Reclaiming ‘internal’: The Intuitive Method Interpretation

[Miqi]

Reclaiming ‘internal’; The Intuitive Method Interpretation

Article Summary:

1. Most previous interpretations of ‘internal’ and ‘external’ are not true, and evolved only as a series of deceits to support the status, incomes, egos, reputations and low skill of a falsely elevated elite. In some cases, however, wrong interpretations have emerged due to lack of insight. The real meaning of these terms is a threat to the status and incomes of this elite, hence their resistance to it.

2. The intuitive method interpretation (IMI) reclaims, or rather rediscovers and reasserts, the true meaning of ‘internal’ and ‘external’, and in doing so overthrows that elite, and returns these concepts to all people, for the benefit of all people, at all stages of practice. IMI enhances the training of all, while most other interpretations enhance the bank balances of frauds.

3. IMI asserts that ‘internal’ and ‘external’ do not refer to any physical movements, or movement methods, or movement styles whatsoever, nor to any physical outcomes. As a logical consequence:

A: ‘Soft’ and ‘hard’ movements do not define what is internal or external martial art.

B: ‘Whole body movement’ (or more usually whole body weight power), because it is a physical movement practice, cannot be the ‘true’ meaning of internal and external, nor can it be the replacement, or superior re-statement, of these concepts.

C: Internal and external do not refer to any method of ‘energy release’ etc., and so ‘internal’ cannot be claimed as an achieved skill. The real method of wushu is an evolving process of personal development.

4. Internal and external refer solely to active approaches to training – ‘internal’ meaning intuitive insight and development, ‘external’ meaning the use of other people’s knowledge: i.e. coaching, copying movements, learning set-skills and movements, sports science. Both are asserted within IMI as equally important.

5. IMI explains and resolves almost all debates surrounding this subject, and many others within Chinese martial arts, and as such is superior to all other interpretations. Similarly, IMI is true for all people at all times, at all stages of development, and so by definition is a superior interpretation than interpretations that posit the existence of things that can only ‘exist’ or be understood within one cultural, or elite, perspective.

6. If IMI is true (and only if it is true) then criticising it through personal attack, or calling it wrong ‘just because it is’, by definition means that an individual has no experience and/or understanding of the deeper meaning of the true wushu method. Such criticisms would therefore self-negate.

7. IMI cannot be dismissed on the grounds of being ‘just talk’ or ‘meaningless philosophy/psychobabble’ etc. because its core principle is that the intuitive method works and has meaning only insofar as someone is prepared to invest in real, serious, physical training.

8. If IMI is true (and only if it is true) then the idea that the internal/external concept is meaningless is, by definition, an indication of lack of insight into the higher level training philosophy of Chinese wushu.

Introduction.

Arguments over what ‘internal’ and ‘external’ mean in relation to Chinese martial arts (CMA) have been going on for some considerable time. The advent of the internet has seen an explosion of such discussions. As these discussions almost always end in acrimonious disagreement, with nothing proved, nothing demonstrated and nothing learned, many people have simply decided that the ideas are meaningless. Others have clung to mystical interpretations, or interpretations that refer to internal and external as different movement, or ‘energy release’ ‘platforms’.

Part of the problem is that there is no agreed criteria via which real meanings can be decided upon. As a consequence, most people simply cling to what they already believe, arguing from the perspective that what they say is axiomatically true, for no real reason, and the basis on which other interpretations must be judged is therefore whether it is the same as theirs. Hence the endless, circular, and ultimately pointless discussions.

Others, more cynically, manipulate meanings to serve their own ends – ends which vary from outright financial fraud, through to deceitfully parading as the bearer of special skills. All of which is to the detriment of CMA as a whole, whose reputation has been damaged by the significant skills-drift, at best away from the real CMA method, and at worst away from actual ability and towards increasingly defensive posturing over arcana. As the economist Maurice Dobb once said, untestable claims are the last, cowardly refuge of bankrupt philosophies – and this is never truer than for the many ‘internal’ so-called experts of the CMA world.

