intent for creating structure and power

[middleway]

Hi All. (interloper esp.)

How is intent utilized for creating structure and power?

Thanks
Chris

[Steve Rowe]

For me the 'Hunters Mindset' gives the right kind of focused intent that enables the power and structure to function effectively without negativity.

[Patrick]

Ideally: Recognizing the direction and intensity of the incoming force, adapting your structure in such a way that your body can withstand the incoming force.
For example: Stand in dingbabu (T-step) a partner pulls with one hand your hip and simultaneously with the other hand pushes your shoulder on the other other side. Intent is used to adapt your body structure very quickly in such way, that you can absorb his force. So that your structure can stay together even when your partner pushes and pulls in two different directions.

[D_Glenn]

"How is intent utilized for creating structure and power?"

Xingyiquan

形 xing - form; shape 形体 xíng​tǐ - structure

意 yì - idea; thought; to think; wish; desire; intention


.

[middleway]

Thanks all.

This was mainly in reference to Interlopers request for a discussion on the topic.

I think it would be interesting to hear her POV/Experience with this sort of thing and work off that. Looking forward to the discussion.

all the best.

Chris

[Bhassler]

You have to want to have structure on some level or else you'll never train it.

Or are we talking about a specific definition of "intent"?

[Chris McKinley]

Bhassler,

The impetus for this thread is from a statement by Interloper on The Lightest Touch thread, given as a rationale for why she will not provide any description of any of the work her group is doing, as per the following:

As for what constitutes "insightful information," that is entirely subjective. I keep waiting for someone to ask an intelligent question about how intent is utilized for creating structure and power, but instead there is a lot of hostility and ridicule. Why would anyone want to participate further in such a "discussion"?

Apart from the fact that it shouldn't take the forum's readership finding the correct 'combination' to open that particular lock before the information can be offered, this thread is essentially a matter of middleway calling her bluff/meeting her requirement. Should she choose to provide the information now that her requirement has been satisfied, let's all please be careful to treat it as objectively as we would any other poster's offering. It deserves nothing special in terms of being handled with kid gloves, but it does deserve fair treatment like anything else.

[jjy5016]

Hsing is hsing, yi is yi.

Intent does not create structure.

Intent can however augment power and structural integrity.

[Ron Panunto]

Hsing is hsing, yi is yi.

Intent does not create structure.

Intent can however augment power and structural integrity.

Well, I doubt if you can develop power and structural integrity without having the intention to do it. Without intention, nothing would ever happen. Intention comes first, action and demonstrable skills come afterwards.

[jjy5016]

Yes Ron I agree but I think the context of the topic is more how intent is used in creating structure and power, otherwise we could end up in a what came first the chicken or the egg type of discussion.

So perhaps the context of the topic needs to be defined. Are we talking about intent as in "I intend to step therefore I do so", or "As I step I intend to kick a hole through a steel plate that I am visualizing".

[Interloper]

Bhassler,

The impetus for this thread is from a statement by Interloper on The Lightest Touch thread, given as a rationale for why she will not provide any description of any of the work her group is doing, as per the following:

As for what constitutes "insightful information," that is entirely subjective. I keep waiting for someone to ask an intelligent question about how intent is utilized for creating structure and power, but instead there is a lot of hostility and ridicule. Why would anyone want to participate further in such a "discussion"?

Apart from the fact that it shouldn't take the forum's readership finding the correct 'combination' to open that particular lock before the information can be offered, this thread is essentially a matter of middleway calling her bluff/meeting her requirement. Should she choose to provide the information now that her requirement has been satisfied, let's all please be careful to treat it as objectively as we would any other poster's offering. It deserves nothing special in terms of being handled with kid gloves, but it does deserve fair treatment like anything else.

Wow. Just wow. "...calling her bluff/meeting her requirement"? There were no strings attached to either my intentions or my remarks. But step back and look at your comments. I have seen some of your posts insulting my teacher, and have been told that you have dragged me into that diatribe too. Why, after seeing my teacher repeatedly insulted by you, then me insulted by you, would I want to speak freely about anything of substance with someone who approaches me, or him, with malice?

