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 05-06-2009, 07:00 PM   #26
thisisnotreal
 
thisisnotreal's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 692
Offline
Re: The same basic teaching

For what it's worth, i agree with Allen's post.
It would be a shame.

But I understand Mark at the same time.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2009, 07:35 PM   #27
thisisnotreal
 
thisisnotreal's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 692
Offline
The same basic teaching

Hi Mike -
I have been thinking about somethings you said a while back.

You mention that you seek to understand (/manifest/etc.) the 'more refined levels' of this stuff. Would you agree then to...get *it*, it will be required to swap 'operating systems'. Is this not consistent with the method and formula of all the systems/religions which have ki-phenomena in it?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...47302386&hl=en
For the record; i don't see the exchange as worthy. The cost is too high. Do you agree with any of this? Does it make any sense to a practical guy like you?

It occurs to me that one can only go so far in a certain mindset. i.e. I'm not talking simple ignorance of 'it' but a wholesale exchange of 'perspective'. I think the 'gate' is in viewing ki beyond the boundary of the skin... I say this because I can understand things somewhat in a physics sense .. but it goes highly 'nonlinear' somewhere. And i do not understand this gate between the two regimes. Mind you i admit that the 'body skills' are elusive enough; but i can 'understand' them. Having an eye here on the body breath, link between stretching and strength and the choice between the two, moving the 'pressure', anchoring to the Dan Tien, condensing..etc.. The other stuff is waay the f* beyond that. Way. This requires a shift in world view. Let us call it, an alchemical exchange. A deal. And that entails ...

Also; I have long been wondering about another thing you posted. About picking up a knife at it's edge with ki skills.
The best i can come up with is essentially letting the knife cut the tips but using ki to surge around it and seal the 'wound'. Hence the 'trick' Am I wrong?

Josh

Last edited by thisisnotreal : 05-06-2009 at 07:37 PM. Reason: spilling airer
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2009, 08:12 PM   #28
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: The same basic teaching

Quote:
Josh Phillipson wrote: View Post
Hi Mike -
I have been thinking about somethings you said a while back.

You mention that you seek to understand (/manifest/etc.) the 'more refined levels' of this stuff. Would you agree then to...get *it*, it will be required to swap 'operating systems'. Is this not consistent with the method and formula of all the systems/religions which have ki-phenomena in it?
Frankly, I'm not into belief systems. Unless you're one of the disembodied minds of Arisia and have no knowledge of what energy is and how it must be balanced, I'd suggest that we stay with the concept of "physical reactions can only be caused by physical effects". I.e., all of the bona fide ki effects are caused by subtle physical skills; all of the bogus ki effects are caused usually by skewed psychological effects.
Total BS. I've met a number of guys like the instructor and asked them to do those things to me. They can't. Almost invariably they are working with highly cooperative students (aka "Dive Bunnies"). It's an interesting tangent, but really not germane to the topic of the thread. One of the problems with many people in many different martial-arts is that they fall into the category of "wannabelieves". You always have to factor that in.

Just to toss in a telling comment I heard in a discussion with a number of Asian m-a teachers one time, one of them said something to the effect of "Why are the good teachers in martial-arts so much like engineers, yet most of the students are more like liberal-arts majors?". It's a point that should make many people wonder a bit more about what a "Do" or "Dao" is truly about.

Quote:
For the record; i don't see the exchange as worthy. The cost is too high. Do you agree with any of this? Does it make any sense to a practical guy like you?
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that the dream is more valuable than the reality? That the misunderstanding is more important than the actuality? There are many sides to consider, eh?
Quote:
It occurs to me that one can only go so far in a certain mindset.
My suggestion is to test all "mindsets" against reality. Tohei's "ki tests" are a good start toward reality. But make that reality as objectively difficult as you can. If you have to BS yourself that you're sorta doing the right thing because you can rationalize (versus demonstrate), then you've just found the dividing line between what they call "the sheep and the goats".
Quote:
I think the 'gate' is in viewing ki beyond the boundary of the skin... I say this because I can understand things somewhat in a physics sense .. but it goes highly 'nonlinear' somewhere. And i do not understand this gate between the two regimes. Mind you i admit that the 'body skills' are elusive enough; but i can 'understand' them. Having an eye here on the body breath, link between stretching and strength and the choice between the two, moving the 'pressure', anchoring to the Dan Tien, condensing..etc.. The other stuff is waay the f* beyond that. Way. This requires a shift in world view. Let us call it, an alchemical exchange. A deal. And that entails ...
I once knew a Taiji teacher in Boulder, CO that told me that "it takes 20 years to get results when practicing Taijiquan". I've always been of the opinion that no Chinese person in their right mind would have devised a self-defense martial-art that took 20 years of practice before it would work, but.. whatever.

I met her one day a few years later (after her 20 years kicked in) in the parking lot of Alfalfa's (which soon after that time became Whole Foods) and she started talking to me about "qi". She told me that her current theory was that qi worked at a molecular level. I sort of diplomatically asked if she could show me what she meant. She said, "Oh, no... it takes 40 years for this to develop".

Some people perennially theorize. At some point in time, real people should be able to say "here is this, I can do it, and this is why". I realize that's disappointing to many who want life to be a fantasy, but remember that in ancient Asia the people were not stupid... if it didn't work, they didn't waste their time on it. If a practitioner's stuff can't replicate the simple "ki tests" that Tohei showed in his primer, then that person needs to face up to some facts and consider (again) what the "Dao" was to a very practical people.
Quote:
Also; I have long been wondering about another thing you posted. About picking up a knife at it's edge with ki skills.
The best i can come up with is essentially letting the knife cut the tips but using ki to surge around it and seal the 'wound'. Hence the 'trick' Am I wrong?
Huh? Where did I ever say that? Sounds like a misunderstanding. Perhaps you're referring to the idea that the skin becomes harder to lacerate with good ki practice? That's a known phenomenon that comes from correct breathing practice. It's more of a toughening of sorts, but quite different than just toughening. I gave a basic indication of how to start in some "breathing" thread I commented on at one time.

Best.

Mike Sigman
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 02:58 PM   #29
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,504
United_States
Offline
Re: The same basic teaching

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
I'm intrigued with the possibility that (Feldenkrais) could do a certain amount of the ki skills, he then formulated a scientific explanation and approach, etc., but then there seem to be a loss of the information down-line among his students. It's enough of a *possible* puzzle that I'm interested into following up to see if I can get some whiffs of ideas.
Mike,

The thing is, The Feldenkrais Method (TM) is not a martial art but strictly a method for developing personal awareness of one's own mind/body to improve one's method of doing whatever thing one is trying to do.

He taught judo in France and England before he developed The Method but I don't think you'll find much trace of MA-specific function in the Method that remains today. Very few of his students were involved in martial arts at all. He worked with dancers, musicians, politicians, actors and many other types of people who were concerned with fully expressing the intentions of their minds through their actions. So while his stuff is great for anyone in any walk of life, very few of the teachers of the Feldenkrais Method would be able to show you anything like you're interested in.

I, on the other hand, came to Feldenkrais after some seriously debilitating injuries while training in aikido in Japan with Mochizuki Sensei. What I learned helped me to get back to the mat and train seriously and I think that material would be very useful to any martial artist but I don't think you'll find anything specifically martial in the content itself.

If you could find one of his old judo students who had carried on with judo and had also learned the Feldenkrais Method, I think you'd have a real gem for learning some deep material.

But most of his judo students learned before there was a Feldenkrais Method and most of the people who learned the Method were never martial artists, so I think Feldenkrais, himself, would have been the only person who could really tell you what you want to know.

I do think that anyone exploring IS matters would benefit by a deep study of Feldenkrais because of the finer degree of awareness of effort his Method produces. I think what makes martial arts generally difficult for most people is a lack of such fine perception. Really, very few people have very deep ability to notice the kinds of small changes inside the body that are necessary for high development of martial arts. But I think that the Feldenkrais approach can help people develop that fine level of awareness much more effectively than any other method I've encountered.

It won't make you a martial artist if you weren't one to begin with and it won't teach you IS if you didn't already know it, but it can help you progress in any endeavor by developing greater awareness of smaller and smaller things.

FWIW.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.davidorangejr.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 03:13 PM   #30
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: The same basic teaching

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
The thing is, The Feldenkrais Method (TM) is not a martial art but strictly a method for developing personal awareness of one's own mind/body to improve one's method of doing whatever thing one is trying to do.
Well, in actuality, the ki/kokyu/qi/jin things are all ways of developing "ki". In other words, most real qigongs, when done correctly and *fully* (not all qigongs pay attention to the jin/kokyu skills, but very many do) develop the ki skills. Think, for instance about Tohei's ki-skills teacher, Tempu Nakamura, and the Indian man that Nakamura learned from... those people practiced these skills but did not to them martially to any real extent.

Once you understand that martial-arts is just one way to use these skills out of many, you can perhaps see my general perspective of the skills. Whether or not they're done in a martial-art, these skills are considered the "natural" way for the body to move and that's a common viewpoint in the ancient literature and cosmology. So I wasn't thinking that Feldenkrais was analysing the martial-art... my thought was that while his inspiration may have been through Judo, he was savvy enough to realize that this was all about how the body moves "naturally" and that was what he built his theory upon.

But as I said and regardless of Judo or no martial emphasis, my personal curiosity is about how accurate Feldenkrais was in his analysis. If one of his students can do this form of movement even in a qigong mode, I should be able to spot it. If I can't spot it in any of his students, then it is a curiosity indeed. Did Feldenkrais miss the mark? Did he hit the mark and just wasn't successful in transmitting it? It's hard to say. Whatever he saw and attributed to Kano with the unmoveable stance and which apparently Kano called "ki" is the same thing you find in shodo, traditional dance, Aikido, karate, reiki, and so forth. If all of that was Feldenkrais' inspiration, then why doesn't Feldenkrais treatment/movement accord with the ki stuff found all over Asia? A nice puzzle.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 09:30 PM   #31
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,504
United_States
Offline
Re: The same basic teaching

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Well, in actuality, the ki/kokyu/qi/jin things are all ways of developing "ki". In other words, most real qigongs, when done correctly and *fully* (not all qigongs pay attention to the jin/kokyu skills, but very many do) develop the ki skills. Think, for instance about Tohei's ki-skills teacher, Tempu Nakamura, and the Indian man that Nakamura learned from... those people practiced these skills but did not to them martially to any real extent.
Feldenkrais, I think, was primarily interested in coming back to optimal function after injury. He had had a vigorous youth, including "skirmishes" in Palestine before he went to Paris. If you read that interview, he thinks, when Kano tells him to choke him, something like "no one had ever gotten out of my choke alive."

And of course, Kano chokes him unconscious as Feldenkrais thinks he's going in for full effect.

And with that kind of attitude at the beginning of his judo career, and a direct first experience from Jigoro Kano, he was the first western teacher to really get judo going in Europe. He says. I don't really know. But Kano sent him some good teachers and the interview gives some really great descriptions of some films Kano sent him of the clear gradation in dan capabilities from first through seventh or so. You can just imagine how Feldenkrais felt seeing that.

But his downfall was his knee. He fouled it up doing soccer, apparently, and had lifelong repercussions from that. And he applied his judo experience and his engineering background to a study of the connection between mind and body, assisted by his wife's knowledge as a pediatrician, and created The Feldenkrais Method, which not only helps people recover from injuries but well aids the balance of psychological blocks and conditions through manipulating the body to call the awareness of the mind.

It's a fascinating system that gives one a lot of tools to use for whatever purpose he conceives.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Once you understand that martial-arts is just one way to use these skills out of many, you can perhaps see my general perspective of the skills.
I think the beauty of Feldenkrais is that he focuses on a sort of pre-skill level, to bring the awareness to the point where the decision to do something translates into muscular action to realize that decision. It's "pre-anything". It's only about that moment when the thought translates to action. And the exercises are all designed to follow Kano's precept of "maximum efficiency of energy". He puts you in positions that challenge you to accomplish what he asks you to do next, but when you feel the way, it's easy. That's what "awareness through movement" is about. It's just becoming aware of how your mind connects with your body and you apply it to whatever you want to achieve.

It helps with improving any martial art, I think, but it doesn't teach the inner applications of any art, to a recognizable degree.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Whether or not they're done in a martial-art, these skills are considered the "natural" way for the body to move and that's a common viewpoint in the ancient literature and cosmology.
And after Feldenkrais, I just wouldn't put the quotes around "natural", at least as far as the aikido I learned from Mochizuki Sensei or the judo I learned from him as he learned it from Kano and Mifune. In fact, I'd say my judo benefited very much from the Feldenkrais experience I've had. But these experiences led me to the ideas I've often expressed concerning child movement and aikido. No one told me about it. I noticed it after experiencing the level of nervous system awareness Feldenkrais training makes accessible. So I think he's at the root of what you're talking about, but whatever he may have understood jin as you relate to it, I don't think he included it explicitly in his Method (TM). He may have given it to some judo people but I don't know. I believe Mochizuki's nameless opponent that he threw onto a concrete sidewalk with uchi mata gaeshi must have been one of Feldenkrais' students. I would almost bet.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
So I wasn't thinking that Feldenkrais was analysing the martial-art... my thought was that while his inspiration may have been through Judo, he was savvy enough to realize that this was all about how the body moves "naturally" and that was what he built his theory upon.
He did have a lot of psychological theory, but his movement exercises were all derived from judo exercises, with the mind of an engineer. He was working his body mechanically to heal the knee injury he got from soccer playing. That was his only motivation at the time. The doctors had given him a 50/50 chance of recovering use of his knee with surgery, so he decided that he also had 50/50 chance of restoring his knee through educated effort as a mechanical and electrical engineer. He did these exercises alone on the floor and people began to ask him about them and he began to teach the movement sequences and actually manipulate people's bodies to open their awareness of how they used their bodies and how a freer use of the body could open greater potentials of emotional and mental life. He believed there's a natural way for people to move and stand and he believed we could all reach that through feeling the impulses of nature in our bodies. He did not prescribe a specific stance and require you to check yourself against mirrors. Everything in his method is concerned with feeling the body's free adjustment to gravity as it enacts the will of the mind. Awareness through feeling was the key for him.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
But as I said and regardless of Judo or no martial emphasis, my personal curiosity is about how accurate Feldenkrais was in his analysis. If one of his students can do this form of movement even in a qigong mode, I should be able to spot it.
I don't think he was teaching that high a level in his Method, frankly. I think he was at a deeper root, which, having attained it, would allow one to learn the skills you describe more easily than someone who had not connected fully with that root. So if a Feldenkrais person sees the value in what you're doing, they should be able to grasp and absorb your instructions more quickly than someone without that awareness. I never thought it was the equivalent of what you do but something that could help people more easily assimilate the fine points of what you're trying to show them.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
If I can't spot it in any of his students, then it is a curiosity indeed. Did Feldenkrais miss the mark? Did he hit the mark and just wasn't successful in transmitting it? It's hard to say.
I don't think you'll find it in students of his Method, really. Although Denis Leri, who conducted the interview, was an experienced aikido man before he did train extensively with Moshe Feldenkrais, I believe, in the Feldenkrais Method. Also Elizabeth Berringer, I believe. So if anyone in the world today could give you any insight on that, I think they would be the ones. Never met either of them so I can't say.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Whatever he saw and attributed to Kano with the unmoveable stance and which apparently Kano called "ki" is the same thing you find in shodo, traditional dance, Aikido, karate, reiki, and so forth. If all of that was Feldenkrais' inspiration, then why doesn't Feldenkrais treatment/movement accord with the ki stuff found all over Asia? A nice puzzle.
I think it's because he went to a quantum level and sort of lost interest in the martial aspects in favor of pure human potential. He learned jujutsu in Palestine and fought life-and-death struggles in jujutsu there, went to France where he met Kano and trained in judo and founded the Judo and Jujutsu Club of Paris, left Paris ahead of the Nazis and assisted the British anti-submarine electronic warfare units until the end of the war and it was about that time that he began formulating his Method. I think it may have been an effort, as well, to transcend war, but there was a lot going on in those days along that line and I think he was trying to go to the root of all roots or something like that. His Awareness Through Movement exercises are really great and if you can get a very skilled practitioner to do a Functional Integration for you, it's very nice. If you can get an old hand in Colorado to show you anything, you might be better off just letting him "adjust" you than looking for anything martial from him. Experiencing his ability to listen to your nervous system through the tonus of your body could be very intriguing, but listening to what he might tell you on that level could surprise you.

Let me know if you find that old student. I'd like to know him, too.

And I hope to make one of your seminars in the next few months to a year.

Thanks.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.davidorangejr.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2009, 08:23 AM   #32
MM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,996
United_States
Offline
Re: The same basic teaching

Quote:
Allen Beebe wrote: View Post
Hi Mark,

I'm no historian, but it is my understanding that the Magna Carta is seen as the predecessor to the 17th English Law in use at the time of the original 13 (American) Colonies' declaration of independence. When Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence he used the English Law of the 17th century and its foundation of the Magna Carta as the basis from which he argued that not only was the 13 Colonies' declaration of independence from royal tyranny justified but even demanded by the law of his day.

Not only did Jefferson state that his views, and that of the members of the 13 Colonies, differed greatly from the King, he argued that the King's rulings and actions were in violation of the very law supposedly represented and protected by the monarchy itself and therefore he and his fellow citizens had a responsibility to rectify the situation.

Fast forward to India and later America during the Civil Right "Era." Pivotal individuals used the venues available and resources present at the time, flawed, limited, or biased as they may have been, as a pulpit upon which to present and argue their case until change occurred. Sometimes those venues served as a pyre upon which individuals were publicly sacrificed. However, those movements succeeded not because of the wrongs or violence perpetrated. Rather those movements were successful despite of war, violence, and wrong. True change came about because of the indefatigable persistence of those that would not give up prompting a slow tidal shift from old accepted and often un-questioned ideas and beliefs.

