Question about internal blocking [Archive]

Scott R. Brown

05-09-2008, 02:08 AM

An alive limb, or live limb possesses a small amount of nervous energy commonly referred to as Chi. It is easier to demonstrate than to explain. It is something that is clearly apparent when it is shown to another. The limb is filled with physically energy and appears to move with a focus or intent of mind. The limb is not tense, but neither is it devoid of energy or overly tensed, that would be a dead limb.

The nervous energy (nervous here means energy of the nerves, not anxiety) allows the limb, arm, hand, foot, fingers, etc. to display sort of a firm suppleness, without appearing or being overly firm or hard. The muscles are not tight, but they are in a tonic state. There is a sense of presence in the limb.

When a live limb moves it appears graceful and where it is supposed to be, as opposed to appearing to be moving in a haphazard and uncontrolled manner. The limb appears to have a conscious intent behind it that may be observed without actually observing the entire person. For example, it would be noticeable if all you saw was the hand moving in space as opposed to observing the entire body moving while focusing on the hand. The limb is not required be to moving however in order to observe its condition of liveness. It would be noticeable in a still photo as well.

A live limb is more responsive to its environment than a dead limb and thus moves quicker and hits harder because the antagonistic muscles do not impede its movement.

A limb empty of this energy, or too filled with energy, is a dead limb. A dead limb is both limp and floppy when it moves as a result of not enough nervous energy, or stiff and awkward when too much energy is present. There is a noticeable lack of proper physical control in a dead limb. It is weak and appears weak to those who are familiar with live and dead limbs. It is common in beginners because they have not developed the necessary nervous and muscle control in their limbs. It may be manifested by trying too hard or not trying hard enough.

A live mind is a mind that is relatively free of the obstruction of needless thoughts and anxieties. It is open and receptive without being passive, dull and empty. When speaking of an empty mind within this context it should not be understood to be a mind empty/absent of thoughts, but as a mind empty of fixation, grasping or clinging to thoughts, objects, things and stimuli. At the very least it is relatively empty of fixation, grasping and clinging. A live mind is alert and responsive to what is going on around it and is thus free of fixation or focus on only one thought or stimulus. Thoughts and stimuli are noticed but not held, grasped without release, by our attention.

A dead mind is fixed and inflexible. It grasps and clings to thoughts, objects, things or stimuli and is thus bound to those phenomena. A dead mind is dull and unresponsive or at least less responsive to changing circumstances because it cannot extricate itself efficiently from what it is grasping or clinging too. It is unable to respond spontaneously to stimuli and is thus slow to react to changing conditions. Think of it as if your hand grasping something. You must let go of what you are grasping before you can grasp something else. With the mind, when we have an emotional attachment to whatever it is we are mentally grasping, it becomes much harder to let it go and free our mind.

A live mind functions quicker and more efficiently, is more responsive to changing stimuli and more spontaneous than a dead mind.

I hope this helps!:)

TaiChiBob

05-09-2008, 06:27 AM

Greetings..

The short version.. dead blocks are rigid and attempt to repel force by creating an immovable structure..

Live blocks are resilient "springy".. they absorb and deflect force..

As used here, block means to interfere with the intention of the force to cause harm..

My mentor would simply point out the difference when he observed it.. "yah yah live.. or.. no no dead"

Be well..

SAAMAG

05-09-2008, 07:17 AM

Makes perfect sense guys! Thanks a million.

That sort of movement is something that has been a mainstream in all the gung fu forms that I've studied - Jingang Quan, Wu Xing Quan, Wing Chun, and of course Tai Chi...just honestly never heard of it called "live" vs. "dead" in any of the systems.

I've also seen it applied in what most people know as styles that are known for using physical force only, such as Kung jung mu sul, a with couple of Karate guys that I know as well.

Again, thanks for the elaboration. I appreciate it.

HardWork8

05-13-2008, 06:57 AM

Makes perfect sense guys! Thanks a million.

That sort of movement is something that has been a mainstream in all the gung fu forms that I've studied - Jingang Quan, Wu Xing Quan, wing chun, and of course Tai chi...

And yet, even then you had no idea what I was talking about.

just never heard of it called "live" vs. "dead" in any of the systems.

You haven't practiced real kung fu either, but I won't hold that against you (as long as you refrain from giving advice on "kung fu").

AND, why then didn't make an educated guess during days and days of discusson and arguments with me in the other thread? The simple answer is that you didn't know what I was talking about.

And before you say but you didn't explain what you were talking about then here are some of my comments (not all directed at Vankuen] on the subject:

Feeling is feeling, but in the internal approach,feeling is more precise

an internal way of "feeling"uses detached/clear mind combined with "extreme" relaxation" without floppiness.

In chi sao or TCMA internal approach the "feeling" is different to that of lets say, Shotokan karate.

What I actually said is that without your internals your kung fu is incomplete

If you had known what I was talking about you would have guessed what was meant by "live" or "dead" blocking/striking. YOU DIDN'T AND NOW YOU ARE TRYING TO SAVE FACE BY SAYING THAT YOU KNEW ALL ALONG BUT SOMEHOW DID NOT MANAGE TO "GUESS".

What aspect of internal training can I hope to explain to someone such as yourself who has difficulty in understanding the fundemental difference between a Shotokan defense and an internal kung fu defense?LOL,LOL,LOL...

And here are some of Vankuen's "enlightening comments":

Saying that it is more live as opposed to dead doesn't mean anything

LOL....:rolleyes:

All I asked for was detailed elaboration on how you,an internalist........are more skilled at sensing things over a shotokan stylist....
Here you are saying that you have no idea of how internal blocking concepts(including "liveness"), are different from external blocking such as those of shotokan. Yet in your answer to Scott R. Brown you seem to say,"hey, I knew all that but under a different name".
Now, we all know that YOU DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING!

Sensitivity is just sensitivity
A punch is just a punch...LOL! There are internal punches and external punches as well, not forgetting that they can be live or dead. Confused? You won't be after a few years of real kung fu practice.;)

Here is another gem:

Redirection of force is just redirection of force
That just shows how much you know about the internals.

It (redirection of force), can be both offensive and defensive

I said this before and I will repeat again, redirection of force is a defensive movement, how you end it is up to you but to redirect force you need to receive it first and that means a force has to be unleashed against you. This means an ATTACK!

I've also seen it applied in what most people know as styles that are known for using physical force only, such as Kung jung mu sul, a with couple of Karate guys that I know as well.
You have seen all that, yet during many days of discussion you couldn't even guess? And you had to come to the internal forums for your answers? And even here ONLY ONE PERSON has given a valid answer.

Rather proves my point doesn't it? ;)

Again, thanks for the elaboration. I appreciate it.Don't thank him as he hasn't saved your forum skin yet!;)

Actually, for those of you who are interested here is the link that will open the door to Vankuen's vast knowledge of the Kung Fu Internals:
www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50835&page=6

HardWork8

05-13-2008, 07:17 AM

it's an interesting question; one way to answer it would seem to be to say that a "typical" closed fisted karate block (meaning something that uses part of a limb to create a barrier between an incoming attack and the defender's torso) constitutes a "dead" block, in the sense that once the contact has been made, there is no further attempt to capitalize on that contact

KEY POINT! so pay attention Vankuen. One needs certain attributes to "capitalize" on a block or even a blocked "live" punch. Hint, think Chi Sao training(among other things).

Vankuen, READ:

OTOH, if one contacts an opponent in such a way that one can then capitalize on that contact, then it would stand to reason that one is being responsive in a live, or perhaps a "lively" manner;

He is not talking about stopping the attack with one hand and "capitalizing" by hitting with the other. "Liveness" means using the same hand that has been blocked to continue the attack or by manipulating the blocking hand in an INSTANT!

Vankuen, does "fine tuned sensitivity" ring a bell? If you have forgotten then please check my comments in the Wing Chun thread.

Vankuen, I hope that you are taking notes.

so back to "liveliness": there is a certain resilience, a buoyancy to it; it is, to me, the manifestation of the balanced expression of "sung" and "peng", using the classical terms; that is, one is able to absorb and rebound almost simultaneously, reacting instinctively but not habitually, without the interference of "the judge" getting in the way

You can also add "STICKING" to the equasion.

now, his is not to say that this necessarily has relevance to fighting per se; it may, it may not,
Careful now, don't put your foot in it as you have been doing quite well up to here.

but as I have never directly observed nor experienced it in a situation of the sort, i cannot say (others might) -
I have observed it in demonstration again me and fellow pupils and I have trained it.
My sensitivity is nowhere near to that of my sifu's but when training/sparring a against a person who uses dead blocks/strikes one can see the advantages.

it does, however, seem to me a skill set that speaks directly to intrinsic properties of the human organism though,

I hope you are reading this Vankuen. Note that nobody has mentioned "Magical Chi Powers"(besides you in the other thread, that is!)

And we all know that you knew all that was being talked about but kept it to yourself just to test me (and the others)...LOL.

SAAMAG

05-13-2008, 10:34 AM

HardWork8

05-13-2008, 11:33 AM

Hey I see you're back!! On to ruin another thread with your trolling ways? Imply all you want partner, but these guys explained what you could not when asked over and over and over and over again. It was a simple answer too...like I said in the other thread you ruined...it was a matter of semantics.

It was a simple answer that you could not come up with. They however did come up with the same answer when given the same clues that YOU were given.

Then miraculously you said that you knew all along.:rolleyes:

SAAMAG

05-13-2008, 12:49 PM

Do you realize that you completely mess up the quotes when you get flustered? Take your time, breathe...a forum is asynchronous communication....you can take all the time you want.

HardWork8

05-13-2008, 01:34 PM

Do you realize that you completely mess up the quotes when you get flustered? Take your time, breathe...a forum is asynchronous communication....you can take all the time you want.

EMPTY accusations will not get you off the hook.
It is you who messed up big time. I provided the clues and they solved the puzzle and YOU are attemptiong to jump on the bandwagon.

Stick to your kick boxing!

SAAMAG

05-13-2008, 02:49 PM

Tell me again why you didn't solve the puzzle by answering the question out of the 20 times you were asked by a number of people? Because you wanted to sound high and mighty and were just parroting catch words that your sifu told you--without the understanding the meaning behind those words.

I admitted not knowing those terms, as they weren't used in any of my training, internal or otherwise. But when the practictioners of this forum simply answered the question, then I understood what they were getting at. It's still a common thing in any style of gung fu...what you believe about my understanding of the concept is irrelevant.

Don't taint the waters here too. Leave it alone now...if you want to continue your sherrade you can PM me.

HardWork8

05-13-2008, 03:20 PM

Tell me again why you didn't solve the puzzle by answering the question out of the 20 times you were asked by a number of people?

Because it was not a puzzle. I did give enough info so that those who knew the concept of "live" as opposed to "dead" blocks/strikes could show themselves and they did. They WERE in the minority.

A point has been proved here.

Because you wanted to sound high and mighty and were just parroting catch words that your sifu told you--without the understanding the meaning behind those words.
If you have been reading my posts, which I presume that you have then even you should have grasped the fact that I know what I am talking about.

I admitted not knowing those terms, as they weren't used in any of my training, internal or otherwise.
FACE IT, YOU DIDN'T KNOW OF THE CONCEPTS EITHER! There was enough info there. Just the example that I gave comparing a Shotokan block and an internal block should have been enough.

But when the practictioners of this forum simply answered the question, then I understood what they were getting at.
THERE WERE TWO PRACTITIONERS WHO GOT THE ANSWER. ONLY 2 out of MANY WHO HAD NO IDEA!

There is a message there Mr Vankuen, open your eyes!

It's still a common thing in any style of gung fu...

WRONG! YOU ARE STILL TRYING TO HIDE.

If it was that common then there would have been more people capable of answering and verifying the concepts that I brought up.

what you believe about my understanding of the concept is irrelevant..
Yes, that is it deny that you had absolutely no idea about those concepts.

Don't taint the waters here too.
You are the one who tainted the waters in the other forum by associating my statements with "Magical Chi" and accusing me of spreading BS and nonsense. Maybe you should apologize.

I was talking about a valid concept that was VALIDATED here by other posters who know more than you.

Leave it alone now...
Leave it alone because it exposes you for what you are? That is a glorified kickboxer!

if you want to continue your sherrade
And you still try to discredit me.:rolleyes:

you can PM me.

I have nothing to PM you about!

Scott R. Brown

05-13-2008, 05:44 PM

Maybe he is actually shadowlin!:eek:

Scott R. Brown

05-13-2008, 06:11 PM

only if he were also RonH and Hendrick as well...that would be some sort of super-symmetry proof right there!

honestly Scott, the way that these characters write their silliness with such absolute and absurd certainty, if it wasn't for you, TC Bob, Sanjuro, LKFMDC, LPS and a few others (apologies to fellow people-of-reason whose names I am temporarily forgetting in the moment of writing this), I'd almost start thinking that I was the one out of touch with reality (oh, just watch them capitalize on that comment, LOL, completely missing the sarcasm dripping heavily off of it...)

I know the feeling. It is too bad he had to bring his bad blood into this conversation.

HardWork8

05-13-2008, 06:17 PM

to Vankuen:
dude, I thought your question was a good one, I offered you some general thoughts along those lines, please do not take HardOn's misrepresentation of my opinion as any sort of negative assessment of your perspective or inquiry

cjurakpt, I don't think that Vankuen took anything you said negatively.

to HardOn:
I don't know where you get off misappropriating my post as a means of backing up your polemic with Vankuen;
You misunderstand. No one misappropriated your post. You made some valid points on the questions Vankuen asked.

What you may have missed was that his questions were based on the concept of "live" as opposed to "dead" blocks/strikes introduced by me in a thread in the Wing Chun forums. These are concepts which Vankuen has not heard of or knows anything about. As a result he came here hoping to find out more and he did. That is all!

Of course, he then implied that these were concepts that he knew about....LOL!

of course no way to stop you from doing it, but it's totally inappropriate: make your own arguments, don't chop up my posts as a means of saving you time and effort

If you check out the relevant thread in the Wing Chun forum then you will see that the information that he used for his inquiry was provided by me. That is the same information that you and Scott R. Brown used to answer his query.

I was thinking about a reasoned response to your condescending attitude,
That condescending attitude was partly based on your own attitude towards me in other threads. However, getting back to the subject, the "liveness" of the various techniques does have combat applications.

but ultimately decided that telling you to go fu(k yourself was more appropriate
so go fu(k yourself

I think your sifu should wash that mouth of yours with soap.:D

HardWork8

05-13-2008, 06:21 PM

honestly Scott, the way that these characters write their silliness with such absolute and absurd certainty, i

What silliness are you referring to? The fact that "liveness" and "sensitivity" have relevance in combat?

HardWork8

05-13-2008, 06:33 PM

I know the feeling. It is too bad he had to bring his bad blood into this conversation.

I am sorry if you were offended. None of the bad blood was directed at you. This thing goes back for some time and it is a long story.

I know that you are not involved with this and it is of no interest to you but I do take my hat off to you because very few people here had an idea of what I was talking about when I metioned the "live" techniques.

The result being Vankuen's accusation of me being a "chi magician" etc.
I am getting fed up of some "kung fu" exponents (or kickboxers) here who start with the "chi" jokes every time they come across an internal concept that is alien to their understanding of the martial arts.

HW8

P.S. You can also check the link I provided in an earlier post on this thread to see how this question came into being.

Scott R. Brown

05-13-2008, 06:38 PM

HardWork8,

It isn't what you said, but how you said it that gives a bad impression of you. Van searched for an explanation about a concept he was unfamiliar with, that is a good quality. He did not bring your name into this conversation and did not defame you here. While he may have said something offensive to you about you, he did not mention your name.

It is you who brought the bad blood from the other thread into this one. You could have PM'd him or you could have chided him on the other thread. You comments on this thread would have been an asset if the rudeness had been avoided.

It is possible you had not been clear enough previously or perhaps the manner in which you addressed the topic created a block to the information. It doesn't matter whether you were clear in your own mind or not. Sometimes information does not click until some small key word or explanation is learned and then it all falls into place. Perhaps your comments loaded the scales and the comments here tipped the balance towards understanding.

HardWork8

05-13-2008, 07:08 PM

HardWork8,

It isn't what you said, but how you said it that gives a bad impression of you. Van searched for an explanation about a concept he was unfamiliar with, that is a good quality.

On the surface he did the right thing, but then he turns around and pretends that this is something that he is familiar with but perhaps under a different definition. He was trying to leave false impression. I gave him enough info in the other thread for him to recognized the concept that I was talking about.

You may check the thread yourself if you have extra time on your hands.

He did not bring your name into this conversation and did not defame you here. While he may have said something offensive to you about you, he did not mention your name.
Point taken. I suppose that there was a kind of an accumulative effect.

It is you who brought the bad blood from the other thread into this one. You could have PM'd him or you could have chided him on the other thread. You comments on this thread would have been an asset if the rudeness had been avoided.
Point taken again.

It is possible you had not been clear enough previously or perhaps the manner in which you addressed the topic created a block to the information. It doesn't matter whether you were clear in your own mind or not. Sometimes information does not click until some small key word or explanation is learned and then it all falls into place. Perhaps your comments loaded the scales and the comments here tipped the balance towards understanding.

Well, Vankuen said he knew of this concept only after you explained it to him. I know that if I had given him the same explanation then I would be hearing his comments on "chi magic"; "chi blasts" etc.

I provided more than enough info for him to conclude about the concept that I was talking about. Have a look at the thread. He didn't even appreciate the difference in the approach a of an internal stylist to that of a Shotokan karate exponent.

I believe that nowadays, some MA practitioners view the internal kung fu styles as no more than relaxation exercises.

HW8

Scott R. Brown

05-13-2008, 07:15 PM

I read some of the other thread. I just PM'd you.

SAAMAG

05-13-2008, 08:54 PM

Hey ya'll...though I hoped otherwise, I figured he would be in here at some point to defend his internet honor. So much for wishful thinking.

It was indeed an honest inquiry into the terminology used, and as I stated in both this thread and the catalyst thread, I figured it was a matter of semantics, and it was. That was the point in the other thread--the words themselves don't mean anything...

I just wish he could have answered the question the first few times it was asked, then this thread would have never needed to be created.

But with that...thanks again for the elaboration, it's appreciated.

Scott R. Brown

05-13-2008, 09:30 PM

The words we use to communicate mean different things to each of us, even if the difference in meaning is slight. I can write or say something that, to me, is very clear, and yet it is as clear as mud to others. That does not mean what I said is rubbish or that the other person is an idiot. All it means is that language is an inaccurate manner of sharing thoughts.

I understand what I mean because I am the source of my own thoughts, but others with different experiences, temperament, educational level , emotional makeup and ability to communicate, including the language they speak, will read what is written through their own unique filter. The inherent flaw of language is that it creates an avenue for the misinterpretation and misunderstanding others, but it is all we have.

The wonder is not why, when WE think we are being clear, we cannot be understood by others, but how is it that there aren't even more [mis]understandings than there are?

IMHO;)

SAAMAG

05-13-2008, 09:37 PM

Scott R. Brown

05-13-2008, 09:51 PM

Very true. Contradictory to my communication style of late with certain individuals, I've had to take a lot of comm' courses and leadership courses in my collegiate studies -- which agree with that mode of thought. Everyone's experiences up to date determine how they see the world, themselves, and how they interprete messages from another individual.

Understanding where the perception of the receiver is likely come from helps to know what words to use when communicating a message. I think that's where things begin and end; and that's where the problem starts with miscommunication as well.

Yes, it is pretty difficult to make ourselves understood to everyone on a public message board. On an individual level it is always best to communicate with another according to their ability to understand. That is not possible when whatever we post is open to the entire world. There will always be those who misunderstand or take offense. The reaction each of us has concerning just about anything in life is more a reflection of us rather than a reflection of whatever it is we are reacting too.

So, even though I may think that someone else is a jerk, how I react to that person says more about me than about him!

Having said that, sometimes the reader doesn't want to understand. They are too busy defending their point of view to try to perceive more clearly and this will increase the confusion. On a board we cannot see the twinkle in someone's eye when they are commenting, we cannot see hand gestures and other means of non-verbal communication that help to flesh out communication. So what we bring to the conversation at any moment in time contributes a great deal our understanding or misunderstanding.

Lee Chiang Po

05-13-2008, 10:17 PM

What in the heck does all this have to do with internal blocking? Dead and live blocks? Not the same thing is it? I thought I was about to learn something, but I guess it does not exist.

sanjuro_ronin

05-14-2008, 04:09 AM

Trying to get back on subject, spoke to my Taiji instructor yesterday and asked him about this very thing.
Fist off, the first thing he said was what I said, in regards to "dead arm" blocking.
When I mentioned that I was referring to more "passive" blocking rather than "active" blocking he said, and I am paraphrasing of course, " While I can understand it, I don't agree, all is active, all is alive, the constant opposing of yin and yang make it impossible for anythign to be "dead".

There you have it :D

TaiChiBob

05-14-2008, 04:32 AM

HardWork8

05-14-2008, 07:08 AM

Greetings..

My experience suggests that "alive/dead" is more of a sense of flow.. that dead blocking interupts the flow of the action, alive blocking is part of a continuous flow.. alive and dead are metaphors..

Be well..

Good post!

The continuos flow of the alive blocking can go deeper when you add the "listening" element enabling you to sense the power of the blow and any further intention of your opponent.

HardWork8

05-14-2008, 07:22 AM

why don't you just worry about yourself and not speak for someone else;
Right now the only worried person here is Vankuen.

when you use my post as a vehicle for reinforcing your own contention that he should "pay attention" to what you are saying, it is misappropriation
Your post already did that all by itself as it was not meant to back anything that I had said, that is as far as Vankuen was concerned.

I didn't get that at all - he seemed to me genuinely curious about those terms which inherently can be very subjective ones, meaning that my perspective on them can be taken or left however one likes
Yes, he was genuinly interested in getting some info to use AGAINST ME.
Furthermore, subjective or not "liveness" is a valid concept that is known by all those who have more than a passive knowledge of the internals.

I don't know anything about the information being provided by you; my "information" is based on my own direct experience and as such, I even used my own term "lively" which again is a very subjective experience
Then that explains why you could not correlate its usefulness in combat.

very interesting how you are still carrying that around with you...
And so are you, it seems.

I never said it didn't; I simply said in my direct experience I have not seen / felt it applied in actual combat
Then I would hazard a guess that you don't fully understand the concept yourself.

I think you should still go fu(k yourself
And I still think that your sifu should wash your mouth with soap.

Scott R. Brown

05-14-2008, 08:46 AM

When I mentioned that I was referring to more "passive" blocking rather than "active" blocking he said, and I am paraphrasing of course, " While I can understand it, I don't agree, all is active, all is alive, the constant opposing of yin and yang make it impossible for anythign to be "dead".

There you have it :D

In essence he is correct. However, he is correct according to a specific context which is different than the context that was implied in the question. In a sense he is saying, "Yin is Yang and Yang is Yin, it is the interplay of the two principles that causes life." Which principle "appears" to predominate at any one time depends upon the context one is using to define a specific phenomena.

I use the example of three bowls of water to illustrate this principle.

Let us take three bowls of water. One has 40*F water, the second has 60*F water, and the third has 80*F water. The question is, is the second bowl filled with warm or cool water? The answer depends upon which other bowl we are contrasting it with. When contrasting it with 40* water it is warm, when contrasting it with 80* water it is cool. Inherently it is neither warm nor cold. It is one or the other depending upon the context; depending upon what it is contrasted with. Inherently a block or movement or limb or mind is neither alive nor dead, we merely "refer" to it as live or dead to illustrate contrasting phenomena or conditions of being. The terms are useful expedients that allow us to communicate apparent differences between phenomena.

Since an arm is living flesh your Sifu is correct, it cannot be anything other than alive, however according to the context of the principles under discussion it may be "referred to" as live or dead.

sanjuro_ronin

05-14-2008, 09:58 AM

In essence he is correct. However, he is correct according to a specific context which is different than the context that was implied in the question. In a sense he is saying, "Yin is Yang and Yang is Yin, it is the interplay of the two principles that causes life." Which principle "appears" to predominate at any one time depends upon the context one is using to define a specific phenomena.

I use the example of three bowls of water to illustrate this principle.

Let us take three bowls of water. One has 40*F water, the second has 60*F water, and the third has 80*F water. The question is, is the second bowl filled with warm or cool water? The answer depends upon which other bowl we are contrasting it with. When contrasting it with 40* water it is warm, when contrasting it with 80* water it is cool. Inherently it is neither warm nor cold. It is one or the other depending upon the context; depending upon what it is contrasted with. Inherently a block or movement or limb or mind is neither alive nor dead, we merely "refer" to it as live or dead to illustrate contrasting phenomena or conditions of being. The terms are useful expedients that allow us to communicate apparent differences between phenomena.

Since an arm is living flesh your Sifu is correct, it cannot be anything other than alive, however according to the context of the principles under discussion it may be "referred to" as live or dead.

I see what you are saying.

SAAMAG

05-14-2008, 02:34 PM

Scott R. Brown

05-14-2008, 05:13 PM

Relative to the energy being displaced or absorbed or stopped. The goal is to make sure the incoming attack doesn't hit it's target while leaving the defender in a position to counterattack.

One thing I've learned through the years is that defensive tactics are for the most part universal. If something works it works, if something doesn't it doesn't. Doesn't matter where it comes from really. I've seen more similarities between systems than I have differences (in those systems that actually have and maintain a fighting background).

Hi Van,

I agree with your comment, but I am unclear how your comment here applies to the comment you quoted?

HardWork8

05-14-2008, 07:55 PM

I highly doubt that...
Well you are wrong. You just don't see what you don't want to see. You have demonstrated that in another thread.

yes, but you used it to press your own personal agenda, using it as a way of pointing out that he didn't understand what you were saying;

That is because VanKuenDIDN'Tunderstand what I was saying. The only person who has demonstrated a concise understanding of the subject is Scott R. Brown and to some extent you and TaiChiBob. NOBODY ELSE!

if you still don't get why that is uncool, then that's as may be, I'm not gonna press the point any longer
Well I'll drink to that!

right - he was "secretly" getting info to use against you on a "secret" internet formum that you would have no way of knowing how he got that "secret" information:rolleyes:
No he was hoping that you and others would come out and say that you didn't know anything about it OR that this was a BS concept,etc. Then he would have come and debunked the concept of "live" blocks/striking and would have attempted to ridicule me.

