erick Mead : 08-23-2007 at 02:26 PM.

Cordially,

Erick Mead
一隻狗可久里馬房但他也不是馬的.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2007, 02:32 PM   #1549
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Baseline skillset

Quote:
Erick Mead wrote: View Post
I beg to differ, the mechanical principles are quite well understood -- even if their application is matter of art.

The unliftable body (a showmanship demonstration) uses the simple fact that the only way for two people to lift another person from either side holding his arms is to form a stable arch across his shoulder girdle. If the liftee ensures that he maintains at least four relaxed hinge joints in that chain -- he cannot be lifted, because a four hinged arch is a mechanism and will not bear any load using arch action. Since the joints are under voluntary control, the configuration of hinges can be constantly adapted to shifting conditions of lift to defeat a load path. In mechanical terms, angular momentum (free rotation) is being used to defeat the moment (pinned potential rotation) that creates arch action.

In your specific example -- by one person lifting from the armpits from behind -- you are trying to establish the same arch action across the shoulder girdle between the lifting hands. There are the following exploitable hinges, 1) where his hands connect to you, 2) your rotator joints he is lifting against, and 3) the complex scapular/clavicle/cervical joint, or six in all. Two can become isolated and locked and the remaining four are still in play. Each of them is three dimensional in its play. And the head can serve as a counterweight to control weight distribution.

By adaptively relaxing these joints so as to put his lifting force out of plane in any of the three axes available, his lifting energy cannot be applied directly upward -- sapping his effective force. By adaptive altering of the relaxations/tensions in these joints -- weight can also be distributed to one side and then the other by selectively isolating hinges -- while exposing the only potentially liftable load path on the fully weighted side, which of course he cannot lift with only one arm in play, as he has no leverage.

Defeating a lift denies a useable load path and/or movement that constrains the lifting options to unmanageable positions. I will grant that what is being done in defeating a load path is more subtle, but it is not done without betraying the movement used to achieve it, nor in violation of any mechanical principles. It is an adaptive problem, but knowing the principles that are in operation makes it easier to train for the necessary real-time adaptations. .

Conversely, there is no principle, physical or otherwise, to keep someone of suitable strength from lifting another person from behind in a bear hug grip. There is nothing you can do in the manner described above because the connection is unitary and you cannot develop mechanical hinges to defeat the load path. Nothing. Not that there are not adequate and (devastating) defenses to defeat this attack, but they all involve definite movement to defeat the lift initially or allow the lift and defeat it in spite of that fact.
Well, gosh darn it.... I know another way. I must be special. Er, no, maybe not.... I've seen Shioda use the same principle I use. And O-Sensei. Pooh. Maybe I'm not so special. Dang.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2007, 02:35 PM   #1550
MM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,996
United_States
Offline
Re: Baseline skillset

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Well, gosh darn it.... I know another way. I must be special. Er, no, maybe not.... I've seen Shioda use the same principle I use. And O-Sensei. Pooh. Maybe I'm not so special. Dang.

Mike
LOL. Well, in today's world, Mike, you can be "special". It just depends on how you're defining the word.

Mark
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Aikido Transmission and Class Size Kevin Leavitt General 30 03-02-2007 09:14 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:41 AM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2014 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate