Defining "Internal"

[Taixuquan99]

There is no reason to assume that the use of a word implies a meaning behind it. Sometimes, words are markers or labels. Internal is such a use. The internal styles are largely Taoist or "may as well be Taoist" styles. Given the Taoist view on labels, where most martial styles will view many things associated with Yang as good, Taoist styles play no preference. This relative difference makes them more cognizant of yielding perhaps, perhaps not. Any throwing method uses yeilding as well as pushing, coincidentally(not) taiji makes extensive use of both.

So, the term is not useful as a descriptive term. It is only a marker, I say "I do internal kung fu" and you know what general thing I practice.

If you ask, "How do you do an internal roundhouse kick";), and I can say, in my style there are a few who do the roundhouse kick in their set, the main difference is in a waist motion common to some lines of Chen style and our style, among others. Aside from that, it's like other roundhouse kicks, but it is distinctively internal. If you say "but that's not internal, it's external", I have to point out "It's from a Taoist style, it has the specific mechanics that the internal styles favor that other styles often don't use," you retort, "but that's an external description, that's not something removed from the external," I say, "How can you remove the internal from the external?" But I'm just being cheeky, the term is not descriptive, it's a marker in modern usage, and nothing more.

Language is murky, not all terms require specific content in their makeup, words often gain meanings and shed them. Internal is a marker, not a descriptive word, and people will continue to use it, those who argue against it will continue to cry tears of impotent rage.

[Taixuquan99]

That said, internal styles focus on the fight, not the individual, as the whole being referenced. This they have in common with any method that focuses on managing kinetic energy between opponents for throwing or seizing or striking. But those other styles are not internal, in the sense of not being related to Chinese Taoism. But otherwise, they're the same, and they fulfill Taoist ideas the same where they are efficiently using what is there. They are only not internal by a technicality, in content, totally internal, totally Taoist in the best way, by not trying to be so.

[spiralstair]

To me Internal MA places an emphasis on feeling, on a refinement of proprioceptive ability over action.
People who laugh at the Internal (and there is no doubt plenty of blowhards to be laughed at), often assume there’s nothing happening because they can observe no activity.

To the massive, loud crowd that doubts the internal…here’s an internal concept for you…LOVE.
Look at a picture of a parent and child, you can’t see anything happening, but does that mean ‘nothing’ is going on? Love as it turns out moves people all the time without an obvious touch, across oceans, continents… bar rooms. It’s the original ‘no touch’ touch.
When you watch it in action, it appears the people just ‘move themselves’, but they’ll tell you that they feel ‘acted upon’ by the other in some mysterious internal way.

We don’t doubt it but can’t explain it either.
Sounds like IMA.

Betcha this is a thread killer.:)

[wenshu]

The internal and external dichotomy is a metaphorical reference to Han Chinese and Manchurian occupiers.

My point when arguing against the false distinction of internal is not that it doesn't exist. It is that certain aspects that are considered distinctive and definitive of internal martial arts are actually present in all chinese martial arts and represent a historical integration of Buddhist and Taoist techniques (daoyin, meditation). This syncretism runs parallel to the Song dynasty Confucianism integration Taoist and Buddhist metaphysical thought.

It is a false distinction, can you name one purely external extant chinese martial art?

[taai gihk yahn]

we can talk about use of the word "internal" in 2 ways: historically and parametrically;

historically, perhaps the most well-known 'watershed" is Sun Lu Tang's use of the term to differentiate what he was doing (taiji, bagua and hsing yi) from what certain schools of other MA'ists were doing at the time; one can argue that he was doing this for any number of reason's, but probably a large part was "rice bowl" related; of course, he does get into parameters of usage, which many argue as being sufficient to differentiate 'internal" styles from "external" ones;

in terms of parametrics, we are all familiar with the various postural principles, kintetics and the ever-murky "qi" aspects; the arugment is that these things r exclusive to certain styles and not addressed at all (or at least in any substantive way) by so-called "external" styles;

the problem here is that many internalists take tis a step further and couch these things in an aura of exclusivity - they feel that not only r these practices unique to their little corner of the schoolyard, but that no one else on the playground can even talk about what they r doing without using "ancient" Taoist terminology; of special note is that big bully "western science", who will just never, ever "get" what the little bespectacled "internal" kid is doing - and when "western science" bullies "internal" kid, well, he's doing it "externally", so it doesn't really count anyway :rolleyes:

so in a way, it's not so much the ideal of "internal" that I see as a problem, it's the people who practice it! the vast majority of them adopt (almost immediately!) this diletantism about what they r doing, and refuse to even consider that what they r doing can b readily described by systems of knowledge other than "taoist"; they wil often state "biomechanics (and, by extension, it's cousins anatomy and physiology) can never describe internal proactice; the problem, is that these peopleare not trained in biomechanics, nor do they usually have the slightest idea how the body actually works! yet they readily pronounce western science innadequate to the task of discussing "internal" - unless, of course, someone comes out w a "scientific" study that "proves" the existance of "qi" - then they r MORE than happy to tout how science - that innadequate monolith - has finally come 'round to their way of seeing things (never mind that the research design of these studies usually disqualifies it from any semblance to scientific method - but anyway...)

as such, "defining" internal is a bit of a fool's errand - "taoist" descriptors, being metaphorical, in a sense defy the convention of categorization / definition as we typicaly ustilize it; however, if we use contemporary knowledge base, we get yelled at by purists for leaving out the important bits regarding "qi" and all that, so the description is necesarily incomplete, by their estimation!

nxt time I'll discuss some of those woefully innadequate biomechanics in regards to how to define parameters of so-caled "internal" practice...

[Robinhood]

There is no reason to assume that the use of a word implies a meaning behind it. Sometimes, words are markers or labels. Internal is such a use. The internal styles are largely Taoist or "may as well be Taoist" styles. Given the Taoist view on labels, where most martial styles will view many things associated with Yang as good, Taoist styles play no preference. This relative difference makes them more cognizant of yielding perhaps, perhaps not. Any throwing method uses yeilding as well as pushing, coincidentally(not) taiji makes extensive use of both.

So, the term is not useful as a descriptive term. It is only a marker, I say "I do internal kung fu" and you know what general thing I practice.

If you ask, "How do you do an internal roundhouse kick";), and I can say, in my style there are a few who do the roundhouse kick in their set, the main difference is in a waist motion common to some lines of Chen style and our style, among others. Aside from that, it's like other roundhouse kicks, but it is distinctively internal. If you say "but that's not internal, it's external", I have to point out "It's from a Taoist style, it has the specific mechanics that the internal styles favor that other styles often don't use," you retort, "but that's an external description, that's not something removed from the external," I say, "How can you remove the internal from the external?" But I'm just being cheeky, the term is not descriptive, it's a marker in modern usage, and nothing more.

Language is murky, not all terms require specific content in their makeup, words often gain meanings and shed them. Internal is a marker, not a descriptive word, and people will continue to use it, those who argue against it will continue to cry tears of impotent rage.

If you can't apply a technique using booth methods you probably do not know what internal is using application.

I always read people saying internal is a religion , it can be or is probably, in one aespect, but for MA it is a level of application.

One easy way to look at it, force direction, if the force is expanding or pushing, that would be considered external, if the force is being collected or grounded or shorted out or neutralized, rather than being expanded, that would be one aspect of internal.

[Robinhood]

I would like to add that high level TCMA do not rely on speed and power to defeat their opponent. If this is how you are able to defeat your opponent then you are probably doing all external MA.

[YouKnowWho]

Internal - you train for your health and self-cultivation (ex. silk reeling).
External - you train to beat up your opponent (ex. heavy bag workout).

[extrajoseph]

Internal is used to contrast with the External, or what is hidden inside is contrasted with what is visible on the outside. Internal is the Ti and External is the Yong, and if you have trouble understand the concept of Ti/Yong then consider a fan is the Ti and fanning yourself with a fan is the Yong. Ti and Yong are inseparable because they are the complementary opposites and that applies to Internal and External CMA as well.

Chinese defined Internal and External on how they interact with each other and not on its own, because on our own, we have the potential of being both Internal and External and we cannot function on one without the other. But in the West, we always try to separate them, it is like trying to appreciate a butterfly by separating the wings with the body, instead of watching it in motion.

[YouKnowWho]

I would like to add that high level TCMA do not rely on speed and power to defeat their opponent. If this is how you are able to defeat your opponent then you are probably doing all external MA.

Old Chinese saying said,

- "All skills can be countered. Only speed and hardness (power) have no counters".
- "Strength can defeat 10 best skills".
- "Skill can defeat speed. Speed can defeat slow. Slow can defeat no skill".
- "Chinese wrestling is a sport of strength".

[Robinhood]

Old Chinese saying said,

- "All skills can be countered. Only speed and hardness (power) have no counters".
- "Strength can defeat 10 best skills".
- "Skill can defeat speed. Speed can defeat slow. Slow can defeat no skill".
- "Chinese wrestling is a sport of strength".

I think your missing soft defeats hard.

[YouKnowWho]

I think your missing soft defeats hard.

Borrowing force can defeat hard, but soft does not equal to "borrow force". Soft only means "yield" which is defense and not offense. Allow me to borrow this movie clip again. In order for you to be able to kill that bear, you will need:

- borrow force from bear.
- to have a hard object to kill it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G31h5gbazwU

You can not use "soft" to kill that bear.

[Robinhood]

Borrowing force can defeat hard, but soft does not equal to "borrow force". Soft only means "yield" which is defense and not offense. Allow me to borrow this movie clip again. In order for you to be able to kill that bear, you will need:

- borrow force from bear.
- to have a hard object to kill it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G31h5gbazwU

You can not use "soft" to kill that bear.

That might be one interpretation of soft from you, but that is not everything soft can be there is more.

Also if someone is soft and you can't hurt him, who is the winner?.

Who is fighting bears, ?, you might need a weapon for that.

[YouKnowWho]

I think your missing soft defeats hard.

Also if someone is soft and you can't hurt him, who is the winner?
First your talked about "soft defeats hard". Now you talk about "soft can't be hurt by hard". :confused:

"soft defeats hard" does not equal to "soft can't be hurt by hard".

[SPJ]

Internal and external are referring training focuses.

We need to practice how to be soft and how to be hard.

and how to be in between and change.

:)

[Robinhood]

First your talked about "soft defeats hard". Now you talk about "soft can't be hurt by hard". :confused:

"soft defeats hard" does not equal to "soft can't be hurt by hard".

When you can't hurt him because he is soft, does not mean he has to be soft to hurt you, but that is up to him.

If booth people are hard then the stronger wins, that's why you need soft to counter hard.

[extrajoseph]

Would you believe the Chinese also used soft to contrast with the hard so we can come to appreciate that one needs the other to be effective?

[Dragonzbane76]

"soft defeats hard" does not equal to "soft can't be hurt by hard".When you can't hurt him because he is soft, does not mean he has to be soft to hurt you, but that is up to him.


If booth people are hard then the stronger wins, that's why you need soft to counter hard.


Wow thats a really intricate way of saying, i dont know.:rolleyes:

[taai gihk yahn]

here's an example of taiji when utilized in a resisting environment - there is still "softness", but there is also speed and power being applied...a balance of "soft / hard"

http://www.taichili.com/p_house.wmv

[YouKnowWho]

Who is fighting bears, ?, you might need a weapon for that.
If you need to fight against a bear, do you think that "soft" by itself will be enough?

[ShaolinDan]

If you need to fight against a bear, do you think that "soft" by itself will be enough?

depends...if you have some food to give it, it might be. :) Otherwise, well, hard probably won't work too well either...least not on a kodiak or grizzly, maybe on a black bear.

[Taixuquan99]

nxt time I'll discuss some of those woefully innadequate biomechanics in regards to how to define parameters of so-caled "internal" practice...

Did I miss this part? I'm looking forward to it, if I didn't...

[Robinhood]

If you need to fight against a bear, do you think that "soft" by itself will be enough?

Well, if the bear did not have teeth or claws it would help.

Are you going to flip the bear to hurt him?, or choke him out?, or punch him?

[taai gihk yahn]

Did I miss this part? I'm looking forward to it, if I didn't...

U kno, when u c the beginning of the same kind of degeneration on this thread as on the recently closed one about standing practice, it pretty much kills any inspiration to spend time on something substantive...

[ShaolinDan]

Well, if the bear did not have teeth or claws it would help.

Are you going to flip the bear to hurt him?, or choke him out?, or punch him?

Eye gouge. and then pull out its tongue.

[ShaolinDan]

U kno, when u c the beginning of the same kind of degeneration on this thread as on the recently closed one about standing practice, it pretty much kills any inspiration to spend time on something substantive...

Pompous little... We're talking about fighting bears here. So?! :p

[Taixuquan99]

U kno, when u c the beginning of the same kind of degeneration on this thread as on the recently closed one about standing practice, it pretty much kills any inspiration to spend time on something substantive...

Understood. No problems. Years in martial arts has taught me that I would give up my own hand to build a fortress in an island wilderness outside of all legal jurisdiction just to preside over an occasional weekend of martial artists dying.

[Robinhood]

:o
Did I miss this part? I'm looking forward to it, if I didn't...

We all missed it, because he can't explain internal using his definition of bio mechanics, for two reasons, first he does not know what internal is, so how can he explain something he knows nothing about or thinks does not excist.

And second if he could do it or knew what it was, he would not be trying to say that it was not real.

It always amazes me that people can comment on experiences they have not had, its probably because someone else taught them that also did not have experience, and the myth continues.

[Taixuquan99]

It's just one little hand!

[Robinhood]

Eye gouge. and then pull out its tongue.

Is that hard or soft kungfu ?

[ShaolinDan]

Is that hard or soft kungfu ?

The difference is in how you feel when you're doing it.

[taai gihk yahn]

:o

We all missed it, because he can't explain internal using his definition of bio mechanics, for two reasons, first he does not know what internal is, so how can he explain something he knows nothing about or thinks does not excist.

And second if he could do it or knew what it was, he would not be trying to say that it was not real.

It always amazes me that people can comment on experiences they have not had, its probably because someone else taught them that also did not have experience, and the myth continues.
LOL - finally RH sucums to the urge to whip out his worn out old saw of "u don't know internal" - we cud tell he was chomping at the bit ever since Philbert closed the last thread; I'm surprised he was able to keep it in his pants this long


I'm complaining to Gene - KFM REALLY needs to improve its screening procedures for new troll applicants - they just don't have the same panache they used to have here

[Robinhood]

LOL - finally RH sucums to the urge to whip out his worn out old saw of "u don't know internal" - we cud tell he was chomping at the bit ever since Philbert closed the last thread; I'm surprised he was able to keep it in his pants this long


I'm complaining to Gene - KFM REALLY needs to improve its screening procedures for new troll applicants - they just don't have the same panache they used to have here

It looks like you are the troll !, complaining about other people, grow up, and stop crying about everything!.