I know some people who have more than a passive knowledge who never used that term,
Well, it seems that Vankuen was not one of these people!

although they displayed characteristics similar to others who did; and the way they explained their stuff was reflected in their choice of terms; hence the use of "subjective", as there is no standard "objective" lexicon for describing these things

Say what you will. Anyone remotely familiar with the concept of "live" blocking/striking under whatever name, would have recognized and appreciated the subject matter from the info that I had provided.

no, what I mean is that I don't know about what you were trying to explain to Vankuen specifically, because i was not involved in that discussion (or if I was, have forgotten about it by now) - meaning that it may or may not have been the same thing, but that I was speaking from my own direct experience as to what i thought the terms suggested
Well, thanks for clarifying that.

and BTW, as far as correlating the usefulness of this skill in combat: can you provide an example of where you have applied this yourself in either a NHB or "street" setting?
No I can't. I have not fought in NHB. I did not have any of these skills when I was involved in street fights. Infact I am still developing them.
I can tell you that they are valid skills for those who understand their potential, who by the way, would not have asked the question that you just did.

I haven't had a thing to say to or about you since our exchange sometime ago, and quite frankly had forgotten all about you until you showed up on this thread; so how exactly am I carrying around anything?
Does "go fu(k yourself" ring a bell?

besides, I have more than enough on my plate dealing with your immediate idiocy here, no need to reference past material;
Any idiocy here is yours. You are protecting Vankuen who has already made an idiot out of himself in the other thread as well.

First, he had no idea what I was talking about and was accusing me of selling my "magical Chi" powers, then when others backed up what I was saying he turns around and in not so many words says, that he knew all along. Then you are here protecting him.

He also couldn't see that no matter what the situation, the concept of redirecting force is a defensive move.

As always you seem to be very economical with the truths that you see:rolleyes:.

I'd say that any guess you make would be hazardous;
It would be if it was a guess on your or Vankuen's honesty or intelligence.

anyway, the only way to really know if I, or anyone really "understands the concept" is to touch hands;
Not really and you have missed the point. I don't have to touch hands with Scott R. Brown to know that he understands the concept and by the same token, I don't have to touch hands with Vankuen, to know that he has absolutely no idea about this concept.

I mean the man didn't even appreciate the inherent differences between the Shotokan way of blocking and the internal way...LOL!

which if you are ever in NYC, you are more than welcome to come by and do;
NO need for that, but I will hold your hand if you want.:D

otherwise, no matter what I say, you can always draw some sort of conclusion that I don't know what I am talking about, as is your wont...
Rather like you have many times yourself about me?
Don't get me wrong. You seem to at least know/have an idea of the subject. That puts you ahead of most "Kung fu" men in these forums.

fortunately, I am quite secure in the level of my own experience, you can deride it all you like, it doesn't change the nature of what I know
The same statement applies to me as well.

you should talk to Shadowlin about setting up a thread dedicated to chastising me for my behavior -
I am not familiar with Shadowlin and his problems with you.

Did you also gang up on him with a few other dishonest forum "traditional kung fu experts", who don't believe in internal training and think that forms are outdated. Is that why he doesn't like you?

it would doubtless provide hours of entertainment for you both :rolleyes:

No thank you. You and Vankuen have provided enough entertainment (not to mention laughs) for me recently.

SAAMAG

05-14-2008, 08:51 PM

Hi Van,

I agree with your comment, but I am unclear how your comment here applies to the comment you quoted?

Wrong button. I'm so used to quoting instead of just simply replying. Most of the time I read something and it gets me thinking about something related, and so I just hit quote a lot of times even if it doesn't directly relate. Sorry about the confusion.

SAAMAG

05-14-2008, 09:10 PM

I'm going to respond to you one last time, and one last time only. After that...you're on ignore unless you make posts that are constructive.

No he was hoping that you and others would come out and say that you didn't know anything about it OR that this was a BS concept,etc. Then he would have come and debunked the concept of "live" blocks/striking and would have attempted to ridicule me.
Your psychic abilities are failing you here. I asked because you couldn't or wouldn't answer. I even stated that in the other thread.

First, he had no idea what I was talking about and was accusing me of selling my "magical Chi" powers, then when others backed up what I was saying he turns around and in not so many words says, that he knew all along. Then you are here protecting him.

Re-read what was said, in both threads. Don't nickpick pieces of sentences like you usually do, really read it and try to understand. "Your idea" is a common idea in gung fu and also non-chinese styles. There are other styles that have the same concepts. EVEN KARATE stylists. I wasn't sure what you were talking about with those two words...so I wanted elaboration. You simply need to be able to back up whatever you make claims about...or at the very least elaborate on it. What's your inherent problem with that? You seem to be more concerned with getting defensive and arguing with people (which I see you've done your entire time here) instead of simply backing up your statements.

I get caught up in the moment sometimes as well...regretfully so. Long story short...I wanted you to elaborate on the two words you were using. You didn't. This thread was created as a byproduct. That's it. End of story. Let it go.

HardWork8

05-14-2008, 10:06 PM

I'm going to respond to you one last time, and one last time only. After that...you're on ignore unless you make posts that are constructive.
Yes act superior so as to hide your "foot in the mouth" moment.

Your psychic abilities are failing you here.
It is your 22 years of MA experience that is failing you here (at least as far as kung fu is concerned).

I asked because you couldn't or wouldn't answer.
I answered it, but you couldn't see it. Because? Because you did not know what the heck I was talking about.

I even stated that in the other thread.
You have stated a lot of crap in these forums.

Re-read what was said, in both threads. Don't nickpick pieces of sentences like you usually do, really read it and try to understand.
Yes, that is it, pretend that I am the one who is in error so as to divert attention from your own lack of knowledge regarding "live" techniques.

"Your idea" is a common idea in gung fu and also non-chinese styles.
Well, if it is common then why did you not know anything about it?

YOU COULD NOT EVEN DISTINGUISH THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A SHOTOKAN BLOCK AND AN INTERNAL BLOCK! LOL,LOL,LOL!

There are other styles that have the same concepts.
Can you name the other styles please? I am really curious and can't wait to learn something from you for a change. LOL!

EVEN KARATE stylists.
Please name the karate styles in question. There are karate styles who touch upon these concepts but none as profoundly as the Internal Kung Fu styles.

I wasn't sure what you were talking about with those two words...
It seems that you still aren't sure either and besides, if you had enough knowledge then you would not have needed elaboration MrVan"sensitivity is sensitivity"Kuen.

so I wanted elaboration.
And you got "elaboration" from Scott R. Brown who actually knows about the subject. Furthermore he elaborated using the same info that you found confusing Mr Van"redirection is redirection"Kuen.

You simply need to be able to back up whatever you make claims about...
I did and it was just enough for those who knew about these concepts to understand what I was talking about, Mr Van"redirection can be both attack and defense"Kuen.

or at the very least elaborate on it.
I gave you enough info. Others managed to understand but you didn't. FACE IT!

What's your inherent problem with that?
The inherent problem here is all yours. You don't seem to have any credible knowledge of authentic kung fu.

You seem to be more concerned with getting defensive and arguing with people (which I see you've done your entire time here) instead of simply backing up your statements.
My statement was backed up. You had no idea about the concepts.

I argue because there are those here who pretend to be experts in kung fu while possessing a superficial knowledge. When confronted, they HIDE behind false accusations and lies, while at the same time d1ck waving their many years of "MA" experience and "qualifications" LOL!.

I get caught up in the moment sometimes as well...regretfully so.
Regretfully for you.

Long story short...I wanted you to elaborate on the two words you were using.
You still don't get it do you? It was not a puzzle. Anyone who has been exposed to internal MAs will be able to understand the concept of "live" strikes and blocks, ESPECIALLY when provided with their distinctions with Shotokan techniques.

You couldn't because you and most people here do not seem to have knowledge of those internal concepts.

You didn't.
I did. It is you who didn't understand!

This thread was created as a byproduct. That's it. End of story. Let it go.
This thread was created by you because YOU didn't know anything about the concept of "live" blocks/strikes.
YOU made comments in the other thread that proved this fact.

Furthermore, when you were enlightened by Scott R.Brown you could have come back and acknowledged the fact that I was talking about valid concepts that you did not know about. Yes, and even apologize to me for suggesting that I was selling my "Magical Chi" powers.

Instead you came back and said that these were common concepts. Proving once and for all that you still did not know what these concepts are all about and that your current grasp of them is rather superficial, presumably like the rest of your "kung fu" knowledge.

SAAMAG

05-15-2008, 07:42 AM

HardWork8

05-15-2008, 08:18 AM

So speaking of communication...

I think the problem is when someone is starting his or her sentences with "YOU". This is implying that the author of the text is somehow in the know on what the other person's intentions/thoughts/motives were in previous communications. This of course, is wrong on the level that it is simply impossible to know these things. One can infer, one can surmise, one can guess...but not know.

Starting any discussion/debate/argument with the word "you" is not productive. More often than not, the person "in the know" is wrong, and this causes even more problems when the person using the terms believes his or her own created rhetoric.

Hopefully, for the sake of communication, we can all learn to perhaps not assume we know what the other person is thinking, or knows, or what their motives were. I think that is the key to success with any type of communications, be them sychronous or asynchronous.

YOU didn't know about the concept of "live" blocking/striking (vs. "dead" blocking/striking).

YOU still don't!

YOU, as we speak, have realized that this is a valid concept eventhough YOU don't really understand it yourself.

YOU demonstrated an ignorance of the fact that redirection of force is primarily a defensive action.

YOU demonstrated an ignorance the difference between an internal kung fu style block and that of an external karate style such as Shotokan. A distinction that should be understood by all those who have taken their kung fu training holystically and beyond that of mediocracy and the practice of "glorified kickboxing".

YOU accused me of selling my "Magical Chi" powers, attempting to discredit what I was saying.

YOU then turn around and said that you knew all about it, and going on to wrongly state that it was a common concept in all kung fu and other martial arts, including some karate styles. Further proving that you really hadn't a clue about the subject. LOL!
Of course, all this after Scott R. Brown explained this concept,LOL!

YOU failed to apologize to me when the truth jumped out of your computer screen and slapped you in the face, going on to blame my "lack" of explanation to cover your lack of kung fu knowledge.

HardWork8

05-15-2008, 08:53 AM

Scott R. Brown

05-16-2008, 02:02 AM

I have it on excellent authority that Scott now sleeps much better at night having been made aware of this ;)

Well I did before you posted this::mad:

Scott could simply be a silver-tongued devil who uses his capacity for being erudite to fool us all into complacency...hey, wait a minute...

Even though I have told you privately, "I am going to have to ELIMINATE YOU!!!", because of this indiscretion (you blabbermouth!) I now must announce it to the whole world in order to keep all the others quiet and under control!

So let it be known and shouted from the highest rooftops,

I WILL ELIMINATE CHRIS!!!!

I will do so quickly, but in a painful and probably very bloody manner, and when he least expects it. Probably tomorrow night at about 8PM if I can catch my flight to NY. If I can't get the flight I'll have to pencil him in for another time. However, even if it takes 30 or 40 years to get around to it, rest assured, I WILL GET YOU CHRIS!!! AND YOUR LITTLE DOG TOO!!!

P.S. I'll be sure to post it on YouTube so you can all see for yourself what happens when you cross a silver-tongued dev......er...... I mean... ME!

mawali

05-16-2008, 06:02 AM

I never heard of the concept of internal blocking before but I will take a stab here!
To me such a concept does not exist and for those who give it presence/thought, they were either not taught properly or they are reading too many translated material based on fantasy.

Someone throws a punch and you initiate an internal block, how do you do that?
Perhaps it is the phrasing of the understanding, I don't know. You must throw an appendage (hand or foot, preferably hand) to stop the block if you are using a low level MA but in CMA, as I understand it, approaches the use of tuishou principles to blend the attack and dissipate to throw the attacker by using his own momentum. The low level block appears (I do not know) to be just a one stage act without a fluid or continuous post action continuance or ending of the initial momentum. Block, to me, as understanding implies a 'static' action, though it is valid as a way to stop an onslaught!

There are efficient and inefficient blocks and from my own CMA teachers, a block is associated with a low level art! I have never heard any of my CMA teachers use the word 'block'. They have insinuated 'merging ' 'blending' 'absorbing' and similar analogies when one responds to an attack.

SAAMAG

05-16-2008, 07:36 AM

In general, styles and theories aside, there are only a few ways one can keep themselves from being hit, listed in what I feel is most desired to least desired.

1. Not be there
__a. Typically involves footwork and/or body movement

2. Redirect the attack:
__a. Typically involves meeting the attack and moving it away from it's target in a subtle manner. This is often times combined with using the attacking force to gain an advantage; ie. the idea of pushing when pulled and pulling when pushed for example. This movement can be done both defensively or offensively.

3. Block the attack:
__a. Requires movement of the arm or leg to sharply collide with the attacking force in an effort to force it off it's path--this can be done with varying levels of force to simply "tap" the attacking force or to "smash" it, ie. the intent of the block can be offensive or defensive in nature.

4. Absorb the attack:
__a. Cover the intended target to absorb the attack. This is literally taking the attack in real time, but absorbing it through a part of the body not originally intended as the target. ie. using the arm to cover the side of the head when punched, raising the shin to literally stop a kick, raising both arms to create a wall or barrier, etc.

These ideas are seen in almost any style that uses a pragmatic approach to fighting, regardless of whether it's internal, external, from inside china, outside china, done in a gi, or in a dobok, or in really really really tight tights. The energies that are present in each method are dependent upon the individual, not the style of fighting, and can vary depending on the individuals intent and conditioning.

sanjuro_ronin

05-16-2008, 07:45 AM

SAAMAG

05-16-2008, 07:51 AM

see, here is where I have a problem with you: your propensity to abrogate individuals who you have decided do not "get it" according to your own highly selective criteria, as to what constitutes "true" gung fu skill as if it were a universal benchmark; I wish it were isolated, but for some reason it's a mindset with which TCAm is rife; it's this "what I know is the real deal, anyone who doesn't know it isn't" elitism that I find distressing; like there is some set of distinct hierarchy that everyone has to travel up through to get to the same "truth"; sorry, just doesn't sit well with me, and doesn't stand up to the test of reality; to wit, I can tell you that GM Chan Tai Shan never talked about, taught or demonstrated anything as concerned usage of his gung fu in fighting that resembled the sort of "internal skills" that you seem to be talking about ("live / dead", "sticking", etc.) and that I have since been exposed to in my experiences with bagua, taiji and other so-called "internal" styles that have informed my opinion as I have expressed it to Vankuen (in fact, he was of the opinion that that entire approach was of no use at all); and I am pretty confident that he had more "real" gung fu in his "byu ji" than you have in your entire body; of course, you can say that CTS had no idea of what real gung fu was if you like...
my point is that you have this set of criteria for what constitutes "real" gung fu skill / knowledge and you apply it to others as if it were some sort of fundamental law of the universe; I take issue with this based on a) direct experience with what I would consider "real" gung fu that does not fall into the particular skill sets you appear to value so highly; b) I generally distrust the opinions of people who fervently support a given perspective when perpetuation of their own self-identity / interest and / or livelihood are dependent thereupon; see, I used to think this way - I was convinced that there was a better way to which everyone ought to subscribe; now i realize that there is a better way - for me, not necessarily the next guy; meaning that, in fact, i have no particular issue with the way you or anyone else wants to pursue their own particular path; but what I do take issue with is when someone tries to universally extrapolate their approach via a perspective of exclusivity stating that anyone who does not "get" your perspective doesn't have / know "real" kung fu; I mean, why can't you just describe what you have / know and if someone else has a similar set of experiences, then you have something to talk about, and if they don't you can elaborate on your own state of understanding, and leave it at that, instead of trying to qualify it as "real" or not? if nothing else, you would certainly come across as less pedantic and TCMA-zombie-like

That was pretty much my problem as well. The idea of the "secret" society of "real" gung fu stylists. It's been propogated far too long. I only have one thing I ask of ANYONE and that is to back up one's [sweeping] claims with intelligent, logical, and pertinant details. That's it.

So if someone were to say for example: internal chinese gung fu training gives it's students a more profound level of sensitivity over someone who doesn't train in internal chinese gung fu. I would say--how so? Given that everything is empirical, so how does internal training give someone an advantage over another person from a biological perspective? We all recieve tactile inputs, we all use the same nervous system to transmit data to the brain, the brain interprets the data, we react.

There are many people who have great sensitivity, who don't train anything "internally". Kali / Escrima, JKD, Judo, Jiu-jitsu, Wrestling, MT, and any other style that deals with having to anticipate the opponents intention through the sense of touch should have great sensitivity. I would also venture to say that those styles mentioned above would be better at applying it in a live environment because of the more realistic training atmosphere.

But that's neither here nor there I suppose. It's just a thought that was never manifested due to a degredation in communication. Perhaps you all might have some thoughts on it?

SAAMAG

05-16-2008, 08:00 AM

You talk as if getting hit is a bad thing, I can't tell you how many peoples fists I have smashed with my face and how many kicks I have crushed with my groin !
:D

That's one of my quotes..."if you haven't been hit in the head yet -- you haven't started training"

Scott R. Brown

05-16-2008, 08:03 AM

You talk as if getting hit is a bad thing, I can't tell you how many peoples fists I have smashed with my face and how many kicks I have crushed with my groin !
:D

Actually that is what I teach my boys. If you cannot avoid, block, or parry ,move into the punch. So, if you are unprepared and someone is throwing a punch to your head, just before impact, sharply dip your head into the punch. It throws the timing off and if you are lucky you will break his hand. Since the timing is off it will also reduce the force of a strike that will hit you anyway!

Scott R. Brown

05-16-2008, 08:06 AM

That's one of my quotes..."if you haven't been hit in the head yet -- you haven't started training"

One time I got kicked in the eye so hard I thought I lost it. It was from a beginner too, LOL!! Gotta watch out for the newbies!:eek:

SAAMAG

05-16-2008, 08:07 AM

One time I got kicked in the eye so hard I thought I lost it. It was from a beginner too, LOL!! Gotta watch out for the newbies!:eek:

Yep...their unorthodox style has tagged my "boys" many a times. ;)

As Bas Rutten says "Never underestimate the kick to the groin! BAM!"

sanjuro_ronin

05-16-2008, 08:18 AM

Actually that is what I teach my boys. If you cannot avoid, block, or parry ,move into the punch. So, if you are unprepared and someone is throwing a punch to your head, just before impact, sharping dip your head into the punch. It throws the timing off and if you are lucky you will break his hand. Since the timing is off it will also reduce the force of a strike that will hit you anyway!

My post was in jest, of course, but you make a valid point that is taught in almost all forms of H2H.

Scott R. Brown

05-16-2008, 08:30 AM

My post was in jest, of course, but you make a valid point that is taught in almost all forms of H2H.

Are you telling me you can't shatter a foot with your testicles yet? That was one of the first things I learned!

Man, what a newbie you are!:D

sanjuro_ronin

05-16-2008, 08:41 AM

Are you telling me you can't shatter a foot with your testicles yet? That was one of the first things I learned!

Man, what a newbie you are!:D

LMAO
And newbie I shall remain !!
:D

Scott R. Brown

05-16-2008, 08:47 AM

LMAO
And newbie I shall remain !!
:D

Well, I am willing to teach you for a simple initiation fee of $1,000 and $150/mo. with a 2 contract! This is a one time internet offer. You must respond within the next 5 min. or will miss this valuable offer. And as a bonus prize for signing up now I will throw in a nice 8 pack of ShamWOW!!

sanjuro_ronin

05-16-2008, 08:50 AM

Well, I am willing to teach you for simple initiation fee of $1,000 and $150/mo. with a 2 contract! This is a one time internet offer. You must respond within the next 5 min. or will miss this valuable offer. And as a bonus prize for signing up now I will throw in a nice 8 pack of ShamWOW!!

Wow, an offer like that deserves:

Scott R. Brown

05-16-2008, 08:53 AM

Throw the girl in and I'll knock off $50 month and waive the initiation fee!:D

HardWork8

05-16-2008, 09:20 AM

your writings certainly would be a decided causal factor for hysterical blindness...
Yes, blame me.:rolleyes:

I have it on excellent authority that Scott now sleeps much better at night having been made aware of this ;) ;
You should really check out out your sources (authorities) of information. It seems that Scott does not agree with your "excellent" authority.

I of course (and TC Bob by extension), have been engaged in much wringing hands while furiously trying to figure out where the path was lost...

And you probably will for a long time......

I'm guessing that you believe he has a personal issue with you as opposed to with the subject matter...

He accused me of selling my "magical chi" powers. When the concept was explained to him to the point that even a thick head would have understood that it has nothing to do with "magic", Vankuen did not acknowledge that his accusation aimed at me was wrong and defamatory.

that is an extremely biased opinion that you cannot verify in the least
It is a FACT! you are biased for not seeing it!

so I am very skeptical of the perceived obvious causal relationships as regards certain types of input (e.g. - manipulation), and as I see a great deal of similarities between this and internal training, I can only comment with relative certainty about my own direct context-specific experiences; so it's not about total lack of exposure, but rather about conservation of drawing untoward conclusions

Lets just save you a lot of pain and say that I personally know people who have used internal concepts in REAL combat and base their teachings on their experience. There, end of story.

that has nothing to do with carrying around old baggage - that was a very "in the moment" expression of hostility (hmm, I'm starting to feel another mome...no, it's passed. See?)

Yes, I see and it is still old baggage. However, you should still control your "in the moment" expressions of hostility. Try the "magical chi" art of meditation to banish negative thoughts from your mind.

I am not protecting anyone - you want to try to rip him a new aszhole, go right ahead,
LOL! If I rip him one more aszhole then he will qualify for the invisible man contest....

he's a big boy -
That I wouldn't know as obviously I don't know him as well as you do!:eek:

just don't reuse stuff which was written from a neutral standpoint to him in order to do so
Why not? Your neutral stuff proved him wrong! and Vankuen, instead of acknowledging the concept, went on to pretend that he knew all about it all along and did not take back his accusation of me selling "magical chi".

really? it can be a very offensive move; what I would rather say though is that it is a responsive move since the opponent has to give you something to "redirect" initially; so you are responding to that force rather than initiating one on your own (although the opponent could have given you that force as a result of his response to your initial attack)
You are still responding to an attack, whatever the source! MY POINT! christ, is this so difficult to understand?

I see no reason to waste it on spendthrifts like yourself
That is what all LIARS say, when caught telling untruths.

that's us, a couple of deceitful idiots...:rolleyes:
Unfortunately, there are more than a couple of you deceitful idiots in these forums.

BS - Scott could simply be a silver-tongued devil who uses his capacity for being erudite to fool us all into complacency...hey, wait a minute...
joking aside, this perspective is necessary in order for you to be taken at your word about what you claim; too bad it's not the way things really work
I very much doubt that as he seemed to have a very solid explanation of the subject matter, unlike you and of course Mr sensitivity himself, VanKuen.

I know at least one Shotokan guy who would take exception to that statement and be happy to demonstrate just how lacking in aliveness his "blocking" is...
Say what you will. The art of shotokan does not fine tune its sensitivity to the same extent as internal kung fu styles.

well, sorry to hear it; offer still stands though (as it does for anyone) - and just to clarify, it's not some sort of veiled threat / challenge: in the unlikely event that someone from far afield on the forum was visiting locally, it would simply be an opportunity to calibrate perspectives, nothing more;
I did not see your offer of touching hands as a challenge. I just saw it as pointless, but I am still willing to hold your hand.:D

... it's this "what I know is the real deal, anyone who doesn't know it isn't" elitism that I find distressing; like there is some set of distinct hierarchy that everyone has to travel up through to get to the same "truth"; sorry, just doesn't sit well with me, and doesn't stand up to the test of reality; to wit, I can tell you that GM Chan Tai Shan never talked about, taught or demonstrated anything as concerned usage of his gung fu in fighting that resembled the sort of "internal skills" that you seem to be talking about ("live / dead", "sticking", etc.) and that I have since been exposed to in my experiences with bagua, taiji and other so-called "internal" styles..

I really don't understand the kind of "internals" that you have practiced. Admittedly it covers a large area of knowledge/concepts/principles, but as far as the combat perspective is concerned, "sensitivity"/"feeling" and their contribution to "sticking" come into their own as regards to fighting. I am beginning to doubt your scope of the internals. Whoops! I feel a d1ck waving moment of here are my "qualifications" on its way.:eek:

(in fact, he was of the opinion that that entire approach was of no use at all);
Well that shows how much he knows about kung fu and doesn't suprise me at all given his (over)holistic MA background.;)

and I am pretty confident that he had more "real" gung fu in his "byu ji" than you have in your entire body;
I doubt that eventhough I am sure that Vankuen is an awesome kickboxer, I mean 22 years is a long time.

of course, you can say that CTS had no idea of what real gung fu was if you like...

Well, the fact that he does not emphasis Liveness, Sensitivity, Sticking and their relation to combat, does raise my eyebrows a little.

Maybe he is teaching you "gringos" on a need to know basis, just like many other chinese masters are doing as we speak and have done for decades.;)

my point is that you have this set of criteria for what constitutes "real" gung fu skill / knowledge and you apply it to others as if it were some sort of fundamental law of the universe;

You miss the point. It is not my criteria it is kung fu criteria. Kung Fu criteria that I was taught by 3 different sifus from 3 different styles including my main style that is Wing Chun. Some coincidence,huh?

I take issue with this based on a) direct experience with what I would consider "real" gung fu
Well I am sure Vankuen and a few of his fellow kickboxers would not hesitate to make that same statement.

that does not fall into the particular skill sets you appear to value so highly; b) I generally distrust the opinions of people who fervently support a given perspective when perpetuation of their own self-identity / interest and / or livelihood are dependent thereupon; see, I used to think this way - I was convinced that there was a better way to which everyone ought to subscribe; now i realize that there is a better way - for me, not necessarily the next guy; meaning that, in fact, i have no particular issue with the way you or anyone else wants to pursue their own particular path; but what I do take issue with is when someone tries to universally extrapolate their approach via a perspective of exclusivity stating that anyone who does not "get" your perspective doesn't have / know "real" kung fu;

To cut a long story short. Through my kung fu training with different sifus all of whom,luckily for me, have been fighters (sorry,no videos,medals,trophies,etc), I have seen similarities in concepts and ideas. Things that many "kung fu experts" in this forum find "magical". One of us is wrong here and maybe these discussions will eventually point to the truth.

if nothing else, you would certainly come across as less pedantic and TCMA-zombie-like
As opposed to MMA/crosstraining/"modern is best"-zombie-like, I suppose?

this you have made abundantly clear from the outset
Well at least there are no misunderstandings there.

he goes to great pains to admonish me for my boorish behavior (sound familiar?)
Not really familiar. I am not trying to admonish you. All I am doing is trying to teach you about REAL kung fu. You know, the stuff your grand master wont teach you, because you are not perhaps trustworthy or keep harboring negative feelings towards people who know more than you and so on. Hey, if you play your cards right I may even adopt you as a disciple:D

so sodomizing small woodland creatures apparently has ceased to provide you with sufficient amusement then...
Well it did provide me amusement until I met you and Vankuen and a few other Forum "kung fu" experts. So far, "sodomizing" you guys for preaching false kung fu knowledge has been much more fun.:D

sanjuro_ronin

05-16-2008, 09:43 AM

Throw the girl in and I'll knock off $50 month and waive the initiation fee!:D

A gentleman and a scholar I see.

TenTigers

05-16-2008, 12:18 PM

Scott R. Brown

05-16-2008, 12:27 PM

I have it on excellent authority that Scott now sleeps much better at night having been made aware of this ;)

You should really check out out your sources (authorities) of information. It seems that Scott does not agree with your "excellent" authority.

Gee! I've never been used as a weapon before. The problem is, if you both use me against each other...WAIT, maybe that will work! How can it be any different than two guys fighting with staffs or swords.

On the other hand, when two guys fight with weapons, it is the weapon that gets the most abuse.

I have gone to great lengths here to stay out of the fray and pretend;) I'm a nice guy. Please help me out and let me stay on the side lines enjoying the food fight without actually getting any food on myself.

If you continue to use my name at least do it with ice cream, I like ice cream and it licks off easily. :D

Scott R. Brown

05-16-2008, 12:38 PM

in spm, we have the same concepts of the live and dead hands. The biggest problem I am facing with this is maintaining aliveness in both hands at the same time. Usually, when one encounters the opponent's attack and is alive, the other loses its aliveness. Any suggestions for overcoming this plateau?
My teacher's hands seem to literally be alive-as if they had minds of their own. Picture some weird sword and sorcery movie where the guys arms turn into two serpents,writhing,coiling,and striking-that's pretty much how his hands are.
some scary sheet right there.:cool:

It just takes practice. practice and a little more practice! Some day you will get it, and you won't even remember when it actually happened. It is a matter of developing your proprioceptive sense.

Think about eating with a fork. You can eat and watch TV and hold a conversation all at the same time and never hit your teeth or spear you tongue. This is because of your proprioceptive sense.

The proprioceptive sense is basically, you are able to sense where your body and its parts are in space, so within the context of keeping your hands or limbs alive, it just takes practice doing two things at once. It is easier to learn if you don't try too hard.

sanjuro_ronin

05-16-2008, 12:43 PM

IMPE, if one functions out of a relatively fixed reference point, such as the biomechanical COG, then the periphery will have to balance asymmetrically in order to maintain that point (meaning if one hand is "alive", the other will have to be "dead" so as not to tip the overall balance); if, on the other hand, the entire body is the center, or to put it another way if every point in the body is an instantaneous center, then there will never be any center to loose, and both hands function as you describe (ref: I seem to recall some Taoist passage about "having no fixed abode" - this is one way of application); this is what my teacher is a living example of; I myself have experienced this for a few years now only

This is what the Taiji sifu I spoke of meant.

Bob Ashmore

05-16-2008, 12:43 PM

Ten Tigers,
I am also wrestling with the same issue: How to keep both hands balanced and lively (we use lively, not alive, but it's probably the same idea).
All I can tell you is what my teacher tells me as best as I can recall his words: "Both hands have a job at all times. Keep both jobs clear in your mind and let your intent guide the motion."
That advice has helped me a lot, though I'm not fully there yet.
I have found that I have better success at a particular movement, be it form work or tui shou, if I practice the movement in both right and left handed attitudes. I don't know if the idea will work for everyone, in fact I doubt it will, but I seem to have a better ability to be clear in my own mind about the jobs both hands have to do if I balance out the amount of practice equally between those jobs with each hand.
It may not work for you that way, but it sure helps me out a lot.
Another aspect is to be sure that your movement is initiated from your waist and not from your shoulder. This will keep your intent more centralized and tends to balance out the energy in your arms directly from the source of movement.
Keeping the chest sunk and the back rounded will also lend balance to your movements and goes along with movement from the waist.

Scott R. Brown

05-16-2008, 12:44 PM

sanjuro_ronin

05-16-2008, 12:46 PM

What's the deal??? Where is my name in this post?

And the ice cream? I specifically remember asking for ice cream!:D

Here you go, some people are so needy...

Scott R. Brown

05-16-2008, 12:50 PM

Holy Guacamole!!!!

Throw in that girl and I'll give you the lessons for free....

...there is just one little hitch...

....I guess I was a little sleepy this morning. It was crushing the testicles with your foot, NOT crushing a foot with your testicles.

But I'll still teach you for free if you throw in the two babes, and I'll still give you the shamWOW!! It will even clean up soda pop from the carpet. I've seen them do it on TV all the time!

Scott R. Brown

05-16-2008, 12:57 PM

Chris,

Are you referring to the body's tendency to tense up when one is suddenly put off center, out balance?

TenTigers

05-16-2008, 01:26 PM

well,sheeeit! Why didn't ya say so in the first place.
You use yer mouth purtier than a twenty-dollar wh0re!
!:D

Bob Ashmore

05-16-2008, 01:27 PM

cjurakpt,
I had to read your response a few times, and then go look up some of this "ipitals" on google.
I'm just a lowly computer guy, not all that knowledgable about all those latin names for the human body parts.
But I think I sort of see where you're going with this.
If I'm reading his correctly, you're saying not to try to fix a point in space that your body will need to maintain, instead let yourself be free to move, react and respond to whatever energy may be trying to push into your center.
Or, know your center but don't try to dictate it just in case you have to move it, and don't tense up in order to allow your body to adjust using its own internal mechanism.
If I've come close to your meaning (and I have some doubts about that) then I would have to agree with you completely.
If I haven't, then please try to explain again, only this time could you use smaller words so I don't have to google them all before I can respond?
Thanks. ;-)

Scott R. Brown

05-16-2008, 01:31 PM

in a sense, yes - think about it this way - if the body establishes a center, it will try to maintain that center via various balance strategies; one strategy that it can use is to limit degrees of freedom, which means that by locking at one or more joints, the neuromuscular system has less variability to deal with in the system when it fires postural control muscles; however, this is a strategy more appropriate for when one is at the initial stages of learning a motor skill: for example, an infant progressing through the developmental sequence who is learning about all the various parts - too many moving parts, the immature nervous system don't know what to do with itself - so it tenses up in order to have less variability to deal with; same deal when you see someone on ice skates for the first time; you also see it in cerebral palsy, interestingly;

for whatever reason, we seem to maintain this type of response beyond it's original useful stage, and kind of "run home to momma" when we are challenged posturaly beyond the ability of more mature and dynamic balance control strategies to manage things; I think that taiji practice teaches how to function out of this strategy more often and more efficiently...

the idea of having no reference point to begin with implies that if there is no point established, there is no point to loose, and so there is no need to try to retain it; this is, of course, the ideal: what i think happens (at least in my experience) is that I can do this "float", but when challenged sufficiently, I go back to my old "habit" of establishing a reference point, which I then try to maintain, and there ya go...

I like your description. It is similar to a baby's startle reflex in some ways.

I also like the idea of, Since there is no fixed point, no center that I am clinging too, there is no sense of loss and no startle reflex that tries to force me back to center balance. It really begins with the mind and its perception of the body's position in space. When the mind does not cling to center there is no off center.

I think this is similar to the Taoist story of the man falling into the river rapids. He comes out without injury because he does not react as if he is in danger. Thus maintaining an emotional center/balance provides results in the body and it does so as a natural consequence, tzu jan!

Bob Ashmore

05-16-2008, 01:33 PM

Ah,
I see now that I wasn't too far off.
While Ten Tigers was a bit more blunt about the latin...
I learned something new so I'm not going to complain too loudly myself about all the stuff I had to look up. Every day I can learn something new is one day more that I know I'm still alive.

TenTigers

05-16-2008, 01:33 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrzmbSX1pmo&feature=related

Scott R. Brown

05-16-2008, 01:37 PM

Bob Ashmore

05-16-2008, 01:48 PM

cjurakpt,
I get a bit goosey at the word "floating" but only because it is used in our school in another context. We refer to those who are not rooting properly as "floating" and so it's not a desirable thing in our lexicon.
We use the some general concept but we use different words to describe it.

Bob Ashmore

05-16-2008, 01:54 PM

The breathing exercise your referenced is one my teacher uses quite a lot, actually. He has been trying to get this concept across to me in more than theory but I'm not always the fastest student in the world and still have a ways to go I'm afraid before I'll really know it in my body.
But that's OK, I have time.

Bob Ashmore

05-16-2008, 02:00 PM

cjurakpt,
Solid below, relaxed waist, flowing upper body.
I try to do these things consistently, but am not always successful. I need more practice.
I do try to understand, but am more successful in theory than in practice I'm afraid, the Yin/Yang balance of rooting and lightness and how the interact in whole body work. I work as often as I can to integrate this into my practice but unfortunately have not been completely able to do so yet.
Thank you for your advice, I feel it will be most hopeful and I'm impressed by your ability to express them in writing so well.

Bob Ashmore

05-16-2008, 02:03 PM

I do not know how it feels to other people, but to me it feels as if I have connected with the ground below and am floating freely above.
I try to bring this feeling into form practice and tui shou, but with only limited success.
I will post more as I can, right now they actually want me to work. Go figure.
;-)

Scott R. Brown

05-16-2008, 03:15 PM

well, yeah, why not: the Moro (startle) reflex is, in a sense, the most primitive of all balance reactions, it's teaching the infant about keeping the head level with the horizontal

Yeah well it is in my mind alot since my new daughter is only 6-1/2 weeks old :)

thought you would like that - sort of dovetails w/our recent PM conversation - as my teacher says, taiji is a concrete way to practice balance in life by finding balance on one's own two feet
BTW, i will get around to answering your PM's, I just hate the 1000 character limit (nooooo!): how would you feel about posting it all as a new thread and just open it up?

It's up to you. I don't mind? I hate the 1,000 word limit too. Whats with that? You can't even have a private conversation!

yup - except, did you know that the river represents life? can you imagine?!? those wacky Taoists!!!

Well, Duh! Doesn't everyone know that? :rolleyes:

Uh........ actually I never figured that one out!:eek: I'm not much a fan of the classics. I haven't read them in over 30 years. Thanks for making me feel like a dolt though! I really appreciate it!:mad: :D

It is so simple once you know the trick, huh?

Actually, it works if it was a real cataract too. Recall the many episodes of drunks being the only ones to survive a car wreck. A number of years ago I read a news story about a drunk who fell off of a car parking structure in Las Vegas. He fell something like 5 stories landing on his face. His only injury was a chipped tooth!

I think the moral here is, to ensure your safety when riding in a car, be sure you get drunk first.

Scott R. Brown

05-16-2008, 03:31 PM

I get a bit goosey at the word "floating" but only because it is used in our school in another context. We refer to those who are not rooting properly as "floating" and so it's not a desirable thing in our lexicon.
We use the some general concept but we use different words to describe it.

Floating, within the context I used it, is more of a Taoist reference rather than a Tai Chi one. But it does reflect "center-less" movement when not burdened with Tai Chi baggage.

Scott R. Brown

05-16-2008, 04:31 PM

wow congrats on the little girl - she's adorable (and LOL - I thought i was going to be something akin to what Sanjuro posts!);

LOL! I never thought of that. That would have been hilarious.

listen, if you ever come by NYC, we can go out for a drive: they've got lots of marsh land around here which can make finding a body take weeks...not that I mention it for any specific reason...

Weeeeeell, whose body are we talking about? Mine or yours? I was hoping to sneak up behind you with a Ninja Judo Sword. How about you just send me a Google Earth pick of where you would like them to find, or not find, your body and we'll take it from there? I hear they like to hide bodies in cement out there too, or do you think that might be too snug?

so maybe i will throw up some of our random musings on "applied Ch'an" - i think it speaks to a lot of the "internal" ideas that seem to finally be getting discussed free of interlopers...

Does that mean I get to pretend I know what I am talking about some more? I like make believing I is..ah.....inteligm.....intelesigeim.......intelle migical....um...smart!

HardWork8

05-16-2008, 08:46 PM

Gee! I've never been used as a weapon before. The problem is, if you both use me against each other...WAIT, maybe that will work! How can it be any different than two guys fighting with staffs or swords.

On the other hand, when two guys fight with weapons, it is the weapon that gets the most abuse.

I have gone to great lengths here to stay out of the fray and pretend;) I'm a nice guy. Please help me out and let me stay on the side lines enjoying the food fight without actually getting any food on myself.

If you continue to use my name at least do it with ice cream, I like ice cream and it licks off easily. :D

Don't worry Scott, I believe cjurakpt has misundestood the concept of "liveness". He thinks that by using a live human being as a weapon his techniques will become "live" and "sensitive"....and all he has achieved has been to confuse Vankuen even more...LOL!:eek::)

HW8
PS. What flavour ice cream?

SAAMAG

05-16-2008, 09:17 PM

I know I'm going to catch hell from some of you for even responding to you again--but you sir, are an idiot. You really need to get over it...you're acting like a 3 year old child who's been butt-hurt. Actually...you're more like a little kitty cat who's rubbing up on Brown's leg thinking that you're on the "in-crowd" now; no matter how you summarize things, or re-word them, the facts are there. It doesn't matter what you say anymore...everyone is well aware of you what kind of person you are.

So quit clinging to Brown like serran wrap and learn to back up your own statements that you make without getting so defensive all the time. If you want to try it...answer the question I mentioned on page 6.

One last thing....for complaining about people carrying around baggage....you sure do have a lot of your own. Remember, this is the internet. Don't take it so seriously.

HardWork8

05-16-2008, 09:53 PM

Man...I am already sorry for responding to you again...
Don't worry, because I am planning to make you even sorrier!

but you sir, are an idiot.
I think Vankuen called me "sir":eek:. There is hope for you yet Vankuen, old boy!:D

...you're acting like a 3 year old child who's been butt-hurt.

It is my "magical chi" training that has made me so young. Don't blame me, blame my sifu.:D

No matter how you summarize things, or re-word them, the facts are there.
The facts were there the minute you typed them don't give me more "credit" than I deserve.

It doesn't matter what you say anymore...everyone is well aware of you what kind of person you are.
Well about time too, they know that I practice authentic kung fu. We wouldn't want them to think that I was a kickboxer now, would we?;)

And for complaining about people carrying around baggage....you sure do have a lot of your own.
Well, I use my baggage to carry my "magical chi" when I travel. You neven know when you are going to be attacked by kickboxer you know. So, it is always good to be prepared.:D

Remember, this is the internet. Don't take it so seriously.
So I am the one who is taking it "so seriously"? LOL,LOL,LOL!

So quit clinging to Brown like serran wrap
The reason that I "cling" to Brown is because he is the only one who explained the concept of "live" as opposed to dead techniques. He also seems to be a pleasant person with a sense of humour.

You Vankuen should thank him for taking time to explain this concept to you, even if you didn't really "appreciate" the full scope of what he was saying.

and learn to back up your statements that you make without getting so defensive all the time.
My statement regarding "live" techniques did not need backing up. I had provided enough recognizable info for those who know these concepts.

SAAMAG

05-16-2008, 09:57 PM

So you're still not going to answer the question about your sensitivity? That's the only thing I asked you all along. Then you diverted to blocking and shotokan this and that and whatever. Should be a simple enough question for you.

You said there's sensitivity and there's sensivity...then you said that internal sensitivity was better and it was more profound. I've already give you my take on it on page 6. So explain if you can, in detail, on how the internal training works with the human body to achieve a greater sensitivity over any other person. You made the claim...now back it up.

HardWork8

05-16-2008, 10:27 PM

So you're still not going to answer the question about your sensitivity?
First of all it is not my sensitivity, it is a kung fu concept. Secondly the question was answered and to your satisfaction, by Scott R. brown, I seem to recall, so as to make you claim that it was a common concept,LOL!.

That's the only thing I asked you all along.
You asked because you didn't know!

Then you diverted to blocking and shotokan this and that and whatever.
The distinction between a Shotokan way of blocking as opposed to the internal way, "live", should have been a clue for you.

Should be a simple enough question for you.
It is a simple enough question for me but apparently not for you.

You said there's sensitivity and there's sensivity...then you said that internal sensitivity was better and it was more profound. I've already give you my take on it on page 6. So explain if you can, in detail, on how the internal training works with the human body to achieve a greater sensitivity over any other person. You made the claim...now back it up.

My post was backed up. It was concept that was and still seems to be alien to you. Even after you claimed it to be a common concept in kung fu, some karate styles(which you failed to name,when asked) and in other martial arts (which you also failed to name).

What part of Scott R. Brown's answer did you not understand? What part of the info provided by others who unlike you, train and hence have an understanding of the internal aspects, did you not comprehend? Did you NOT read their posts?
Did you not then look at my posts and my now "famous" Shotokan example? Did you not see a cohesion between what was explained to you and what I had said in the other thread?

Or are you "testing" my kung fu? LOL!

SAAMAG

05-17-2008, 05:35 AM

I'm asking you, because I'm solidifying your m.o.

You will NEVER answer that question, because you cannot. You made a statement that you will never be able to back up. Talking about live blocking and dead blocking -- as OTHERS have answered for you, is a different subject that you focused on after my original (and still unanswered) question to you: to simply explain how the internal sensitivity is more profound than anyone else's from a biological perspective. This question has nothing to do with blocking.

So don't try to use anyone else as a crutch, don't redirect and say the question has already been answered. Don't fall back on your elitist "we who practice real gung fu understand" crap.

Tell us all in your own words how the human body and internal training work together to create a more "profound" sense of tactile interpretation?

Because as far as I see it, you made a statement that you can't back up...and it's showing with every response you make that doesn't answer that question. One last chance to show you're not just a troll who was kicked off bullshido for lying.

HardWork8

05-17-2008, 07:45 AM

:cool:
I'm asking you, because I'm solidifying your m.o.
Right now, you should worry about "solidifying" your own m.o.;)

You will NEVER answer that question,
And I won't, because I already DID!

You didn't "see" the answer and I believe that you still don't even though further explanations and verifications came from parties against whom you do not harbour any ill feelings.

I on the other hand have grown tired of repeating simple explanations to you (and some your other fellow kickboxer friends) many times. Now you want me to repeat other people's explanations as well?

Right now even you can "explain" this concept by just picking bits out of Scott R.Brown's post. So if you are implying that I don't know what I am talking about then what is to stop me from just parroting Brown's explanation.

I mean you wouldn't know the difference as you are still struggling with the Shotokan example, for gods sake!:rolleyes:

because you cannot.
Because YOU are not interested anymore! Your question, which was solely based on you having absolutely no idea about this concept was answered in more detail by Scott. Yet your reaction? Something like 'oh, I knew this all along'.LOL!

You made a statement that you will never be able to back up.
I backed up my statement with enough info for those who know about this to recognize. YOU DIDN'T! SO STOP CLUTCHING AT STRAWS!

Talking about live blocking and dead blocking -- as OTHERS have answered for you, is a different subject that you focused on after my original (and still unanswered) question to you: to simply explain how the internal sensitivity is more profound than anyone else's from a biological perspective. This question has nothing to do with blocking.

Maybe you should take cjurakpt's advice and touch hands with somebody who has those skills. That way you may really appreciate their profoundness.;) But whoops I forgot:eek: that you probably hang around with glorified kickboxers, for who "sensitivity" only manifests itself when they get kicked between their legs.

So don't try to use anyone else as a crutch, don't redirect and say the question has already been answered.
You are the one who went searching for those answers! when you did find them you did notcome back asking me for an answer anymore as you seemed to suggest that these were common concepts in other martial arts and even some karate styles(which so far you haven't named) LOL,LOL!.

Don't fall back on your elitist "we who practice real gung fu understand" crap.
No, this is the way you should put it "We who don't practice real kung fu get confused by some of the more profound internal elements". There, that sounds better!

Tell us all in your own words how the human body and internal training work together to create a more "profound" sense of tactile interpretation?
That is all I need now, Mr Van"sensitivity"Kuen, giving me assignments on the internals.LOL!

Well didn't you know? It is all simple like you said,"sensitivity is sensitivity";"redirection is redirection". You mix those two with a healthy does of "Magical Chi" and there you have it, one freshly made "aliveness".

Because as far as I see it,
Well while we are on the subject, there happens to be a fly sitting on the tip of your "internal nose", why don't you be kind enough to shoo it away-talk about being profound.:cool:

you made a statement that you can't back up...
I did and so did others. The point here is that I know what I am talking about and it comes out in my posts.

The opposite impression is derived from your own posts. See something wrong there, Mr Vankuen?

and it's showing with every response you make that doesn't answer that question.
The question was answered a long time ago.;)

One last chance to show you're not just a troll who was kicked off bullshido for lying.
I see that you are now clutching at Sanjuro_Ronin's LIES AND DECEPTIONS.

Here are a few "back ups":

1. I NEVER lied in Bullshido. If this wasn't the net I would sue your A$$ for that statement. I would take it all, yes even your dumbells, and I don't mean your fellow forum kickboxer friends either.

2. I was never kicked out of Bullshido!

Has that dishonest piece of Shiet, Mr Sanjuro_Ronin -one of this forums premier kickboxers (who pretends to be a kung fu expert) PM-ed you with that little provocation?

Well, if he has then you have the honour of being called DISHONEST LIAR along side him.

SHAME ON YOU!

Scott R. Brown

05-17-2008, 08:28 AM

it's true - Scott hates my guts and wants me dead; he's even going to come to NYC to kill me and dump my body in the Brooklyn marshes (which, considering that I will be the one doing the driving, is not particularly sportsmanlike at all!)

I think you are confusing an assassination and a duel, besides I was intending to tip you for the ride!

Scott R. Brown

05-17-2008, 09:40 AM

Suppose you and I have had an argument. If you have beaten me instead of my beating you, then are you necessarily right and am I necessarily wrong? If I had beaten you instead of you beating me, then am I necessarily right and are you necessarily wrong? Is one of us right and the other wrong? Are both of us right or are both of us wrong? If you and I don't know the answer, then other people are bound to be even more in the dark. Whom shall we get to decide what is right? Shall we get someone who agrees with you to decide? But if he already agrees with you, how can he decide fairly? Shall we get someone who agrees with me? But if he already agrees with me, how can he decide? Shall we get someone who disagrees with both of us? But if he already disagrees with both of us, how can he decide? Shall we get someone who agrees with both of us? But if he already agrees with both of us, how can he decide? Obviously, then, neither you nor I nor anyone else can know the answer. Shall we wait for still another person? - Chuang Tzu, "Discussion on Making All Things Equal"

AAAAhhhhhhhhh!!! Pleasssssse just tell me what to do!!!!:eek:

But then if you tell me what to do and I do it, am I doing it because you told me what to do or am I doing it because I decided to do what you told me to do? If you tell me what to do and I don’t do it, am I not doing it because you told me what to do, or am I not doing it because I decided not to do it? On the other hand, if you don’t tell me anything and I do it, am I not doing anything because you didn’t tell me what to do, or am I not doing it because you never told me what to do and I still don’t know what to do? What if someone else tells me what to do and not you? Should I do what they say or should I wait for you to tell me what to do? If I wait for you, perhaps I will act too late and something bad will happen! Or perhaps I will wait for you to tell me and you will never actually tell me what to do! Then I could wait and wait and wait and I would be waiting for something that will never come. So do I continue to wait or do I decide for myself or do I find someone else to tell me what to do? I think I need you to tell me what to do about this one too! So now you have two things to tell me what to do! I can see if you don't tell me what to do while you have the chance this could grow exponentially and you will have to tell me more and more what to do!

But then, If I ask another person what to do and do what the other person says and something good happens, is it because they told me what to do, or is it because you didn’t tell me what to do? If someone else tells me what to do and I don’t do it and something good happens, is it because I decided not to do it or is it because I was waiting for you to tell me what to do? If this is the case then whose decision made the good thing happen, not to mention if something bad happened instead. And by the way….who decides if it was a good thing or a bad thing? I think you should decide this and then just tell me so I don’t have to decide on that too! So see how by you not telling what to do when I asked in the first place it just created more decision for you to make?

Or perhaps you tell me what to do AND someone else tells me what to do and they are different things! In this circumstance, I am in the same position I was in to begin with except that instead of not knowing what to do because there are no choices, now I have too many choices and I don’t know which one to choose. So now I need someone to tell me which choice to choose. And what if I can't find someone to tell me which one to choose? Then I have two choices to choose from except there are really three. I can do what you say, or I can do what he says, or I can do nothing at all, or I can do something else….wait that was four choices!!

And that doesn’t even address what I should do if you both tell me what to do and they are the same thing! If you both tell me the same thing and you are both wrong that isn't good! But if you both tell me the same thing and it is the right thing to do that is a good thing! So how can I decide which one to do? I want to choose the good thing and avoid the bad thing, except that sometimes the good thing just looks like a good thing, but it is really a bad thing and the bad thing just looks like a bad thing, but it is really a good thing, except when the good thing just looks bad, but it really is good after all or when the good thing just looks bad, but is really a good thing after all. I think you should tell me which is good and which is bad too come to think of it!

Can you see how confusing and complicated making a decision is??

So it seems if you just tell me what to do, I won't have to get a mental hernia. I can just blindly follow your direction and I don’t have to take any responsibility for deciding for myself, except for the fact that I am deciding to follow your decision so really I am deciding not to decide for myself, which is actually a decision not to make a decision about deciding for myself and deciding to follow the decision you decided to decide upon!

So please just tell me what to do?:eek:

mantis108

05-17-2008, 12:52 PM

Hi cjurakpt and Scott,

There is no opponent(s)...

"If my opponent expands, I contract. If he contracts, I expand. When there is an opportunity, I do not hit. It hits all by Itself." Bruce Lee 101.

It hits all by Itself is the virtue of "Ren"; thus, Ren Zhe Wu Di (He/Thing in-and-of itself who doesn't think but feel shalt be invincible).