I genuinely love to talk about martial-internal training because it is a great passion of mine, and because so much of my training is solo with little opportunity to have exchanges with others who do what I do. I'm juggling a business and caring for frail, elderly parents and maintaining my home and all of the responsibilities that come with that. If it stops being fun to come here, then it no longer serves a purpose. Life has enough stresses in it; training is my solace and my haven. I come here for fun and relaxation, not to eat my heart out.

By happy happenstance, I've met a couple of the people who regularly post on RSF, and we had a lot of fun touching hands. They had the right attitude, and we all came away the better for it. The more I see of the dynamics that go on here, the more I prefer in-person play dates, and the less I enjoy "discussions," especially those like this one.
--------------------------

Chris "Middleway,"
The above was not directed at you. I think your intentions are honorable, but there are others whose motivations are less than benign. My best suggestion is that you get to an IP/aiki seminar next time one is scheduled for England. Hands-on is worth more than a thousand words, and you'll have a much better opportunity to discuss things and ask questions face-to-face.

[Chris McKinley]

Interloper,

The fact that it was your teacher, and not any of us, who initiated a whole series of insulting and derogatory posts starting at the end of last year against the members of this forum is not in question, and is not only a matter of common knowledge, it's also a matter of public record. The chronology of posts, all searchable, clearly show that in every case, he initiated the ad hominem comments, in several cases against posters participating in this very thread, including me. It was this behavior that also earned him explicit warnings to cease and desist by two of the forum's moderators. As to yourself, I'm not sure what you've been told, but you are one of two people that I have explicitly by name excepted from my criticism of the behavior of the vocal proponents of Mr. Harden on RSF. I have nowhere lodged a personal insult toward you individually on any thread on RSF. I maintain that exception for you currently, as your behavior has been notably more positive and respectful. The only ad hominem insult that has been lodged thus far by anyone has been by you toward certain posters on this thread whose motives you have called "less than benign". I see no one here, including yourself, about whom that accusation is justified.

However, that said, this particular forum is not for the exchange of personal commentary. It is for the sharing of on-topic and specific information, and that is what most of the posters here have already provided in other various threads. You have lodged a criticism of the OP's topic of conversation and his understanding of internal arts on The Combat Sphere principle thread, and were subsequently and rightly asked to provide specific information in reciprocation four times. You have yet to do so. At the same time, in The lightest touch thread, you were informed twice more that you have yet to contribute anything specific for consideration. You have still yet to do so. In the latter thread, you provided the rationale for why you have not provided any such information as being, and I quote you, "I keep waiting for someone to ask an intelligent question about how intent is utilized for creating structure and power, but instead there is a lot of hostility and ridicule." The truth is that you have not received either hostility or ridicule. You gave a pre-condition for your being willing to provide such information, and now Chris(middleway) has taken you up on that offer by starting a thread using your very own words to ask the exact question you gave as that pre-condition. Your condition has been met. It is now to you to provide the specific information you offered for doing so in return.

The Distillery forum is full of posts where various posters, including most of the posters on this very thread, have provided very specific detailed information for sharing with their fellow posters. You are thus far unique in being the only poster who is actively refusing to do likewise when specifically asked to multiple times and after lodging criticism of other posters' understanding. As a matter of courtesy, if you are going to criticize someone else's ideas, it is appropriate to explain specifically how they are incorrect. It is also generally expected that if you are going to criticize, you ought also to provide a constructive solution to the problem you point out in your criticism. As yet, you have not done so. In this thread's OP, you have been requested by name to provide that information, with the stated intent by the OP being to build all further conversation off of the information in your reply.

I have called for nothing but completely fair treatment by my fellow posters of any information you might choose to provide. I have already given my word that I will not respond to such information with either hostility or ridicule, and that I will treat it with objective impartiality. It doesn't get any more fair or any less insulting than that. I would ask, then, that you now provide the information that has already been requested of you multiple times, and that has been specifically requested of you in the creation of this very thread, and that you do so without further delay. You may choose not to, of course, but then it would no longer be appropriate for you to offer criticism of anyone's ideas or understanding on this forum from this point forward. Personally, I would hope that you would choose, like the rest of us already have, to provide specific information freely and openly, and in the spirit of sharing knowledge toward the improvement and growth of the community of practitioners.