I don't equate Aiki or I.S. or whatever, to the importance of American's or India's struggle for self rule or America's ongoing struggle to live up to its ideals. I do think, however, that it would be a shame to erase the contributions to AikiWeb of posters such as yourself. Our American forefathers didn't ask to have the Magna Carta deleted from record. The fact that your, and other's, posts prompt questioning, introspection, debate,and may even foment descent is of value I think . . . even if that questioning, introspection, debate and descent has to take place in pubs, attics or Non-Aikido Martial Tradition threads!

(Jun, I'm hoping that there is no Aiki-Web equivalent to stocks or gallows for those caught spreading sedition. Once again, thanks for the forum. It is appreciated. )

Allen
Eloquent ... Probably one of the top ten posts I've reread the most. I find myself both bolstered and torn down. (Akin to the example you provided, one with fortitude did not allow naysayers to distract from the message, nor to stop discourse from progressing.)

But, no, I did not take detraction from your post. Instead I found myself unable to rebut. (Insert curse word here, if one curses.)

I'll definitely give things some more thought. Thank you.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2009, 09:29 AM   #33
Ron Tisdale
Dojo: Doshinkan dojo in Roxborough, Pa
Location: Phila. Pa
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,614
United_States
Offline
Re: The same basic teaching

Hi Mark,

I'm with Allen as well. But I do understand your position...

B,
R (as always, thanks to Jun for giving us a place to even have this discussion)

Ron Tisdale
-----------------------
"The higher a monkey climbs, the more you see of his behind."
St. Bonaventure (ca. 1221-1274)
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2009, 10:14 AM   #34
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: The same basic teaching

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
And after Feldenkrais, I just wouldn't put the quotes around "natural", at least as far as the aikido I learned from Mochizuki Sensei or the judo I learned from him as he learned it from Kano and Mifune. In fact, I'd say my judo benefited very much from the Feldenkrais experience I've had. But these experiences led me to the ideas I've often expressed concerning child movement and aikido.
Hi David;

"Natural" movement in the Asian cosmology idea means movement that conforms with the laws of physics/nature. For instance when we "close" (into a near foetal ball, for example) we wind inward with out arms and legs and bend the back over forward; when we "open" we unwind outward to set angles, etc. The theory is that these 'openings' and 'closings' at their optimal levels function ideally using the solidity of the ground to open and the force of gravity/weight to close. This is "natural" movement. It doesn't mean "instinctive" movement, in that sense, although a lot of westerners mistranslate the cosmological idea along those lines. There is a more subtle level of that discussion, but it's not worth buggering up this thread with anymore OT's then we already have.
Quote:

I think he was at a deeper root, which, having attained it, would allow one to learn the skills you describe more easily than someone who had not connected fully with that root.
Or he could have been shallower, rather than deeper. I don't know. But I'm always willing to look around.

Best.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2009, 10:23 AM   #35
thisisnotreal
 
thisisnotreal's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 692
Offline
Re: The same basic teaching

In regards to body movement, sensitivity, awareness, as well as ki-kokyu, Are there systems within them for nomenclature for communicating them?
I found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laban_Movement_Analysis
Although interesting, I think it would fall far short.

In addition to the problem of direct communication , there is the fact that people start from different places, such as postural deviations and common compensation patterns. When they have them, this alters 'normal' for them...and they have a blind-spot in their perception, without even knowing it. This means everyone will 'hear' things differently in their own bodies. (e.g. muscles that have been 'shut-down' and need to be correctly recruited neurally, or synergistic dominance issues... what is 'normal' in the body for someone will not, in general, be available/relevant in someone elses case).

Is there such a system for common discussion in Feldenkrais? Or in CMA? Or are such systems developed ad hoc, and grafted on as the student and teacher develop common basis for understanding. I guess the latter. Or douka.

I was, for the record, considering how to design a package to illustrate internal connections and flows but after a bit of surveying was blown away by what would be required...and in the end...it is probably irrelevant. As has been said, your own understanding is in your hands. Of what value is it to provide beautiful illustrations or understandings if it does not proffer the value, effort and methods you gain while doing the learning itself. Knowledge without the discipline.

btw; I got that idea while seeing some amazing yoga site with animations of the muscles and flexing, and i think flows were implicit. can't find the site.

pps; Mike; I'm sorry I can't find the post about picking up the knife that way.

Josh
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2009, 10:35 AM   #36
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: The same basic teaching

Quote:
Josh Phillipson wrote: View Post
In regards to body movement, sensitivity, awareness, as well as ki-kokyu, Are there systems within them for nomenclature for communicating them?
I found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laban_Movement_Analysis
Although interesting, I think it would fall far short.

