IMA and Intellectuals

[RAF]

First, hippies and intellectuals are not the same. The new age issue is completely a different questions. Are you confusing commercialization with intellectualization?

My speculation is that the Royal classes have always toyed with martial arts. They dabble. Historically the martial arts has been, like it was said before the military and in the 19th and early 20 century illiterate, bodyguards and the countryside people. Hardly well accepted in the Royal classes.

Intellectuals like Sun Lu Tang made it more agreeable for the upper class by putting into the contemporary philosophy of their world view.

However, what does intellectualization mean? Translating oral poetry into written philosophy? Many of the so-called intellectuals were also practitioners and decent (not necessarily the best, but many trained).

There really isn't a whole lot of written material from the 19th century given the practice of the arts at that time. The taiji and bagua books on the market are hardly intellectual writing: they are primary commercial and instructional in nature.

Some of the best material came from Generals of the 17th century and I would hardly call that intellectualization.

Historical writers are far and few between. If you look at the academics writing on Chna's history, in the mainstream peer reviewed journals, martial arts is never addressed (go to the Border's China historical section, check out the indices and tell me how many citations you find regarding martial arts)

I think the most damage, if that is what martial arts is, came from the fiction writers who made the IMA larger than life and the Western romantic fascination with China (which goes back to the times of Marco Polo).

Intellectuaization does not always mean one who does not practice or does not have power.

[Chris McKinley]

jon,

RE: "I forget sometimes that im not capable of properly educating the masses with my own bigoted belief structure.". Thankfully however, I have no such limitations LOL. After all, this is an open forum where we are free to express our viewpoints. I have no illusions of changing anyone's mind. Their views are born of their own perceptions and experience, a few lines of text from me isn't going to shatter all of that, nor should it. What I think I can provide, though, is a perspective that isn't usually very well-represented anymore within the internal arts. Namely, that aside from all the other wonderful benefits these arts have to offer us, they are still a seriously effective way to kick someone's bohiney in the APPROPRIATE context. No, the martial arts aren't all about learning to kick butt. That's extreme. But neither are they about everything else to the exclusion of combat skills. That's extreme, too, and neither extreme represents the truth of what the internal arts are.

RE: "Im only new to the internals so still havent really seen a lot and im sure my comments reflect my lack of exposure.". No problem, everybody's gotta start somewhere. I just wouldn't want you to discount what the internal arts have to offer in terms of the most severe aspects of combat functionality based on erroneous stereotypes and then to let those views set like cement without ever checking into it for yourself.

RE: "Still im just here to learn and spout of my own opinionate crap every now and again to". So am I. We all are. Some of us are just more willing to admit it than others. ;P

RE: " P.S any self respecting caravan would be decked out with the latest in fire resistant armor and mages using globes of invlunerablity.". Yeah, yeah...I've heard it all before. It's not something a little Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting with Creeping Doom can't handle, right before that Firestorm goes off. Especially if they're done with a Chain Contingency.


bamboo leaf,

RE: "I think that the premise that these arts where common and taught to soldiers is incorrect.". I haven't read anybody offering up that premise in the thread thus far. The only internal art with links to the common soldiery is Xing Yi Quan, and that was arguably before it adopted internal principles (depending on whether you ask a Hebei or Shanxi stylist). My statement regarding use of neijia for sentry removal wasn't a reference to an idea that such applications were/are taught as a part of a soldier's combatives, since they weren't, but rather to the idea that nevertheless they can function extremely well for that context if necessary. The overall point was that internal arts are just as capable of dishing out brutality as their external cousins under appropriate circumstances.

Historically, both Taijiquan and Baguazhang also have been taught with the specific purpose of combative use, to the Royal Palace Guard and the Imperial Guard, respectively, so it's not as if these arts haven't seen real life-or-death combat before.

RE: " The problem new age or not as I see it is when people try to duplicate high level skills with out really having the skill. So many things like don?t use force, and the idea of stick, follow release become corrupted with the use of force, speed and tech.". I would generally agree with the first part. What they ought to be doing is practicing and duplicating low-level skills if they are new. Even if one never progresses to the advanced ideas, Taijiquan has some nice things to offer skill-wise from day one. As for your second statement here, I would suggest that force, speed, and technique CAN corrupt the subtler ideas if forced prematurely, but that they don't NECESSARILY corrupt them if used at the right time in one's training and in proper context. It's worth noting that quite a few past Taiji masters were known for having bountiful amounts of all three of those attributes.

RE: " Not many are willing to give up the idea of force. Even in using no force they view this as another way to use force. Not quite the same as using no force and following.". I agree that, no, it's not the same. But neither SHOULD they be giving up usage of force entirely. Such a move would not be in agreement with the totality of the Classics, but only with certain portions. Force has its place in Taiji practice. If you are not in accord with that, we will simply have to agree to disagree on that particular issue and move on to discussing something more productive.