In this article I will suggest meaningful criteria for assessing the meanings of internal and external, and then demonstrate how most previous interpretations fail to fulfil these criteria. IMI, by contrast, will be shown fully fulfil them. I will then explain in more detail what IMI is, and what it is not. In conclusion, I will argue that IMI is not only true, it is practically useful, represents a deeper insight into CMA than other interpretations, and proves itself truer than other interpretations by the sheer scope and breadth of its applications and implications.

Meaningful Criteria

What do ‘internal’ and ‘external’ really mean? And how would we assess this? Some information – isolated quotes – has come to us from the past. Most of our understanding of these terms, however, comes from discussions over time with the wider community of CMAists who in turn have garnered some idea from the ‘folk’ traditions of the past. Most of those traditions had oral histories, and so it is difficult to know precisely what people thought about the matter in the past, and whether our interpretations correspond with theirs. However, it is feasible that there were many interpretations in the past, based on different levels of understanding and insight. Unfortunately, we cannot know whether an isolated quote, or a particular interpretation, represents the most profound understanding, or the most glib.

I am going to use something called the Principle of Scientific Exegesis to argue that we can in fact ‘decode’ the real meaning of internal and external, just by assuming that the best, past practitioners understood something that all good human artists come to realise: that an art is a fusion of method and idiosyncrasy, and that only by encouraging this yin/yang of methods can real skill and/or understanding come about. In fact, most people in CMA already fully understand this idea; they just have yet to link it to ‘internal’ and ‘external’, because this real meaning has been overlooked in the pursuit of arcana.

The ‘Principle of Scientific Exegesis’ (PSE) suggests, in simplest terms, that an explanation which explains more of an interconnected set of ideas is truer than one which explains less. In other words, if an interpretation of something makes more aspects of it make sense, then it is superior to an interpretation that makes less aspects interconnect and make sense in relation to one another. Another principle of PSE is that the meaning of ambiguous terms within a set of ideas should, where possible and where this makes sense, be interpreted in the way that conforms to the overall conclusions of the set of ideas - because it makes more sense that arguments in favour of the conclusion were the real, intended meaning than arguments against the conclusion. (This, by the way, dismisses arguments based on Chinese language interpretations – these cannot possibly represent the intended technical meanings of words within a complex idea set held by deeply thoughtful individuals, such as that surrounding Chinese wushu).

Following PSE, I firstly assert that CMA should be seen as a practical skill development system. Without this, CMA becomes meaningless, so this statement must, by definition, be true. As a consequence, definitions of terms or ideas that come to us from the past, or during our training, must, by definition, make more sense when interpreted in a way that furthers skill development than when interpreted in a way that does not. Useless ideas are obviously bolted on, unnecessary additions, to a practical system.

Applied to the internal/external (I/E) concept, this means that an interpretation that aids further skill development should be viewed as superior to those that do not. An idea that does not aid skill development is ‘dead’ – it may ‘make sense’ on its own in some sense, but if it does not make sense when connected to the whole, and to the intended outcome of that whole (higher skill), it has no point within that whole, and should be rejected.

Does this mean that if there is such a skill-developing interpretation of I/E that we can then comfortably assume that it is superior to other interpretations? One could argue contrarily that the view that the I/E concept is meaningless leads to superior skill by preventing time wasting. In itself, however, this would not lead directly to further skill-development – it just would not lead you anywhere at all. In fact, if there is an interpretation that does, actively, lead to further skill-development, then ignoring it would retard potential development, rather than enhance it, and so in such a case, this criticism would have to be dismissed. Below I will argue we are dealing with such a case (one where there is an interpretation that aids skill development), and so I dismiss it.