In addition to the problem of direct communication , there is the fact that people start from different places, such as postural deviations and common compensation patterns. When they have them, this alters 'normal' for them...and they have a blind-spot in their perception, without even knowing it. This means everyone will 'hear' things differently in their own bodies.
I generally agree with what you've said, Josh. On the one hand there are some basic principles that these skills grow from, but on the other hand there are a number of terms developed in different arts to describe the core principles (Shioda noted this, as I said before)... but worse yet is the idea that there are all kinds of levels and gradations of these skills. The important point to keep the eye on, IMO, is that Ueshiba's Aikido used the ki/kokyu skills in a certain way and so an Aikidoist should be fairly consistent in practicing Aikido within the mode that Ueshiba did, IMO.

One thing that bothers me (in relation to all the variations in these skills sets, how 'pure' they are, how muscular, whether they truly use the hara, etc.) is that I see a lot of assumption that Joe Blow's "internal skills" are the same thing as Ueshiba's, Tohei's, Ikeda's, Ushiro's, Inaba's, Dan's, Mike's, Akuzawa's, and so on. So I see a lot of posts that seem to imply that everyone is on the correct route if they're using exercises from any of the above and mixing them all up is even better. My warning flag goes up immediately. People will make progress with the basic principles only if they understand and can physically replicate the basic principles. You don't need anyone's set of "basic exercises" if you really understand the principles... you can make up your own, you can do them in the Aiki Taiso, you can do them in just about anything. Rather than hearing someone post about how he does "so-and-so's exercises", I'd feel a lot better if they were describing the how and why of exactly what they're doing and what they're hoping to accomplish in any given exercise. Nomenclature and pet exercises vary; the principles are constant.

FWIW

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2009, 11:48 AM   #37
DH
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,394
United_States
Offline
Re: The same basic teaching

Quote:
Ron Tisdale wrote: View Post
Hi Mark,

I'm with Allen as well. But I do understand your position...

B,
R (as always, thanks to Jun for giving us a place to even have this discussion)


Mark , Ron

And isn't that really saying something? That Jun clearly disagrees that this belongs in the discussions of aikido-or at least feels the jury is still out. At least he--contrary to many other admin- makes room for the discussion anyway? What does that say about him? I think that's pretty good.
So while I share your frustration - it can't be helped.

It will remain an interesting dilemma to see just how many Aikido teachers it takes to make the larger body of practitioners aware that they have been had by the Japanese, or in other cases that the information just honestly wasn't even known.

I think the smart people are going to begin asking why Ikeda, Gleason, Ledyard, and lower level teachers like Liberti Grimaldi, Chiapetta, the D.C and Virginia camps, the Seattle groups etc. who have all pursued this training for their aikido. Add to that a few from Daito ryu who have and do train with the top men in the world and their opinions on this being "aiki" as well. Others will just blindly follow and "trust sensei" like they have always done.

Maybe it will take a few hundred more teachers showing up and blowing away the Japanese shihan and or stopping them in their tracks before Japan, the Americans and everyone else finally wakes up and smells the coffee...or maybe not.
And of the teachers training this way; you are just simply going to get a whole bunch who cannot get out of their own way and will revert back to muscling through or others who are just plain lazy and who have convinced themselves..and their students that -they- get it, and will more than likely do more harm than good.
Then we have the good news-others who will do the work with their students and may change the face of aikido forever.
But hey...you can't convince the whole world -so why bother trying. Focus on yourself and the few who are willing to do the work.

Everyone has an opinion, every opinion has weight and qualative merit; theirs yours, mine, whatever.
If it bothers you so much-do what I do...TRAIN
When you are ready... let the doubters and debaters lay hands on you. When they and their teachers can't do a damn thing to you at all, At least then they will know the real "value" of their opinions on these matters.
In the mean time there is a whole lot of personal training to do and a whole bunch of people who ARE pursuing this training to test. train and learn from.

One of my teachers laid down a challenge to those who wanted to walk down the path of shugyo in their training.

"Everyone talks
You shugyo
Years go by
People are still talking
Then you get up to demonstrate
Then everyone knows the truth."


So we sweat...........and fail and sweat some more.
Cheers
Dan

Last edited by DH : 05-08-2009 at 11:54 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 11:20 PM   #38
thisisnotreal
 
thisisnotreal's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 692
Offline
Re: The same basic teaching

grabbed from another forum. thought it was a worthy question.

Quote:
Thomas Campbell wrote: View Post
It's a real question, in my mind, as to what represents single-minded insanity: focusing exhaustively and perseveringly on the sort of body-skill tanren d....
Yeah, I know, eh?