Respectfully,

Chris McKinley

[Pandrews1982]

I don't care much for the politics but i think the IP/IS people seem to be trying to obfuscate terms in order to create their own terminology only intended for the initiated and when the same ideas are presented by others in other vocabulary then they are knocked down as being something entirely different and of course not as sophisticated etc. Personally I prefer unsophisticated and basic, usually more reliable. Anyway.

Intent/intention, the translation is vague and I think the term may well have been very context specific for IMA in earlier times.

I think the definition Dglenn provides - desire/intention is not really what IMA's intention is about. This implies seeking some goal and I think that can lead to being "greedy" or trying to attain that goal even when it is not obtainable. Instead I think that intention is a focus of sensory awareness in any given moment. As situations change the intention is refocused just as the lens of a camera can refocus light to make a scene clear even if the scene changes.

The intention leads the energy. The idea that the intention can create structure is not the whole picture. Lets take the analogy of a hosepipe, without water in it it is limp and unable to support anything. If it were full of water which had frozen (tense/rigid) the pipe could be easily split or broken. However, when the pipe is full of fluid water it becomes strong and still retains some flexibility and ability to absorb external forces. And of course the hose directs the water which when emitted from the end is extremely powerful.



However, to present that the full hosepipe is the best situation isn't taking a balanced viewpoint. I feel that the IP/IS crowd sometimes miss the point that sometimes the hosepipe doesn't need to be full of rushing water, sometimes the empty pipe is required, or the frozen pipe works just fine and some people can send water down steel pipes and that can work just fine too. There is no one answer to any situation only answers which are wrong and answers which are more appropriate than others.

Also maybe I'm missing the point but in my training I much rather not rely on my structure to absorb or redirect force, however impressive that may be; if a bus is about to knock me down I'm not going to try to absorb the impact with my IS, or redirect it with my IP, I'm simply going to step out of the way of the bus, no IS, IP, or BS required.

Final words: IMO the intention doesn't create structure but the flow of energy within a supporting media does; the intention gives rise to or directs that energy which then creates said structure.

[cloudz]

Hsing is hsing, yi is yi.

Intent does not create structure.

Intent can however augment power and structural integrity.

You're bang on really.

the point missed there is that we already have structure happening - otherwise we'de just be a bag of flesh and bone in a blob on the floor. Intent brings forces on/ through the structure which in turn creates 'power' and more integration, integrity etc etc. through the (existing) structure.

"Creating structure" was just a poor turn of phrase to be used in this context. We don't "create" structure with intent literally speaking, we augment, arrange(tweak), or 'power' up (strengthen) our structure using intent.

As more or less pointed out by Pandrews "the yi leads the qi". to use the Chinese way of saying it.

My best suggestion is that you get to an IP/aiki seminar next time one is scheduled for England. Hands-on is worth more than a thousand words, and you'll have a much better opportunity to discuss things and ask questions face-to-face.

+1

[middleway]

My best suggestion is that you get to an IP/aiki seminar next time one is scheduled for England. Hands-on is worth more than a thousand words, and you'll have a much better opportunity to discuss things and ask questions face-to-face.

Hi Interloper.

Thanks for the response ... but ...

- 100000000

Then the point of the forums Distillery is Useless. This is a place to discuss such things ... it was Dans Idea for goodness sake! Why wont anyone discuss it!!

Of course hands on is the place to really feel it and get any breakthroughs ... who here doesn't believe that? i don't need it pointed out to me, i have traveled round the country a massive number of times to meet and train with people.

But what about discussion of IP/IS on an internal arts forum as has been requested a million times ... mainly by You, Dan and those who have had contact with him.

So far it seems to be ... 'hey why don't people mention this or that ...' When someone does the response is ... without fail ... 'There is no point talking about it'. ... or silence.

If this topic is of interest then lets discuss it as MA enthusiasts. I too love discussions on my favorite topic. Lets have one!

cheers
Chris