natural/un-natural movements

[uki]

i too believe that the natural/un-natural concept of classifying movements is detrimental to understanding the nature of movement altogether - it's highly subjective to the individual... the classic example being the twisting of the spine in bagua, where some say this is not a naturally occuring movement or something... this is true, except if you are an individual who utilizes this movement on a regular basis... example: aside from walking in a circle with a serpentine spine, another daily activity that utilizes this twisting motion of the spine is lay block to the line - yet this was not part of my natural movement at first. usually there would be two steps involved, one to turn around to get the block and one to turn back around to lay it, yet by keeping your feet facing the wall, one can eliminate the steps altogether and simply twist the torso to grab the block to lay it - the feet never moving. i guess the point i am attempting to make here is that all new movement to the body would be considered un-natural to the extent that one's body has not incorporated the new movement into ones being, where it would then become percieved as being a natural movement... it always gets confusing to those who are still trapped in duality of oppositional concepts... hard/soft, internal/external, and so forth, yet all are merely two sides of the same coin. as another example i pointed out in the other "thread" is that a newborn child cannot sit, crawl, or stand - these movements or posturing are still out of the childs ability to naturally DO them yet... they are a progressive evolution, yet once the child grows up some, the movements that were foreign(un-natural) at the time, become natural with time... anyhow... i am sure that is enough to get the ball rolling here. comments please. :)

[David Jamieson]

comment:

Bones, muscle and tendon have a full range of motion that from a structural standpoint they can endure quite easily.

To exercise the full range of motion on a moderate basis will maintain full range of motion and provide suppleness maintenance in the long run.

FRM = the natural range of motion that the body can accommodate.

Because one can't do something doesn't mean it can't be done and doesn't mean it's unnatural.

Yoga's seated postures have a much more pronounced twisting of the spine.
It is difficult to achieve some of these postures early in study because they are at the far end of the full range of motion.

with time and effort, frm is restored. and the benefits are manyfold from better blood flow, no stiffness, less pain and so on.

[Dragonzbane76]

would be hard to classify movements as natural and un-natural would it not? I can see your point but every person is different to a point physically and mentally.

[RenDaHai]

Good comments,

I think when we say natural movements in kung fu it means movements that you are adept at, something that you have Gong fu of. Above all something that is COMFORTABLE. Movements that have already been absorbed into 'Xin' the unconcious part of our mind and body. For example, all of us walk many steps everyday. We can say that we have the kung fu of walking. If you are new to kung fu and are training Pu Bu (crouching step) for the first time it would be laughable to attempt to use it in combat. One would be better to assume a natural stance like you do standing normally, from here because you are comfortable you can move quickly and react to any situation suddenly.

You see people crossing the road all the time, when a car turns unexpectedly you see even old people suddenly change their walking gate with suprising agility. It is because they are comfortable. They have done it many times before. It is natural. Imagine if it had been a beginner student in a fighting stance jumping on his toes while crossing the road, do you think he could suddenly accelerate and change direction so quickly? To be natural means to be comfortable ad relaxed.

For example before i trained any kung fu, if i had to turn my head my body would stay still and my neck would turn. Now a days i find even if i look suddenly, my whole waist has turned and my neck barely moved. I am in a contorted position a lot of people couldn't get to in a stretch. But I don't feel it because of training the waist so much it is very natural for me to turn the waist suddenly.

ANy movement can become natural if trained. But I think when we talk about unatural movement it means for example attempting to use a movement that you cannot do comfortably. Whenever i have pressed my teachers about stances they have always said 'If it is comfortable it is correct'.

[David Jamieson]

would be hard to classify movements as natural and un-natural would it not? I can see your point but every person is different to a point physically and mentally.

not actually.

your joints only move in a particular range. taking them out of range is not natural.

generally we cannot do this, but someone else can and produce a break or a tear.

contortionists = unnatural body movements (but only for us and not for them) ;)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Even the most unnatural of moves can become natural.
That doesn't mean that it should.