I'm going to tell Gene.

[taai gihk yahn]

It looks like you are the troll !, complaining about other people, grow up, and stop crying about everything!.

I'm going to tell Gene.

lol - RH needs new material; all he seems to b able to do is jump onto threads randomly stating how no one knows real internal, making pointed accusations without offering any substantiation for his comments, and when he is called on his TROLLING, he tries to flip it around and make it seem like he is the victim; pathetic...

[Robinhood]

LOL - finally RH sucums to the urge to whip out his worn out old saw of "u don't know internal" - we cud tell he was chomping at the bit ever since Philbert closed the last thread; I'm surprised he was able to keep it in his pants this long


I'm complaining to Gene - KFM REALLY needs to improve its screening procedures for new troll applicants - they just don't have the same panache they used to have here

Your posts show what you know about internal, your internal is not the same internal I am talking about, as per MA internals.

I am describing internal application as describe in books like Tai-Chi Classics, you are talking about a religion or something else.

[taai gihk yahn]

a troll is not a troll because he says someone else is:


nxt time I'll discuss some of those woefully innadequate biomechanics in regards to how to define parameters of so-caled "internal" practice...


Did I miss this part? I'm looking forward to it, if I didn't...


We all missed it, because he can't explain internal using his definition of bio mechanics, for two reasons, first he does not know what internal is, so how can he explain something he knows nothing about

pretty straightforward, wouldn't one think? RH jumps into a conversation that has NOTHING to do with him, to spew his baseless statements that he can't even back up; seems like trolling 101, yes?

but wait! no - apparently I am the troll! what's more, evidently I cry about everything!!!

It looks like you are the troll !, complaining about other people, grow up, and stop crying about everything!.

curiouser and curiouser...

(LMAO - u can't get entertainment like this anywhere else...)

[taai gihk yahn]

Your posts show what you know about internal, your internal is not the same internal I am talking about, as per MA internals.

I am describing internal application as describe in books like Tai-Chi Classics, you are talking about a religion or something else.

not only is my internal not the internal he is talking about, but

http://blogs.westword.com/showandtell/Droids1.jpg

[wenshu]

http://whysoblu.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Scary-Movie-2-Chris-Elliott-www.whysoblu.com_.jpg
It's just one little hand!

[PHILBERT]

:o

We all missed it, because he can't explain internal using his definition of bio mechanics, for two reasons, first he does not know what internal is, so how can he explain something he knows nothing about or thinks does not excist.

And second if he could do it or knew what it was, he would not be trying to say that it was not real.

It always amazes me that people can comment on experiences they have not had, its probably because someone else taught them that also did not have experience, and the myth continues.

What makes you think someone doesn't know what internal is simply because their view on it differently than yours?

Doesn't internal arts teach about bettering oneself? If it does, then why are you so closed minded about other people's views on internal arts?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, just like you are entitled to your opinion on him, but that does not mean you have to come on here and say "You don't know internal! I know internal!"

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3101/2300414659_5ba5ec8f9a.jpg

[PHILBERT]

Here is something to dwell about...

The term "Internal art" is less than a century old. It was created in the early 20th century to describe different forms of exercise.

You won't find a book pre-dating 1911 (I use this year as the basis because we are in 2011) that talks about "internal" arts. Sure you can find stuff about Taiji and Baguazhang and Xingyiquan pre-dating that, but they won't actually say "Xingyiquan is an internal art" in the material.

So why are people getting so wrapped up about centuries old martial art that wasn't classified as "internal" until less than a century ago?

[wenshu]

:o

We all missed it, because he can't explain internal using his definition of bio mechanics, for two reasons, first he does not know what internal is, so how can he explain something he knows nothing about or thinks does not excist.

And second if he could do it or knew what it was, he would not be trying to say that it was not real.

It always amazes me that people can comment on experiences they have not had, its probably because someone else taught them that also did not have experience, and the myth continues.

Still waiting for you to address this, since you're so knowledgeable and all;



1) in regards to standing, have u achieved Macro Orbit? how about Micro Orbit? if u r so "internally" astute as u claim, u should at least have achieved that; if u hav, u shud b familiar with what is required to move the circulation beyond Jade Pillow - in what way did this occur for u?

2) considering the taiji posture called SIngle WHip: how is it relevant in terms of Taoist Alchemical (the root of so-called "internal") practice? what does it represent? how does it relate to general standing practice, and progress beyond it?

[taai gihk yahn]

What makes you think someone doesn't know what internal is simply because their view on it differently than yours?

