The fact on yjkym

[Hendrik]

Many have asked me what is a good indication of yjkym.

My reply , when standing in yjkym , the top bottom , left right, up down , all in synchronize at every move. There are no force full tension in the body or joints needed.

A Wck yjkym is a nature physiological state, not a fix stance.

Thus, Wck yjkym is not about holding any type of geometry shape. Because Wck yjkym is using the optimal human natural body structure to support the natural forward movement. Since Wck doesn't do sideward movement . It doesn't have to hold or made a optimal human natural body structure. One just has to return to that natural structure. Thus, yjkym is about return or drop back to the natural state . It is not about forcing or holding a share or structure. Why? In real life dynamic, holding a fix structure is just make dynamic clumsy. Not to mention man made structure always turn into problem like process food.


So, do one use yjkym in fighting? Do you use your natural optimal body state in fighting? Is your yjkym is about tries to develop some thing some ideas some one telling you? Or is your yjkym is about the more you practice the more you get close to your optimal natural dynamic instinct?




Many has said Wck is not an animal style but a human style.
However,
Does making yourself to become a water tower and following geometry lines scientifically similar to a robot a human style? So, does 1850 has robot style ?

IMO. Gm Ipman is explaining the natural of Wck with the geometry language in 1960 hng kong, but instead many take geometry as Wck. But wait a minute, in 1850 china, there is no such things as western geometry.

The yjkym is difficult because it is willow, rattan, snake, coil spring, but not southern fist and not robotic fist and not animal style.

[WC1277]

IMO. Gm Ipman is explaining the natural of Wck with the geometry language in 1960 hng kong, but instead many take geometry as Wck. But wait a minute, in 1850 china, there is no such things as western geometry.

A logical fallacy.

What you don't seem to understand Hendrik is that WC has to be "taught" regardless of whatever description, true or untrue, you want to "define" it with...

[WC1277]

This is you in a nutshell Hendrik.

"Circular reasoning (also known as paradoxical thinking or circular logic), is a logical fallacy in which "the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with". The individual components of a circular argument will sometimes be logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, and will not lack relevance. Circular logic cannot prove a conclusion because, if the conclusion is doubted, the premise which leads to it will also be doubted. "Begging the question" is a form of circular reasoning.

Example:

"Wellington is in New Zealand. Therefore, Wellington is in New Zealand."

He notes that, although the argument is deductively valid, it cannot prove that Wellington is in New Zealand because it contains no evidence that is distinct from the conclusion. The context – that of an argument – means that the proposition does not meet the requirement of proving the statement, thus it is a fallacy."

If you can't teach it, you can't define it beyond this type of reasoning that you so often resort to...

[anerlich]

He notes that, although the argument is deductively valid, it cannot prove that Wellington is in New Zealand because it contains no evidence that is distinct from the conclusion.

But it is in New Zealand. I went there.

and in NSW, Australia as well. Some farmers from there were on TV.

[GlennR]

IMO. Gm Ipman is explaining the natural of Wck with the geometry language in 1960 hng kong, but instead many take geometry as Wck. But wait a minute, in 1850 china, there is no such things as western geometry.

Really?
They didnt understand squares, rectangles, triangles, degree of angles and so forth???

Well how the **** did they build any of their buildings????????

Sheer luck???

Honestly, the pathetic things you come up with to "prove" your points are the most absurd things i have ever heard

[GlennR]

But it is in New Zealand. I went there.

and in NSW, Australia as well. Some farmers from there were on TV.

I was there as well Andrew, last month on business.

Or was it an illusion and it never really happened??

[KPM]

Thus, Wck yjkym is not about holding any type of geometry shape. Because Wck yjkym is using the optimal human natural body structure to support the natural forward movement. Since Wck doesn't do sideward movement . It doesn't have to hold or made a optimal human natural body structure. One just has to return to that natural structure. Thus, yjkym is about return or drop back to the natural state . It is not about forcing or holding a share or structure. Why? In real life dynamic, holding a fix structure is just make dynamic clumsy.

But one must start somewhere! Like Wc3777777 (what the heck is that guy's name anyway?) said..you have to be able to teach it to a beginner. And like you yourself said in another thread, it starts with developing the solid structural properties and being able to control them as Robert Chu has been teaching for years. That IS shape and geometry. I'd say your description may be valid, but only once a certain level of skill is achieved.

[Hendrik]

You are right if you travel the common path.

And there are many path to do it.

Thus, Wck yjkym is not about holding any type of geometry shape. Because Wck yjkym is using the optimal human natural body structure to support the natural forward movement. Since Wck doesn't do sideward movement . It doesn't have to hold or made a optimal human natural body structure. One just has to return to that natural structure. Thus, yjkym is about return or drop back to the natural state . It is not about forcing or holding a share or structure. Why? In real life dynamic, holding a fix structure is just make dynamic clumsy.