[David Jamieson]

Even the most unnatural of moves can become natural.
That doesn't mean that it should.

well not unless they are paying you a lot... :D

[sanjuro_ronin]

That is a whole new ball game !

[MightyB]

"Natural" and "unnatural" seem to work better when they're describing responses. Take the real Krav approach for example... it's best to build a defensive move around how you naturally respond to a stimulus without being trained rather than to force a specific response to the attack. You can improve your response through conditioning and repetition... but the bottom line seems to be proven again and again that simpler is better and gross motor movement based defenses are better than intricately detailed or complex moves.

[SPJ]

what is natural for one

may not be natural for another

some prefers strikes, start and end with strikes. direct, linear--

some prefers controlling and throws, start with indirect or non linear approaches and end with controlling standing up or on the ground or throws to the ground

--

some is born and gifted (natural) with fast pacing and strikes

some is trained to be controlling and throwing

--

wu song had both (legend of water margin)

Lu zhi sheng (meat eating and wine drinking monk) with amazing power and yet he preferred lifting and throwing

--

and of course we may always train or learn something to be our second nature

some prefers using right hand, some left

some prefers to avoid or run away first

some prefers to move right in and confront

---

[SPJ]

opposing concepts are just reference points

we move in between most of the time

--

[David Jamieson]

opposing concepts are just reference points

we move in between most of the time

--

from the bottom of the shaft to the head of it, yes. always moving in between. lol

[sanjuro_ronin]

some prefers using right hand, some left

some prefers to avoid or run away first

some prefers to move right in and confront

bbwwaahh !!!!
:d

[SPJ]

I was commenting on the first post

1. what is natural and unnatural?

it is you. it is in reference to you.

2. opposing concepts: internal/external, soft/hard, yin and yang

the truth is in between or somewhere in the middle

we operate between these opposing reference points most of the time

or we have a little of hard and a little of soft

--

[SPJ]

there is also the idea of stillness or nonmovement

this is natural or unnatural to you?

natural/un-natural stillness

---

[MightyB]

see... I read this whole thread and it just... I don't know. I guess it's why most traditional martial arts are so- well- g@y. It's gotta work. It's gotta be practicable. There's no room for fortune cooke BS. Does it work and can it be taught? that's all. No Yoda-isms, no guru talk, no obscure poems.

[SnowDog]

Personally,

When I first started doing MA, none of the movements felt natural. I really can't think of any martial art movement, stance, strike, etc... that felt totaly natural when I started. But, after studying for many years and being exposed to many different styles it has now BECOME natural for me to move this way.

[MightyB]

see... I read this whole thread and it just... I don't know. I guess it's why most traditional martial arts are so- well- g@y. It's gotta work. It's gotta be practicable. There's no room for fortune cooke BS. Does it work and can it be taught? that's all. No Yoda-isms, no guru talk, no obscure poems.

Some of you think I must be unenlightened... f@ck you you're an accountant or IS geek. Seriously- drop the zen monk BS and seriously look at what you're doing or practicing.

Here's my philosophy... I have to practice in a prison town gym with straight up thugs. If my game's off, they call it out- sometimes painfully. Yoda-isms and fortune cookie talk have no room in true martial arts. If it doesn't require two people to practice- it's not martial arts. If I can't apply it when I need it and use it for my advantage- it's not martial art.

[MightyB]

Personally,

When I first started doing MA, none of the movements felt natural. I really can't think of any martial art movement, stance, strike, etc... that felt totaly natural when I started. But, after studying for many years and being exposed to many different styles it has now BECOME natural for me to move this way.

There's truth in this too because you have to go through a learning curve... but- again, after you've travelled the path- it should work. No excuses and no blaming the practitioner/victim.

[SPJ]

range of motion

1. daily life activity: sitting typing writing

2. professional activity: doing surgery, playing piano

3. athetic activity: swimming, tenis--

4. MA activity:

punching, kicking, grappling, throwing

all have to be learned and practiced and honed in

---

[Scott R. Brown]

The problem is defining just what we mean by "natural". It means different things to different people and also changes according to context.