RE: "Of course we wouldn?t want to be confused with that new age hippy TC stereotype, gotta be careful about that.". Even with the trademark sarcasm, I'll still explain why I agree with the statement. Taijiquan doesn't need hippie-culture influence. It's done quite nicely for itself for a good long time without it. Quite frankly, we've seen what the influence of hippie culture has done to the art in this country for a few decades now, and it ain't pretty. Especially according to the nearly unanimous opinions of high-level practitioners from the art's country of origin. In contrast, I would readily agree that hippie culture would/does benefit from Taijiquan influence. Some, in spite of themselves, have become authentic Taiji proponents and have gained some of the institutionalized depth that they so eschewed back in the heyday of hippie culture.

The stereotype itself is to be avoided and checked. That doesn't mean that we all don't have something of value, possibly great value, to learn from certain ex- or old hippies on the subject.

[Ray Pina]

I would like to think people come to the internal because it works and will continue to work later in life. I came after getting squaring off with a Hsing-I guy.

I can see why people feel its intellectual -- it is. Its looking beyond the obvious external and looking deeper into the Why. Why position matters more than strenght. Why a pushing angle is more important then whether who's on top of the bridge.

Many people just want to chain punch faster, wear metal rings on there forearms and do some forms and think, this is it, I'll get faster and stronger and have some techniques to throw out. Fine.

But you won't be the fastest or the strongest. And without a deep understanding of the WHY techniques work, they are just movements. And if you are trying to use that programmed movement based on power, when the other guy is stronger you are in trouble.

Internal is not about being soft or weak, its about not relying on strenght. I'd say I have fair strenght, but I can't move my teacher who is twice my age and 50 lbs lighter. Why? He's doing things wiser then myself. Using better angles, cleaner lines, better alignemnt, more refined movement. Then there is his power. I'm guessing this is from internal.

At times its like he's not even there. He'll lead me in and its like a cloud, zero resistance, and then he becomes like a lead pipe.

I spend as much time reflecting on what I'm learning as drilling it. Often drilling it, checking myself, looking to see if the principles are in play, then continuing.

This is different from the "punch harder" school of thought when things don't work out. Its about mastery of oneself.

[dwid]

Quote: -Chris McKinley- "...one of the aspects that attracts me to Baguazhang is the extreme brutality and overkill regarding the destruction of the opponent in many of the applications. The appeal is not to some bloodthirsty part of my psyche, but rather to a desire to have the most effective responses at my disposal should I be faced with a choice of life or death."

Thank you. If there's an intellectual predisposition related to the IMA, it's being able to look at the principles and see simple truths like this one.

Reading about theory is what brought me to Bagua. Realizing it's sheer brutality is what keeps me there.

[bamboo_ leaf]

If you never have to use it, how is it brutal? Is it something you read or something you know.

can something be a truth if one has never experienced it? Can it be true out side of ones experience?

This is what keeps you in the art? The fact that you are developing a deadly skill, (maybe) not every one develops the ability of MA usage.

Seems like something is broken somewhere inside.

[Chris McKinley]

bamboo leaf,

Even though it would seem obvious your latest post is directed toward dwid, I would like to answer it, too, in order to provide some insight into my perspective and perhaps that of dwid's if it applies.

RE: "If you never have to use it, how is it brutal? Is it something you read or something you know.". A shotgun is a deadly weapon even if one is never forced to fire it. Martial ethics would have us hope that such a need never arises, but sometimes reality doesn't bother asking for our opinions. As to the second question, it is something I know from unfortunate experiences.

RE: "can something be a truth if one has never experienced it? Can it be true out side of ones experience?". I believe the answer to both these questions is yes. Is this line of questioning leading somewhere in particular?

RE: "Seems like something is broken somewhere inside.". That is one of the saddest of the possible interpretations. It is not the only one available, however. Perhaps his reasons for training differ from others, including your own. Perhaps his highest priority for training is for effective self-defense skills. If such were true, I could certainly see why one would stick with Bagua. Personally, I would think it a shame if someone didn't discover the other wonderful benefits of studying Baguazhang than just the fighting skill, but if that's what he's after, I can't fault him for it.

After all, if I buy a gun for self-defense, you can be very sure I'm going to want it to be very effective at killing human beings, since that is the purpose I need it for in the context of a real life-or-death fight for survival for me or my family. Does that mean that one could logically infer that I personally want to kill human beings as a general tendency? No, that conclusion does not logically follow. For some, the internal arts are a lifestyle, a journey, an ever-changing kaleidoscope of personal and universal discovery. For others, they are simply an extraordinarily effective tool for meeting the needs of but one aspect of a person's life and interests.

[bamboo_ leaf]

Chris,


This constant quest for power and control, the fear of always being ready for an attack. People seem very ready to feed this.