Doesn't internal arts teach about bettering oneself? If it does, then why are you so closed minded about other people's views on internal arts?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, just like you are entitled to your opinion on him, but that does not mean you have to come on here and say "You don't know internal! I know internal!"

let me just state unequivocally, that if someone, anyone, wants to come and say "you don't know internal, and I can tell by what u post", that's fine - please show me specifically what it is about what I post that makes u so certain, and provide something substantive and specific to demonstrate where specifically I am in error; and hey, mayb provide some sort of evidence that supports ur own capacity to even make any statements about internal practice urself...

if OTOH, all u can do is say "u don't know it and I know it, just because", then what is the point of posting here at all? this is a discussion board - we are here to discuss - if u can't discuss, if u can only condemn, then there's really no point to ur presence...

[taai gihk yahn]

Still waiting for you to address this, since you're so knowledgeable and all;

he won't; the reason is because


your internal is not the same internal I am talking about, as per MA internals.

apparently, Micro / Macro Heavenly Circulation now has nothing to do w MA internals...:rolleyes:

[wenshu]

Here is something to dwell about...

The term "Internal art" is less than a century old. It was created in the early 20th century to describe different forms of exercise.

You won't find a book pre-dating 1911 (I use this year as the basis because we are in 2011) that talks about "internal" arts. Sure you can find stuff about Taiji and Baguazhang and Xingyiquan pre-dating that, but they won't actually say "Xingyiquan is an internal art" in the material.

So why are people getting so wrapped up about centuries old martial art that wasn't classified as "internal" until less than a century ago?

http://www.nardis.com/~twchan/henning.html



The earliest reference to Zhang Sanfeng as a boxing master is found in the Epitaph for Wang Zhengnan (1669), composed by Huang Zongxi (1610-1695 A.D. but, as I pointed out in my 1981 article, the real significance of this piece at the time lay not so much in its reference to boxing but in its anti-Manchu symbolism. The Epitaph is the first reference in the history of Chinese martial arts to describe boxing in terms of a Shaolin or "external" school versus an "internal" school of boxing, originated by the Taoist immortal from Mount Wudang, Zhang Sanfeng.[4] While the Epitaph accomplishes its intended purpose of eulogizing Wang Zhengnan, it conveys two additional messages as well, one reflecting trends in thought on boxing and the other political defiance.

[Bob Ashmore]

TGY,
The Lurker would like to read what you have to say about: nxt time I'll discuss some of those woefully innadequate biomechanics in regards to how to define parameters of so-caled "internal" practice...

I am a fan of biomechanics, and I also don't know "internal", so if you could humor me with some information I would greatly appreciate it.

Oh, and by the way, the links in your signature are priceless. I've held forth very similar theories for years. Not being involved in the medical field, I've not had anything but anatomy books, accupuncture theory and my own guess work to go on.
These articles aren't proof of any kind, but it's still good to know that I'm not alone in this belief.

[spiralstair]

The 'Internal' is more than a way of practice, and one finds its metaphorical description in Western athletics also, as in the following passage:

Athletes call flow experience being in the "zone" - an optimal psychological and physiological climate for peak performance. Brazilian soccer player Pele has described days when everything was going right, and feeling "a strange calmness I hadn't experienced in any of the other games. It was a type of euphoria; I felt I could run all day without tiring, that I could dribble through any of their teams or all of them, that I could almost pass through them physically. I felt I could not be hurt."

Basketball players, when they experience being "in the zone" report that the basket seems bigger, and feeling an almost mystical connection to it. The legendary hitter Ted Williams has said that sometimes he could see the seams on a pitched baseball. Gymnast Carol Johnson found that on some days she experienced the balance beam as wider, so "any worry of falling off disappeared."

Football quarterback star John Brodie told Michael Murphy (author of "The Psychic Side of Sports") that he found periods in every game when "time seems to slow down, in an uncanny way, as if everyone were moving in slow motion. It seems as if I had all the time in the world to watch the receivers run their patterns, and yet I know the defensive line is coming at me just as fast as ever."
Find the whole article here:
http://talentdevelop.com/articles/Page8.html

In the above passage in our Western language pattern are similar descriptions to the classic Internal states of: light body; 1 oz moving 1000 lbs; a bird unable to take off from the hand; leave second /arrive first...etc.

It's called flow psychology, not based on bio mechanics, but certainly found in practitioners with unquestioned top level skill at their chosen physical field.
It is a quality of mind, or maybe an occurrence within the mind, that appears to happen within a framework of practice...

The Tao can't be made to happen, it just happens.

[taai gihk yahn]

It's called flow psychology, not based on bio mechanics, but certainly found in practitioners with unquestioned top level skill at their chosen physical field.
It is a quality of mind, or maybe an occurrence within the mind, that appears to happen within a framework of practice...