In many cases it is like an argument about whether a glass half filled with water is half full or half empty.

It is all in how one chooses to view it!

There may not be a well defined yes or no about it!

[MightyB]

but "natural' should be in line with how a body wants to move especially in the context of martial arts.

you know- I watched MasterKiller's link to the vid of the Wing Chun guy trying to get into a NHB match and getting rejected and completely agreed with the promoter. He may think he's good at WC, he may even be good at WC, but he couldn't fight. He had no martial art. It's not a natural way to fight in the the way he trained it and how he was trained in it. Fighting/Natural means a free range of expressive movement and being able to use the best and simplist answer/response when you need to use it (trying not to get all BL, but philosophically he was right). If it's not based on a true/natural way to defend, it can't ever progress to being a true or natural way to defend. You can't force a square into a round hole.

[MightyB]

another great example: That video of the bagua guy trying to fight the kickboxer. Bagau was unnatural because it was limiting. The style became a straight jacket. In the few times that the bagua guy tried to kick or punch- it was forced- he wasn't "allowed" to kick or punch because of the restrictive and unnatural quality of his training.

You need to be able to stretch out and smack the guy with whatever is appropriate for that moment. If your "style" practice hinders that ability- how can it be natural? It took me many years to understand this.

[kfson]

My previous Taiji instructor said that practice would bring one back to the ability to move as a baby... fluid, full joint movement.

Lately I've been watching cats, they are some limber and powerful animals.

[Lucas]

for myself, i consider anything i can do well to be natural for me. of course its not going to be for everyone, and a lot of people have things that are natural to them that will never be to me.

when i first started training cma my sifu taught me that the first few years I would spend 'reshaping' my body (i started as an adult) so that the movements I would be performing would become natural to me. that 'naturalness' is what will help give you power in your techniques. once something becomes natural its no longer forced, but occurs in 'harmony' with your body. when you have to 'force' your body to perform any martial movement you lose a lot of power. when you can remain relaxed and fluid you will remain more connected. watch any pro boxer deliver a power shot. thats relaxed fluid natural power. so to me natural movement can be something as simple as walking or breathing, but it can also be an aquired natural ability. something worked on until it attained that natural-ness.

to me that is 'natural' movement. so in essence i think anything you have to force, is un natural for you.

[MightyB]

for myself, i consider anything i can do well to be natural for me. of course its not going to be for everyone, and a lot of people have things that are natural to them that will never be to me.

when i first started training cma my sifu taught me that the first few years I would spend 'reshaping' my body (i started as an adult) so that the movements I would be performing would become natural to me. that 'naturalness' is what will help give you power in your techniques. once something becomes natural its no longer forced, but occurs in 'harmony' with your body. when you have to 'force' your body to perform any martial movement you lose a lot of power. when you can remain relaxed and fluid you will remain more connected. watch any pro boxer deliver a power shot. thats relaxed fluid natural power. so to me natural movement can be something as simple as walking or breathing, but it can also be an aquired natural ability. something worked on until it attained that natural-ness.

to me that is 'natural' movement. so in essence i think anything you have to force, is un natural for you.

You said it much more eloquently than I could.

[taai gihk yahn]

just thought I'd re-post this here, since it seems relevant...
------
... I wanted to speak to the whole "natural" / "unnatural" movement issue, because I find it interesting in general;

first off, I would like to actually propose to eliminate the distinction between natural / unnatural, because I personally believe it is a fictitious demarcation; simply put: Nature™ includes all things on the planet, including humanity; the existence of humanity is due to the workings of nature; therefore, humanity is, as a product of Nature, part of Nature / natural world; therefore, anything that is thought / done by humanity is still part of nature; as such, there is really no movement that someone can make that can be apart from Nature; therefore, IMPO, all movement is "natural"; of course, this does not mean that all movement is healthy, efficient, etc. - but these are highly context-dependent variables that are so relativistic as to almost be worthless to make distinctions about; the problem is that when you get down to it, what one person may consider "natural" and another "unnatural" probably has to do more with a set of tacit criteria that they may not even be articulating clearly to themselves; it's like the argument about "good" posture: there really is no such thing, because "good" is a relative term that means different things to different people; there are, rather an infinite number of possible postures / alignments, that will yield results that may follow some general trends (because we are bipeds operating erect in gravity and in context of the principle of "regression to the mean", you will see a lot of variables that tend to coagulate around certain outcomes); so anyway, I personally do not find the distinction to be a useful one;

that said, however, I do think that we can look at certain aspects of movement more discerningly; as such, I would propose to sub-divide movement into three main categories: intrinsically generated, extrinsically generated and a combination of the first two;