Warm regards

Mantis108

Scott R. Brown

05-17-2008, 02:17 PM

mantis108

05-17-2008, 03:58 PM

Hi mantis,

Thanks for joining in, the water's great!:)

If IT hits all by ITSELF, what is IT and what is IT hitting?

The ITSELF, in the tradition of western philosophy, has little value in the theoretical or speculative reasoning for we don't necessarily have the intellectual intuition of an infinite being (ie God). We could engage in conjecture. But "ITSELF" being one of the noumenal entities, we can have no knowledge of it other than it is what it is. So how would anyone know how it hits or even if it hits at all, when we don't know what is it?

That being said, it is a different story in the eastern traditions for the mind is recognized/transcended as infinite; therefore, human being is capable of intellectual intuition if we realize through practical reasoning that the mind is indeed infinite.

Observe "the man of salt" parable of mystics of the past. Once there was a man that is made of salt who's capable of thinking (abstract thoughts and all). One day he wished to know what the ocean is like. So he hired a fishing boat and rowed out to the ocean. But the ripples of the water from his rowing of the boat made it difficult for him to see clearly. So he decided to jump into the water. At the instance that he leaped into the ocean, he instantly knew.

I like what you said about live mind-live limbs. The argument between live blocking and dead blocking, etc is the clustering of the mind like observing the ocean when there are ripples on the surface of the water from our striving.

In the words of Morphesis, "Don't try to hit me, just hit me."

Warm regards

Mantis108

HardWork8

05-17-2008, 06:03 PM

he's even going to come to NYC to kill me and dump my body in the Brooklyn marshes
Yes, but that is what makes Scott great.:)

now, here is a resurfacing trend (not that there's anything wrong with it!) I am discerning in your posts:

hmmm...

hmmm...

hmmm...
This sounds like you are kissing yourself. I suppose loneliness can be a nasty thing.

so, let's see: you keep wanting to hold my hand,
Well because you were the one who brought up the subject of "touching" hands. I am just being friendly you see.:D

you expose your genitalia,
No, that comment was referring to you d1ck waving your qualifications.

you admit to sodomizing chipmunks and the like,
They were askin' for it, honest!LOL!LOL!LOL!

and now you publicly fantasize about buggering me, Vankuen
I don't need to fantasize about that as I already have done that metaphorically speaking, of course.:D

and pretty much everyone else on the forum (since you find the majority to practice "fake" kung fu)...
The fact that the majority of kung fu practitioners practice "fake" is well known and it is more to do with the Mcdojo/kwoon phenomenon than any of my "findings".

so, when you lived in Brazil - did you spend much time on the beach at night?
Why should I go to the beach at night? There is no sun and it is relatively cold. Oh, I see. It seems to me that you know more about the nocturnal beach life in Brazil than I do. Not to worry, your secret is safe with me.;)

However, you should visit Rio and spend some time there. When you see the beautiful sexy women there even you will change your ways and become a fully fledged hot blooded heterosexual.

doubt away - it is not my intention to prove anything to you;
No? Really?:rolleyes:

as long as I agree with your perception of "internals", I am good enough for you to use to back up your polemic against Vankuen; when I write things you don't agree with, now you doubt my knowledge;
I never said that you were perfect!

you are yet again bringing your limited scope of experience to bear,
As far as the internals are concerned, we all have a limited scope of experience!

typically when someone starts speaking disrespectfully about someone else's deceased sifu
What I mentioned was an everyday fact and not an insult. By the way, I did not know that your sifu had passed on.

means nothing: maybe the people they fought and had no training or just sucked;
Your maybes are just your assumptions. They fought good fighters from a cross range of skills. They teach these skills and emphasis them as relevant to their own experience.

using that as an example of "proof" of the valid application of so-called "internal" training to actual combat is like telling me you know how good chocolate ice cream tastes based on what you have heard (see Scott? I mentioned ice cream!); until you have "tasted" it yourself, you can't say anything about it;
False logic.

sigh...so you have decided that your vast experience of 3 "different" teachers telling you"similar" things is sufficient to extrapolate onto "kung fu" in general; ok then...
It is the quality and not the quantity, my dear. This is one of the first things about kung fu that you have to understand.

I am certainly not one of them: I am of the firm opinion that there is nothing magical about any so-called "internal" phenonmennon - it can all be explained by currently available information from a so-called "western" anatomical/physiological perspective
Even if the case were that they weren't understood by western science,then this fact would not make them "magical" either. It would only mean that in some aspects the West would have to catch up with the East.

not necessarily...and I'll let someone else answer that:

...But if he already disagrees with both of us, how can he decide? Shall we get someone who agrees with both of us? But if he already agrees with both of us, how can he decide? Obviously, then, neither you nor I nor anyone else can know the answer. Shall we wait for still another person? - Chuang Tzu, "Discussion on Making All Things Equal"

By that token no one is right and no one is wrong. Eventhough I see your point I can also at the same time see that there is a limit to that concept.

oh, you saw that movie too? :rolleyes:
No I haven't seen the movie. The TCMA scene is infamous for sifus who don't teach all they know. Of course, it is even more infamous for sifus who teach all they know, but that unfortunately they don't know much to start with (meaning that they know a lot of McKung fu).

but again, this is your prejudice: you assume that if I take a contrary position to yours, it is based on my lack of information
Who knows, it could be or it could not be. Hey this is the internet you know!

(because that is the only eventuality you seem secure enough to handle)
I am also secure enough to handle the fact that maybe your training emphasises different aspects to different degrees than to that of mine.

and that, right there, is the underlying issue, which is your presumption to "teach";
The guy can't take a joke!LOL!

never mind that, if we want to go by kung fu etiquette, you are barely out of diapers
So are many people here, but at least a few of us are heading at the right direction, that is we do not feel the need to enhance our kung fu by mixing it with irrelevant arts.

as compared to pretty much everyone else on here,
False statement!

...in a nutshell, you are still at the point of being totally fixated on phenomena, this is why you are so hung up on "right" versus "wrong" - as you are so into "classical" Chinese thinking, go read the Ch'an classics, they will perhaps help you understand things a bit more clearly
I am not fixated on anything. There are right ways and wrong ways. Of course the scope is great as far as kung fu is concerned.
One piece of advice, don't take web discussions too seriously.

you see, I know what you are really looking for - it's been obvious since your first post: and it has nothing to do with "kung fu" per se, right? you know what I am talking about, don't you?
:confused:

the big "E";
Wrong again! I don't watch the Entertainment Channel.:D

..and you think that it's going to fill in that big hole you have been carrying around for so long that you don't even notice it anymore, right?
I don't think that I have any more holes than you. Having said that I may have a few less than Vankuen, but I think that we have covered that scenario enough already;).

that's why it's so important to you that your personal perspective hold true, and why you can't manage to allow even a little bit of variation to creep in:
Here are some of the variations that I have come across in these forums:
1. Kung fu forms are outdated modes of practice.
2. Chi kung is fantasy or other comments to that effect.
3. Kung fu training is not "functional".
4. Live Blocking/Striking. Duh! hey what is that?.......Oh, of course I knew it all the time, it is very common.....:rolleyes:
5. Iron Palm is Fantasy.

If you agree with the above "variations" then that is your problem, so don't make it mine!

you are like a guy on a little tiny raft trying to hold it all together as you approach this huge waterfall - maybe take Scott's advice about the river, it might do you some good...otherwise, just consider that not matter how much you polish your stone, it will never turn into a mirror...
now, you can accept or reject this, that is certainly your prerogative: but consider, if you reject it, is it on its own merits, or because I am the one who said it?
Interesting psychological analysis. The only thing that I have to say here is that, don't give up your day job.

(just remember, enlightenment can be as simple as having a door slammed onto your foot...)
If it was that simple, then be sure that I would fly to NYC and slam that door into your foot a dozen times and maybe a few times on your head for good measure. It would be painful but then you would thank me for the rest of your life for enlightening you.

anyway, it's been fun,
Well it has been for me.

but it's getting a bit tiresome -
Tiresome? Hey you try typing the same thing a thousand times to some of our less evolved "kung fu" colleagues.

feel free to respond,
Well, it is a free country (for now!).

but please try not to derail this thread anymore, since it actually was a real discussion between serious people until you brought your personal vendetta against Vankuen here, and then yet again after it got back into track
Lot of the derailment was due to your own peculiar reactions and "moral"(what a laugh and what ironi) advice.

the "honorable" thing...
Why don't you do the honorable thing and make the same statement about derailment to others as well.

It seems you are as always seeing things in your own way, just as you did in the other thread when you failed to notice the derailments of the other posters(including yoursef).

SAAMAG

05-17-2008, 09:23 PM

Well, since the only thing you can respond to are small excerpts you feel make you seem more "elite"...I suppose I'll have to answer the original question that you seem to be avoiding all this time with trying to draw attention to your own ill-conceived interpretations of what's actually happening here.

First off, the question posed in this thread was regarding a concept that you used the terms live and dead to describe in blocking. This is a completely different question than the original one. The answer also does not address the original question either. Let's take a walk down memory lane shall we?

We were all talking about various things about the chi sao competition, and how we all felt about chi sao's viability in producing proper fighting skills. You commented with this:

I think that a point is being missed here. Chi sao practice includes other elements that if stripped will result in a loss of essence. What I am talking about and something that is quite often over looked in our times of modern "knuckle head martial arts" is the SENSITIVITY TRAINING.

Sensitivity training is an ongoing process and chi sao happens to be a tool or a method. It is not just fighting training.

In our school however, chis sao practice ultimately leads to sparring as the student gains sufficient conditioning,understanding, experience and SENSITIVITY.
And this sparring is not chi sao anymore, but there will be elements of it present such as bridging and sensitivity/listening in a more realistic and direct scenario.

However Chi sao is a training tool and not just in Wing Chun but other kung fu styles as well, and works in many levels.

Now this statement in and of itself is correct and I agree with it (aside from the knucklehead bit--because most of those knuckleheads could kick your internal wannabe ass all over England). What's funny as well how you say at the end that chi sao types of training (training that deals with softness and sensitivity -- I.E. learning about what YOU use the terms live and dead to describe) are contained in other kung fu styles...yet here you so vehemently disagree that the concept could be contained within other systems.

Anyway...moving on...Monji asks you specifically as to which styles you refer to when saying knucklehead martial arts...you respond with:

More on the lines of MMA that seem to have a totaly "external" approach to fighting.

We all know that. However, there is sensitivity and there is sensitivity

Some arts such as TCMAs (specially their internals) address sensitivity in a much more profound way than other arts.

Notice in particular how you agreed ("We all know that") that styles like wrestling, jujutsu and the like focus on sensitivity...and then how you said the things that have been bolded.

Let's move on....

Monji says:

what is a external approach? feeling is feeling. If we are talking about feeling someone's force, and then redirecting it.. then its the same concept for chi sao or something else. In fact the same ideas on how to actually do that are used..
How is feeling internal or external? are you talking about "CHI".

Sanjuro says:

what is a external approach? feeling is feeling. If we are talking about feeling someone's force, and then redirecting it.. then its the same concept for chi sao or something else. In fact the same ideas on how to actually do that are used..
How is feeling internal or external? are you talking about "CHI".

Both of which I fully concur with...But then you say to Monji:

Feeling is feeling, but in the internal approach feeling is more precise.

In chi sao or in TCMA internal approach the "feeling" is different to that of lets say Shotokan karate. Both types of martial arts will use the same idea of "redirecting force", but the internal way is the more precise and less obvious way.

An internal way of feeling uses detached/clear mind combined with "extreme relaxation" without floppiness. That is the best way that I can explain it.

The external way is just using your everyday (trained) perception.

"Chi" plays its part. Do you actualy teach Wing Chun?

Here is where I decided that it was time to call you out on your crap. You made claims--and a feeble attempt to show that you knew what you were talking about.

This is where I stated to you:

The "internal" way utilizes mushin no sen and because the person doesn't think, and focuses on their breathing, they will be "more precise"? In short you're saying "internal way is more precise because internalists clear their mind and concentrate more."

Humans sensory inputs will always be the eyes, ears, nose, mouth, and physical touch. So your internal stylist will use the same "standard" inputs as someone who practices shotokan karate. These ARE your everyday trained perceptions

This was my interpretation of your last statement. Then you got all ****y and started telling me to go back to school because my kung fu wasn't complete without internals. Funny how there are styles of gung fu that don't even talk about internals, yet have the very same elements of power generation. And after a bunch more of your turning every response to you into 30 various little trite responses....we end up here.

___________

The simple fact of the matter is I don't need the fairy tale periphials that often come packaged with internal training. Whenever I learned something in the martial arts...I always wanted to know the why and how--the underlying reasons of why something worked. The only way to know that is to understand how it works. Thus I understand it at a biological level, and it's nothing that is extraordinary. You on the otherhand do not...you understand at the level of parroting words and catch phrases without the ability to elaborate.

Like I said before, chi is an internal life force. Everyone has it...the stronger the chi the more healthy someone will be. It is an intrinsic energy thought to travel through the nervous pathways. As far as martial uses are concerned, the theory is that it can be converted to a vibrating kinetic energy--a process known as fah jing. My Grandmaster in Florida used to always talk about it when we punched...he said to make sure we used "fah jing". This was thought to be the highest level of power generation since it didn't use the muscles...but again...on a biological level, the bones only move when the brain tells the muscles to contract. So there's that.

Long story short--the mind leads the body, meaning the mind uses the electronic stimulus to lead the body with the nervous system as its medium. The brain tells the body through both autonomic and voluntary actions what to do, how to do it, how fast to go, when to breathe, etc. This is commonly known and should be easy to understand.

Now here's where you need to pay attention because here is where I part ways with your ideas that internalists somehow have some extra magical (yes I said it--sue away!) ways of taking mechanical signals and turning them into electrical stimulus to the brain.

Everything you experience in the world is empirical--meaning of the senses. You interprete everything from your sense of sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell.

The biological process of taking the initial tactile input and transforming into electrical impulse is called mechanosensory transduction, and is based soley on the amount of nerve endings (mechanoreceptors aka corpuscles) in the dermis. That's why when you get slapped on your nipple it hurts more getting slapped on your shoulder; and because of this, a person's ability to register inputs is primarily genetic...meaning that what you are born with is what you get.

However the body can concentrate on a particular sense more than another--it's by no means more profound or more precise due to anything that has to do with internal training. Blind people are said to have a greater sense of touch and hearing than the average person, why? Do you think they all practiced gung fu to achieve this most profound and precise feat? Nope. They did it because it was a natural biological process of sensory compensation. How do I know all this? Because I study gung fu amongst other things, which included the study of the human anatomy and physiology...oh...and I'm going to grad school for physical therapy. Whoops...I guess I forgot to mention all that before didn't I?

So instead of telling people fairy tales that only the internal training does this or that...give credit where credit is due...especially when there are so many examples of this extraordinary skill in external martial arts like wrestling, jujutsu, judo, Muay thai, and even other people that don't even practice martial arts like disabled / blind people. It's not a skill exclusive to internal stylists by any means.

And just to make sure there's no misconception here...I have nothing against internal martial arts, as my past and current studies involve the concepts amongst other things. What I have a problem with, is people who give misleading information and people who proliferate fallacies in the martial arts--knowingly or unknowingly.

Cut this post up all you want...turn it into 50 responses filled with nonsense, mention my name in all your future posts in an attempt make assumptive insults towards me, do whatever you want. I don't care anymore and it just makes you look even more like an idiot. You've outed yourself better than anyone else could do it for you.

With that...I bid you farewell and good luck in your journeys. Both in your basement practicing wing chun and your newest gung fu school that you are afraid to name.

Scott R. Brown

05-18-2008, 01:12 AM

Hi Van,

I read some, but not all of the posts on the Wing Chun thread, and just what you wrote here, so perhaps I don't have the full story. But just from the comments you posted here, I interpreted his comments as meaning the internal styles train for the listening skills more precisely. They focus on it using training exercises designed for specifically developing listening skills, while many other styles develop the skill in a more lateral manner. Chi Sao and sticky-hands are designed specifically to develop listening skills.

I developed my listening skill primarily through Aikido training, but I can see how other styles can develop listening skills when they practice hands on training with each other absent specific training practice for listening skills. Styles such as Judo, Jiu-jitsu and grappling, even wrestling all overcome their opponent using leverage against force and balance, this alone develops listening skill. In order to succeed at these activities one must learn to listen to the movements of their opponent and learn to capitalize on the slightest change in balance and momentum. The better ones listening skills the better they are able to respond quickly and spontaneously to slight changes in the balance of their opponent.

However when one practices a specific exercise designed to develop listening skills one is able to fine tune the skill and it is more likely one will develop better listening through that practice because it is skill specific in its purpose. Now, one must still use other forms of practice in a manner that brings the benefits of the "exercise" into a more practical sphere. Listening skill that cannot be used in a practical manner is merely a nice show after all.

So chi sao and sticky hands should be looked upon more as a supportive exercises that are skill specific. These skills are meant to be translated into the practical sphere through other forms of training. Used in this manner, they are a benefit and would, it seems, allow one to develop better or more sensitive listening than if one did not practice such exercises at all.

There, my first serious post a a number of days. Please don't anyone get a heart attack!:D

SAAMAG

05-18-2008, 08:22 AM

I absolutely agree with your thoughts on listening skills, and your theory on HW8 could very well be correct, Scott. Though if that was the case than he would have been in agreeance with us...and instead of stating time and again that the internal methods are precise or more profound--he would have elaborated with that simple tidbit that the ability for the brain to process the mechanosensory inputs might be wired up a little better due to the increased sensitivity training over someone that doesn't practice it at all. In it's most rudamentary form--you can pay more attention to your sense of touch--but you cannot increase it from biomechanical perspective over what you were born with.

Because by your definition (as well as mine and many others) listening skills are learned by many non-internalists as well as internalists; and in regards to how the human body actually works, as I've said before in more simplistic terms (which he likes to quote)...sensitivity is sensitivity.

It's his elitest attitude and idea that his chosen methods were above everyone else who didn't practice what he practiced that I was questioning, moreso than his ideas on anything else per say. He could have said that internal training makes his toots smell better...I would have asked how so? (Because quit frankly that would be a nice skill to have).

The point being that there are many people who develop the listening skills for sensitivity at the same level or even surpassing an internalist trained person--it's all based on the individual--because listening drills are fundamentally the same in every style that practices it successfully given that the somatosensory inputs are the same in every person who is alive. Again, not to mention that listening skills can be improved upon even in non-martial artists.

I like all aspects of martial arts equally well. I just don't like b.S. being spewed around. It's irresponsible and dangerous to the student who believes what they're learning will actually work and then one day they're laying dead because someone wanted to seem "mystical".

HardWork8

05-18-2008, 07:35 PM

Well, since the only thing you can respond to are small excerpts you feel make you seem more "elite"...
Reading your posts make me feel more "elite" and nothing else!

I suppose I'll have to answer the original question that you seem to be avoiding all this time
If you could answer it, then why ask me to answer it? Oh, I see that you were testing me yet AGAIN! LOL,LOL,LOL!

with trying to draw attention to your own ill-conceived interpretations of what's actually happening here.
The only ill-conceived interpretations were yours as you did not understand the subjecta matter of "liveness"!

First off, the question posed in this thread was regarding a concept that you used the terms live and dead to describe in blocking. This is a completely different question than the original one. The answer also does not address the original question either.
:confused:

Let's take a walk down memory lane shall we?
I thought you'd never ask. So hold my hand(platonically,of course) and lets go.

We were all talking about various things about the chi sao competition, and how we all felt about chi sao's viability in producing proper fighting skills. You commented with this:

Now this statement in and of itself is correct and I agree with it
Oh, thank you, your highness, the king of the Kickboxers!

(aside from the knucklehead bit--
Hey, that was the best bit.:cool:

because most of those knuckleheads could kick your internal wannabe ass all over England).
They must be really good at kickboxing then!:eek:

What's funny as well how you say at the end that chi sao types of training (training that deals with softness and sensitivity -- I.E. learning about what YOU use the terms live and dead to describe) are contained in other kung fu styles...yet here you so vehemently disagree that the concept could be contained within other systems.

They are contained in other kung fu styles but not as taught in most kwoons nowadays! That is why I always say, and YOU ALWAYS DISAGREE, that if you study kung fu without the internals, then your kung fu will be incomplete!

Does that ring a bell Mr Vankuen?

Anyway...moving on...
Hey,hey, relax! you almost broke my wrist!

Monji asks you specifically as to which styles you refer to when saying knucklehead martial arts...you respond with:

Notice in particular how you agreed ("We all know that") that styles like wrestling, jujutsu and the like focus on sensitivity...and then how you said the things that have been bolded.

Yes and you still missed the point! I am talking about a more profound approach that means fine tuned sensitivity. Boy, this is more difficult than I thought. What was it that you learnt during 22 years of MA training? I mean besides kickboxing.

Let's move on....

Now, watch that wrist!

Monji says:

Sanjuro says:

They can say what they want as just like you, they don't seem to be familiar with the concept in question!

Both of which I fully concur with...
But then you would...I mean nothing like agreeing with your fellow kickboxers eh?

But then you say to Monji:

Here is where I decided that it was time to call you out on your crap.
And ended up drowning in your own ignorant crap. Poetic justice, perhaps?

You made claims--and a feeble attempt to show that you knew what you were talking about.
By now it has become very obvious that I knew and know what I am talking about and you DON'T and hence are still shooting in the dark trying in vain to convince everyone that you know. You are an interesting fellow.:rolleyes:

This is where I stated to you:

This was my interpretation of your last statement.
Actually the concept of Mushin no sen exists in Shotokan and it is sometimes known as Mushin kokoro. This does not make Shotokan a soft and "live" art!
This concept can be applied to even painting a picture.

It does contribute to the internals but it will need other elements such as the softness and sensitivity training.

Then you got all ****y and started telling me to go back to school because my kung fu wasn't complete without internals.
And it ISN'T so go back to(a real kung fu) school. Believe me, it will do you good.

Funny how there are styles of gung fu that don't even talk about internals,
It is usually the sifus and not the styles of gung fu that don't talk about the internals. So find a good sifu!

yet have the very same elements of power generation.
Repetition Time:
"All major kung fu styles contain both internal and external aspects. Your kung fu is incomplete without training the internal aspects".

And after a bunch more of your turning every response to you into 30 various little trite responses....we end up here.

And you can let go of my hand now!:D

______

HardWork8

05-18-2008, 08:30 PM

The simple fact of the matter is I don't need the fairy tale periphials that often come packaged with internal training.
Keep telling everyone that I am selling fairy tales you might convince someone eventually,.:rolleyes:

Whenever I learned something in the martial arts...I always wanted to know the why and how--the underlying reasons of why something worked. The only way to know that is to understand how it works.
Then check out the concept of "liveness", Mr Van"Shotokan is live"Kuen.

Thus I understand it at a biological level, and it's nothing that is extraordinary.
It is extraordinary for me, as I am not a biologist. Do you also crosstrain in biology? If so, then your training is very profound indeed,:rolleyes:

You on the otherhand do not...you understand at the level of parroting words and catch phrases without the ability to elaborate.
I am not in the habit of elaborating things that I don't have to elaborate. Enough info was provided for others to understand what I was talking about. You didn't get it and that is because your MA approach is primarily EXTERNAL! End of story.

Besides, even without wanting to explain myself, I have ended up repeat typing simplet concepts to you and that is because you refuse or don't have the capacity to understand certain (non-kickboxing?)approaches.

Like I said before, chi is an internal life force. Everyone has it...the stronger the chi the more healthy someone will be. It is an intrinsic energy thought to travel through the nervous pathways. As far as martial uses are concerned, the theory is that it can be converted to a vibrating kinetic energy--a process known as fah jing. My Grandmaster in Florida used to always talk about it when we punched...he said to make sure we used "fah jing". This was thought to be the highest level of power generation since it didn't use the muscles...but again...on a biological level, the bones only move when the brain tells the muscles to contract. So there's that.

If you understand that concept in the way that you do then why do you refer to chi as magical? Oh, whoops I see, it is that "brain" thing. Ok no problem we all need to work within our individual capcities:D

Long story short--the mind leads the body, meaning the mind uses the electronic stimulus to lead the body with the nervous system as its medium. The brain tells the body through both autonomic and voluntary actions what to do, how to do it, how fast to go, when to breathe, etc. This is commonly known and should be easy to understand.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ....

Now here's where you need to pay attention because here is where I part ways with your ideas that internalists
And you enter the realm of the kickboxers, I suppose.

somehow have some extra magical (yes I said it--sue away!)
You are living in a world of dillusions but I suppose a lot of your "functional" training and the resultant full contact blows to your head have caused the brain tissue damage that would explain that situation.

ways of taking mechanical signals and turning them into electrical stimulus to the brain.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZ........

Everything you experience in the world is empirical--meaning of the senses.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZ...........

You interprete everything from your sense of sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell.
You really know your highschool biology.:rolleyes:
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZ....

The biological process of taking the initial tactile input and transforming into electrical impulse is called mechanosensory transduction, and is based soley on the amount of nerve endings (mechanoreceptors aka corpuscles) in the dermis.
That is it, use technical words so that people will think that you are intelligent and forget your "foot in the mouth" moment and your lack of knowledge regarding the concept of "liveness" in the kung fu internals.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZ

That's why when you get slapped on your nipple it hurts more getting slapped on your shoulder;
Hey, who slapped you on your nipple? And how much did you have to pay for it?

and because of this, a person's ability to register inputs is primarily genetic...meaning that what you are born with is what you get.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ..

However the body can concentrate on a particular sense more than another--it's by no means more profound or more precise due to anything that has to do with internal training.
I feel another "foot in the mouth" moment on its way....

Blind people are said to have a greater sense of touch and hearing than the average person, why?Do you think they all practiced gung fu to achieve this most profound and precise feat?
Of course not. They all practiced kickboxing just like you and as a result they cannot differentiate between an intenal approach to blocking and an external one such as that of Shotokan karate.

They did it because it was a natural biological process of sensory compensation.
I don't recall my kung fu teachers, who had "liveness" being blind, but maybe they were just pretending not to be blind.:D

How do I know all this?
Highschool biology?

Because I study gung fu
LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LO L!LOL!LOL!LOL1LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL! LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!

I have got to tell you Vankuen that I have had a lousy day today but you have cheered me up. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

amongst other things,
Amongst other things like Muy Thai, TKD,Judo, High School Biology,etc. that are jumbled up in your own fighting method called "Vankuen" or VanFist, I presume...LOL!LOL!

which included the study of the human anatomy and physiology...oh...and I'm going to grad school for physical therapy. Whoops...I guess I forgot to mention all that before didn't I?
LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL! You left out the enchant art of "D1ck Waving" from your resume...LOL!LOL!LOL!