But one must start somewhere! Like Wc3777777 (what the heck is that guy's name anyway?) said..you have to be able to teach it to a beginner. And like you yourself said in another thread, it starts with developing the solid structural properties and being able to control them as Robert Chu has been teaching for years. That IS shape and geometry. I'd say your description may be valid, but only once a certain level of skill is achieved.

[tc101]

But one must start somewhere! Like Wc3777777 (what the heck is that guy's name anyway?) said..you have to be able to teach it to a beginner. And like you yourself said in another thread, it starts with developing the solid structural properties and being able to control them as Robert Chu has been teaching for years. That IS shape and geometry. I'd say your description may be valid, but only once a certain level of skill is achieved.

Yes we must start somewhere but the question is still does starting with geometric shapes really help some one grasp a dynamic action and that is what is going on right?
It might make more sense to refer to action when you teach actions instead of fixed shapes when you teach actions then perhaps you will not have people who end up thinking in terms of shapes.

[Ali. R]

Mathematics is found in almost everything we do in life and from holding a “natural stance” one can see the “geometry” within the interdependent building block of YJKYM. While it’s true that “YJKYM” should deal with motion and energy, but it should have some type of foundation or understanding outside of physics.

If one couldn’t stand up straight and his or her back bends at a 30% angle, one would have to adjust while at the same time only putting stress on another part of the body’s skeleton/anatomy. Therefore by not having the proper biomechanics to freely move around to deal with energies and motions, one would need a walking stick to supplement his or her intentions.

Meaning that geometry can supplement physics (energies and motions) and physics can do the same as well. Technically this subject can go on in “circles”, so why even dance on top of this small pen head of a subject?

[Hendrik]

The issue is, if one stick to structure and shape and geometry, one will not be able to get to dynamic. One need to go at least one level deeper , ie, one needs to go down to electron level if the atom level doesn't provide the degree of freedom to handle the issue.

In his shape, geometry , structure is not enough to describe dynamic, a deeper level is needed.

Thus, one can see those who stop at shape, geometry, structure level, their body tends to become rigid after a few years, instead of become a flow, they become more and more rigid.

Mathematics is found in almost everything we do in life and from holding a “natural stance” one can see the “geometry” within the interdependent building block of YJKYM. While it’s true that “YJKYM” should deal with motion and energy, but it should have some type of foundation or understanding outside of physics.

If one couldn’t stand up straight and his or her back bends at a 30% angle, one would have to adjust while at the same time only putting stress on another part of the body’s skeleton/anatomy. Therefore by not having the proper biomechanics to freely move around to deal with energies and motions, one would need a walking stick to supplement his or her intentions.

Meaning that geometry can supplement physics (energies and motions) and physics can do the same as well. Technically this subject can go on in “circles”, so why even dance on top of this small pen head of a subject?

[Ali. R]

I understand where you’re going with this, but this subject point will only bring on a continuation of ambiguous thought patterns, in which all can be true in many ways dealing with physics, geometry and dynamics, which will only take you right back to the beginning, over and over again.


Take care,

[Hendrik]

In Wck ，the saying on the Jin level is 六力合一，力從地起 or six force union , force flow up from ground. That is the bottom line, not the structure. Structure is just an intermediate term.

The issue now is how many of us wcners actually work with six force (from the six bows) union, force flow up from ground?


Instead as we see in this forum people argue as if structure is the ultimate.

And

In order to get into the six force union, force flow up from ground, the first impact is yjkym. To make it works the yjkym has to liberate from shape and geometry and go further.

It might sound get to the beginning however look closely, it is on a different plane. A totally new domain many not realize and can imagine.

I understand where you’re going with this, but this subject point will only bring on a continuation of ambiguous thought patterns, in which all can be true in many ways dealing with physics, geometry and dynamics, which will only take you right back to the beginning, over and over again.


Take care,

[Ali. R]

It might sound get to the beginning however look closely, it is on a different plane. A totally new domain many not realize and can imagine.

Well, if you base your premise on what most may not know (but I truly follow you) then it’s more than understandable, but I wouldn’t want to think that I’m smarter than most, and to keep for being tempestuous or even anti-pragmatic, I would have to agree with you only because its moving in circles.

But it could come across to most (your statement) as condescending, mistakenly or legitimately.


Take care,

[Hendrik]

As above where I brought up the Wck practice of force.

It got nothing todo with who thinking smarter those ego stuff.

Got all to do with the part of Wck existed and now bring up to discussion.

Well, if you base your premise on what most may not know (but I truly follow you) then it’s more than understandable, but I wouldn’t want to think that I’m smarter than most, and to keep for being tempestuous or even anti-pragmatic, I would have to agree with you only because its moving in circles.

But it could come across to most (your statement) as condescending, mistakenly or legitimately.


Take care,