[Miqi]

Assuming that there is an interpretation of I/E that leads to skill development, we would then be able to comfortably dismiss two common interpretations: 1. that internal and external means Chinese and non-Chinese martial arts respectively; and 2., that it refers to the lessons of those who are trusted ‘indoor’ students of a teacher and so receive the ‘internal’, real training, compared to those who are just taught ‘outside’ level, second-rate martial arts. Neither of these interpretations leads to further skill development – and the second also, rather suspiciously, helps to excuse the empirical reality of low-level wushu by the wishful thinking that something better is happening ‘behind closed doors’.

The dismissal of ‘physical movement’ interpretations of I/E utilises slightly different implications of PSE, however, and needs to be broken up into analytic segments.

Firstly, according to PSE, an explanation which is in harmony with the intended outcome (in this case actual skill development) is superior to one that is not. This means, also, that actual explanations are superior to explanations which turn out not to be explanations at all. Specifically, they are better than ‘explanations’ which turn out just to be arbitrary labelling that explains nothing. It is not at all clear, for instance, why slow movements would be described as ‘internal’. Correct ‘slow movement’ training in CMA involves feelings all over the body, including on the surface of the skin and in the mind. On the whole, therefore, this ‘explanation’ has no explanatory value whatsoever; it is, rather, just a rather curious description. (Applying PSE in micro version, the explanation that this label has emerged through some kind of error makes far more sense than the idea that it refers arbitrarily to a type of movement that in reality involves the whole body, and not just its ‘inside’, moving in harmony).

Any actual ‘explanation’ whatsoever, therefore, will be an improvement on a mere ‘description’, as it will at least move the debate out of the territory of arbitrary and meaningless labelling, and into an arena where we can question and dismiss the interpretation.

Secondly, the counter-argument/s that certain movements are ‘internal’ because they draw on superior qi movement and/or the operation of a mystical ‘dan tien’ could probably be sufficiently dismissed by pointing out that this posits the existence of organs and bodily aspects that no one can ever see, and so is at best a spurious ‘explanation’.

In fact, it is not an explanation at all – again, it is just a description, this time of a ‘qi system’ that some believe exists. That the qi system requires belief is itself spurious – and this has led to a whole series of knock-on ‘proofs’ that all require belief, or ‘special knowledge’ to see. IMI requires none of this.

The case of a punch that has power also requires no positing of a qi system to explain it, nor does it require the term ‘internal’ to explain relaxation or superior body movement – in such cases, ‘internal’ is no more than a curious synonym for relaxation or power, with no ‘explanatory’ value whatsoever, save the positing of a qi system that is entirely redundant as a needed explanation.

However, the real problem here is that other than the idea that this qi system is ‘inside you’, there is no explanation as to why this means that ‘internal’ martial arts equates to any particular form of movement – because followers of the same belief system - ‘external’ martial artists - also believe that they use this ‘internal’ system in their arts. Hence, this ‘explanation’ actually has no explanatory value at all, unless one descends into factional fanaticism over who has the ‘real’ means of utilising the magical, invisible organs operating inside them.

IMI, by contrast, makes full sense without any reference to any movement types whatsoever, and so fully oversteps this problem. Secondly, IMI is not culturally specific – no belief in dan tiens or qi are required for its validity to hold, and no actual qi or dan tiens need to exist for it to be true. IMI explains, in other words, so much more real skill development than the qi system explanation (which relies for its ‘proof’ on the continual assertion of yet more magic powers, such as ‘internal strikes’ that cannot be demonstrated on an unwilling subject) that, not only according to PSE, but just according to basic common sense, IMI is much more likely to be the true interpretation. Thirdly, labels and explanations that are congruent are more likely to be logically superior in terms of explanatory value to those that are not at all congruent. ‘Internal’ and ‘slow movement’ have no congruence at all. ‘Internal’ and ‘intuitive’ are deeply congruent, referring to a source of knowledge – from within the person. All of which points to IMI as a superior explanation. IMI’s applicability to real skill, compared to the fantasy explanations of other interpretations, is a solid hint that it is likely to be the correct and original meaning in a practical system such as CMA.