So instead of telling people fairy tales that only the internal training does this or that...give credit where credit is due...especially when there are so many examples of this extraordinary skill in external martial arts like wrestling, jujutsu, judo, Muay thai, and even other people that don't even practice martial arts like disabled / blind people. It's not a skill exclusive to internal stylists by any means.
You are really missing the point aren't you? But do continue as even you haven't made me laugh so much for a long time.LOL!LOL!LOL!

And just to make sure there's no misconception here...I have nothing against internal martial arts,

Why should you have anything against internal martial arts? After all you don't know anything about them!

What I have a problem with, is people who give misleading information and people who proliferate fallacies in the martial arts--knowingly or unknowingly.
Can you please explain what is so misleading about the concept of "liveness" as regards the internals in kung fu (not shotokan karate LOL!LOL!LOL!).

Cut this post up all you want
Thank you for the permission oh ye great king of kickboxers.

...turn it into 50 responses filled with nonsense,
I couldn't dream of putting in or adding any more(irrelevant and deceptive) nonesense than you have

mention my name in all your future posts in an attempt make assumptive insults towards me,
More than I already have? Boy, you are addicted to fame aren't you? Well, I suppose that is an aspect of "modern" martial arts today.

do whatever you want. I don't care anymore and it just makes you look even more like an idiot.
I will have to try very hard to make myself look like a bigger idiot than you.

You've outed yourself better than anyone else could do it for you.

Keep dreaming.:D

With that...I bid you farewell and good luck in your journeys.
Farewell to you too and thanks for letting me hold your hand. By the way, you need to work on your Iron Palm.;)

Both in your basement practicing wing chun
That is REAL wing chun and remember that!

and your newest gung fu school that you are afraid to name.[/q
I could name it if you want, but then I would have to kill you.;)

Daniel09

05-19-2008, 02:25 AM

Actually, after reading these last few pages, I have to say that Vankuen sounds like the more sensible one in the arguement. He is stating his points clearly and still being respectful. On the other hand, HardWork8 is being really immature about his point simply saying the same thing over and over again without really giving a good reason for being right other than "I am". To be honest, you sound like my father, stubborn as anything. When he gets an idea of something in his head that he thinks is right, he's right and your wrong unless you agree, but you have to agree from the beginning or you're lying. Especially if he wins the fight, then all hell breaks loose (or the night calms down and everyone does whatever).

So I guess what I'm saying here is that from my perspective HardWork is acting like a child, snoring through half of the logical stuff that Vankuen said. I know what all the things in his posts mean (technical word-wise) and he wasn't being random or misleading with his words. If you spent the time to learn about them you'd find they're simply explaining how the body works to achieve the same effect you seem so proud to defend with LolLols and d1ckwaving comments.

HardWork8

05-19-2008, 08:22 AM

Actually, after reading these last few pages, I have to say that Vankuen sounds like the more sensible one in the arguement.
Firsty, you have to read more than a few pages and even go to the Wing Chun thread where all this started.

Here is another useful info for you. When one learns kung fu techniques, one is shown those techniques and has to practice them. Sifu will explain the relevance of those techniques to fighting and to his own personal experience. He will also explain the ideas and concepts behind it. Any further explanations will depend wether you have the time or the inclinations to learn the micro biological details.

The priority is an understanding of the technique as regards its correct performance and its validity to combat.

Keep that in mind everytime someone tries to draw you away from that approach into the biological, chemical or physical discussions.

Secondly, you have missed the point. The "answer" to Vankuen's question has been posted in the Wing Chun thread by my person. He could not see it as he did not have any idea about the concept of "live" techniques as opposed to "dead" ones as regards blocking (and striking). Others saw it.

So we get, "redirection is just that redirection"; "sensitivity is just that sensitivity". His words, not mine. He could not even differentiate between an internal approach to blocking and an external approach such as those used in the art of Shotokan karate. Well after all blocking is just blocking isn't it? LOL!

He went on further to accuse me of selling "Magical Chi" concepts. LOL

Confused and lost he found his way to the "internals" forum where his question about the validity of this approach was more than answered by Scott R. Brown who took the time to write a concise explanation of the subject matter.

Then Vankuen ran back to the original Wing Chun thread to write:

...Oh but for those who are wondering about the live vs dead limbs, semantics aside, it is just a very mainstream idea used in almost all forms of gung fu, it was actually explained over in the internal style forums.

I bolded the key words in that statement.

So the idea was so "mainstream" that Vankuen had no idea about even when given a good example to work with and that being the distinction of the Internals with a style such as Shotokan karate. Only a few people seemed to have a grasp of the subject/concept.

So, in not so many words Vankuen was just saying that, he knew all along! LOL!

He is stating his points clearly and still being respectful.
And you are falling for this facade.

On the other hand, HardWork8 is being really immature about his point simply saying the same thing over and over again without really giving a good reason for being right other than "I am".
Be kind enough to read the whole story before you jump to conclusions. I am being "immature" because I don't take Vankuen's kung fu knowledge and his "hidding" behind a "biologist's desk" seriously.

He falsely accused me of selling my "Magical Chi" when I first mentioned these concepts and now that these concepts and their validity have been proved to him, he has failed to apologize for implying that I was no more than a conman. He has gone further to imply that he knew all along. And now you come in to protect him. Interesting forum this.:rolleyes:

To be honest, you sound like my father, stubborn as anything. When he gets an idea of something in his head that he thinks is right, he's right and your wrong unless you agree, but you have to agree from the beginning or you're lying. Especially if he wins the fight, then all hell breaks loose (or the night calms down and everyone does whatever).
I am sorry that this thread brought out some of your child hood traumas. However, if you read this and the other thread properly then you will see the person who is really being childish.

So I guess what I'm saying here is that from my perspective HardWork is acting like a child, snoring through half of the logical stuff that Vankuen said. I know what all the things in his posts mean (technical word-wise) and he wasn't being random or misleading with his words. If you spent the time to learn about them you'd find they're simply explaining how the body works to achieve the same effect you seem so proud to defend with LolLols and d1ckwaving comments.

He is explaining how the body works AFTER the concept was explained to him and he was the one d1ck waving his biological knowledge.

Bob Ashmore

05-19-2008, 08:58 AM

Vankuen,
Your post explaining your understanding of the concept of "live vs. dead sensitivity" was pretty darned good as far as I'm concerned. I'm certainly no expert in sensitivity, internal training or even biology, being only a lowly student of Tai Chi Chuan, but I clearly understood and followed what you were trying to say without any trouble and don't have any real issues with your explanations validity.
This "internal stylist" would say that for only being a "lowly Kickboxer" :rolleyes: you've figured out the concept pretty darned well. ;)
Seriously though I, for one, would never dream of denigrating the skills of kickboxing. I've taken some mighty big lumps from kickboxers in my time training martial arts. You guys are fast, scary fast actually. I have often admired the ability to move quickly in response to an opponents actions, as I've seen kickboxers do quite often, without any apparent way to know what their opponent was going to do. That's "live sensitivity" in most anyones book.
I, for one internalist, would never dream of believing that internal arts have superior skills in sensitivity over any other art. I have too often been thrown to the ground by Aikido or Jujitsu guys, with no more substantive time training in their art than I have mine, who used my smallest inconsistency in stance or balance to find my center and introduce me to the floor to believe that Tai Chi is the ONLY art with advanced sensitivity training.
I don't know about "Kung Fu" in general, as the only kind of kung fu I've ever trained or know much about is Tai Chi Chuan, but I do know that my reality on the ground ;) has shown me clearly otherwise.
Anyone can possess heightened sensitivity skills, as long as they are willing to invest the time and effort to learn them.
As for "alive vs. dead" sensitivity, I would much prefer to be alive. Being dead has no appeal to me at all. :D
I'm not really sure I understand the reasoning behind the entire argument going on here. :confused: It seems, to me, to not be anything worth getting worked up over...

My only take on a possible meaning for an "alive" vs. "dead" block is that I don't really consider the meeting, joining and redirecting of energy that I practice to be "blocking". "Blocking", as I understand the term (and that doesn't mean much), means meeting incoming force by using my own force (muscular or skeletal strength) to stop it or change it in some way. I suppose this could be considered "dead" vs. the way I have been taught to do so, which is instead to meet that force, join with it and then use a very small amount of my own force, combined with proper stance and body positioning, to redirect it in a manner advantageous to myself.
That is, of course, a very rudimentary way of explaining it, but writing these things out instead of showing it by example is quite difficult and is always subject to misunderstanding.

I wouldn't worry too much about not understanding how someone else's school applies any of the terms used in martial arts. Every school has their own unique perspective and their own way of using the words to explain the principles of their art to their students. Even in between two schools that both teach only Tai Chi Chuan I have run into different uses for the same terms. Many times, actualy. This leads to confusion when these terms are being discussed, but put two knowledgable students in the ring and allow them to demonstrate the skills they're talking about and suddenly you don't see a whole lot of difference between their technique, only in what they call it.
Anyway, it's all a moot point...
As I'm sure you know, there isn't any one person who can claim to speak for all of "Kung Fu". There are literaly thousands of "Kung Fu" styles out there, both internal and external and those who fall somewhere in the middle. Who is to say which one is "the real one that is better than all the rest"? It is foolish to believe that any one style of "Kung Fu" is any better than the rest. Anyone who tells you otherwise simply doesn't understand the concept.
Besides, there are no "Kung Fu police" to monitor every single person in the world and make sure they are falling in lock step with the "Real School of Kung Fu" methods...
Whatever they may be.
Any such police force would first have to figure out which style really is the "real one" before they could even begin their enforcement.
If you put in one days worth of training in any internal style, you will gain one days worth of skill in that internal style. Put in one days worth of talking about training an internal style, you will gain zero days worth of skill in that style.
I, myself, am not good yet. I need more practice.
That said, I do believe it's time for me to go practice.

Cheers,
Bob

HardWork8

05-19-2008, 09:11 AM

Bob Ashmore

05-19-2008, 10:00 AM

Hardwork8,

Even if things are exactly as you state them and he really is the biggest moron on the planet, what good does it do for you to rub his nose in it?
You stated at one point that you wanted to teach him something, but all it really looks like you want to do is humiliate him. I honestly don't understand why. That is not how any school I've ever trained in teaches anyone.
Isn't the fact that he finally understood the concept what you were going for in the first place? That's what you have claimed but that is not what you are doing.
Let it go. It's not worth all of this.

SAAMAG

05-19-2008, 03:15 PM

Vankuen, Your post explaining your understanding of the concept of "live vs. dead sensitivity" was pretty darned good as far as I'm concerned. I'm certainly no expert in sensitivity, internal training or even biology, being only a lowly student of Tai Chi Chuan, but I clearly understood and followed what you were trying to say without any trouble and don't have any real issues with your explanations validity.
Well...this thread regarded his choice of words with blocking. But what I was asking him all along was in regard to towards his comments on sensitivity in general. He seems to think that this whole thing had to do with blocking and somehow my "lack of knowledge" on what offense and defense is. His assumption or misundertanding is what he's using to try and retain what little face he has left and divert attention from his lack of ability to elaborate properly on the ACTUAL question brought on in the first place--a question that was asked because I knew he wouldn't be able to answer it because his claim had no validity whatsoever. Unfortunately for him people often times ask questions they already know the answers to.

The only thing I was truly inquisitive on was the terms live and dead...to see if other schools used them and how those schools interpreted those words into concepts. Which as HW8 has stated--Brown explained based on his experience with it.

This "internal stylist" would say that for only being a "lowly Kickboxer" :rolleyes: you've figured out the concept pretty darned well. ;)
Seriously though I, for one, would never dream of denigrating the skills of kickboxing. I've taken some mighty big lumps from kickboxers in my time training martial arts. You guys are fast, scary fast actually. I have often admired the ability to move quickly in response to an opponents actions, as I've seen kickboxers do quite often, without any apparent way to know what their opponent was going to do. That's "live sensitivity" in most anyones book.
I, for one internalist, would never dream of believing that internal arts have superior skills in sensitivity over any other art. I have too often been thrown to the ground by Aikido or Jujitsu guys, with no more substantive time training in their art than I have mine, who used my smallest inconsistency in stance or balance to find my center and introduce me to the floor to believe that Tai Chi is the ONLY art with advanced sensitivity training.
I appreciate the insight into the art of kickboxing and muay thai...but he only uses that term to describe anyone who doesn't agree with him. It's not that we're all kickboxers...but you probably already knew that. Many of those whom he dislikes because of their more scientific regard to martial arts practice a number of martial arts, to include chinese ones.

I don't know about "Kung Fu" in general, as the only kind of kung fu I've ever trained or know much about is Tai Chi Chuan, but I do know that my reality on the ground ;) has shown me clearly otherwise.
Anyone can possess heightened sensitivity skills, as long as they are willing to invest the time and effort to learn them.
As for "alive vs. dead" sensitivity, I would much prefer to be alive. Being dead has no appeal to me at all. :D
I'm not really sure I understand the reasoning behind the entire argument going on here. :confused: It seems, to me, to not be anything worth getting worked up over...
Honestly, I think it's a misunderstanding on either one or both parts, coupled with a defensive immaturity on his part; and though I've tried to get him to elaborate without the trite little one liners of his, he wouldn't. He's using Brown's explanation as a basis for his lack of detail. Because "anyone in the know" would have know just with those two words, right? :rolleyes:

My only take on a possible meaning for an "alive" vs. "dead" block is that I don't really consider the meeting, joining and redirecting of energy that I practice to be "blocking". "Blocking", as I understand the term (and that doesn't mean much), means meeting incoming force by using my own force (muscular or skeletal strength) to stop it or change it in some way. I suppose this could be considered "dead" vs. the way I have been taught to do so, which is instead to meet that force, join with it and then use a very small amount of my own force, combined with proper stance and body positioning, to redirect it in a manner advantageous to myself.
That is, of course, a very rudimentary way of explaining it, but writing these things out instead of showing it by example is quite difficult and is always subject to misunderstanding.

I understand what you mean. I think the term block is used like the term gung fu is for wushu. It's a catch-all for anything that is meant to stop someone from landing a successful attack. There are only four ways to do this...which I explained a few pages back.

I wouldn't worry too much about not understanding how someone else's school applies any of the terms used in martial arts. Every school has their own unique perspective and their own way of using the words to explain the principles of their art to their students. Even in between two schools that both teach only Tai Chi Chuan I have run into different uses for the same terms. Many times, actualy. This leads to confusion when these terms are being discussed, but put two knowledgable students in the ring and allow them to demonstrate the skills they're talking about and suddenly you don't see a whole lot of difference between their technique, only in what they call it.
Anyway, it's all a moot point...

Yep...that's why I was trying to get clarification.

As I'm sure you know, there isn't any one person who can claim to speak for all of "Kung Fu". There are literaly thousands of "Kung Fu" styles out there, both internal and external and those who fall somewhere in the middle. Who is to say which one is "the real one that is better than all the rest"? It is foolish to believe that any one style of "Kung Fu" is any better than the rest. Anyone who tells you otherwise simply doesn't understand the concept.
Yep. I just wish that some other people out there would understand that.

____________

Things simply are not as complicated as some people make them out to be. When I say sensitivity is just sensitivity--it's because that is something that is genetically (bilogicially) predetermined. The only thing one can do to improve it is to literally "pay more attention" to that sense--which is where the synaptic processes can be improved through familiarization of the activity in repitition.

When I look at concepts--I don't look at it from a style point of view, because that to me is the sign that someone has yet to understand fighting as it is.

SAAMAG

05-19-2008, 04:45 PM

this is pretty much the crux of the matter:

well, here is my perspective on those above points, let's see what everyone else has to say
1) forms are not "outdated", but as regards training actual fighting skill, highly limited / unnecessary, and at a certain point even counterproductive insofar as training them takes time away from more efficient methods (live, resisting opponents); forms are useful in other regards, such as increasing awareness of one's own body in space, but the degree of contextual interference inherent in them is too low for effective transfer of training to occur to a "live" situation
2) "real" qigong practice has definite effects on human physiology, that can be fully articulated according to current principles of so-called "western" anatomy / physiology / biomechanics / psychology; the "fantasy" part is that qigong is inherently "better" than other systems of mind/body movement practice; the other "fantasy" part are the descriptors utilized by past practitioners, who were limited to macro-observations of human anatomy / physciology / biomechanics and so derived culturally-contextualized metaphors to describe the macro-patterns they observed and subjective experiences they underwent; one "classic" example is the term "qi" - the mistake is to think that "qi" is a separate, measurable entity, when in fact it is a descriptor for a number of different functional parameters that exist in the body and the environment within which the body functions; meaning that things like heat, electrical energy, kinetic energy, etc. are all aspects of "qi"; it is not some sort of "other" force;
3) depends what one means by "functional"; if you want to be good at fighting, you train skills within that context, meaning live, against non-compliant opponents; if you train that way, your training will by necessity have to be "functional"
4) "live" is a descriptor that has been used by various "styles" to describe a quality of movement and interaction; in my experience with various so-called "internal" styles, it is not used exclusively across the board, which may account for why some people are familiar with it and some not
5) nothing mystical about IP: it's a method of conditioning the hand to be able to withstand impact and therefore be less damaged from hitting someone else; it also trains body mechanics to be able to deliver a strike more efficiently;

Good post CJ.

1. I agree completely. They have been used to pass on information and teach the flow of a particular style, develop coordination assist in the cardiovascular training of the practicitioners...and to me their merits end there.

2. Absolutely agree!

3. I've really seen no one say that at all on here...but though some kung fu out there may not be functional, the same could be said about other non-chinese systems.

4. Yep...that pretty much sums it up. The concept is not unfamiliar, the terms were. I drilled him about it because his explanation ended with those two words and he couldn't elaborate any further.

5. Yep...and everyone minus a few concurred with that.

-----

He just has a habit of latching on to something -- anything -- that will make his statements seem more profound or correct. Perhaps he should learn that it's better to lengthen one's own line than it is to try and cut someone else's.

HardWork8

05-19-2008, 08:46 PM

Hardwork8,
Even if things are exactly as you state them and he really is the biggest moron on the planet, what good does it do for you to rub his nose in it?
I wouldn't rub his nose in it:

1. If he hadn't come back and in not so many words said that "he knew all along".

2. If he had said that he had no idea about the concept of live blocking as opposed to dead blocking. After all, that is why Vankuen started this thread in the first place.

3. If he had apologized for suggesting that I was here selling my "magic chi".

4. If he hadn't also made it worse by bringing up my involvment in a Bullshido Thread and falsly claiming that I had lied and had been kicked out of that thread. This was based on comments made by Sanjuro_Ronin (a liar) another forum kickboxer.

He has not apologized for that comment either!

5. If he hadn't implied that there was something wrong with my knowledge because I had not explained it in a biologically detailed manner.:rolleyes:

You stated at one point that you wanted to teach him something, but all it really looks like you want to do is humiliate him.

He humiliated himself by those 5 points I mentioned above. All he had to do was come back and say, "hey Hardwork8, now I see your point and sorry for implying that you were peddling 'magical chi'."

No, you never get any "I am sorries" from Vankuen and his kickboxer colleagues. I have a theory about this. I believe that due to their "functional and practical" training and an over reliance on contact fighting, the part of the brain involved in apologizing ends up damaged due to being hit excessively by punches and kicks.:D

I honestly don't understand why. That is not how any school I've ever trained in teaches anyone.
Neither does the school I have trained in, but sometimes it is necessary.

Isn't the fact that he finally understood the concept what you were going for in the first place?

Yes, but now the Forum's own "Internals Einstein" claims that I didn't know about the concepts that I brought into his attention. All because I did not explain it to him to his "biological specifications".:rolleyes:

That's what you have claimed but that is not what you are doing.
Let it go. It's not worth all of this.

I hope things are a bit clearer.

HardWork8

05-19-2008, 08:49 PM

thanks for the input; who did you steal your information from this time? ;)

I think he is hacking into Scott R Brown's computer.;)

HardWork8

05-19-2008, 08:59 PM

He just has a habit of latching on to something -- anything -- that will make his statements seem more profound or correct. Perhaps he should learn that it's better to lengthen one's own line than it is to try and cut someone else's.

Yes, keep pretending to be morally superior. Well at least you didn't spew any lies this time. There may be hope for you yet, morally speaking that is. As far as real kung fu is concerned then I am not holding my breath.

SAAMAG

05-19-2008, 09:33 PM

Pretending is a strong word, friend. I am completely honest when it comes to training. I know my weaknesses and my strengths because of how I train -- so there's no misunderstanding on what I know or don't know or what I need to work on and what I do well. Besides that...what does morals have to do with any of this? It's been mostly about maturity levels than anything else.

But look -- let's bury the hatchet. I think that people see that it was mostly a misunderstanding coupled with assumptions on both of our parts that made all this what it was. The fact that you and I both were shooting in jabs about each other's knowledge or lack thereof didn't help anything and neither of the comments can be validated.

So let's stop assuming that we know what the other person is thinking, let's stop assuming to know how the other person trains or how much they understand something. Definitely stop trying to redirect attention from one thing to something else and just keep things simple.

All I ask, is when a claim is made--and it is questioned--that you back it up appropriately and not get all flustered all the while making immature comments.

You may not like the fact that someone disagrees with you, but if you back up your claims with facts than there's not much anyone can say about that. If you try to back it up with vague catch words and phrases, that will do nothing to promote your viewpoint and you will be questioned even further. Lastly...when someone does ask you a question...remember that it's not always because they want the answer--it's because they want to see what your answer will be.

HardWork8

05-19-2008, 09:39 PM

well, here is my perspective on those above points, let's see what everyone else has to say
Why don't you start a new thread?

1) forms are not "outdated", but as regards training actual fighting skill, highly limited / unnecessary,
So, you would teach kung fu without teaching any forms which may have been part of the original style?

and at a certain point even counterproductive insofar as training them takes time away from more efficient methods (live, resisting opponents);
Don't you think that the masters who designed these styles, often at times of conflict and turmoil, knew of this "shortcoming"? Or are you just smarter than they were?

forms are useful in other regards, such as increasing awareness of one's own body in space,
Add also: to train correct breathing, relaxation together with combat visualization.

You also forgot to mention that forms training can be used as conditioning exercises, internal as well as external.

2) "real" qigong practice has definite effects on human physiology, that can be fully articulated according to current principles of so-called "western" anatomy / physiology / biomechanics / psychology; the "fantasy" part is that qigong is inherently "better" than other systems of mind/body movement practice; the other "fantasy" part are the descriptors utilized by past practitioners, who were limited to macro-observations of human anatomy / physciology / biomechanics and so derived culturally-contextualized metaphors to describe the macro-patterns they observed and subjective experiences they underwent; one "classic" example is the term "qi" - the mistake is to think that "qi" is a separate, measurable entity, when in fact it is a descriptor for a number of different functional parameters that exist in the body and the environment within which the body functions; meaning that things like heat, electrical energy, kinetic energy, etc. are all aspects of "qi"; it is not some sort of "other" force;

Maybe it is or maybe it is not, but don't base your position on the fact that Westen science has not been able to see any "other" force relating to the subject of chi.

Western science is not all that it is cracked up to be!

3) depends what one means by "functional"; if you want to be good at fighting, you train skills within that context, meaning live, against non-compliant opponents; if you train that way, your training will by necessity have to be "functional"

And this is where the art of kickboxing comes to mind. If you are practicing kung fu then you have to practice it functionally as well, but using the particulat methodology of the style that you practice and not what you "think" is the best way to practice.

This would imply learning the forms, Iron Palm, fixed sparring, chi sao and then free sparring, for example, and doing so in the order they were designed to be practiced and not in the order that you "think" suites you best.

4) "live" is a descriptor that has been used by various "styles" to describe a quality of movement and interaction; in my experience with various so-called "internal" styles, it is not used exclusively across the board, which may account for why some people are familiar with it and some not

They may be unfamiliar with the "descriptor" or name:rolleyes:, but they should not be unfamiliar with the concept and should be able to recognize it when given the relevant information and examples.;)

5) nothing mystical about IP: it's a method of conditioning the hand to be able to withstand impact and therefore be less damaged from hitting someone else; it also trains body mechanics to be able to deliver a strike more efficiently;
Are you talking about Makiwara training? And do you consider makiwara training the same as IP?

HardWork8

05-19-2008, 10:06 PM

All I ask, is when a claim is made--and it is questioned--that you back it up appropriately and not get all flustered all the while making immature comments.

And he asks me to bury the hatchet!

Vankuen, I am not going to repeat myself on this one. My fingers are hurting from typing the same things over and over again for you. I am also running out of Dit Dat Jo( known as 'magic chi potion' by some).

Lastly...when someone does ask you a question...remember that it's not always because they want the answer--it's because they want to see what your answer will be.

And that is their problem, especially if no one but you has asked that question. Everybody seemed to have grasped the "essence" of what I was saying except you.

You even started this thread to enlighten yourself to the existance of the concept of "liveness" and that is after falsley accusing me of selling "magical chi".

The concept was clarified/verified for you. Then you suddenly tood the attitude which said, "how dare HW8 know about something that I didn't have a clue about, that is impossible, he is faking it and I am going to expose him while hiding the fact that I didn't have a clue". This led to you attempting to test me on the (real) concept that I had myself introduced in the Wing Chun thread.

Can you see my angle?

Why don't you admit that you were unfamiliar with the concept of "liveness". Why do you have run around in circles?

SAAMAG

05-19-2008, 10:45 PM

And he asks me to bury the hatchet!

You really don't realize that most of your quips are immature?

And that is their problem, especially if no one but you has asked that question. Everybody seemed to have grasped the "essence" of what I was saying except you. You even started this thread to enlighten yourself to the existance of the concept of "liveness" and that is after falsley accusing me of selling "magical chi"
See THAT right there is where you're getting off on the wrong foot again. You're assuming that you know the motives behind my questions. Here's your correction: I started this thread to get clarification on the literal words you used in relation to a particular concept. We could have ended up with several different concepts for those very same words. In addition to this concept that you speak of, I can give you 3 others where those terms are used in a different fashion.

The concept was clarified/verified for you. Then you suddenly tood the attitude which said, "how dare HW8 know about something that I didn't have a clue about, that is impossible, he is faking it and I am going to expose him while hiding the fact that I didn't have a clue". This led to you attempting to test me on the (real) concept that I had myself introduced in the Wing Chun thread.