The Tao can't be made to happen, it just happens.

very nice;

I would suggest however, that biomechanics do in fact play a roll to some degree: for example, I wud warrant that if we examined the breathing mechanics of an athlete "in the zone", or if we looked at how their postural systems were organizing relative to the ground reaction forces they were generating, there wud b marked differences from when they were in a non-flow state; on another level, the way that their autonomics were functioning in the zone wud necesarilly have to b reflective of a change in their state - and autonomics r influenced by, among other things, postural habitus - for example, when doing standing practice and one gets that feeling of "activation", this is related to changes in autonomic tone, brought about by changes in postural alignment;

I personally have seen that biomechanics (movement / muscle function), is related to psychological states in many ways - for example, people who undergo spontaneous "unwinding" while being treated manually via various approaches (e.g. - myofascial, craniosacral, Hakomi, etc.) experience emotional states / recall based on the movement / position of the body - the movement was associated w a psychological state; again, autonomics play a big piece, as people who do wexperience unwinding necesarily have to b in a state of relative parasympathetic tone (similar to what happens during standing qigong practice);

my point is that I think that the link btw these various systems is, while at times opaque, can in fact b extremely robust, but we just don't always notice these connections...

[spiralstair]

Ghost in the Machine

Yeah, I don't disagree.
Could be just the word biomechanics that has a machine-like ring to it...purely semantics.
My point is that in cases above, and also found in some descriptions of IMA, it's more 'ghost' and less 'machine'.
Though they're not going anywhere without each other...:)

[Vajramusti]

very nice;

I would suggest however, that biomechanics do in fact play a roll to some degree: for example, I wud warrant that if we examined the breathing mechanics of an athlete "in the zone", or if we looked at how their postural systems were organizing relative to the ground reaction forces they were generating, there wud b marked differences from when they were in a non-flow state; on another level, the way that their autonomics were functioning in the zone wud necesarilly have to b reflective of a change in their state - and autonomics r influenced by, among other things, postural habitus - for example, when doing standing practice and one gets that feeling of "activation", this is related to changes in autonomic tone, brought about by changes in postural alignment;

I personally have seen that biomechanics (movement / muscle function), is related to psychological states in many ways - for example, people who undergo spontaneous "unwinding" while being treated manually via various approaches (e.g. - myofascial, craniosacral, Hakomi, etc.) experience emotional states / recall based on the movement / position of the body - the movement was associated w a psychological state; again, autonomics play a big piece, as people who do wexperience unwinding necesarily have to b in a state of relative parasympathetic tone (similar to what happens during standing qigong practice);

my point is that I think that the link btw these various systems is, while at times opaque, can in fact b extremely robust, but we just don't always notice these connections...
------------------------------
Not debating.
I have nothing against learning bio mechanics, The great difficulty is access to top flight teachers of arts, if you are taught well by let's a say Chen Xiao Wang you dont need a bio mechanics vocabulary to feel and understand the motions from the hands on corrections. His student Ren G in NYC just does it.

[Robinhood]

------------------------------
Not debating.
I have nothing against learning bio mechanics, The great difficulty is access to top flight teachers of arts, if you are taught well by let's a say Chen Xiao Wang you dont need a bio mechanics vocabulary to feel and understand the motions from the hands on corrections. His student Ren G in NYC just does it.

Bio-mechanics is just body level application, nothing to do with internal application of MA.

Micro orbits and Macro orbits are also first level of development and do mean you have internal application.

Since TGY has shown me his level and thinks that he has learned all there is to know, I will not peruse discussing internal with someone who's cup is full and has a ignorant attitude.

[taai gihk yahn]

------------------------------
Not debating.
I have nothing against learning bio mechanics, The great difficulty is access to top flight teachers of arts, if you are taught well by let's a say Chen Xiao Wang you dont need a bio mechanics vocabulary to feel and understand the motions from the hands on corrections. His student Ren G in NYC just does it.

I agree that a given practitioner may not "need" a description based on biomechanics in order to feel, understand, perform or even teach any of this - the "proof" of this is that for hundreds (thousands?) of years, these and related arts were passed down without the use of any sort of biomechanical analysis as such; so my point has NEVER been that anyone "needs" this sort of definition;

however, I would argue that what underlies these arts CAN be fully described via a biomechanical approach, albeit one that utilizes a more "holistic" perspective than what might find in some venues; for example, in standard biomechanics, the roll of connective tissue vis a vis its tensegrity properties is not usualy discussed, but is an important factor when we look at so-called "internal" practice; likewise, there are certain biomechanical parameters that can b gleaned from the osteopathic literature that are not elucidated elsewhere that relate directly to certain "internal" principles; we can also look at Structura Integration (Rolfing), Alexander Technique, Feldenkreis and similar "body-mind" systems for ways of conceptualizing how the body organizes posturally in gravity which further considers "internal" practice in a contemporary framework;

so sure, no one needs any of that stuff to work "internally"; however, I personally believe that looking at it from a contemporary perspective markedly improves one's ability to assimilate the practice, essentially impacting the learning curve and cutting through a lot of the otherwise "dense" language and classical imagery that in some cases actually interferes with learning; remember, TCMA is couched in a cultural paradigm that was endemic to Chinese practitioners' lived experience - so using that sort of imagery FACILITATED their learning - they didn't have to absorb a whole, unfamiliar cultural paradigm in order to "get it"; why then, should that be the case for "foreign" learner's? why should we necessarily have to wade through a morass of terms and concepts that are intrinsically alien to us, when there r concepts / descriptors readily available and that r exponentially more accessible to our own cultural consciousness? again, one can choose to utilize it or not - it is not mandatory, but it is available;

the only problem I have is when people say that TCMA "internal", by it's own intrinsic self-nature cannot be described in the manner I am describing it - they aregue that the reason for this is a) so-called "western" descriptors (scientific or otherwise) are intrinsically inadequate to the task of doing so and that b) I personally don't "get" internal practice deeply enough if I think that they can be described this way; of course, if that is someone's position a priori, then I can't really argue with them because they have closed off their minds from the start, so that's their issue, not mine...