Intrinsically generated:
I think that this is what most people mean when they describe movement as "natural"; meaning that it is instinctual, non-cognitive based; for example, a baby assuming a "fencer's pose" (a.k.a. the asymmetrical tonic neck reflex (http://www.bindungstherapie.com/abt/pix/atnr.jpg) or ATNR) while lying on it's back at ~1-2 months old is a reflex that creates an opportunity for a baby to see it's own hand stretched out away from its body; this is a totally spontaneous, non-purposefully initiated (cognitively speaking) movement - it's hard-wired into the system such that if you turn a 2 month old's head to the side, the arms will spontaneously assume that position; now, like most infant reflexes, the ATNR eventually gets integrated by the nervous system so that it does not manifest any longer than is needed (although in certain CNS pathologies it persists into adulthood); other reflexives movements are related to balance: straightening the arms when you fall is one that first occurs at about 6 - 8 months and persists for life; similarly, when we walk (or prior to that, crawl), this is another sort of intrinsic movement, one which is mediated at the spinal cord level, and as such is also "instinctual"; it operates under by what in neurophysiology are termed as "central pattern generators": the famous experiment by Sherrington ~100 + years ago demonstrated that if you severed the connection between a cat's brain and it's spinal cord and put the cat on a mobile treadmill, the cat still moved its limbs in response to the motion of the treadmill (or something like that, I forget the specifics); likewise, balance responses in standing are automatic and are not "learned" per se (although balance itself can be trained - more on that below) - when one encounters a force sufficient to move one' center of gravity (COG) outside of one's base of support (BOS), the postural system engages in a coordinated series of highly specific / context dependent muscle firing sequences to keep us upright (mediated by proprioceptors in the ankle first and foremost, then by vision and only afterwards by the inner ear); finally, things like flinching, putting your hands up in front of your face if something is thrown at you, etc., these are also automatic, instinctual and not "learned" per se;
moving up a level, one can also "learn" certain movements spontaneously, but that are necessary to fulfill some sort of external requirement: running and jumping are two that come to mind; of course, one could take it a step back and consider that these movements might spontaneously arise for no reason other than for the experience of it - skipping, galloping and one-footed hopping could also be considered in this vein;
in regards to fighting, certain reactions such as ducking, lifting a hand, striking / kicking, wrestling without technique per se could also arise, but again, these would be in response to the demands of a given context (again, see below);

Extrinsically generated:
in brief, this would be any movement that is necessarily learned or that the odds of picking up spontaneously would be so remote as to essentially constitute an impossibility; this would involve most "learned" systems - yoga springs to mind here, as most asanas one would never come up with on one's own; similarly, most content of martial systems could be considered in the same vein;

Combination Intrinsic / Extrinsic:
this, to me, is the most interesting area, and, quite frankly, I believe encompasses the majority of movement that people engage in on a daily regular basis; for example,
throwing a ball: 1) it can occur "naturally" - someone can spontaneously pick up a ball and throw it using "correct" oppositional movement without ever having seen someone else do it; 2) but can also have been seen and copied /modeled; 3) it could also be taught, either in its entirety or refined through cognitive means; so what he have here is a movement that on the one hand could arise spontaneously but also could be acquired completely via instruction by another person;
as I mentioned earlier, balance is also something that can be looked at as a combination: initially, we "learn" to balance, although it is not a cognitively mediated process: from the moment a baby rolls onto it's stomach, it has to maintain functional alignment: it starts as a series of intrinsic reflexes, then moves into being context dependent to the demands of the given environment (e.g. - things like parent's availability, the way a baby's home is laid out, etc. can directly influence how and when a baby independently walks); point is that these are al things that you kinda figure out for yourself; however, balance can also be taught and drilled in a way that one might never come up with on one's own - yoga postures, for example, train balance, but the odds of one spontaneously coming up with "tree" or "eagle" pose are pretty slim; so balance movements are another good example of how you can have cross-over;