Can you see my angle?
I see your assumptions. What actually occurred was that a concept of gung fu was elaborated on -- which I did indeed understand and know about and yes, even practice myself -- which shouldn't be too much of a surprise for you since we both practice wing chun and other styles of gung fu. I find it odd that you actually believe what you're saying in that regard.

Why don't you admit that you were unfamiliar with the concept of "liveness". Why do you have run around in circles?
Why? Because that would be lying...and you don't like liars. I was unfamiliar with the terms that you used in relation to the concept. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Also, The only person that was running around in circles was you--because instead of answering the original question about sensitivity in general you focused on your self proclaimed epiphany that only you and few others would know about the concept--again not understanding that the motive behind questions isn't always what it seems.

I've backed up every single statement I make on this forum--based on real experience. People don't have to ask me numerous times to explain myself. And if you had been on here longer than 1 month you'd realize that my M.O. is often times posing questions to prove a point. It's a basic strategy in the art of war and the book of five rings.

Additionally...you missed the point of the biology lesson. The point was to debunk your statement that internal gung fu training gives a person a higher level of sensitivity. Because by FACT -- it does not. You're training in sensitivity only provides a vehicle for the student to pay more attention to the said skill--but it by no means changes the actual ability to feel anything more precisely.

Have a good night. I won't have internet access for a couple weeks...so you'll just have to play with someone else for a while.

Bob Ashmore

05-20-2008, 05:49 AM

HW8,
No, nothing is clear at all about your motivation to continue this argument.
Your continued pursuit of "winning" this argument at all costs, even though it is entirely unclear what you will win, violates every martial arts ethical and moral code I've ever learned. It was unnecessary in the first place and that alone makes it not understandable above and beyond the fact that there is no honor to be had from pursuing it.

Also, you have chosen to continue this argument even after a peaceful way to resolve it has been offered to you. In what school of martial art did you learn that this is acceptable? Does your Wing Chun schools code of ethics teach that relentless pursuit of an opponent that has offered a peaceful resolution is acceptable?
Your opponents have tried, repeatedly, to give you a way to move this conversation forward without further conflict. They have offered to continue the conversation on a peaceful note, to exchange information and ideas and do so while everyone agrees to disagree if they so desire.
However you have scorned this invitation to a peaceful resolution and continue to relentlessly chase after some elusive goal that I, at least, do not see.

Because your motivation to do this is totally unclear to me and I do wish to understand, I will make this question to you quite direct: What do you hope to gain from all this arguing?
Maybe if we all clearly understand what it is that you are trying to accomplish we can help you to do so.

HardWork8

05-20-2008, 06:31 AM

You really don't realize that most of your quips are immature?
Sorry, but you can't ask someone to "bury the hatchet" and in the next breath call them "immature".

See THAT right there is where you're getting off on the wrong foot again. You're assuming that you know the motives behind my questions.
Any assumptions on my part were based on your posts.

Here's your correction: I started this thread to get clarification on the literal words you used in relation to a particular concept. We could have ended up with several different concepts for those very same words. In addition to this concept that you speak of, I can give you 3 others where those terms are used in a different fashion.
Of course you can provide 3 or even more concepts where those terms are used in a different fashion, howevr, that is why I provided you with the Shotokan example and you still didn't see the significance of the internal blocking as opposed to external. Do you now see why I doubt your knowledge in this area of Kung fu training?

I see your assumptions. What actually occurred was that a concept of gung fu was elaborated on -- which I did indeed understand and know about and yes, even practice myself -- which shouldn't be too much of a surprise for you since we both practice wing chun and other styles of gung fu. I find it odd that you actually believe what you're saying in that regard.

The world is full of crappy kung fu schools, with crappy sifus and their crappy students. I have no way of knowing what it is that you really practice. I can only base it on your posts and you not knowing the distinction between a Shotokan way of blocking and an internal way and not being able to relate them to the concepts of "live" blocking as opposed to "dead" ones, did not help your case!

Why? Because that would be lying...
It is too late for that. SEE: "I knew this all along";"You were kicked out of Bullshido for lying";Accusation of me selling "Magical Chi......".

and you don't like liars.
But you DO! I can see that by the kind of company you keep in this forum.

I was unfamiliar with the terms that you used in relation to the concept.
But not it seems to its significance when compared to the dead blocks of Shotokan, after all "redirection is just that redirection", your words, not mine.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?
See ALL of above!

Also, The only person that was running around in circles was you--
Yes, repeat typing the same demn things to you!

because instead of answering the original question about sensitivity
The question was answered with enough info for those who practice the internal for REAL to understand. It was NOT a puzzle nor a mystery (well, maybe for you it was!).

in general you focused on your self proclaimed epiphany that only you and few others would know about the concept--
And that was a FACT!

again not understanding that the motive behind questions isn't always what it seems.
Oh, I understood the motives all right! you were trying to imply that I didn't know what I was talking about. You may even had had justification for that IF I hadn't provided you with the Shotokan example.

I've backed up every single statement I make on this forum--based on real experience.
Then I would hazard a guess that your "real experience" regarding the Internals is rather limited.;)

People don't have to ask me numerous times to explain myself. And if you had been on here longer than 1 month you'd realize that my M.O. is often times posing questions to prove a point.
And that is one of your problem as you keep "testing" people who may know a lot more than you. That in turn can be taken by them as an insult.

By the way, as you know I have been here for almost a year.

It's a basic strategy in the art of war and the book of five rings.
The man reads books too.:eek:

You used that strategy in the wrong context and see where it got you!

Additionally...you missed the point of the biology lesson. The point was to debunk your statement that internal gung fu training gives a person a higher level of sensitivity.
It does according to my experience and my studies. IF you emphasis the internals then you will get a very finetuned sensitivity that does not exist in the externals. Most people don't because the training can be "boring","non-functional","fantasy","time consuming/very longterm" and so on.

Result?

They only scratch the surface and compare this "scratch" to results gained from external training.

Because by FACT -- it does not.
You mean KNUCKLEHEAD fact, don't you?

You're training in sensitivity only provides a vehicle for the student to pay more attention to the said skill--but it by no means changes the actual ability to feel anything more precisely.

Oh how wrong you are. You are looking from an external perspective, because in essence that it what you are, an externalist.

Have a good night.
You too. And don't let the magical chi monsters get you.

I won't have internet access for a couple weeks...
No internet for a couple of weeks! wow!
Are you going for a retreat in a Shaolin Do monestary to ponder the modern internals?

so you'll just have to play with someone else for a while.
Life is just so unfair!

HardWork8

05-20-2008, 10:23 AM

I don't understand the point of this question; why would that necessarily be more advantageous then discussing it here?
Well it is a new and an interesting area of discussion and worthy of a thread of its own.
Besides, you could join Vankuen in helping me perfect the "art of starting a thread without starting a thread".:D

if I were teaching a specific "style" of TCMA, I would teach the forms that comprise that style, because without them, it would be a misnomer to claim I was teaching that style,
Makes sense.

unless I advertised it as my personal re-interpretation thereof;
You mean something under the banner of "Chriskuen", perhaps?:D

even still, I would teach the forms in context of being an historical aspect of that style, and as one means of training certain attributes;
Makes sense.

however, if my goal was solely to teach someone to fight, I would not utilize martial-based forms, although I might employ certain qigong sequences to pinpoint certain things; but again, that would not be a style-specific construct;
Agreed again, but remember some forms,depending on the style, will train specific attributes related to fighting as well.

I say nothing about the "masters" of old per se, because, frankly, it's all just hearsay: we really have no verifiable way of knowing what certain masters knew or did,
I am not concerned with their individual actions/challenges/stories etc. However, in many cases they have left behind arts that have continued to survive for centuries, having been studied and passed down by other masters as well.

as far as master's being aware of the role of forms, my belief is that forms were used as a way of "training" students at a superficial level more to keep them in the "outer courtyard" and as a way of allowing non-fighters (translation: paying customers) to practice TCMA; they were also used as a dictionary of techniques, a way of remembering things for a class of individuals that were typically illiterate
That is your belief and not a universal truth and fair enough!

I am "smarter", because I function successfully within a specific cultural context that they would not do so well in (to wit, GM CTS: he had a hard time dealing with contemporary US society,
From what I hear, a lot of Americans have the same problem.

I can analyze things like qigong in a more detailed and specific manner in terms of the effect on physiological function; so it's really, at bottom, a pointless question to ask unless you are attempting to make me appear arrogant:
That depends on wether you are claiming to know all there is to know about qigong and its effects on the human physiology/health/martial arts.

if you mean at bottom were the "old masters" more adept in surviving in their specific cultural milieu, yes, they were smarter; and what?
No, I mean the old masters knew what they were doing when they designed specific forms,qi gong and other methodology as regards their individual style. The fact that some of these methodologies don't make sense today may have more to do with the "lost" aspects of training than inherent weaknesses in kung fu practice.

of course there are other things, I named one: although I question what you mean by "correct" breathing: please elaborate (I will gladly do so in turn if you wish);
If you look at a Sam Chen form then you may appreciate what I mean with correct breathing, specially if you compare it with its Okinawan counterpart the San chien, which use a different approach.

Also, in the Siu Lam Wing Chun, the breathing out changes if you are using a biu jee strike as opposed to a punch. Forms can help one practice the different types of breathing while using the corresponding techniques.

the more exposure you have to an adrenaline dump, the better you will function in that scenario (something forms training cannot provide, because the perceived danger doesn't exist)
No one is suggesting that forms should be practiced at the expense of combat training. They both have their place. If you have time on your hands and you are alone then they can be a good training tool.

by that token, you "forgot" to add increased orientation to mid line and improved bilateral visual/vestibular integration,
You don't know how intelligent that makes you sound.:D

specifically Sun Lu Tang's book, where he basically makes up the terms to differentiate his approach from that of pretty much everyone else; before that, the "original" distinction was based more on the difference between physical / movement-based practices (e.g. - yoga-derived, Shaolin-type practice) and sedentary / visualization-based practices (e.g. - Taoist inner cultivation practices);

Yet my sifus all take the internal/soft approach, and it is even for novices, different from what is known as the external. Maybe Sun Lu Tang was trying to classify in a way that it was easier for knuckleheads to understand and make distinction with the "externals". Or maybe this clasification existed before him but was unknown to you.

I mean, if it's real, then it follows that there has to be some sort of physiological changes occurring in the body as a result; for example, if one were to practice Taoist "deer breathing" (I mean, you can't get more "internal" than that), what actually occurs physiologically? what changes?

The tendons/sinues usually get thicker and stronger, creating a kind of elastic hardness. Internals are not just about breathing exercises and meditation. You can see the physical effects as well.

...for example, one of the principles in the taiji system I practice is, "hei lau, jow tiin" - "qi flows, completes heaven"; this is describing what it feels like when one employs certain postural alignment techniques that are considered necessary for "correct" taiji practice; now, if you were not familiar with how the parasympathetic nervous system functions, you might be inclined to construe the feelings associated with "qi flows completing heaven" with some sort of specific "force"; however, having an understanding of what the postural mechanics do in order to stimulate PSNS, and the subsequent physiological cascade that follows, you can understand clearly how the associated feelings of heat, relaxation, buoyancy, etc. are the result of that change in vertical habitus; as such, one can still enjoy the truly remarkable effects but without having to construe it through the vagueness of a term like "qi" - meaning you can see things such as they are, and respond accordingly (very Ch'an, in fact!)
So, here you are saying that you have solved all the "mysteries" regarding Chi using your western approach and there is no more for you to discover:rolleyes:.

ah yes, the catch-phrase of all those who think that so-called 'western" science is inherently not up to the task of describing so-called "eastern" phenomena;

Not fully, that is for sure.

first, what is so-called "western" science "cracked up" to be?
second how does it fall short of that mark?
As good as it is, some people see western science as the beginning and the end of all knowledge. Forgetting that new theories are born all the time while old "truths" are discarded.

third, by implication you are suggesting that there are other systems more complete / better suited to describing the world in which we live: what are they, and how do they do a better job?
You are implication is wrong. My statement, which still stands, refers to western sciense not understanding certain aspects of Eatern science. Meaning, that it does not have the answer for everything and by implication cannot always be used as a point of reference to debunk the Eastern approach.

fourth, please give your qualifications in regards to your training and / or experience in the "western" and alternate methods so that we can ascertain that you are sufficiently well-versed therein in order to be able to correctly compare the two; I mean, if you are going to preach a system's purported shortcomings, logically one would have to actually know enough about it in order to do so, correct?
Whoops another d1ck waving moment. Since you were wrong in presuming that I was debunking the Western approach as a whole, that means your final question is irrelevant. However, I am going to give you a recent none MA example.

A couple of weeks ago a lady friend of mine asked me about seeing one of my kung fu teachers here in London. She has suffered from bad pains on her lower kneck. Apparently there is something wrong with her vertabrae (I am not sure what).

Her (Western) doctor who is a specialist had informed her that there was nothing more to be done for her and she would just have to live with the pain. He was honest enough however to tell her to look for some oriental solutions, because at is turned out he had had the same problem himself and had been CURED by an oriental therapist.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, she has just had her second treatment with my sifu and told me that she has never felt so good since her problem started. The chronic pain has been reduced greatly and she was a bit surprised by the results herself.

Obviously we have to wait and see the results for the long term, but at least things are looking good for her.:)

And that is just one example!

sanjuro_ronin

05-20-2008, 10:27 AM

..your turn, troll...

Ah dude, why bother?
The ignore button is your friend, probably would make Gene real happy if more of us used it, know what I mean? ;)

HardWork8

05-20-2008, 04:20 PM

this statement belies your fundamental ideology as systems-based, as opposed to individualistic: you forget that any system is not as such in the abstract, but the direct result of an individual or group of individual's context-specific experience(s) and as such are not infallible; it's a nice way of feeling safe about things though - if what you study has all the answers programmed into it, it removes the risk that you might be wasting your time, or that you might actually have to think and test for yourself in order to verify what you are being taught
You miss the point. A student is a student for a reason and so is the teacher. The stuldent cannot go to class and start "thinking" before he has grasped the subject. My Siu Lam sifu always says that once you learn your kung fu style(s) properly then and only then can you make it your own. There is sense in that view. You can't suddenly start "thinking" in the Siu lim tao stage of your WC training because your thinking will be flowed. Gain at least a good understanding of your art before you start "acting smart".

(you wouldn't do very well in a Cha'n school with that attitude; but then you obviously have no knowledge of the Ch'an canon, belied by your prior comment about slamming the door on my head in response to my statement about slamming it on someone's foot, indicating you have no real classical training, despite your bravado about learning "authentic" kung-fu)

Christ! you can't take joke can you? Besides, enlightenment does hurt sometimes.;)

again, subsuming of the individual to the system; I'll give you a great example of why this is not necessarily true if you really want (it's just a lot to type)

No! the individual has first got to learn the system following the syllabus and then go on to manifest his deeper self.

That is how things happen in many other areas in life. You don't go to university and then decide to change the syllabus to suite your own preferences regarding the subject. Once you become a doctor or lawyer then you can bring out your own individuality regarding your area of expertise. If this doesn't make sense then I don't know what will.

that is a matter of conjecture and projection of what you think "ought" to be the case, nothing more

Yes, keep protecting him.:rolleyes:

they have similarities, and they have differences: the similarities involve striking an object in order to build up resistance to injury in the hands; they differ insofar as IP typically uses preparatory / conclusory exercises in order to optimize the local and global physiology for such practices, as well as the use of various internal and external remedies to support that; are there other differences of which you are aware?

Well actually, as far as makiwara training is concerned I would go so far to say that it one cannot classify it as IP. Also, some schools of karate do use internal and external medicine.

One of my sifus(the same one who is treating my friend) once pointed out that the typical way of karate makiwara training is considered harmful from TCMA point of view, as the shock of the blow goes back to the body. This wasn't the first time I have heard this observation.

In my Iron Palm training, not only do I hit the sandbag but I also hit the sand bucket. Here the object is not to just harden the hand but also to learn to project the energy of the punch deep inside the sand. A rhythm is created by the practitioner and the sound of the impacts tells you if you are hitting correctly. Now the object is to hit in a "soft" penetrative manner and not the "hard" impact variety (I think I just heard the head of one of our forum's prominent kickboxers explode).
The breathing is very deep and the lower stomack expands as the punch hits the sand and the practitioner breaths out.

In short iron palm is not just to harden hands but to also build the ability to hit through deep inside the opponents body by relatively "soft" blows.

Some of the IP exercises themselves can be considered chi kung training.

your turn, troll...
:confused:

HardWork8

05-20-2008, 04:39 PM

Ah dude, why bother?
The ignore button is your friend, probably would make Gene real happy if more of us used it, know what I mean? ;)

Why bother? The same reason that you are bothering to read the whole thread while giving that advice. I bet that you have more faces than the number of MAs that you practice.

HW8

P.S. By the way, have you made untruthful remarks and spread lies about anyone else lately?

Daniel09

05-20-2008, 05:23 PM

I know my post probably wasn't very important, but I'd still like to set something straight. I happen to still be quite adolescent and thus mood swings are very common. Therefor I have looked back over and decided that my post was pretty ill thought out. I honestly don't know much, if anything about what you two are argueing about and just from an outside point of view, it just seems like you both have extremely conflicting personalities, unable to agree no matter how many times you both say the same thing. But again, I have no control over the way my brain views things and it changes every day, so pay next to no reguard to this post. I know my own silliness when I see it, and even this post seems silly by the time I've finished typing it.

HardWork8

05-21-2008, 03:40 PM

you can train all the attributes you like, but if they are trained exclusively on a self-referential basis, they will always have only the shell of the technique and lack the true understanding in context of working them off of a resisting opponent;

Yet again! I was not talking about forms being trained exclusively on a self-referential basis.

but as soon as one has the basic idea of the movements, they should be practiced with a compliant and then soon-thereafter a non-compliant partner; after that, you don't really need to do the forms anymore in terms of applying the moves; I would even go so far as to say that only when one has completely internalized the principles then one can go do the forms
Say that to the real kung fu masters who created these styles or who are teaching them the way they are and not to me! I still say that there is benefit in training forms when one happens to be on his own and with time on his hands.

the old "it's been done that way for centuries so it must be good" argument never impressed me:
I don't think that any of the masters who made that point were trying to impress you in particular.

each art needs to be assessed in the here-and-now on its own merits;
And many arts have been assessed and improved by masters who knew a lot more than you, even if they lacked your technical jargon.

otherwise, how can you tell which are valid and which are not?
Well it wont be from asking you, that is for sure!

a lot of cr@p has been able to filter its way down through the ages for a variety of reasons
Yes, just as a lot of crap that is being sold to us by "modernists". It is our responsibility to try and find schools that teach kung fu properly.

suffice to say that my personal research and experience supports this perspective to my own satisfaction
You are not really saying anything here. The world is full of "researchers" who get "satisfactory" results, but sometimes these results contradict with other researchers, even from the same school of thought.

after hearing that there is an alternative viewpoint with some possible validity, they can go make their own decisions
And hopefully they wont make the wrong decisions. You have to be careful here and not act like a kung fu master or do you also qualify as one?.

it's not a question of claiming to know all there is, but to date there is very little I have not been able to contextualize that way;
In your own mind and reality I suppose. I am not necessarily questioning the validity of what you say but maybe its limitations.

what I haven't found specific reasons for would point to my own lack of knowledge on the anatomical / physiological end,
And your lack of knowledge regarding the TCMA & TCM presumably.

which I am continually refining;
Which you should if you are going to continue to act as an "enlightener"!

however, by way of context, 5 years ago, I would not have made that statement, meaning that 5 years ago I had not yet "pulled it all together" in a way that made sense using a "western' approach; so it is an ongoing process
Well it will be good to see where this ongoing process takes you!

it's probably a bit of both, but I wouldn't be overwhelmed by the probable amount of "secret" (meaning non-explicated) stuff
Or stuff one doesn't know on a personal level. Not very mysterious really!

- just remember, when travel was limited, printed resources almost non-existent and no attempt to understand things in context of "scientific method",
You mean western scientific method?

a lot of the information was not disseminated in a way that allowed comparison with what others were doing; when you open up the topic to public discourse and examination, a lot of the BS falls by the wayside and things that may have seemed unique and esoteric start becoming a bit more self-evident
More assumptions! I know there is BS in TCMA but if you personally don't understand a concept, it does not automatically mean that it is BS.

And remember that a lot of the BS has been added in the modern times by the "Modernists" as well!

saying "sanchin" teaches "correct" breathing doesn't mean anything per se: one has to analyze specifically what the practitioner is doing (lets assume that he is following the dictates of the teaching precisely) and then move on from there to what impact it has on the cardiorespiratory system, and finally whether this is beneficial, neutral or harmful;

I don't know why you made the above statement.

Sanchin teaches correct breathing as regards the particular art in question. If you disagree then please feel free taking it up with the masters who practice this art.

are you saying that the practitioner consciously changes the breathing or that the breathing changes spontaneously? c'mon now, you might actually be getting somewhere with this, so don't mess it up...
Ok, now that you really want to learn I will answer your question. The practitioner consciously changes the breathing in correlation with the type of strike he uses.

again, depends on what you are trying to train and at what stage you are;
Whatever the stage, you can still gain benefit from the forms if there is no partner available and you have the time to train.

it has nothing to do with sounding intelligent - it is a valid observation
IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH WANTING TO SOUND INTELLIGENT! AND YOU KNOW IT! LOL!

he is widely regarded as the guy who started to apply it specifically to that field; being one of the few edumacated TCMA guys, his words caried more weight than the average sifu
However, the concepts and training methods had existed from before his time. The "internals" under any other name are still the "internals" and they are in many ways distinct from the "externals".

sinews is a TCM term, so cannot be used in an objective discussion, because they are taken as a group to mean muscles, tendons and ligaments..
Then you can take that up with the sifus and masters who use that descriptions.
However, in this case logic would dictate that you consider the elasticity and hardening of the tendons.

the only time that tendons get "stronger" is when they are subjected to kinetic loads of the type found in contemporary plyometric training, of which certain TCMA training regimens do share similarities; the term "elastic hardness" is vague and even contradictory; tendons become "stronger" because they are able to more effectively lengthen / store and recoil / release kinetic energy;

but they can be elastic but feel harder to the touch.

you can see lots of so-called "physical effects" as the result of breathing and meditation;

So you know about the physical effects. That is good, but don't forget that strenghening of the tendons is also a physical effect!

no, I am not saying that there is nothing left for me to "discover"; what I am saying is that the use of my anatomical / physiological / biomechanical knowledge has to date not failed in my applying it to my qigong practice. either for my personal use or with patients;
If you are happy in that belief, then who am I to argue.:rolleyes:

being dismissive doesn't help your argument; please try to be more specific: give an example of how it doesn't
Well, I don't think that western sciense gives credence to the 5 elements theory.
At the same time every time I have seen a medical expert talking about chinese medicine it is usually in the lines of,"there is no proof", "it can be harmful","If it doesn't any good, then it wont do any harm".

I have also read articles saying that the "chi" phenomenom is being researched by scientists. That would imply that all is not known about the subject.

Certain skin conditions that western medicine cannot cure,have been cured by chinese therapists.

actually, the second sentence is an underlying qualitative principle of so-called "western" science: when new evidence comes to light, the old information is changed accordingly;
And so are presumably the conclusions which were based on the old info being correct!

where, please, have I ever tried to "debunk" "eastern" thought?
If you don't debunk it then you try to understand it using your western approach which you think will provide you with a complete understanding. And I don't believe that it is that simple!

if you read closely, you will understand that I am not dismissing it, I am simply describing it for what it is, which is largely metaphorical in nature;
If you are sure about what you just said then fair enough. I on the other hand want to study more before I make up my mind!

if anything, what people seem to miss, the more "western" science can describe, the more it validates the original approach, because it demonstrates the universality of what it describes in its own culturally-coded terminology
According to my sifus there is a lot of things that "western" MA thought doesn't understand as regards traditional kung fu.

by the same token, you must then admit that 'eastern" thought doesn't describe everything either right?

Of course not and I never said that, but they do however describe and UNDERSTAND their own concepts better than the western "thought"!

HardWork8

05-21-2008, 03:52 PM

your rush to paint me as insecure is simply one of your many tactics that you use to try to side step the issue; the simple fact is that if you want to make statements about a body of knowledge, it stands to reason that credentials are a foundation on top of which one builds credibility; which isn't to say that they take the place of the content, but they establish a context for the writer / speaker; of course, you could have simply provided some examples of your viewpoint and we could have discussed them on their merits - but you made a sweeping statement that "western" science isn't all it's cracked up to be - now you in retrospect qualify it by saying that you aren't debunking it, only pointing out that it has limitations; which is fine; and now you are talking to someone who is interested in pushing those perceived limitations and overcoming them; do you think this a waste of time? if you do, then we really do have nothing more to talk about
Have you considered working for NASA?

well, glad she's feeling better, but otherwise, ho-hum: it's an example I frequently encounter - I can't tell you how many times I have had people come to me with just the exact same story ("I've tried 'everything', nothing has worked, my doc says I'll just have to 'live with it');
first off, you need to understand allopathic approach: it is essentially crisis-management; very good crisis management: it keeps you alive because it is able to pin-point the causative factors that are life-threatening and deal with them by literally overpowering the body's "natural" way of doing things; as such, the organism is to a certain extent taken out of the picture temporarily;
where allopathic approach doesn't do nearly as well is in chronic, non-localizable, non-image-able, non-blood work-testable things (very generalized statements, I concur); as such, orthopedists (I'm guessing that was the "specialist" she saw) especially are at a loss about what to do when someone comes in with the type of non-specific (from their perspective) issues our friend experienced; which isn't surprising, their training is really about putting you back together when you fall out of a 10 story window)
however, it's not a "western / eastern" issue: it's allopathic versus other approaches; such as osteopathic, or chiropractic or homeopathi, or naturopathic: all 'western", all at various times employed by practitioners to address what allopaths cannot
and the fact that it's gotten better in one or two sessions is not particularly impressive either: I can't tell you how many times I have used simple, straightforward, osteopathic manual techniques to "fix" them quickly, definitively and pretty much for good; in fact, sometimes I have even at times drawn out a treatment in length from 10 minutes to 30 minutes, because it makes it easier for someone to psychologically accept that it took at least 30 minutes to make their pain go away: do it in 10, they get really incredulous and even a bit upset, because how could it have been so easy to fix something that no one else could manage?
see, it's not about east / west: it's about principles of how the body works: as such, there are many similarities between something like osteopathic manual approach and, say tuina: although I will tell you that I have shown my teacher a few osteo manuevers that he uses regularly when giving tui na sessions, because they just work faster (he swears by Jones' subscapularis counterstrain technique!); on the flip side, his "dim yuht" or "dian xue" skill opened up my eyes quite a bit in regards to understanding how to stimulate various auto-regulatory functions; what's cool is that he can describe the osteo stuff from a TCM perspective, I can describe the TCM stuff from an osteo/physiological one; which says to me that the "truth" transcends cultures, and that no one approach is intrinsically "better";

I have just talked to her. Apparently she has a vertebrae that is worn out(It may be an area that you deal with, I don't know). This results in a chroncic pain in the muscular area around the neck and her upper back near the area of the damaged vertabrae. I forgot to ask her about what kind of doctor she was seeing. I will the next time I talk to her.