However, this will not satisfy those who believe in qi and dan tiens. Fortunately, IMI does not require that anyone abandon these concepts: it explains I/E for believers and non-believers alike; a further example of its superior explicatory value. One can believe in qi and also fully understand, and benefit from, the value of the intuitive method.

Thirdly, one cannot argue that ‘internal’ equates to slow movement by citing that those who have used slow movement have developed skill. This simply misses out the logical step in which a meaningful argument would need to be made as to why ‘internal’ should mean slow movement at all. Slow movement might lead to skill – but this does not explain why the skill is ‘internal’. Similarly for explosive power – why would anyone call this ‘internal’? Similarly, a person with real skill who calls it ‘internal’ is not explaining why their skill is ‘internal’, they are merely describing it as such – which could happen within a particular cultural milieu. The fact remains that if they cannot explain what internal means, it is only a label, and not an explanation.

A further damaging approach to the ‘physical movement’ explanations relies on the PSE principle that ambiguous interpretations should be resolved in favour of the conclusion. This works both ways, so that a ridiculous conclusion that is faithful to its premises resolves the overall premises (or their interpretations in this case) as ridiculous. In this case, the ridiculous conclusion is people who claim to hold high level ‘internal martial arts’ skill who cannot demonstrate it and so have to resort to tricks, threats, parlour games, personal attacks, lies, and claims of what happened in the past to keep themselves in underserved elite positions. Such tricks include all instances of public boasting that are accompanied by transparent attempts to prevent having to match the boast with practical, public demonstration: such as claiming to have skills that cannot be seen or differentiated either from poor movement or from movement skills that are no different to non-‘internal’ skills (including spurious claims to ‘whole body power’). And it also includes resorting to the argument that ‘those who have real knowledge can see it’ – as this is the precise argument used in the parable of the Emperor’s new clothes. IMI does not require anyone to have elite or secret knowledge: it can be understood by anyone.

[Miqi]

Further examples include: public boasting followed by an appeal that ‘I have nothing to prove’; public boasting followed by claims that what they do cannot be filmed; public boasting followed by claims that their skill can only be experienced in person; an individual of low skill claiming that a teacher is great because ‘I felt his power’; shills flying around against the laws of physics; public boasting and/or fraudulent demonstrations followed by appeals to the idea that ‘science isn’t everything’; public boasting followed by ‘come to my place and I’ll beat you up’; public boasting/claims followed by appeal to evidence that exists inaccessibly on a mountain in China; personal attacks against those who do not believe them; appeal to secret knowledge; appeal to magic; appeal to superior status.

All of the above are ridiculous ‘proofs’ of a ‘master’s’ internal skill, and as such, can be reverse interpreted to reveal their interpretations of ‘internal’ as equally ridiculous. By contrast, any interpretation which does not make I/E ridiculous is superior to such explanations (even just the idea that I/E means Chinese and non-Chinese is better). IMI, by contrast, requires none of this in order to be understood as a valid idea; nor does it require any appeal to superiority, either of skill, status, knowledge or title – it is understandable, and its offshoot – the intuitive method - experienceable, by everyone; and as it refers to a process that is intended to have clear practical results, its results can be seen, assessed and enjoyed by anyone.

By this means, almost all support for the traditional interpretations of I/E is eliminated, as this support was primarily the conglomerate lie of individuals and/or their followers guilty of the above listed tricks. As such individuals have no demonstrable skill – or what skill they claim relies on belief, and the above tricks to enforce that belief - their support for any particular interpretation is mere conjecture on their part.

However, this does not of course mean that they were necessarily wrong, as one may, for example, follow IMI and still have poor skill. If IMI is true then it is true regardless of the skill level of the person who advocates it, simply because it is true – so why not the magic internal claims of frauds?