[taai gihk yahn]

Part II
so what about something like Bagua, which, on the one hand, is supposed to be "natural" movement but at the same time also requires a great deal of detailed instruction in order to get "right"?: well, one has to consider that one of the major components of bagua, the circle walking, is based directly on Taoist meditative walking (which may well have been based on Buddhist walking meditation); additionally, it follows principles of posture that were either "invented" by Taoists, although they may also have been derived from yogic practice - if the latter, they may be more related to a relatively stationary practice than dynamic movement; nevertheless, they do follow relatively sound principles of biomechanically efficient anti-gravity bipedal organization / alignment; at the same time, they are an artifact, meaning that for someone to spontaneously arrive at suspension of the head / swallowing chest, etc., are pretty slim; although, in recent history, at least two people did: a quick perusal of the works of F.M. Alexander and Ida Rolf reveal systems of postural organization developed by individuals, and, at least in Alexander's case, without any prior training (although some argue otherwise); in fact, Alexander talks about the head being "free and away"; however, bearing in mind that he came up with his system to cure his chronic laryngitis which, as a professional Shakespearean actor in the 19th, was preventing him from performing - so he basically use a 3-way mirror to assess his posture when eloquating - what he saw was that he was contorting himself in various manneristic ways when delivering lines - so he basically stopped doing that and "discovered" a pattern of alignment that freed up his voice; Rolf, OTOH, hung out with osteopaths, but then took what she learned and came up with a way of assessing and correcting posture far beyond what the osteos were doing at the time; point is that both came up with ways of concertedly working with posture that helped people who were in pain - so was what they were doing "natural" or not? this is why I don't like the term, because you could argue that it was "natural" because it relieved discomfort, but you could also argue it's not because of the manner in which it was both created and systematized;
now going back to bagua: another very important thing to consider in relationship to this, and taiji / qigong as well: a lot of Taoists advocated doing nothing more than what Scott is basically talking about: go live "naturally", and you'll be fine; their contention was that any contrived system of movement was just another "corruption" of living in a "natural" state: even in Chuang Tzu, he waxes on about how the men of antiquity didn't need to do anything in particular in order to be complete (meaning no breathing exercises, no meditation, etc.); you got up with the sun, slept through the night, drank when thirsty, ate when hungry, lived your life without too much concern for it, etc., etc.; no need for elaborate qiogongs, circle walking meditation, etc.;
so, in this context, a "system" like bagua is inherently unnatural, because it is, by it's very nature, a non-spontaneous practice (I am not arguing this, just using it as an example); at the same time though, fighting aside, one can examine it in context of its stated postural principles and, with a little judicious application of contemporary knowledge of biomechanics and physiology, understand without too much difficulty why it could be a good idea to do circle walking with the spine rotated (basically, it's a great way to encourage lymphatic drainage, among other benefits); again, not saying anything about fighting, just looking at it from a "health" perspective; so in this regard, it is "natural", because it supports the body's intrinsic drive towards homeostasis, at least anecdotally; of course, this is where al the contention starts, well, contending; and therefore, the "answer" is to get away from that subjective term, and examine it in context of the above three parameters: is bagua intrinsically or extrinsically generated, or is it a combination of both? to a large extent, it's extrinsically generated: the odds of someone spontaneously coming up with it on their own are pretty much zero; as Scott points out, there is really no activity of life that would require one to walk a circle with the torso twisted; similarly, a lot or even most qigong would be the same way - although I would argue that certain moves may be closer to intrinsic than others - certain moves you see are not dissimilar to the spontaneous movements we make in the AM when we wake up and spontaneously stretch - but of course, they have other task parameters superimposed on them, such as specificity of movement, breathing pattern, etc.