Her doctor specifically recommended her to try oriental therapy as, she was told, oxidental medicine did not have an answer for her problem.

HardWork8

05-22-2008, 02:00 AM

as I was reading your last post (where you had, unfortunately, reverted back into your old smarmy self), I was considering how to reply; but then I read this line:

based on that response, it's quite clear to me where you are "at";

good luck in your training;

Talk about lack of answers.:rolleyes:

So the "great" cjurakpt is here only to teach and not to learn. I answered a question based on your own enquiry presumably because you did not know the answer yourself, meaning you wanted to LEARN.

Or were you testing me too? LOL,LOL!

You and Vankuen should write a book. You seem to share a vast "knowledge" of MAs. Yes, that's it, write a book and call it "The Secrets of Knucklehead Kung Fu".

Let me see now, you can talk about your qualifications in the first 10 chapters. Chapter 11 can include your actual knowledge and for god's sake don't forget to include a Glossary section, 200 pages, shall we say? So that the readers will know what it is that you are talking about.

Chapter 12, the last chapter will be written by Vankuen where he will be given the chance to "Shine".

You can then both get together and write the last paragraph of chapter 12 (the last chapter), devoted exclusively to the "internals" in Knuckle Head Kung Fu and of course their "Western" explanations.

You can ask t_niehoff to use his vast knowledge of McWing Chun to write the foreword with his usual references to the "big foot","fantasy martial arts","Ninjas" and the other forum favorite, "the magical chi".

I tell you, this has "Best Seller" written all over it. If only half the knuckleheads in this forum buy the book then you will cover the costs for sure. The rest will be profit, PROFIT you hear me!

Don't forget to make the book hardcover so that it can be used as a weapon as well. This would be a great selling point for marketing it to Knuckleheads who will no doubt use the book to hit each other on the head during "Weapons' Training".

I would like to get my commision too as I suggested the idea. Shall we say 15%?;)

SERIOUSLY NOW. Here is my problem with you and yes you do d1ckwave your qualifications whenever give the chance and yes you are trying to take the intellectual highground using technical jargon that may belong in medical books and not a public martial arts forum.

You enjoy taking the intellectual pedastool and that was reflected by you having your feathers ruffled when I implied that you wanted to learn from me. Your reply was very telling, to say the least.

Furthermore, my tone in answering your question was based on your own tone while asking that same question.

HardWork8

05-22-2008, 02:22 AM

based on your answer (or lack thereof) it is obvious that you feel we have nothing more to talk about; and I agree

There was a lot of "Zen" in that answer, but you just didn't see it.;)

"worn out" means nothing; as far as her doc telling her "occidental" medicine had nothing to offer her,since he didn't know what to do himself,
You are making assumptions again.
She was saying that he didn't know what to do because he told her that there was no more treatment for that condition.

he hardly can be considered as much of an authority on what other non-oriental approaches might have to offer her;
It is fair to assume that being a non-oriental medic himself while having suffered from the same condition he had presumably tried other non-oriental treatments before trying the final oriental solution.

for example, he could have referred to an osteopath, who would have had quite a lot to offer her;
For all I know, he may have and it may not have worked. She has been suffering from this condition for a few years now.

bottom line, no one approach has all the answers,
Even I knew that!:D

but in my experience, osteopathic approach is just as or more effective than TCM in certain matters:
That is your experience and that is fine but in my friend's doctor's shall we say, "hands on" experience the oriental approach had given better results.[/quote]

anyway, again, good luck in your future endeavors

And the same to you!

sanjuro_ronin

05-22-2008, 04:16 AM

as I said before, good luck in your training

Dude, don't quote him, having him on ignore doesn't work if you quote him !!

* goes and washes eyes out *

HardWork8

05-22-2008, 06:32 AM

sorry, didn't know that...:o
I don't believe it, you actually admitted to NOT KNOWING something and you even apologized?

Who would have thought something like this was ever possible?

There is hope for you yet.;)

HW8

PS. Talk about running away from a discussion. Yes, ignore the valid points I made about my friend's condition and treatment.

HardWork8

05-22-2008, 06:38 AM

as I said before, good luck in your training

Same to you! (Did you notice the "Zen" this time?:D).

HardWork8

05-22-2008, 06:52 AM

[
* goes and washes eyes out *
You should instead be washing out your mouth for spewing all those lies about me in the other thread which led to your mysterious (but welcome) decision to ignore me, only AFTER I contested those lies!

Cjurakpt is the one who should "wash out his eyes" for not seeing it while posting on the same thread. Being choosy with morality does not seem to be limited to the political arena eh, Mr Chris?

sanjuro_ronin

05-22-2008, 06:55 AM

sorry, didn't know that...:o

Its OK Bro and to show you I have no ill feelings towards you for exposing me to such lunacy, here is a chi building exercise:

Bob Ashmore

05-22-2008, 09:40 AM

cjurakpt,
Do I understand correctly that you are not a big proponent of training forms in TCMA? If so, I'm quite suprised as I've found them to be invaluable. I can't see where form work would ever become redundant or unnecessary to the continuance of a students learning their art.
I, personally, feel form work is the best way to transmit to beginners the basics and principles of Tai Chi (I cannot speak about any other style as I do not and have not trained them). Watching their form is a wonderful way for an instructor to see where they are at in their training of the internal principles and to help guide them along the correct path.
Once a student has begun push hands training, they can then take the knowledge learned there and bring it back to their form work, improving it immensly, and using form work they can continue to individually grow and explore the aspects of interaction with an opponent that they have learned.
Once a student progresses to sparring that information should again be brought back into their form work where it can be incorporated for solo practice of the principles and energies of the art.

Of course it is necessary to learn about applying the energies to and against both willing and resisting opponents, but that knowledge is not confined only to when it is being applied against the unwilling, it can be refined and practiced in minute detail during form work, every day, regardless of whether you have a training partner available at that moment.
My personal feelings on the value of form work has little or nothing to do with "old masters" and their thoughts on the subject, rather it is based on first hand experience with my own training and teaching. Forms are the first and best tool I've found to both convey the principles of the art to others and to maintain and grow that knowledge for myself.

If I have misunderstood you on the subject, then please excuse my little rant here as my way of killing some time during a very boring day where I am trapped and cannot currently get away to do form work. :p
If I haven't misunderstood, then perhaps you would be kind enough to explain why you feel the way you do on the subject? I'm always open to new ways of thinking on any subject.

HardWork8

05-22-2008, 03:15 PM

it just can't seem to let me go;
Blame my good heart for trying to enlighten you.:D

serves me right for feeding it as much as I did...

Don't flatter yourself.

So, please do press the ignore button and ignore anyone who can actually teach you about things you don't know.

HardWork8

05-22-2008, 03:16 PM

man, you take the troll's food away from it even for a moment and it starts to froth and dance;

Is that why you keep coming back for more "food"?

HardWork8

05-22-2008, 04:12 PM

wow, this troll is really starting to loose it...

it even thinks that I am talking about myself; that's a bit scary...

why does it keep trying to engage me? this troll just can't seem to realize that it's not going to get fed anymore

I hope this is the last troll post you direct to me because I am going to do my best to ignore you unless you have something to say relating to the thread!

Daniel09

05-22-2008, 05:13 PM

wow, the frothy ranting troll even comes to gobble up the few last crumbs on the floor underneath my chair; poor troll - thinking that if it starts ranting in bold with exclamation points it's going to get more food; silly troll!

Mr. cjurakpt, even I can see that HardWork was not trolling there. You are adding to nothing by posting things like this. Eithor be respectful and post things related to the topic or leave.

HardWork8

05-22-2008, 05:29 PM

Mr. cjurakpt, even I can see that HardWork was not trolling there. You are adding to nothing by posting things like this. Eithor be respectful and post things related to the topic or leave.

Thank you Daniel.

We all had a little "fun" but this guy seems to be carrying dillusions of grandeur. NO one can teach him anything and if you imply that you are teaching him something, he flies off the handle. :rolleyes:

Anyway, it is just better to ignore him.:)

Scott R. Brown

05-22-2008, 06:12 PM

Scott R. Brown

05-22-2008, 07:52 PM

your time will come, Trebeck...;)

Trebeck?:confused:

Scott R. Brown

05-22-2008, 09:01 PM

LOL!! Of Course....:)

Bob Ashmore

05-23-2008, 09:11 AM

cjurakpt,
I do see where you're going with the concept. Form work alone is never going to make a combatant of anyone, regardless of style. Those who wish to enter the ring, or walk through dark alleys at midnight with $100 bills hanging out of their pockets, are going to want to spend more time training with an opponent than they are doing forms.
No one gets to be a "fighter" by doing form work. Time spent in actual combat is going to be much more effective for that.

I don't mind answering who/what/where I train in the least.
I train Traditional Yang Style Tai Chi Chuan with Bill Wojasinski, Center Director of the Lousiville, Kentucky, Yang Cheng Fu Center. We are a chapter of the International Yang Style Tai Chi Chuan Association under the direction of Yang Jun and Yang Zhen Duo.
Our primary focus is not on combat, though everything we train maintains the combat origins of the art. Some of us do train in push hands, sparring and weapons but only those who wish to do so. Most of our students are more interested in the health aspects of the art and train with that focus in mind. None of us, at this time, is training to become the next great ring fighter.
I am not looking to enter any competitions anytime soon, or ever again (I did in my youth while training Tae Kwon Do but I got that out of my system), and I haven't been a bouncer in a bar since I was about twenty two, that was a LONG time ago. :p
I don't know that "renaissance man" would really cover my approach to the art, but I suppose that it could be said, from a certain point of view, to be true.
As for training martially, I'm not really all that interested in fighting any more but I do like to keep myself at least semi ready for combat, just in case fighting takes an interest in me again at some point.

Your question on "what is movement" is one I've asked myself thousands of times, I have yet to come up with a definitive answer but I keep asking the question. I start with a working hypothesis that Wu Ji is stillness (from a certain point of view) and Tai Ji is movement born from stillness. Beyond that I am certainly not qualified to go much deeper into that philosophy.
"Where does movement come from?" is a question that needs more questions before anyone could come up with an answer.
For me, movement comes from the center and expresses outward. However, that is personal movements origin. The origin of ALL movement is totally beyond my comprehension and not in the scope of this thread... ;)

Best get myself back to work for more, more as I can.

Daniel09

05-23-2008, 12:00 PM

well, i think we can see at least what the unifying theme here is (chastisement) anyway Mr. Daniel09, thanks again for your input; I'll tell ya what though: when you have gotten to a point in your life where you have enough control over your brain in regards to the way it views things and doesn't change from day to day, let me know, and I will then re-consider your "advice" :rolleyes:

Will do, Mr. cjurakpt. I'm sure it'll be over by the next few years.;)

sanjuro_ronin

05-23-2008, 12:08 PM

you have to say it like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etmHaeaNsCw)

I laughed so hard I cried.

Hor Semen indeed !!

HardWork8

05-23-2008, 01:53 PM

Will do, Mr. cjurakpt. I'm sure it'll be over by the next few years.;)

Just ignore cjurakpt before he starts to rant using his "Kacademic" jargon on you. You see, he thinks it makes him sound intelligent.;):)

Anyway, there is another member of the thread who is trying to stick to the topic and is making some interesting statements.:)

Scott R. Brown

05-23-2008, 06:02 PM

Hi Bob and Chris,

When considering "movement" I recall an episode from "The Sutra of Hui-Neng":

As Hui-Neng was walking along he came upon two Buddhist monks engaged in a discussion about a banner blowing in the wind. One argued that the banner was moving, the other argued it was the wind that moving. Hui-Neng commented that it is neither the wind, nor the banner that moves....it is the Mind that moves!

Scott R. Brown

05-23-2008, 07:49 PM

Scott R. Brown

05-24-2008, 12:27 PM

of course; when mind ceases to function in its activity of segmentation, division, hierarchy, we see no distinction physically between the flag and the wind or temporally between the flag, the thread it's made from, the plant the thread came from, the material into which the flag will deteriorate / the ashes left after it is burned etc.; one no longer regards phenomena individually, but rather things such as they are; as you point out, even the idea of "movement" no longer holds: if there is no "place" to go, how can anything be said to be moving at all? as Chuang Tzu wrote, "Forget the years, forget distinctions; leap into the Boundless and make it your home."

so, how does one apply this in one's daily life? I don't think Hui Neng, being a "salt of the earth" type was given to quipping clever aphorisms simply to amuse himself and irritate scholarly monks (or maybe he was, LOL!); I mean, for one to walk around in awe of the Oneness of all things, to perceive the truck coming down the street right at you in context of what "it" was 1,00 years ago or 1,000 years from now obviously ignores the 'reality" of how all those constituent parts happen to be assembled at that particular moment; meaning that, in order to be aware of the oneness, one cannot ignore the "suchness" of a given moment either: it's an interesting balance, right? being ware of the totality and the immediacy at the same time.

so thinking "concretely", since we are talking about movement practice, what does Hui Neng's admonition mean in context of something like taiji practice? when practicing the form, when engaged in partnered work, how does the acknowledgment that "mind" creates the very concepts of "taiji", "form", "practice", "partner" influence? people talk about being in the moment but not fixating on it - this would seem to apply, especially when doing push-hands: you have to stay in the moment, or you "loose" your balance; there is no time to get stuck at any one point, either in time (e.g. - on what your partner did a second ago) or space (e.g. - overly focused on your partner's hands, shoulders, etc.); when we are "in the zone" w/someone, time and space are suspended - the mind stops functioning out of it's habit and simply responds (versus reacts) to things as such; what's interesting, how we can start with division: my mind gets me to class at the right place at the right time and sets me up against another person to engage in this specific practice - all in order to "loose" that very mind that got me there! and when I am finished practicing, I better get that mind back at least a bit to get me home in one piece, so to speak;

finally, at end, what is practice? why do we call it practice? what are we practicing for?

Hi Chris,

We practice because it is fun! The goals we choose in life are arbitrary and are essentially unimportant. The importance we place on any activity is an artificial construct we create out of our own desires and purposes. All actions and activities, according to Hui-Neng, are reflections of the mind, and when performed free from mental clinging IS the meditative condition of Chan. In fact, Hui-Neng admonishes against sitting meditation. He considers meditation a state of Mind rather than a separate activity to be practiced. As such, all activity/thought is mind in movement and when performed sans clinging IS meditation. It is through action mind knows itself; it is through action (physical and mental) we know ourselves. The characteristics of our mind/personality are reflected in all our activities and by observing them we observe ourselves.

When we react to, seemingly, outer stimuli, the conditions of life, such as events, phenomena, other people, we are reflecting qualities of ourselves. Our reactions are a reflection of the the qualities of our personality, our mind. When we react to someone else, and how we react to them, whether positive or negative, we are seeing a measure of the qualities of our own mind. So, in essence, all of life is a form of training our mind, if we take responsibility for doing so.

Concerning Tai Chi training or other forms of specific training protocols, when the activity is performed free from clinging to form we are utilizing our mind according to its inherent qualities, its essence, and as a spontaneous consequence all actions are “of themselves” perfect. Perfection/Oneness of mind creates perfection of any mental or physical activity as is beautifully illustrated by Chuang-Tzu in his allegory of the Butcher.

When performing push-hands, if we cling too much to the form, which is a condition of mind, we make it more difficult to maintain our physical balance. Just the same, if we cling to the idea of maintaining our mental or physical balance, we make it more difficult to do so. The goal is to enhance our physical balance by developing mental balance. When we have mental balance, even when we are physically imbalanced we do not react as if imbalanced and may more effectively react to the physical condition of imbalance. This was very eloquently illustrated by you in your comments earlier concerning not reacting to losing our balance by “trying” to maintain our balance.

So, when practicing push-hands, it is an advantage to compete while not clinging to the idea of competition; to maintain balance while not clinging to the “idea” of maintaining balance. Push-hands is merely a game, an exercise with artificial rules designed to teach certain principles. The principles exist separate from the game. Just because someone is skilled at playing the game does not necessarily mean they are skilled at maintaining their mental balance. Inherently, it is the mental balance that will provide the greater benefits overall, so of two individuals skilled at playing the game the one with mental balance will demonstrate greater overall skill even if he loses a particular instance of the game.

TaiChiBob

05-27-2008, 05:51 AM

Greetings..

Cripe, i thought it was just a banner blowin' in the wind.. (the answer my friend is blowin' in the wind):).. separation occurs when we decide to differentiate debate and analyze that which simply IS.. if two people just looked at the banner, looked at each other and nodded in agreement that they each had the same experience (maybe different interpretations), that is a delightfully Zen moment.. Feel more, think less..

Be well..

Scott R. Brown

05-27-2008, 09:11 AM

Hi Bob,

...i thought it was just a banner blowin' in the wind.. (the answer my friend is blowin' in the wind):)...

That depends upon if one is choosing to participate in the world of make-believe reality, or clear-perception reality!

....separation occurs when we decide to differentiate debate and analyze that which simply IS...

To believe it is better to "just feel" than to "think" is to be engaging in "separation, differentiation and debate"! Any time we make a choice of any kind we are engaging in "separation, differentiation and debate"! In truth, there is a time to "think" AND a time to "feel"; neither is inherently better or worse than the other. It all depends upon the context.

To distinguishing between "separation, differentiation and debate" about "that which simply IS" on the one hand, and just experiencing "that which simply IS"" on the other is to participate in "separation, differentiation and debate".

If one truly chose not to participate in "separation, differentiation and debate" they would not comment at all, in which case we might as well not comment on anything. To not comment on anything is to not participate in common everyday human relations, in which case we may as well live alone on a mountain somewhere.

Since "separation differentiation and debate" just ARE as well, they may also be just felt, enjoyed or experienced as they simply ARE or they may be discussed, analyzed and debated, it ALL just IS!!

...if two people just looked at the banner, looked at each other and nodded in agreement that they each had the same experience (maybe different interpretations), that is a delightfully Zen moment.. Feel more, think less.

Agreement or disagreement is not the issue; the issue is the clear perception of reality! Just as the old woman/ young woman optical illusion is one, the other, both, and neither, depending upon ones perspective, so is reality. The person who is only able to see the old woman, and not the young woman has a mis-perception/misunderstanding of reality. His view is not wrong, but it IS incomplete!

There is no requirement or necessity to agree or disagree. To cling to agreement or disagreement, is to have an incomplete view as well!

TaiChiBob

05-27-2008, 10:49 AM

Greetings..

Hi Scott:

if two people just looked at the banner, looked at each other and nodded in agreement that they each had the same experience (maybe different interpretations), that is a delightfully Zen moment..

There is no requirement or necessity to agree or disagree. To cling to agreement or disagreement, is to have an incomplete view as well!
Okay.. i do not suggest there is any requirement or necessity to agree or disagree.. the statement, if taken without the necessity to discect and analyze, is valid and the experience is complete.. IF two people have an experience and each recognizes the other's participation in the experience, it CAN be left at that.. i have found those types of experiences to be rewarding for me.. but, since there is the inclination toward critical analysis.....

That depends upon if one is choosing to participate in the world of make-believe reality, or clear-perception reality!
Nah.. it's still just "a banner blowin' in the wind".. then, there's the realm of perception, analysis evaluation, etc.. the observer that feels both compelled and sufficiently authoritative to differentiate between "make-believe reality and clear-perception reality" exhibits a bit of OCD in their choice of communication styles.. compelled to express an obsession with knowledgable imagery.. Whether i see it as simply a "banner blowin' in the wind", or as the surrender flag of Hannibal's Army.. it's still "just a banner blowin' in the wind".. i'm adding no more or less to the observation, i observed it and moved on.. getting stuck on philosophical implications of perceived realities might be interfering with other experiences.. after-all, it's only your perception of "clear-perception"..

Be well..

mantis108

05-27-2008, 12:28 PM

Hi Chris,

Your comments are a valid way of viewing the question, however, the essential principle of Hui-Neng’s teachings is, “From the first, not a thing is!” What he is getting at here is that all distinctions are a product of Mind; therefore it is mind that creates “things”. Without a Mind to distinguish between phenomena there are essentially NO phenomena at all.

For something to BE there must be something to perceive it, otherwise there is no way to demonstrate that anything exists. The common denominator in all perception is Mind. Each mind may perceive the same phenomenon differently; however, essentially the phenomenon cannot exist without a mind that creates/perceives it.

The Mind makes distinctions. The act of distinction is the process whereby boundaries are artificially imposed upon ONENESS. So, "From ONE comes Two, and from Two comes the ten thousand things!" and this process is a function of Mind.

The distinction of the phenomenon we call “wind” is made by the mind. The distinction of the phenomenon we call “flag” is made by the mind. The distinction of the phenomenon we call “movement” is made by the mind. Without the mind to distinguish them, we have no “flag”, no “wind”, and no “movement”!

The flag is a representation of "material cause". The wind (in the sense of elemental) is the representation of the "efficient cause". The movement is cause and effect that comes from the nature of the mind (xin in Chinese), a product of the logical self, that gives it the "formal cause". All these are suffering in Buddhist view. The suggestion of the presence of the mind brings the focus back to what would be the Buddhist teaching of transcending reality into the "void". So, technically the "final cause" in Buddhist view is the "void" which is not a cause per se. It could be "understood" as Kant's "noumenal entity" - a postulate in western philosophical tradition. Whereas it is a postulation in philosophy, it is in the Buddhist tradition that can be "experienced" through "practical reason". The mind is not the Void but the mind is one with Void. When Hui Nang talked about presence of the mind, there is participation in the transcendental sense. Neither is it engaged nor disengaged. It is what it is. It doesn't meant to be viewed as denial of reality.

So we can practice and/or participate in any activity be it push hands or having sex. Just being without becoming.

Just some thoughts.

Mantis108

TaiChiBob

05-27-2008, 01:04 PM

Greetings..

This seems like the old-school conundrum.. "if a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Be well..

Bob Ashmore

05-27-2008, 02:29 PM

When I see a banner blowing in the wind and so does everyone around me, then I sort of stop wondering if it's real and move on.
Sort of a "If twenty people tell you you're dead, lie down" response to reality I suppose.
Since I've never had twenty people tell me I'm dead, well not all at once any way, I'm going to assume I'm still alive and just move forward from there. :rolleyes:

Scott R. Brown

05-27-2008, 07:01 PM

i'm adding no more or less to the observation, i observed it and moved on.. getting stuck on philosophical implications of perceived realities might be interfering with other experiences.. after-all, it's only your perception of "clear-perception"..

Hi Bob,

Neither was Hui-Neng adding to his experience, that is the point! He was not adding to the experience, he was describing his direct perception and it was a more comprehensive perception than the two monks. It more accurately described a truth about reality. It must be noted that the two monks immediately perceived this "more complete" perception and invited him to share his insights with the other monks.

It is important to distinguish between a direct experience and the description of that experience. The description must use example and metaphor thus giving the impression of over-complicating the direct experience! It is in the over-thinking of the metaphorical representations that confusion occurs and this is what Chan teachings seek to overcome.

Hui-Neng's direct experience may be described as "clear" perception as I noted at the top of the previous post, or as "complete" perception as noted at the bottom of the post. Just as the person who perceives both the old woman and the young woman has a more complete perception than a person who only perceives one or the other and just as one who perceives that one, the other, both and neither co-exist in the same space possesses an even greater perspective.

If one person perceives only the old woman and another perceives both women the one who perceives both is not "adding" to his experience by stating so! He is not over-thinking his experience by stating so! He is describing his direct experience. It only "appears" to be over-thinking to those who are actually doing the over-thinking.

The fact that the one perceiving both has a more complete perception, while it occurs as a consequence of perspective, is not subject to the qualification of "its only your perception" when all people may verify the experience for themselves through direct perception. Anyone may perceive both once they learn, or are able, to do so. So while one only perceives the old woman, he may be taught or led to the greater perception of both the old woman AND the young woman. Therefore, in this circumstance, the "perception" is NOT the same thing as a value judgment, such as "Is the glass half full or half empty?" The young woman exists in the picture whether one can perceive her or not! To state she exists is to merely state a complete or accurate description of reality.

Perceiving the flag and then moving on is no more or less as valid or meaningful an experience than discussing its philosophical implications. One could also make the argument that "perceiving and then moving on", also interferes with other experiences, philosophical investigation is also an experience after all. By merely perceiving the old woman and moving on, one misses the greater experience of the younger woman as well. Merely experiencing the old woman is not a wrong perception, it is a less complete experience.

Scott R. Brown

05-27-2008, 07:13 PM

The flag is a representation of "material cause". The wind (in the sense of elemental) is the representation of the "efficient cause". The movement is cause and effect that comes from the nature of the mind (xin in Chinese), a product of the logical self, that gives it the "formal cause". All these are suffering in Buddhist view. The suggestion of the presence of the mind brings the focus back to what would be the Buddhist teaching of transcending reality into the "void". So, technically the "final cause" in Buddhist view is the "void" which is not a cause per se. It could be "understood" as Kant's "noumenal entity" - a postulate in western philosophical tradition. Whereas it is a postulation in philosophy, it is in the Buddhist tradition that can be "experienced" through "practical reason". The mind is not the Void but the mind is one with Void. When Hui Nang talked about presence of the mind, there is participation in the transcendental sense. Neither is it engaged nor disengaged. It is what it is. It doesn't meant to be viewed as denial of reality.

So we can practice and/or participate in any activity be it push hands or having sex. Just being without becoming.

Just some thoughts.

Mantis108

Hi Mantis108,

As always, thank you for your comments.