The response to this must be the more robust argument that it is logical that their (the fraud’s) interpretations of I/E did not lead to their skill because they have no ‘internal’ skill – and therefore one can presume that their interpretation of I/E has evolved after the fact to protect the fraud: invisible organs, mystical qi powers, skills too deadly to use, or too subtle to be seen by the neophyte, skills that are invisible, that only work on the ‘sensitive’, or which must be inferred from cracks in concrete blocks – all of these have one thing in common: They all require one to ‘believe’ that something exists that is otherwise not perceivable by non-believers. IMI requires none of this. It requires no belief whatsoever, and so is superior to these people’s interpretations.


What is the Internal Method Interpretation?

Firstly, IMI is not a training method. The ‘intuitive method’, which is a natural corollary of IMI, is a training method, while IMI itself is simply an interpretation of the meanings of the terms internal and external as applied to Chinese martial arts. IMI simply interprets these terms in the most practical, useful way, believing this to be fully in harmony with the overall practical orientation of CMA. Because CMA is practical, all of its terms should lead towards practical results (practical in the sense of real, which includes self-defence, health and aesthetic).

Rejecting all interpretations of I/E that lead nowhere, and that do not help a person progress, or which protect and justify an elite of frauds who have destroyed the reputation of Chinese wushu, IMI posits simply that ‘internal’ means intuitive development, while ‘external’ means learning from others.

Intuitive development, in this case, is an evolving skill; as a person learns from their coach, over the years they should begin to take deeper control of their own progress, physical movement development, learning and interpretations. According to Wang Xiang Zhai, by breaking them free from the rules and fixed methods of past training, the intuitive method will lead a diligent individual to unfold natural skill that is both framed within Quan as a historical aesthetic, and yet also a formless personal expression of Quan as a trained, idiosyncratic skill. In this way, IMI also resolves the question of whether martial art is ‘art’ or not; in the sense of individual expression, it is art, while in the sense of being trained for a purpose, it is martial. There are further claims for the intuitive method, such as the development of higher level skill, but I am not qualified to demonstrate this, and so it is not a part of this article or its claims.

[Miqi]

‘External’, by contrast, means utilising the skills of others; exploiting (in a positive way) their knowledge, technical coaching, transferable skills and particular techniques.

Wang Xiang Zhai, who is regarded as having been high level according to all interpretations of I/E, fully rejected as meaningless and superficial I/E explanations that divide wushu into different schools based on different movement principles. Wang recommended the intuitive method as the real path of Quan, and so IMI is the only interpretation fully in harmony with Wang’s teachings, while all those who parasitise his reputation to justify their false I/E claims act fully against his beliefs; a further proof of IMI.


IMI resolves all debates.

IMI does not declare internal as superior to external: it reveals that, by definition, the true Quan is a combination of both. Art (painting), or break dancing, are both examples of intuitive method, with a skill-set learned from others, working in harmony with natural ability and intuition, guiding an individual, ultimately, to an idiosyncratic but skilled expression of the discipline. In this way, IMI is not only in harmony with CMA principles, it is a principle of human development per se; and so it is an interpretation of I/E that sweeps away unneeded culturally specific interpretations such as dan tiens and qi, while not eliminating their cultural validity. In harmony with PSE, this broad application is further indication of the truth of IMI. Similarly, IMI is fully in harmony with most CMAist’s intuitive understanding that any real martial art system should ultimately be a vehicle that leads to the development of idiosyncratic skills – yet further confirmation.

That the intuitive method can be shown to have real, practical benefits across most if not all human disciplines, whereas other definitions of I/E cannot even be shown to have practical benefits to CMA, means that IMI is the real explanation.

Traditional interpretations of I/E rely on the belief in an elite knowledge base, understandable only by the initiated. By contrast, IMI is fully understandable by the neophyte – and yet, its implications also become more profound as the neophyte progresses; yet further proofs that IMI is the true interpretation.