on a side note, to consider ontologically that we were originally designed to move about on all fours either all or part of the time, the whole idea of "natural" v. "unnatural" movement comes to bear in the sense that one can ask the question, is standing on two legs more or less "natural" than on four? it's not what we were originally designed to do, but we made the shift based on intrinsic modifications, although extrinsic factors may have participated in this change;

so anyway, that's where I stand on all this and I think that to say anything about bagua / taiji, etc., we have to look at the specific context within which it's being utilized and how: bagua in a fight will look a lo different than bagua being practiced in a school; although the skills are acquired in an "unnatural" manner, they can still have an impact on the system in a way that is "natural", meaning that it drives it towards homeostasis;

ok, that's about it; back to the flame war!

[Lucas]

heh thanks, i try. ;)

[TenTigers]

learning to drive a four-speed stick shift is as unnatural as it gets.
But, in time, you can shift, downshift, while looking ahead, to the sides, watching the guy coming in fronm the on ramp, looking for avenues of escape, how close is the car in back of you should you have to brake, all the while adjusting the radio, with your arm around your girlfriend.
Learning to walk upright isn't natural at first either.
Stop making excuses, stfu and train. What a bunch of whiners...sheesh.
If you have that much to complain about, then you have no business being in the Martial Arts in the first place. Go home.
(jeez, I'm such a dinosaur...)

[MightyB]

Stop making excuses, stfu and train. What a bunch of whiners...sheesh.
If you have that much to complain about, then you have no business being in the Martial Arts in the first place. Go home.
(jeez, I'm such a dinosaur...)

You are old :p

I don't think anybody is whining on this thread. Heck- there's barely any heated disagreeing going on here. It doesn't feel right... is this the KFM forum?

[Lucas]

We control the horizontal and the vertical....

[MightyB]

I was really hoping this would be a nice, slightly angry, but productive discussion on different opinions and different approaches to training and movement that would go on for like 10 pages. The discourse has been good that's in it- insightful even. I'm not much of a bagua fan or any type of TMA practice that's a little too off-base to be real (IMO)- but that's not the point of the thread- or is it?

[Drake]

Being a "natural" movement in no way means it is practical in fighting

[Lucas]

Being a "natural" movement in no way means it is practical in fighting

**** skippy! I have a 'natural movement' every morning when I wake up. :D

[RenDaHai]

You wouldn't go up to a Tiger and tell him how to fight would you? You wouldn't say he's got it all wrong and he needs to do.... Would you?

Wushu, Martial Arts is somewhat an innate skill. Its something we instinctually posess, just like the animals.

For a Move to be Natural it has to be comfortable. Thats the key word. Comfortable. It doesn't need to be forced.

When we train wushu the main thing we have trained is our minds. THeir ability to strategize under pressure. Tigers don't need to train their body to make themselves stronger, faster or learn new techniques but they do learn from experience and the older ones will be more skilled for it.

Watch a Big Fight on TV. See how the other guy gets knocked out. Now look at the move that KO'd him. Can you do it? Do you have the ability to do that move physically? Ofcourse, more often than not its pretty easy and the technique is a little sloppy because the guys are knackered (tired). The reason he was able to use it is because his mind allowed him to, it was sharpened to that extent.

When we say natural, I think we mean Comfortable, requiring no intensive thought or forced movements. That way you are ready. We need to sharpen our minds to think like a martial artist, then we let our body fight naturally, instinctually, comfortably.

[RenDaHai]

TO be natural is to let yourself improvise;

YOu wouldn't assume a bagua walking stance to dodge a speeding car would you?

Fighting an animal your left hook will be of no use to you, will it?

Real life is never the predictable familiar situation of the ring, you will need to improvise in order to survive. Having a sharp mind and agile body will allow you to do this.

To fight naturally is to treat a situation as it comes. I.e treat it like dodging the speeding car, move from your natural reaction. Don't try to face off in xu bu...