It is my contention, and I believe Hui-Neng's, that the essential quality of Mind is Void! Without Mind to perceive, there is no Void! In this case it is important to distinguish between our limited human mind and Mind which is free from limitation.

Scott R. Brown

05-27-2008, 08:59 PM

Hi Chris,

Nice post! It is well said!

There is nothing wrong with separation, there is nothing wrong with direct experience, there is nothing wrong with philosophizing, etc. they are all merely different aspects of life. We train because it is fun, we live because it is fun, or because it just IS and there is nothing else we can do.

The quality of our experiences is affected by the perspective we have. The question is, are we consciously choosing our perspective or are we slaves to our conditioning? When we are slaves to our perspective our choices are artificially limited and we have no control over our experiences or at the very least, limited control. The quality of our experiences is affected by the principles we adhere to or do not adhere too. When we have a clearer or more complete perception our choices increase and thus our freedom. When we have clearer perception and more choices we may artificially impose limitations upon our perception as a matter of choice rather than as a consequence of conditioning over which we have no control. Under this condition, when we choose limitation, we are not limited to that limitation because we have made a free choice to do so and may thus freely choose not to do so at a later date. This occurs because we are not attached (not clinging) to our chosen limitation.

So, while we may say that to discuss these concepts is to artificially dissect existence into components that are arbitrary and are inherently non-existent, to do so provides a benefit that may enhance our overall experience. It is not the dissection of Tao that creates limitation of experience, it is clinging that limits experience. So clinging to the concept of separation by those who think separation limits experience, limits experience and actually creates as much separation or more than the original act of separating does. This is because we are separating without actually recognizing that we are separating. In this situation, the act of criticizing separation by separating separation from direct experience, IS the act of separation. The separation of phenomena is just as much a part of direct experience as the "direct experience" that is preferred. So, in this circumstance, the criticizer is guilty of behaving in the exact manner as that which he criticizes! The consequence is, he becomes a slave to his narrow perspective!

Clinging to "direct experience" is just as limiting as clinging to "separation of phenomena". It is the unrecognized clinging that creates the overall limitation, NOT the acts of "separating phenomena" or "direct experiencing".

At any rate it is doubtful that one may actually "directly experience" anything, because in order to have a "direct experience" there must be "the experiencer" on the one hand and "the experience" on the other which IS an act of separation! Therefore I contend that separation is inherent to reality from the beginning and is the natural state of Tao. Tao is both one and many, at once, at the same time, from eternity. This is so because without an experience and an experiencer there is nothing to experience and nothing to experience the experience. Without an experiencer and an experience nothing can be demonstrated to exist. Under this condition there is no experience and therefore no existence. So, it is through the act of separation that we can say, "we exist" and "have experiences"!

cam

05-28-2008, 10:53 AM

So wordy!
How about Wuji goes to Taiji which returns to Wuji.
Or from the Transcendent the temporal comes into being, the temporal being the field of time which is in pairs of opposites. Underlaying that is of course the Transcendent.
The mind, the wind and the flag....well they all belong to the Temporal!

Dwelling on this, that's part of the Temporal as well!
Not that it helps!http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
:)

cam

05-28-2008, 09:00 PM

My my, it looks like I made a movement!
Really regurgitation, perhaps you should re-read the last couple of pages!

Scott R. Brown

05-29-2008, 03:07 AM

Hi cam,

Chris does have a point, which is to feel free to criticize the argument or add your own point of view absent rude comments about the person or the manner of presenting the argument. That you do not like the manner in which a person posts is not germane to the discussion! It is a personal view we are not interested in.

The fact is simple experiences become complex when one is attempting to explain them. This is because on a BB there are many readers with different levels of education, age and ability to understand. The same thing explained numerous ways makes it easier to reach a wider audience. Also, an argument requires support for the premise. In philosophical discussions this frequently requires lots of words and illustration. It is the nature of the discussion. If you don’t like it, feel free not to participate.

You made a good point as well, “What about the traditional view that Wuji precedes Taiji in a linear progression?

The appearance of the linear progression of Wuji to Taiji etc. is an artificial construct of material existence. The physical world unfolds for us in a cause and effect manner demonstrating a linear progression. This influences the way our minds perceive phenomena. Thus we consider that something comes from, or causes other things. Wuji is noumenal, it is self-existent. That which is self existent does not participate in a linear progression. That which is self-existent contains all principles, at once, at the same time, at all times, from eternity!

While, for the purposes of discussion we may say that Taiji springs from, or originates from Wuji, in reality it coexists with Wuji from eternity. Remember that once Yin arises Yang spontaneously arises as well. One cannot exist without the other. Just so, Wuji cannot exist without something that is NOT Wuji. ONE does NOT actually exist until there is TWO. As I mentioned earlier, without something to perceive ONE it cannot be said to exist. Therefore, in order for ONE to exist, TWO must be coexistent with ONE, Thus while Taiji arises from Wuji, so does Wuji arise from Taiji, as Yin arises so does Yang, they arise together at once at the same time. You cannot have one without the other.

Keeping this in mind, Wuji does not actually preceded Taiji. They are exactly the same phenomena viewed from different perspectives, just as a glass of water filled half way is always a glass of water filled half way regardless of the value we impose on it as either half full (Yang) or half empty (Yin)!

Scott R. Brown

05-29-2008, 03:14 AM

At the risk of being wordy, here is another way to look at it:

Referring back to the old woman/ young woman illusion, both women coexist in the same space at the same time. Just because one may perceive the old woman first and then at a later date discover there is also a young woman in the picture does not mean the young woman sprang from the old woman. They both were present at the same time from the start.

cam

05-29-2008, 05:12 AM

Hey Scott, Chris, Please don't be offended,that was not my intention.
Without being too fawning I must admit that you two are probably some of the most educated among us, you are both better writers then myself.
For the sake of others who may not be at such a high level could you please make your posts a bit more brief, it may help in advancing your opinions!

Now I may be wrong about Wuji, though I have understood it to be that state that is neither is, nor is not; not rational or irrational, not up or down, not male or female and yet out of it comes all things.
BY all things maybe I should just say time, as time does not exist without forms, there is no passage of time when there is nothing for time to pass over!

In regards to the Old/Young woman painting, yes they are both present at the same time, they are a representation of taiji....wuji could be the canvas that this image is painted on, the canvas has the potential to be any painting

Now to the topic that started this thread, Internal Blocking.
MY teacher used to say that I had "dead arms" that the jing was trapped in my shoulders and not making out my fingertips, it was just his way of saying I was still too tense.

Scott R. Brown

05-29-2008, 08:28 AM

Hi cam,

Thank you for your post. It made your intention more understandable and I appreciate that you took the time to explain yourself. I understand the tediousness of reading long and laborious posts. If they are made too short we run the risk of making more posts overall because points, at times, are not made clear enough when the posts are too short. So it is six of one half a dozen of the other at times. I can’t make any promises, but I will try to be more concise when I feel I can make my point in fewer words. :)

Concerning Wuji:

Your understanding is the same as mine and I like your metaphor of the canvas. I have used it myself at times. The thing is, Wuji is merely a word we use to describe a specific principle or phenomenon so that we may discern it from other phenomena. In reality it cannot be accurately described. Nagarjuna said something along the lines of, “It is NOT the one, it is NOT the other, it is NOT both and it is NOT neither!” It is beyond description; therefore we need to be careful we are not too confined by the arbitrary definition that we use for utility’s sake.

According to Hui-Neng, the essence of Mind (that is, the essential or fundamental quality of Mind) is “Mind knowing itself!” From the action of "Mind knowing itself” everything else spontaneously arises.

Hui-Neng refers to the action of “Mind knowing itself” as “Mind seeing itself”, but it really means “Mind perceiving itself”. This action of "Mind seeing itself" is the action of Wuji manifesting Taiji followed by the manifestation of Yin-Yang. However, we must remember that to say one manifests the other does not imply one happens before the other or even, necessarily causes the other. In fact, with the arising of Taiji, Yin-Yang spontaneously arises at the same time. This is because, once a quality arises that may be distinguished from Wuji, you have TWO, and thus Yin-Yang which is the archetypal illustration of TWO!

It is my contention that Wuji, Taiji and Yin-Yang are merely different aspects of the same thing, as is all of creation. What we perceive and how we perceive it is a matter of perspective, how we view “it all”. “Realization” then, is merely a change of the perspective of our mind that allows us to perceive reality with less obstruction.

mantis108

05-29-2008, 11:49 AM

Hi cam,
...

You made a good point as well, “What about the traditional view that Wuji precedes Taiji in a linear progression?

The appearance of the linear progression of Wuji to Taiji etc. is an artificial construct of material existence. The physical world unfolds for us in a cause and effect manner demonstrating a linear progression. This influences the way our minds perceive phenomena. Thus we consider that something comes from, or causes other things. Wuji is noumenal, it is self-existent. That which is self existent does not participate in a linear progression. That which is self-existent contains all principles, at once, at the same time, at all times, from eternity!
...

I believe You have made an excellent explanation. The problem with "the traditional view that Wuji precedes Taiji in a linear progression" is that it is not necessarily traditional! This idea of Wuji precedes Taiji was found in a work, "Taiji Tu Shuo" (Explanation on the illustration of Grand Ultimate) by one of the progenitor, Zhou Dunyi, of the Neo Confucian school during the Northern Song dynasty. This has been disputed by different factions of the Confucianism schools that it resembles too much of the Daoist idea. Note that I use the term idea as it is meant to be in the noumenal sense as oppose to concept in the phenomenal sense. Most of the translations focus on conceptualizing as well as interpreting the relation between Wuji and Taiji in an attempt to analyze it in an objective manner. BTW, this "judgment" of the relation is synthetic a priori. That's where the problem arises. Chinese tradition of "understanding" is subjective. It favors the subject's action (ie feeling or a function of Ren) over thinking. Technically, there is no separated ontology and/or cosmology. It is in the form of ontological cosmology. We would say "Mind lives" or "Mind Creates" rather than "the Mind IS alive". Often people treats the "Taiji Tu Shuo" as an objective cosmology, which is to say it is a process of becoming that involves the concept of space-time. That's why there is a problem. To solve this problem, some would prefer to say Wuji is only logically precedes Taiji rather than in the temporal sense. But that is not accurate either. This is the reason that Kant's philosophical view helps to interpret Chinese ideas to a better degree IMHO.

mawali

05-29-2008, 12:47 PM

Hui-Neng refers to the action of “Mind knowing itself” as “Mind seeing itself”, but it really means “Mind perceiving itself”. This action of "Mind seeing itself" is the action of Wuji manifesting Taiji followed by the manifestation of Yin-Yang. However, we must remember that to say one manifests the other does not imply one happens before the other or even, necessarily causes the other. In fact, with the arising of Taiji, Yin-Yang spontaneously arises at the same time. This is because, once a quality arises that may be distinguished from Wuji, you have TWO, and thus Yin-Yang which is the archetypal illustration of TWO!

These word are like Kryptonite to me!
Isn't it better to train hard in youth so as you get older the skill gets better with age. That is true internal!

training session schedule:
1. punching 200 times
2. Elbowing 200 times
3. Kicking 200 times
4. Doing your form 100 times
5. Jin and dao -30 times daily for each

Philosophy is for when you cannot do anything else!
only my 2 shillings!

sanjuro_ronin

05-29-2008, 12:49 PM

These word are like Kryptonite to me!
Isn't it better to train hard in youth so as you get older the skill gets better with age. That is true internal!

training session schedule:
1. punching 200 times
2. Elbowing 200 times
3. Kicking 200 times
4. Doing your form 100 times
5. Jin and dao -30 times daily for each

Philosophy is for when you cannot do anything else!
only my 2 shillings!

Where did you come up with these numbers?

Bob Ashmore

05-29-2008, 12:54 PM

And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar....
I try not to be as esoteric in my thought patterns as some postings here have gone. Does Wuji breed Taiji and does Taiji breed Yin/Yang... Is it tomato or tomatoe, potato or potatoe...? Is it time for lunch yet?
Talking about the origins or non-origins of philosophical constructs and whether the chicken came before or after the egg does take up time on a slow day, but in the end it doesn't really help you move.
When applying the concept: Wuji leads to Taiji, I only take it as far as what I feel inside of myself not as far back as the beginnings of the universe.
My goal in using these concepts is to give myself a mental picture of the stillness preceeding movement, then movement, but only as I feel it inside of myself.
In my internal concept of Wuji there is no movement of either energy or thought and phsyically, kinetically, I am still.
This standing still with as little internal or external movement on my part as possible is my own internalized concept of Wuji. One that I can feel, use, do, on a daily basis. It is my intent to be Wuji, so I get as close to it as I can.
In order to begin to move I have to leave this stillness. My internal concept of Wuji ceases to be dominant in my intent and my internal concept of Taiji commences. In my own internal and external frame of reference my Wuji turns into Taiji because my intent changes.

When I think of seperating Yin/Yang, Emtpy/Full, potato/potatoe...
There I go with food again, I must be hungry....
I only think of how that's going to help me move not about pie in the sky. By "filling" my left leg with body weight I allow my right leg to empty of its body weight, which frees me to lift it using my waist, I open my hip and extend it to the location of my intent, then I root and begin to fill it again.... Yin/Yang
My waist pushes with one side, pulls the other, sometimes in the same direction, sometimes in opposite directions.... Yin/Yang
My arms follow my waist movement, one filling, one emptying.... Yin/Yang
I do this over and over again and I am moving, into to move (taiji) leads to seperation of yin/yang.
When I'm done moving and return to Wuji all these intents to be Taiji is gone and my intent to be Wuji takes over again. I stop moving.

You see, I use these concepts as metaphors for what I'm doing, not as a philosophy that gives me a headache.

It's a viscious cycle just trying to keep all that, and much more, going on at once. But if I spent all my time trying to think of it as a univeral concept instead of an internal metaphor I would never have time to practice....
Speaking of which....... ;)

Scott R. Brown

05-29-2008, 06:12 PM

Hi mantis108,

Once again, thank you for your contribution. I had forgotten that in Chinese nouns are also verbs, thus phenomena may be “things” AND “events” at the same time. This is why learning from translations rather than original texts can make understanding more difficult.

Hi Bob,

Many years ago, when I first began my MA training, my instructor would admonish us to “Just Do It!. (This was long before Nike stole the slogan, LOL!!) My instructor’s intention was to get the students out of their heads and to quit “trying” so hard!” I teach my boys the same way, although I don’t use the same slogan. If you just let your body do it, without thinking so much about the action, the correct action will eventually occur on its own. It is important to remember that “the definition of a correct action” always follows from the “correct action”; it is not the other way around. The definition does not create the action; the definition follows “from” a correct action. The definition is a general guide only, not a fixed construct. It still takes some effort and thought in order to learn how to perform an action correctly, but not as much as most students bring to the action. We have a tendency to try too hard and this interferes with our progress.

You make a good point however, and I think it is the same point TaiChiBob is trying to make, which is, “It is important not to get so caught up in theory that we forget to DO!” Some people favor thinking and some people favor doing, but in truth, too much “thinking” interferes with “just doing” AND too much “just doing” interferes with thinking (proper understanding). As modeled by Yin-Yang, it is a balance between the two that provides optimal benefit.

You have noted that the principles under discussion here are applied by you in your practice. You are starting with an idea of what you think Wuji and Taiji are/mean and then attempt to apply those ideas to your practice, or actually you are attempting to apply your understanding of what you think those principles are to your practice. In order to practice in the most effective manner possible it is beneficial to have a comprehensive understanding of the principles you are attempting to apply. This understanding requires thought. A misunderstanding of principle will result in a misapplication of the principle in your practice.

In the beginning a student is given a definition by the instructor. The student then attempts to bring the action into line with the definition, this is the definition of a principle informing the action, but in time, after much practice, the action informs and deepens our understanding of the principle. However, if we confine our performance to a limited definition we inhibit deeper understanding of the principle.

mawali

05-29-2008, 06:38 PM

Where did you come up with these numbers?

Haven't your teacher told you to do x repetitions then come back and talk to him?
My teacher was like that! If he wasn't satisfied, then he would tell us to go back and do the same thing again.

If the recommendations are too easy, then double or triple them to attempt to gain the maximum benefit. Too many will cause lactic acidosis and caue you to quit. Your long training schedule (what you did previously) should be a guide.

Scott R. Brown

05-29-2008, 07:16 PM

Hi mawali,

These word are like Kryptonite to me!
Isn't it better to train hard in youth so as you get older the skill gets better with age. That is true internal!

Philosophy is for when you cannot do anything else!
only my 2 shillings!

One could also say, “Learn to think when you are young and you will gain wisdom as you age!”

Philosophy is not for everyone, not everyone cares about how things work or how things are. That is okay, but that does not mean there is no value in learning, thinking, studying, and philosophizing. “Just doing it” is a valuable experience, but understanding it and being able to explain it, helps others learn to “Just do it!” and deepens our own understanding.

Philosophizing is for whenever we want to gain a deeper understanding of underlying principles. The better we understand underlying principles the more effective we become in applying them to our lives, including our training!

sanjuro_ronin

05-30-2008, 04:11 AM

Haven't your teacher told you to do x repetitions then come back and talk to him?
My teacher was like that! If he wasn't satisfied, then he would tell us to go back and do the same thing again.

If the recommendations are too easy, then double or triple them to attempt to gain the maximum benefit. Too many will cause lactic acidosis and caue you to quit. Your long training schedule (what you did previously) should be a guide.

Actually, all my coaches and teachers have drilled quality over quantity.
In boxing and MT we did rounds, never counted strikes at all.
In Kyokushin, as part of warm-ups in class you count out strikes, but never relaly paid attention to how much.
Rather do 50 good shots than 200 so-so,s, know what I mean?
I just asked because I was curious if it was a arbitrary number or one you came up with through experience.

Bob Ashmore

05-30-2008, 06:22 AM

Ronin22

05-30-2008, 08:56 AM

Actually, all my coaches and teachers have drilled quality over quantity.
In boxing and MT we did rounds, never counted strikes at all.
In Kyokushin, as part of warm-ups in class you count out strikes, but never relaly paid attention to how much.
Rather do 50 good shots than 200 so-so,s, know what I mean?
I just asked because I was curious if it was a arbitrary number or one you came up with through experience.

Sanjuro

It seems my Kyokushin training was like yours so let me say that you probably experienced a couple of hundred repetitions per technique and it seemed like the hotter it was outside the more reps we did.

I wonder how all those reps affected my mechanics because after doing (depending on your fitness level) 75-100 punches everyone’s form was compromised. Of course with one good crack of the shinai your form magically improves……

Scott R. Brown

05-30-2008, 09:29 AM

sanjuro_ronin

05-30-2008, 10:14 AM

Sanjuro

It seems my Kyokushin training was like yours so let me say that you probably experienced a couple of hundred repetitions per technique and it seemed like the hotter it was outside the more reps we did.

I wonder how all those reps affected my mechanics because after doing (depending on your fitness level) 75-100 punches everyone’s form was compromised. Of course with one good crack of the shinai your form magically improves……

LOL !
Yeah, well I soon learned to focus on form and leave the "power" for the HB.

sanjuro_ronin

05-30-2008, 10:19 AM

High rep training accomplishes a few things:

1) conditioning,

2) mental toughness, i.e. not giving up when you are fatigued, ability to push yourself beyond where your mental limitations tell you you are able,

3) skill development- this coincides somewhat with mental toughness. if you can focus your mind and maintain technique when you are fatigued your technique improves over time. Observe any well trained boxer who can maintain his form over 12-15 rounds. How does he accomplish this? By training when he is fatigued.

Admittedly there is a problem with practicing poor technique over and over again, but this can be compensated for by alternating fatiguing work outs with shorter technique precision focus workouts.

High Fatigue Training is one method special forces, special teams and the military use to train for effective responses under stressful conditions.

It has its place, yes.
No one argues that, its just that you can't put a number on it.
One man's 100 is another mans 30, know what I mean.
As for boxers, we/they don't really punch all that much, maybe what 30-40 puncher per round?
If that?
So even in a 10 round fight, that is 30 minutes of fighting, that is 300-400.
In training that would probably equal a good G note in the over all course of training, though I think most of us will do that in the course of a given training session.

sanjuro_ronin

05-30-2008, 10:27 AM

Of course, aerobic fatigue and anerobic are two different things...
:p

mawali

05-30-2008, 10:57 AM

Mawali,
I'm puzzled...
If your teacher wasn't satisified what the first 200 reps you had done, why on earth would he send you back to do another 200 identical reps? :confused:
What caused this dissatisfaction? Were your reps not correct? Not vigorous enough?
It just doesn't sound very effecient, but maybe I'm not understanding the concept...

Sometimes, I will admit, I am a dunce so it made sense.
Different cultures have differnt ways of persuasion, rightly or wrongly.
I remember a few situations where I did not do my analysis and parsing assignment for my 11+ Examination (British/English education system) and I got a specific problem wrong, I had to write it 50-100 times!
Maybe I had an attitude problem, or I was just anti-social, I will never find out!
Perhaps it was too half hearted!
I still do not have a clue but god is great and wonderful!

Talent on loan from the creator with one hand behind my back!

Scott R. Brown

05-30-2008, 11:10 AM

It has its place, yes.
No one argues that, its just that you can't put a number on it.
One man's 100 is another mans 30, know what I mean.
As for boxers, we/they don't really punch all that much, maybe what 30-40 puncher per round?
If that?
So even in a 10 round fight, that is 30 minutes of fighting, that is 300-400.
In training that would probably equal a good G note in the over all course of training, though I think most of us will do that in the course of a given training session.

Well 30-40 is the heavy weights. Some of the smaller guys do 80-100, but I get your point. At some point the law of diminishing returns kicks in.

sanjuro_ronin

05-30-2008, 11:15 AM

Well 30-40 is the heavy weights. Some of the smaller guys do 80-100, but I get your point. At some point the law of diminishing returns kicks in.

100 punches per 3 minute round ??
Dude !
Gotta see that punch counter, I never threw that many in any of my fights !
LOL !

Scott R. Brown

05-30-2008, 11:16 AM

all true - but........

Hi Chris,

As usual, you have said nothing I can argue with or add too!:mad::p

Scott R. Brown

05-30-2008, 11:18 AM

100 punches per 3 minute round ??
Dude !
Gotta see that punch counter, I never threw that many in any of my fights !
LOL !

All you gotta do is watch the punch counter at the end of each round. I have seen guys average 80-90!

sanjuro_ronin

05-30-2008, 11:23 AM

All you gotta do is watch the punch counter at the end of each round. I have seen guys average 80-90!

Good point, I remember Mayweather averaging over 100 VS Chanves, but only 40 vs De lahoya.

I guess it depends on how many are power punches and how many are jabs.

Scott R. Brown

05-30-2008, 11:44 AM

ok, how about "I hate you and want you dead"? (and I mean that in the broadest sense, in terms of you being able to apply that statement to me as well, or to anyone in general)

discuss...

Well, I have already made my intentions known in that arena. I just have to wait 20-30 years now til my daughter grows up and I have paid for her wedding. It would be selfish of me to exercise my homicidal tendencies before she is grown and has a home of her own. But after that, Watch Out!! I'll be coming for you!

Just look for the old guy with his pants pulled up to his chest, a walker and a Judo Katana in one hand!

unkokusai

05-30-2008, 11:54 AM

Just ignore cjurakpt before he starts to rant using his "Kacademic" jargon on you. You see, he thinks it makes him sound intelligent.;):)

No, it makes you look stupid.

sanjuro_ronin

05-30-2008, 11:55 AM

HEY !!
The clapper activated shaken are my idea, I have the patent pending !!
Along with the 4X4 V8 Wooden dummy and the One Size fits all sumo thong !

Scott R. Brown

05-30-2008, 11:58 AM

I better be sure to oil the my walker wheels real well and blow on my massager's whistle to throw you off!

Maybe I could put my daughter in a little mini skirt as a combination distraction and reward for you. It will be a pleasant treat for you as your blood slowly drips onto the pavement. You will know it was me by my high pitched cackle as your world turns dark!

Bob Ashmore

05-30-2008, 12:53 PM

I understand high repitition training, I've done it myself, but I've never been sent off alone to do it. My instructor stood right there and made darned sure I was not only doing 200 reps, I was doing 200 correct reps. Or 500, or 1000, whatever the seemingly (to me) arbitrary number of the day was.
I guess that's why I was puzzeld by the idea of being sent off to do something like that on your own, then being sent off to do it again with what appeared to be no revision for correctness.
It can't see it helping, ever, to do something incorrectly 400 or more times....
But that's just me. To each their own.

I don't really see a "real life" need for that kind of thing, for me, at this point in my life.
I fought in a couple of local tournaments back in my TKD days, when I was quite young and fighting seemed like fun. I didn't win, but I had fun doing it.
I remember being in what I considered at the time to be excellent condition and could punch and kick for hours without getting tired. It was fun, not work at all.
I've also been in more than my fair share of what you would call "street fights", having grown up in a city with a high crime rate it was sort of inevitable. I didn't win all of them, but I've lived through them all so far. It's a score I'm proud of.
The difference between these two kinds of "fights" are huge.
For one, on the "street" (read that to mean anyplace but in a ring or an a mat) the guy you're fighting isn't likely to be very well trained. There will be exceptions, but mostly not.
In a ring or on the mat the guy you're fighting probably is at least trained fairly well.
My experience has been that in "the ring" your opponent is going to be at least as tough and have as much training and endurance as you do, so this is likely to be a long fight. You need to be in extraordinary shape to do that.
On "the street" the fight is going to be over very, very quickly 99.9% of the time. How much "shape" do you need to be in for that kind of thing?
I don't train for "ring" fighting any more. I doubt I could go two rounds with all the rules refereed matches have against locking joints, breaking bones, kicking in the groin or knees or ankles, nose breaking or eye gouging... You know, the kind of stuff you're really going to do to someone who is attacking you with bad intent. You're not going to use these "extreme" techniques against a guy who is simply there to play a sport with you but who, like you, still wants to walk away relatively intact. Instead you're going to stand there and pound on each other without ever really "hurting" each other in any permanent sense.
I have a high regard for people who take the time and put in the effort to do that kind of thing, I just know my time for that is past. Now I just keep up my level of knowledge on technique and practice them as much as I can with my training partners. We don't get crazy and try to kill each other, we just practice the energies correctly against each other and also technique as far as you can without hurting anyone.
I feel that should be enough to keep me safe on "the street", especially as I wised up and moved someplace with very low crime and haven't seen a "street" fight in about nine years.