IMI reclaims internal and external as harmonious approaches to training, and so eliminates all debates as to what kinds of physical movement I/E relates to, or which is superior. IMI reveals all of these as long standing misunderstandings. As such, it fully reconnects our modern training with the ideas, methods and aims of the past. IMI is, in other words, fully in harmony with both past and contemporary approaches. IMI is represented in yin/yang as much as in modern sports psychology.

While current interpretations of I/E rely on expending vast amounts of energy justifying why suspiciously poor quality looking individuals are really top-level masters, IMI only requires to be understood, not believed.

The intuitive method, which is the practical application of IMI, is as equally applicable to taijiquan as it is to MMA, JKD, TKD, break dancing, drumming, jazz and archery. This universal application is further proof that it is a universal principle, simply misunderstood – or deliberately made complex - by a parasitic elite who rely on false I/E explanations to justify their otherwise inexplicable status.

IMI is understandable, and useable, by all people; one does not have to have a specialist, elite knowledge, nor does one need to become immersed in the arcana of secret Chinese mystical practices. Further to PSE, this reveals that IMI is a naturally true thing, and so is far more likely to be the real explanation of I/E than complex, culturally specific mysticism.

IMI is simple. And yet its implications are profound. This means that it cuts through and dismisses all mystical and philosophical convolutions, while at the same time offering real, practical benefits to people who understand it and follow the intuitive method.

The intuitive method is a process; this means that people of all levels can ‘master’ it, and benefit from it, even if it does not lead to high level; one gets out of it precisely what one puts into it. False views of I/E meanwhile lead people a merry dance forever – or until they find themselves having to use all the old parlour tricks to justify their status.

While false views of I/E are used to gouge people out of cash, the intuitive method is free to everyone.


Why is IMI resisted?
Many people have vested interests in the false interpretations of I/E. Their businesses, their status, egos, sense of petty internet importance, and even their sex lives may depend on the false interpretations. It is really that simple. Others have simply long given up on the idea that I/E has any useful value.


Will I die if I accept IMI? And will I have to give up the training that I do and enjoy?

No. Most things in CMA are not really understood. We ‘appoint’ expectations about what they mean. We build these expectations up into massive things at times, assuming that they are so complex. We invest a lot into them in terms of our identity, and even in terms of time and money. However, many very wise things turn out to be obvious and hidden in full view. When we realise that the very complex thing we were buying into was actually much simpler – that it was just ‘oh that, but that’s obvious’ – we ‘dis’ appoint our expectations and become ‘disappointed’. For a time this can make the whole thing seem pointless – and the great damage the frauds have done to CMA is to push so many into this position when they realised the truth about their teacher and their ‘art’ and thus decided that CMA was valueless. This also explains those people who only see value in aspects of CMA that they think are useful in a fight – they do not see the intuitive method, and its value as a training approach, and so think that CMA is, in Wang Xiang Zhai’s words, no more than ‘hits and beats’. But from the real understanding – and only from the real understanding – of the intuitive method, anyone even begin to understand the real point of wushu, and its immense value to the human race, and to individuals seeking a real path of personal development.

IMI belongs to everyone already.


I am deeply grateful to Wang Xiang Zhai, Zhao DaoXin, Andrew Kliman, Sheila, Spirit Warrior, my wushu family, and all the others who have, through books or in person, tried to help me see the puzzle more clearly over the years, and whose collected insights this is a summary of much more than it is a set of my own insights – while all errors or misjudgements here are mine.

[PalmStriker]

Quite an article, miqi! Finished reading the first page, much content to absorb so I will take some time reading the other pages. I think you are being very through and realistic about your assessment in defining the two terms that have been in play for at least a hundred years when it comes to marketing TCMA.

[Dale Dugas]

There is no such thing as internal and external. There is only the complete body, the entire structure.

Divisions are for sycophants and dilettantes and not martial artists.