“Reading about theory is what brought me to Bagua. Realizing it's sheer brutality is what keeps me”

I think some one who would write this has some problems that should be questioned if not addressed.

Most if not all the teachers that I know would not teach nor foster such an attitude.

Why would any one teach anyone something that could be used to injure others when according to their own statements they enjoy the sheer brutality?

I wouldn’t fault him either, just wouldn’t teach him

[Sam Wiley]

Just to put my $.02 in here, I might say that with power comes responsibility. I began learning Taijiquan because I wanted to have a decisive and systematized method of hurting people. I looked for teachers who taught something along the lines of what I was wanting, and started learning. What I did not know is that the internal martial arts balance out your energies, and not long after starting my qigong training my temperament had evened out considerably. Teaching the internal martial arts to people, even who enjoy being brutal, can help them without them even knowing it. They'll see the changes later on, but they'll come on slowly and subtlely. Pretty soon, they might not even seem like the same person.

[bamboo_ leaf]

Damm a tag team!!!

Leaf is on the ropes!

Just joking.

Sam,

I don’t know anymore really!

Most of the teachers that I know character is the first thing they look for.

If they felt that you wanted their art to use for going out and hurting some one, well they might let you stay to pay rent or just ask you to leave.

I like TC as I know you do. One of the things I like about it is that I have found for those wanting to learn to fight the art is a little slow for them.

My own TC is very simple compared to many here so maybe my views are a little different.

[Sam Wiley]

Leaf,
Notice I said "after starting my qigong training." I did not learn any Taiji until a year or so after starting to learn qigong. Before learning my first Taiji forms, my character had already begun to change.

I have turned down people because I felt they would misuse what I taught them, so it's not like I'm opposed to the idea. I just see something there that many might not: that being that sometimes people can be brought around. The people I refused to train I had known for a long time and they were not going to change. However, I have also agreed to teach some people things I would not normally teach because after getting to know them a bit, I felt they could really benefit...healthwise, not because I felt it would make them a better fighter or give them a method for cruelty.

[Chris McKinley]

bamboo leaf,

If it had been made clear that dwid indeed enjoyed the brutality of the Baguazhang repertoire, I would share your concern. In fact, I would be less diplomatic in expressing that concern than you have been. However, there is a premature, if not erroneous, assumption being made on your part here that precludes me from yet being able to agree with you.

You mention that according to dwid's own statements that he enjoys the sheer brutality of Bagua when, in point of fact, he has not thus far made any such statement. I attempted in my last post to elucidate the perhaps subtle difference between appreciation of a tool's ability to carry out its intended purpose, even a violent one, and generalizing that appreciation to reflect a qualitative aspect of an individual's character or moral disposition. Judging by your latest post, I seem to have failed to communicate that distinction effectively.

Perhaps if I use a less subtle analogy, my point may make itself known. Let's say I am a peace-loving, law-abiding responsible citizen and that I am, for whatever reason, browsing the counter at a retail firearms store. Let's also assume that I am interested in purchasing a weapon for use in home protection only, since I am not interested in violence, but I live in a dangerous part of town out of necessity. I live in a private residence, not attached to any other residential structures. In other words, I live in a house. Since I am not concerned with high-velocity penetrating rounds posing a danger to someone who may live on the other side of a wall, my primary concern is in obtaining a weapon with maximum anti-personnel attributes...large bore, high muzzle energy, etc. Let's further say, for the sake of argument, that all of the stores that I have visited thus far carry only .22 caliber pistols and rifles. Let's say my original motivation for checking out the current store I'm in was the "25% off Sale" sign on the window. Now, I'm a bargain hunter, so I go on in. Once inside, I find that, in addition to good prices, the store also offers .45 ACP pistols and 12 gauge shotguns. Those factors, in addition to the store offering free classes in gun safety and combat handgunnery, ensure that any future gun-related dealings or purchases will be handled at that particular store rather than somewhere else.

The promise of better prices may have brought me there, but the extra-deadly weapons and knowledgeable staff and service are what keeps me there as a customer. Appreciating the fact that, for my purposes of home defense, a .45 is a more effective weapon than a .22 does not reflect negatively, or in any other way, on my moral character. If anything, it simply reflects my ability to recognize and accurately gauge the differences in effectiveness of the various available kinds of the tool I am needing to purchase; more relevant to intellect and practicality than to ethics.

RE: "I think some one who would write this has some problems that should be questioned if not addressed.". I'm sorry if such a matter-of-fact tone alarms your sensibilities on the issue, but as I have just outlined, I do not yet see cause for concern. Perhaps the man is simply being practical.