What did you come up with?

No Seriously? wtf. "zou huo ru mo"
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 01:00 PM   #39
DH
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,394
United_States
Offline
Re: The same basic teaching

Here is an idea of how some basic stuff crosses arts and cultures. This guy taught in Japan for 11 years. Among his students were 2 of Sagawa's long time students. He is a very interesting and wonderful man with some intriguing ideas of his own about Daito Ryu and Internal Chinese arts. The spirals the arts share are evident and so is the rising and sinkling energy. There is some interesting things to watch at 2:07, 2:15 to around 2:28, 2:52 or so re: rising and sinking energy. Somemight find some relation to the outer form in Tenchi nage. What is not seen is the spiraling energy happening inside.

Other things are evident in his body turns even into Judo style positioning and steps at about 1:00 in (if you can imagine gi or arm grabbing in his hands and other finishes involving the left leg or hip) -but there is no correlation to what judo does in that step V ChengDe's taiji, though there could be if one new what to do. A steo is not always a step, a turn not always the same turn.
Cheers
Dan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zZDt...dded] see here

Last edited by DH : 05-29-2009 at 01:13 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 01:26 PM   #40
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: The same basic teaching

I tried to look at the video of what he was doing in the light of the way you described it. Liu is fairly powerful (I wouldn't call him top of the line, though), but most of what he does is fairly typical of the basic body skills as seen in Chinese martial arts. Do I see obvious relationships between Chinese and Japanese martial arts that use the "ki" skills? Of course... there must be, if someone understands the basic principles. However, Liu's use of the dantien appears to me to be markedly different from what you'd normally see in a Japanese martial art. There are a number of different approaches and I'd be reluctant to try and convey the idea that the ki/kokyu skills of *some* Chinese martial arts is very much the same as, say, Ushiro's karate, D.R., Ueshiba's Aikido, and so on, without caveating the differences within the use of the baseline skills. Not that I'm saying anything negative about any style of any person... I'm just noting that I see a reason to be cautious about implying that some fairly distinct different approaches are in fact the same thing (or close enough).

FWIW

Mike Sigman
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 02:36 PM   #41
MM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,996
United_States
Offline
Re: The same basic teaching

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
Here is an idea of how some basic stuff crosses arts and cultures. This guy taught in Japan for 11 years. Among his students were 2 of Sagawa's long time students. He is a very interesting and wonderful man with some intriguing ideas of his own about Daito Ryu and Internal Chinese arts.
What were his ideas about Daito ryu and the Chinese arts? I'm sure that from teaching in Japan for that long and getting hands on with two of Sagawa's students, there were some interesting comments and observations. Similarities? Differences?
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 09:53 PM   #42
thisisnotreal
 
thisisnotreal's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 692
Offline
Re: The same basic teaching

Quote:
With Takeda sensei, I've seen personally withnessed his approach to teaching to take things to an exteme (Dan does too by the way). I will say training like that - okay not so far he wasn't touching me at all - but continuing to stretch out toward him as I fell away actually helped me quite a bit with getting my mental intentions "strengthened" (not sure if that is the correct word!) when working with Dan.
from

Could the word 'surge' be used to describe this?
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2009, 09:54 PM   #43
thisisnotreal
 
thisisnotreal's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 692
Offline
Re: The same basic teaching

Hi Mike,

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
...
It's an interesting tangent, but really not germane to the topic of the thread....
I challenge that.
I did start the thread... I find it difficult to define the circumference.

It is The same basic teaching.
What is most worth discussion?

Best,
Josh
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 10:59 AM   #44
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: The same basic teaching

Quote:
Josh Phillipson wrote: View Post
It is The same basic teaching.
What is most worth discussion?
Basic principles. Like in the baseline skillset thread.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 06:22 PM   #45
thisisnotreal
 
thisisnotreal's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 692
Offline
Re: The same basic teaching

In my opinion, there were a number of outstanding posts in other threads. I hope you don`t mind if I put them here, for context.
Josh
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 06:26 PM   #46
thisisnotreal
 
thisisnotreal's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 692
Offline
Re: The same basic teaching

