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

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".

"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.