Anyone understand? Wushu teaches you through abstract lessons. In reality its the ability to improvise that is the real teaching. Just Being able to replicate the stances is worthless. When dodging the car your body and mind will form a new movement, tailer made to the situation. This is what it is to fight naturally.

[YouKnowWho]

All the throwing skill are un-natural movements. Old saying said, "If you feel comfortable when you train your throwing skill, you may have done something wrong". For example, The "leg twist" is a very un-natural move.

http://www.combatshuaichiao.com/sc_d1.pdf

[No_Know]

A sharpened mind? Just the focus one finds in desperation.

Teach the tiger how to swing? The tiger literally has to eat those around it to live. but even for tigers killing is trained. Those play sessions as cubs is the drills for technique. Mom hones what you understand lie an instructor in class makes a slight adjustment to stance one time and then hand position another. That with watching and mimicking success on kills and in play you help you to refine technique. A tiger does not kill from technique but from commitment.


No_Know

Natural is Nature. Yet Natural is also each action or not. A broken leg is natural. Toe out on purpose is Not Natural unless you are learing to adapt or you are being taught.

No_Know

The tiger might starve, but without commitment and training would die a natural death because killing is not required to being natural. Nor is martial arts or qigong. Just breathe, Just live. But we do this for the More.

No_Know

[uki]

The tiger might starve, but without commitment and training would die a natural death because killing is not required to being natural. yet if a tiger does not eat, it will not live very long. :(


Nor is martial arts or qigong. Just breathe, Just live. But we do this for the More.everything has its purpose under the sun... it's easy to say that we do not need martial arts to live, yet this would be deluding ourselves to the oppositional nature of peace and harmony, which would could lead to our untimely death because of our ignorance in the ability to defend oneself or family from attack - by allowing ignorance to kill us, nature will continue to manifest itself as the survival of the fittest... because that's what it's all about. :)

[Drake]

Is this a veiled attempt at an excuse to get out of training and instead just run around flailing your arms in a "natural" way?

There are some very effective techniques and combinations of techniques that are not inherently natural. However, through hard work, you turn these into muscle memory, thus making them natural.

Unless by unnatural you mean expecting someone to move their lower leg forward 90 degrees past the kneecap.

[Lucas]

it could be argued that it is in mans 'nature' to destroy and wage war amongst our selves, however we are also beings of creation and compassion. Another example of this is the nature of water, of not only to provide life and help create, it also has in its nature to break down and destroy.

creation and destruction are the natural order of things.

how can this concept be applied to learning martial arts? simple. we often break down and destroy the obsticles in our path so that we can create and develop a martial nature, or in other words a natural ability to perfrom our martial arts developed through hard work and diligent practice. we often create through destruction and destroy that which we create.

from a martial art context, an easy way to see this is in the process of iron palm. destruction to create a natural ability. for if it were not a natural ability, we would not have it in our naturally given genetic make up to even achieve such things.

what is not natural? flying is not natural for humans. we create machines to achieve this, though we will never achieve this with our own bodies.

[No_Know]

One called uki, you point-out that the tiger would not live long if it didn't eat. While I was thinking if it doesn't kill...thinking its typical way to eat is live or recently dead food.

There's Life. Then there is living. The mention of eat when hungry, rest when tired, work while the sun shines through, sleep at night...That's just for living and no fighting required except fighting or working with the Earth and Mother~ Nature.
...

This Natural stuff is not what we think it means but what was intended by the originators of the line--the old masters sort-of -people. And I think it meas in older talk that if you haven't been going to the gym or training or stretching or active other than just living these bagua ways will seem or be Un natural. But through rigorous training what you learn can be Natural...
If you want good fightingskill or good skill. find a skill you like find the training for that skill practice the training. And as you now walk without thinking (conciously) your Skil will become Natural to you. But Un-natural moves and skill to the untrained.

Natural is how the body usually moves Not how it Can move. Akin to learn all I teach you Master it then forget the teachings...incorporating the information to your neural pathways sort-of-thing...

Remembering a story you once read you no longer needthe book.

No_Know