anyway, just my perspective;

[taai gihk yahn]

Bio-mechanics is just body level application, nothing to do with internal application of MA.

Micro orbits and Macro orbits are also first level of development and do mean you have internal application.

Since TGY has shown me his level and thinks that he has learned all there is to know, I will not peruse discussing internal with someone who's cup is full and has a ignorant attitude.

really now, this sort of posting continues to reveal your own ignorance of not only internal practice in general (really, you should ask your teacher for a refund, you have been horribly "gyped") and clearly underscores the particularly low level at which you seem to be eternally stuck - anyone here who has any knowledge at al wil immediately recognize this; if you cannot realize it, than unfortunately neither I nor anyone else can help u at all;

[Scott R. Brown]

Since TGY has shown me his level and thinks that he has learned all there is to know, I will not peruse discussing internal with someone who's cup is full and has a ignorant attitude.

At least not with someone who is not as ignorant and as full as yourself!

[Robinhood]

really now, this sort of posting continues to reveal your own ignorance of not only internal practice in general (really, you should ask your teacher for a refund, you have been horribly "gyped") and clearly underscores the particularly low level at which you seem to be eternally stuck - anyone here who has any knowledge at al wil immediately recognize this; if you cannot realize it, than unfortunately neither I nor anyone else can help u at all;

Your just like a kid in a school yard that just keeps mocking people "I know you are, but what am I",

It would not do any good to try explain this to you, it would be like trying to talk to someone in a language they don't understand.

Have your teacher, teach you some internal application, then we can have something real to discuss.

[YouKnowWho]

Have your teacher, teach you some internal application, then we can have something real to discuss.

I like the idea of discussion "internal application". Which one should we start first?

[Robinhood]

At least not with someone who is not as ignorant and as full as yourself!

Ha, the narcist is back, big time wrestling over? LoL

Why don't you and TGY talk about how boring it is know it all at such a young age., or do you finally have something constructive to say?, besides their is no internal.

Otherwise you can get back to your easy chair and continue watching big time wrestling.

[Scott R. Brown]

The question is not really whether internal can be learned and taught using a bio-mechanical framework, these skills must be understood intellectually, but more importantly, felt in order to become fully skilled.

The point is, there is no magical force heretofore unknown, or unrecognized, that is being developed or tapped into or used, etc. It is nothing more than the proper use of leverage, momentum and psychology in a manner that benefits the practioner. The problem with people like Robinhood is that whey want it to be special, because knowing it makes them special, and when the speicialness of it all is negated, that takes away from their feeling of superiority, that they know something special and secret, that few others know or understand. When anyone can learn it and do it is no longer special. It is no different than when a magic trick is revealed. The "awe factor" disappears and the trick becomes nothing special. It can be very disappointing to those who like to live with the fantasy!

The fact some practitioners cannot recognize this is not a disparagement on the art or process being used, but on the limited ability of the practitioner to perceive and understand the underlying principles of what they practice beyond the traditional explanations for it.

To say that another does not understand or has limited development because they can see beyond the fantasy of the traditional story is weak reasoning. There has been NO internal practitioner that has demonstrated "repeatedly" under varying circumstances, his exceptional abilities work in any dynamic setting against skilled opponents intending to control or hurt them.

[Scott R. Brown]

Ha, the narcist is back, big time wrestling over? LoL

Why don't you and TGY talk about how boring it is know it all at such a young age., or do you finally have something constructive to say?, besides their is no internal.

Otherwise you can get back to your easy chair and continue watching big time wrestling.

When you have something constructive to say yourself, MAYBE you can criticize others!

So far you have offered nothing to substantiate you understand anything beyond the fantasy of internal!

[Scott R. Brown]

Your just like a kid in a school yard that just keeps mocking people "I know you are, but what am I",

It would not do any good to try explain this to you, it would be like trying to talk to someone in a language they don't understand.

Have your teacher, teach you some internal application, then we can have something real to discuss.

The only thing you have done here is admit your own inadequacy. TGY has repeatedly attempted to explain to you his opinion using words and reasoning you do not understand, why can you not make the same effort.

All you do is insult others but provide no insight or argument to the discussion attempting to validate your view.

"You cannot understand" as an argument only demonstrates that you don't have a clear understanding of the topic under discussion!

[YouKnowWho]

Have your teacher, teach you some internal application, then we can have something real to discuss.