RE: "This constant quest for power and control, the fear of always being ready for an attack. People seem very ready to feed this.". There's more of you in this assessment than of me or dwid here. In other words, you seem to be projecting quite a bit of your own negative interpretations and motivations onto our statements, and indeed, onto our reasons for training. Not speaking for dwid, of course, but I'm not on any "quest for power and control", as you frame it here. And I don't fear being ready for an attack, either. I see it as simply being prepared to handle problems, much the same way as I look at having a spare tire and a tool kit in my car or paying for health insurance. You hope you never need it, you don't spend every waking moment obsessing over it, and it's comforting to know it's there if you do. And personally, I HAVE needed it on more than one occasion.

I sometimes envy the security you feel in not having to share in the concerns for personal safety that the rest of us have. I am also genuinely glad for you that you seem to have such a safe environment in which to live/train such that you may continue to progress, unimpeded, for many years to come. Please be aware that not everyone enjoys such circumstances though. Otherwise, your eagerness to assess dwid's statement as reflective of a character flaw significant enough to preclude allowing him to train could be construed as not only pompous, but also somewhat detached from the reality of the danger that some of us may face.

[Kaitain(UK)]

I guess I could be described as a geek/intellectual - I program for a living (worse still it's in computer games), I read a lot of fantasy/science fiction, I enjoy learning about most things, I 'think' and 'worry' a lot about the world around me. I'm what some people refer to as 'a gentle soul' - I don't like hurting people and it came as a huge schock to my system when people tried to hurt me.

I've tried desperately to fight against it - a decade of Muay Thai, plenty of irresponsible years clubbing, a year in Africa (somehow I ended up programming though ). Yet I look at myself now and I'm happy - I have a good job, great family, I study Taiji and Karate and I read what the hell I like.

I'm a 6'4'' 18 stone happy geek - bite me and no I'm not a lardy bast (I admit I have a keg rather than a 6-pack but hey). I also wear glasses - I've fought against it so they are blue-tinted 'wish I could carry these off like Brad Pitt' spectacles - but it doesn't really work.

Seriously though - I think the internal arts are 'deeper' than the external arts I've studied. Someone made the point on the main board that the external arts do everything the internal arts do, they just don't know how they're doing it. I strongly disagree - there is more than movement to what I train and if someone hadn't taught me to do those things I'd never have done them, irrespective of the amount of repetition.

When friends ask me what style I think they should learn I always ask "what are you interested in learning? If you're interested in something that is more character developing and sprititual - then Taiji/Baqua/Hsing-I/Aikido. If you want to be able to fight/batter someone within the next year then something like JKD/MMA/Muay Thai that is purely focussed on fighting" - I'm talking about percentages here btw, clearly Taiji is a brutal and vicious MA that can be extremely effective for figting, but that isn't focussed on in its attitude.

I guess it comes down to why you study - I study for a lot more than just being able to defend myself/others. It's a huge part of my training but I can't countenance spending days and evenings training the form if I'm only doing it for defence. I'd be better off going back to Muay Thai if I wanted that - it'd take a lot less time.

[Chris McKinley]

Kaitain,

Some excellent points made there, thanks.

To everyone,

I think something which hasn't really been addressed thus far is the possibility that someone who trains internal martial arts for the combat skill might be just as interested in the other things that come with it, they just may be getting all of that from other sources. For instance, I guarantee you can get every bit as much qi cultivation, development, control, refinement, etc. by practicing certain dedicated qigong sets as you can from Taiji or Bagua. Sometimes more, depending on what you are wanting to specifically develop. You can get equal or better coordination skills from attending certain kinds of dance classes. You can get equal or better spiritual/character development by congruently practicing the spiritual discipline or faith of one's choice. And on and on and on. The one thing you CAN'T get from another source is the fighting skills of the internal arts.

I'm not necessarily providing the "perfect excuse" here, I'm just suggesting we leave room for other possibilities.

[Nexus]

All of the assumptions and such can be discarded.

Tai Chi teaches us to read the intentions of others, to recognize feeling, to become sensitive to the world around you so that upon feeling something you immediately know that which you feel. If someone places their hand on you, they have an intention in doing so, they want something.

Tai Chi is teaching us to become sensitive to that feeling, that energy and such which is why we can discuss anything about one practitioner or one teacher to the next, but until you have actually laid hands on them you are just talking out of your ass.

But whats the point?

Tai chi teaches a person to become very observant on the character of others, the way people move, the way a person holds themselves and communicates. One can judge the character of another person as soon as that person comes into contact with you. The eyes can be deceiving, but through touch the mind communicates an energy which when listening properly can be interpreted as intention. So to judge character of somebody by their words or by the way they appear to be is to be pulled into a very thick cloud of deception or even be subject to ones own delusion, as it is necessary to actually touch or feel this person in real life before one could make any real claim to knowing what that person's intentions with the art are.

- Nexus

[Leonidas]

Are you saying you can read someones mind after studying Tai Chi???