dedicated to the discussion of the chinese internal martial arts of xingyiquan, baguazhang, taijiquan, related arts, and anything else best discussed over a bottle of rum
Chris McKinley wrote: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.
first rule of... oh never mind.
Bhassler wrote:As a position statement:
-Interloper is not Dan, and people should not be grouped into generic schools of thought, otherwise you lose all the nuance of what people are saying. Plus, it's not very nice. Everyone here can stand on their own feet.
middleway wrote: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.
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!
Bhassler wrote:-I think the concept of the Distillery is silly, but if that's the biggest problem I have, then I'm okay with it.
-I don't believe in the arbitrary distinction between internal and external other than as a term used for convenience, and it's fine if others disagree. However, given that this is a discussion forum, if someone is going to tell me I'm wrong or missing the boat, then it's incumbent on them to at least make a good faith effort at explaining *in words* why they think that, or else they're just being a d-bag.
On to the topic:
Intent itself doesn't do anything outside our own brains and/or neurology. It does, however, organize our physical processes that in turn affect the physical world. In this respect, it's no different for lifting weights than it is for ballet than it is for making Teh Decision. So if we're talking about a specific use of intent that is unique to IMA, then that needs to be defined, and ideally the intermediate steps between intent and physical manifestation should be addressed as well, because the underlying intent itself is ephemeral and wholly subjective.
yusuf wrote:so how would that fit in with with the premise that intent is the key factor?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest