intent for creating structure and power

[cloudz]

first rule of... oh never mind.

and also..

+100000001

[jjy5016]

Wish I would have read this before I started to comment on the subject of this thread.

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.

Had I known that this was going to have anything to do with the "IP/IS - aiki" subject I would have never bothered with it.

For those of you who believe strongly in what you do with regard to the above more power to you. But know that there are many who are quite happy with the results they've gleaned from their own traditional practices and don't need to look elsewhere for internal power. Hearing the way some of you guys talk about it reminds me of brainwashed cult members.

[middleway]

first rule of... oh never mind.

and also..

+100000001

haha ... i cant count that high.

[cloudz]

Chris,

just to comment a little on what you wrote in your second to last post there..

I do think the distillary has been a success here, and there has been good discussion. I think it's just that with a topic like 'intent', there's not a lot to be said about it in and of itself. there's really nothing I believe you need to know about intent itself that you don't already know.

My outlook was very similar to others here in the past. I'm not saying "I've seen the light" or anything like that. "internal" mechanics is by and large well documented and discussed: eg. six direction force, spiralling etc.

People have different approaches, slightly different models and preference perhaps we can say. there will naturally be different levels of refinement, skill etc. So it's not all the same, but the same; if you catch my drift.

[middleway]

hey George,

I absolutely catch your drift.

My motivation for this thread was to try to nicely coax discussion on this topic from Interloper/ the aiki crowd. It is an interesting topic for discussion away from a 'need to know' basis.

For instance we work with drills specific to understanding the role of intent in solo training, partner testing and as we did last night live testing and padded up brawling

How people specifically link the role of intent to their training system is what is of interest to me. Especially the point made by interloper on the last thread.

The issue is that when we/I TRY to start the dialog, the response is without fail ... silence ... 'why should i talk to lower level people' ... or 'it has to be felt'.

You have met Dan and have trained with him. You have the luxury of having 'felt' and discussed whats going on in their training. I am just trying to winkle out a little bit of info for the rest of us till i can get to a seminar.

cheers
Chris

[Bhassler]

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.
-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.

[Tom]

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.

+1.

In point of fact, Interloper has not trained with Dan in many years, and Dan has continued to evolve his approach and skills. So whatever she says is based on her understanding of Dan's teaching from that period of time years ago, and her level of understanding at that time--and then whatever she's developed on her own.

Dan is probably the one best suited to talk about what Dan means with respect to intent, specific Dan-fu training exercises, and related matters.

[Chris McKinley]

Tom,

Dan can answer for Dan, and likewise, Interloper can answer for Interloper, and it is her behavior that is in question here, not his. I suppose I need to point out again that I have excepted her by name from my criticism of the behavior of that very identifiable group, and continue to do so. There is no bullying here, at least not from me. I am the only poster to call for her fair treatment and the only one to give my word that should she make good on her offer, her information will be treated with objective impartiality. The situation here is that she has leveled a wholesale criticism of the understanding and model of a poster, but has been unwilling (certainly not unable) to provide anything specific as a superior alternative. In a separate thread, she again criticized the understanding of that same poster (or perhaps myself...it was never made clear), and again did not provide anything specific as a constructive alternative. The same cannot be said of any other single poster on the Distillery forum. She gave as a reason for reticence the fact that, at least to her, no one had yet posted an intelligent question about the role of intent in structure. When Chris(middleway) quoted her question and posed it back to her as the OP for this very thread, she again refused to share anything specific, and instead claimed that some of our motives in asking were somehow "less than benign".

No one here is asking anything more from her than that she be held to the same standard to which the rest of us have already held ourselves accountable. She has committed no grievous sin, nor is she being treated as if she had. However, she has made a fairly broad criticism to one poster, and perhaps to more, and has not been willing to provide even a cursory description of what she has characterized as a superior alternative. If any of the rest of us had done likewise, we would have been called to account for it. What has been so repeatedly asked of her is nothing more than to share her information with the rest of us on this forum. Given that, as Chris pointed out, "This is a place to discuss such things...", and as Ian had confirmed by Fong as regards the purpose of this forum, "Sharing things about IMA that you know are pure gold? Asking exclusively IMA questions?", it would be fair enough to ask that of her even if she hadn't already criticized anyone's understanding yet, but is all the more so now that she has.

I don't wish her to be treated poorly or anything less than fairly, and I don't believe that any other poster here feels any differently. My own wish, as I expressed to her directly, is that she would share her information, that she and it would be treated fairly, that new conversations and insights would build from that sharing, and that the entire group would benefit as a result. Simple as that. We can leave Dan Harden completely out of it as far as I'm concerned, unless of course he, too, wished to join the conversation, in which case he would be welcome.

[XinKuzi]

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!

cheers
Chris

Very much in agreement here. I'm always interested to hear about other people's methods, no matter who they are or who they've trained with. Most of you here are just "people on the internet" to me - I don't know most of you, personally, outside of RSF. So I can only go by what people write.

Seminar endorsements in topical threads seem unnecessary. There's a section specifically for announcing seminars. Additionally, I'm not sure why others come here, but I don't come here because I feel I'm "missing" something in my training. I come here because I'm obsessed with what I do. I enjoy seeing others who seem to share my obsession - it's comforting in a way ("maybe I'm not so crazy, after all!" )

-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.

I also don't believe in the arbitrary distinction, nor do I think the Distillery is necessary... but I'm okay with both, especially if something good can come out of them here.

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.

Yes, defining what we're talking about is important. I think that's where a lot of disputes come in to play. I think it's worthwhile to remember we're talking about symbols for complex concepts, and it's often even more abstracted than that.

As someone who probably hasn't been training as long as many here, I appreciate the efforts many put forth into describing what they do and why they think it works for them. I am just starting to figure out how to put some of my ideas on MA into intelligible writing, and I hope to start sharing more for the valuable feedback RSF can offer. For what it's worth, I think posts that basically say "my shit works", but without really describing "my shit", can just be passed over/ignored. That's what I do.

[yusuf]

hi

I'd like to ask the the opposite, what happens if you don;t have any intent.. i often find myself zombie walking around when i am trying to solve a technical / scientific type problem.. more often than not i'll end up crashing into a door or someone and they usually get quite battered... no intent of walkng, mind completely focussed on something else and yet i've flattened two guys who were bigger than me...

so how would that fit in with with the premise that intent is the key factor?

thanks

Yusuf

[Chris McKinley]

It would seem to indicate that, at least in some circumstances, intent is not essential/linked to physical capability.

[Dmitri]

so how would that fit in with with the premise that intent is the key factor?

It's the key factor in training; "in application" it's there automatically, because you are 'intent on fighting' by default (since you're obviously in it).

E.g. when learning to drive, your intent may be on the timing of applying gas, clutch, shifting gears, etc.
When actually driving, your intent may be only on your destination.

[Steve Rowe]

Means they were defeated by a scientific concept....

[Chris McKinley]

Dmitri,

It's almost as if you're saying that, in application, the ability had become "internal" to the practitioner???

[jjy5016]

At some point trying to discuss a topic such as intent in earnest and have someone post suggestions to go to a workshop to learn the why everyone is wrong is like hearing Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer for the 200th fucking time during the month of December. It gets stupid after a while.

If someone has no intention of explaining why others are wrong based on that individual's experience then the purpose is not to contribute to the discussion but to ruin it.