Thank you for providing at least a little bit of actual specific information about the IP/IS approach as you understand it (Tom mentioned that Interloper's version may be different). Your offering of course puts the lie to the claim from some in that group that none of it can be described in text. We already knew better, and it's nice to see someone provide something specific for discussion.
I mean, what is not clear about this that you guys need to be ganging up on her like this? Y'all know what intent is (or should know anyway)
That's been exactly the problem, as I have already made explicitly clear. Everything she had provided was so generic to what all of us are already doing that it was of no real value in explaining how what she does is different. It also had absolutely no connection at all to how any of the methods she refers to obliquely as being the answer are actually done. What she had given could simply have been a cut n' paste from a translation of the IMA classics. Since we are so carefully told that what that group is doing, including what Interloper is doing, is not simply traditional CIMA, it is of interest exactly how they are different, especially given the repeated characterizations of it being superior to what all of us as CIMA practitioners are already doing.
It's also important to note that Interloper has been asked to respond in more than just this thread. She has also ignored such requests in The lightest touch thread and The Combat Sphere principle threads. Ignoring such requests, especially after giving criticism of the understanding of other posters within each of those threads, was just plain rude by any measure.
It's been said before Dan uses fascia theory, so you know which those connections are as well: just read Myers.
I've already explained to you in the Fascia Model of IP thread in the main forum that I've done way more than "just read Myers". It's doubtful any of the practitioners of the Dan method have delved into the topic to anywhere near the degree I have, so familiarity with the issue itself is not relevant to this discussion, at least in my case.
WTF do you want more? You want drills? You want to be taught over the internet? Or do you just want the chance to cut someone up?
This is just more red herring. We've already explained exactly what we would like to see and exactly why. And now, thanks to you, we may be starting to get it for the first time.
P.S. I seriously do resent the cult remark. If there's any milieu that's cultish, it's the traditional martial arts scene. With Dan, you walk through the door and it's work work work from the get go, with palpable results and clearly laid out theory. No 'do the form and it will come in 10 years', no groveling at sifu's feet to get invited to become tudi and can get the real secrets, no 'this is just taught to one or two people', no ling kong jin, grain paths or any other bullshit. Just hard work, results and a hell of a lot of laughter.
It's actually good to see a legitimate advocacy of Dan's work and of his teaching style brought up in this way by someone who has actually trained with him. Regardless of his online behavior or the secretive nature of the practitioners, it's at least good to know that they are working their material in a no BS way. Probably getting some damn good results because of it, too. Good on them for that at least.
It would indeed be nice to have discussions like that without the <silly voice>"I demand an explanation!"</silly voice> crap.
It would be even nicer to be able to have our discussions on RSF without the <condescending voice>"None of you understand what the real internal is! When touching hands none of you or your teachers had anything! My stuff is the greatest but it can't be described so you'll have to come see me for $175 a session to find out!"</condescending voice> crap. Perhaps now, with you leading the way, we may finally be able to have that discussion, and to have it without any crap from anybody.
Note that this is not just Dan stuff, got a lot if this out of the Aunkai work, and I was probably already doing this before that, only paid much less attention to it back then. After all, it is pretty much IMA 101.
Yes indeed, it is. What you are offering thus far of the method as you understand it is a description of the tensegrity matrix as applied to IMA fighting structure. This is great stuff but it's not anything some of us haven't been doing every time we train for years and years. That's okay, though....even if it turns out that there's absolutely nothing new or different about the training methods your group uses, it's still worth talking about if you're getting some good results from it.
Iskendar wrote:middleway wrote:IMO Intent refers to the process that links thought and action. It can be conscious or unconscious but it is not indecisive. It is the process linking the mind to body, that pathway in the single system.
Damn, I wish I had come up with that...
[quote]
There already is a name for that process....it's called neuromotor physiology. Xin, yi, shen, and other colloquial folkloric Chinese terms aside, there's already a good deal of knowledge about this process for those who wish to go and find it. If we wish to discuss the actual process, then spending time trying to determine which of the colloquial folkloric terms is closest to it is a distracting waste of time for anything other than purely cultural and academic purposes. Going to the actual process itself instead of dealing in cultural metaphors that loosely but incompletely describe it is the only way to deduce and extract further training methods which are in accord with what actually happens, and therefore represent a real innovation or improvement in the training.
Hopefully this thread will represent the first guarded steps down that path for the collective readers of RSF as a group. Thank you again, Iskendar, for making that a possibility.