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
Mr. Shanshiry
Aiki is a result of manipulating energy between two people- from tempering and changing your body from within. It is an old concept that existed in India, China and in Japan. The easiest way to conceptualize it is to imagine that someone could have trained their body to remain in balance with contradicting forces held within it, through the use of bone and tendon and fascia more than muscle and that your breath could be trained to enhance that sense of being suspended in balance. Now imagine that someone pushing or pulling on you doesn't really feel like much to you but they have to exert a lot of effort to get nowhere. Now imagine your body were so connected that were you to move even a small amount the power differential between you and other normally trained people was so overwhelming that they felt they were either magnetically drawn to you by their grip or they were manipulated and thrown or locked. Now add waza to that equation.
While it is defined by different "ways" to use it, different arts and their techniques etc. Teachers and students alike from traditional arts like Aikido, Daito ryu, Taiji, Bagua, are noting that for some strange reason it feels like the best in their arts. Others of a more aggressive breed; Judo, MMA, BJJ are noting it is very practical and powerful in freestyle grappling-if you meet someone who knows how to use it in that venue...not everyone does!
Of course it is far more complicated than that but hopefully it helps paint a picture
Cheers
Dan
From
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 07:40 PM   #47
thisisnotreal
 
thisisnotreal's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 692
Offline
Re: The same basic teaching

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
Anent many years to understand:
That would be unfortunate since I and others can not only explain it to you but teach it to you over a few years. And you would continue to grow and grow; step by step and with each step noticable. What may be of interest to you, is that many in the arts that like to claim "aiki" as their provinance would then be asking you "what" you are doing "how" you are doing it since they will no longer be able to manage you when you choose to move. Many, even some of their best, may be stumped by you.
It's only a mystery if those who hold the information choose to leave it that way
Cheers
Dan
From

Last edited by thisisnotreal : 05-31-2009 at 07:42 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 07:42 PM   #48
thisisnotreal
 
thisisnotreal's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 692
Offline
Re: The same basic teaching

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
It remains one of the fundamental natures of the human bodies structural weaknesses due the way people hold their bodies. It is good to be aware of it since it is the way the "straights" react. Unfortunately it is the way most everyone reacts-even those I have met who were "highly" trained-who instead of having bodeis trained to cancel it, instead have to mask and protect it through waza. There are very rational and explicable means and methods to train your body to cancel out that principle as well as many others held dear to most martial arts by changing your body. That change just happens to also what created aiki to being with. Funny how that works.

What is important is that these methods are attainable and can be learned starting from day one. They are neither high level or require decades of training in aikido or anything else to get it. Many if not most are not shown them, or are shown them much later in their careers-thus waisting a lot of time. You can learn them and in doing so cancel out the waza and skills of most of those "high level guys" and many other experienced MAers in a much shorter time. And you can begin right now. Yes it takes a few years, but at the end you will be decades ahead of most (not all) who train in the arts.

I think we really need to get beyond this belief that aikido -or any other art-holds some deep secret you need to train forty years to get from some teacher or from the kata. It is the way the Japanese chose it does NOT have to be the way WE chose. Those with the information need to help each other out in getting a leg up. I have every intention of helping to do so by teaching teachers and students alike -methods to level the playing field.
Cheers
Dan
From
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 07:44 PM   #49
thisisnotreal
 
thisisnotreal's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 692
Offline
Re: The same basic teaching

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
Not really
Trained bodies do not move or react like normal bodies. Not everyone who claims to move from their center has a clue what that means. Not everyone who does know what it means...can actually do anything to a high degree.
You would need to feel people who can do certain things with their bodies to know what I mean. I'd suspect there are quite a few surprises coming in the future for those Shihan you cite who think -they- got it, after they meet more and more juniors in the art who actually do. Just the fact that they teach these things without teaching how to cancel them out within the body (without techniques or movement of any kind) pretty much tells us what they really think of us in the first place. They are NOT helping like they could. Right there, right at that moment, they could teach some pretty substative things that most would adopt and begin to train and would never go back to the way they moved before ...by choice.
Why are we NOT being shown? Pick a reason. People will come along shortly to give you a bevy of excuses for it. Doesn't really matter much when you are the one not being taught though does it?
Cheers
Dan
From
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 08:33 PM   #50
thisisnotreal
 
thisisnotreal's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 692
Offline
Re: The same basic teaching

Two more posts that I`d like to list here:
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

Seminar with Frank Doran, Shihan - Aug. 8-10, 2014 at Sunset Cliff's Aikido, near San Diego's finest beaches



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
Teaching Aikido to Children Workshop wmreed Seminars 2 09-06-2008 04:33 PM
Transmission, Inheritance, Emulation 3 Peter Goldsbury Columns 16 05-28-2007 06:24 AM
Transmission, Inheritance, Emulation 2 Peter Goldsbury Columns 3 04-19-2007 04:53 AM
What's your sensei teaching you? Robert Jackson General 29 06-13-2005 07:08 AM
Is aikido suitable for children. big old smiler Teaching 9 01-06-2005 05:00 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:36 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