Let's talk about "internal application". Will you conside this "internal application"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KK4gBstnYs

[taai gihk yahn]

Your just like a kid in a school yard that just keeps mocking people "I know you are, but what am I",

It would not do any good to try explain this to you, it would be like trying to talk to someone in a language they don't understand.

Have your teacher, teach you some internal application, then we can have something real to discuss.

you know, I've tried to help you - I REALLY have - it just makes me sad to see u carry on this way - it's like, well, I was waking down the street just a bit after reading your last post, and i saw this, and it reminded me of you, so I took this picture, I thought, maybe it would help you understand how I and everyone else on here sees you:

http://tvrefill.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/fat-squirrel.jpg

do you understand? do you get it at all? somehow I doubt that you do; probably not - in fact, I am guessing that instead, this is more the way you envisage yourself:

http://theinspirationroom.com/daily/commercials/2008/4/abbey-super-squirrel.jpg

I hope this helps you understand things a bit more clearly - I mean, I really want to help you, but even the Buddha can't get you enlightened all alone, you have to take at least the first step...

[taai gihk yahn]

It would not do any good to try explain this to you, it would be like trying to talk to someone in a language they don't understand.

http://www.wallpapersdll.com/wp-content/uploads/homeless-man-goes-wireless.jpg

http://t.qkme.me/724r.jpg


Just because no one understands you...doesn't mean that you are making any sense...

[taai gihk yahn]

Ghost in the Machine

Yeah, I don't disagree.
Could be just the word biomechanics that has a machine-like ring to it...purely semantics.
My point is that in cases above, and also found in some descriptions of IMA, it's more 'ghost' and less 'machine'.
Though they're not going anywhere without each other...:)

point well taken - yes, "traditionally", biomechanics brings up images of this sort of thing:

http://www.soe.uoguelph.ca/webfiles/mleuniss/Images/Body/Sm_elbowfbd.jpg

however, that is just one aspect; for example, we can also consider it in regards to something like this (http://www.anatomytrains.com/uploads/rich_media/cranial_vault_research_1.pdf)

the point is that if one looks at mechanics in a classical Newtonian model, sure, u can't blame them for saying there's more to it than that; which is why u have a concept like tensegrity, which allows for a level of biomechanical discussion well beyond...

[PHILBERT]

Robinhood, I am going to say this one time and only one time.

Chill out with the insults. Seriously, stop engaging people in this kind of brow beating behavior. You engaged it and Scott came in to defend him. Just drop this e-***** measuring contest.

If their views on internal is different than yours, then so be it. You don't have to say "Your internal sucks" or "you don't know internal."

Instead, a more constructive, less condescending approach would be "The way I was taught it was [Insert knowledge here]" while ignoring their views. Do not quote them then say "No you don't know internal, because my instructor knows it and this is how it really is." If someone asks a question, answer THEIR question without insulting them or another forum member. If someone asks a question and another poster posts their views on internal, go back to the person asking the question and give them your views an opinions.

You are clearly an adult. Act like it.

[taai gihk yahn]

Robinhood, I am going to say this one time and only one time.

Chill out with the insults. Seriously, stop engaging people in this kind of brow beating behavior. You engaged it and Scott came in to defend him. Just drop this e-***** measuring contest.

If their views on internal is different than yours, then so be it. You don't have to say "Your internal sucks" or "you don't know internal."

Instead, a more constructive, less condescending approach would be "The way I was taught it was [Insert knowledge here]" while ignoring their views. Do not quote them then say "No you don't know internal, because my instructor knows it and this is how it really is." If someone asks a question, answer THEIR question without insulting them or another forum member. If someone asks a question and another poster posts their views on internal, go back to the person asking the question and give them your views an opinions.

You are clearly an adult. Act like it.

thank you for trying to put this into perspective for RH - he seems to have sum difficulty w impulse control, and does not seem to understand that when participating in a public forum, certain social skills need must b employed; again, I don't mind if he disagrees w sum or all of what I say - he can dismiss it entirely; but for him to just keep jumping in w "you know nothing about internal" is just, wel, just DULL - I mean, it SEEMS like the guy just can't help himself, so hopefully ur post will get him to realize his behavior here is unproductive and unappreciated...

[Dragonzbane76]

http://tvrefill.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/fat-squirrel.jpg

wow that's a big a$$ squirrel or is it a squirrel? doesn't have the tail of one.
reminds me of a guy that sits a couple cubes down from me at work. I call him the arm rest guy, he's so fat that his arms rest on his rolls.

[Scott R. Brown]

http://tvrefill.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/fat-squirrel.jpg

wow that's a big a$$ squirrel or is it a squirrel? doesn't have the tail of one.
reminds me of a guy that sits a couple cubes down from me at work. I call him the arm rest guy, he's so fat that his arms rest on his rolls.

Hey! Have some respect for the Ho Tai of the rodent world!:mad:

He is a Bodhisattva bringing enlightenment to the lesser sentient beings!

And apparently hogging all the acorns!:eek: