Naturalistic Tai Chi

[zhenwu]

...

To feel someting, you need awareness.
Feeling the emotion in your body needs also awareness.
Feeling the blood.. bones etc. Aren`t this different sorts of qi?
Don't try to produce qi.. but observe the things with awareness.. (more attention/ stronger feelings)

Why would I want an external focus when doing an internal martial art? An internal focus of attention is the defintion of cima.

Because it's more effective. Why persist in using outdated methods? Nostalgia?

For my external focus ... i watch TV .. :-P
It's very easy to loose yourself when you focus on the outside..
I think it's better to focus first on the inside.. later maybe try to feel your body/feet, when you look outside.. changes but with a root.

[windwalker]

I feel that it's important to try and understand something within it's own tradition and history before you run off trying to re invent the wheel or change something into something new and different.

+1

Exactly the point I was trying to make rather clumsily.
I would also say that with out this understanding, for those in the tradition
one ends up trying to tell them what they already know using a different "map"
which my confer the same skill sets or not depending on level of skill one has.

[charles]

Nice post, thanks George

+1

Very well articulated, George.

[willie]

.

[daniel pfister]

I think this may be a good post for me to butt in on..

Hi George,

I very much appreciate the thoughtful, more civilized, response to my post that you've given here, and wish you had butted in sooner. Perhaps we CAN have a meaningful discussion here after all.

It'll probably take me multiple posts to respond to everything you've said, so I'll have to come back to it a bit later. For now, I'll say that it is not at all my intention to throw the baby out with the bath water in regards to IMA practice and replace all traditional models with completely different modern ones. There are lots of different models within IMA as you've alluded to. My intention here is to provide a way to help us decide which of our existing models works better than others. I believe this is how we improve IMA practice and teaching methods going forward.

To be continued...

[willie]

.

[daniel pfister]

Part 3 coming. But I will await for you to reveal this before we move on to even more secret stuff.

Willie,

With respect. I started this thread. If you would like to start another one titled "Quotes of CXW" or "CXW's thoughts on Qi" I would appreciate you taking that discussion there. I'm interested in people's interpretations of these practices. You've said that your interpretation doesn't matter. In that case, so that this thread doesn't get too muddled up, please talk about these things on a different thread.

Thank you

[willie]

.

[charles]

I would hope to see YOU Thank Trip and Serena for correcting YOU.
But of-Coarse you didn't.

You need to learn how to comprehend what you read.

I reported what CXW said. He said one does not need to believe in qi to develop skill at Taijiquan. End of statement.

What can one rightly conclude from his statement? Exactly what he said, nothing more. His statement doesn't tell you what he believes. His statement doesn't tell you what he teaches. His statement says you don't have to believe in qi to develop skill at Taijiquan.

If one believes his statement, one cannot then use him as proof - as an appeal to authority - to win an argument stating that anyone who doesn't believe in qi is wrong or will never develop skill and, therefore, has no business teaching. In short, your argument is faulty. Any way you slice it, it is a faulty argument: he either isn't an authority, and is wrong, in which case you shouldn't appeal to him, or he is right and your point is wrong.

If one does not believe his statement, one is then faced with attempting to resolve the contradiction. Was he lying when he made that statement? Did those in the room that heard him say that misunderstand what he was saying? Was he purposely trying to deceive people? Or some other reason for his saying something he didn't really mean or believe. You can second guess why he said what he said, under what circumstances, subtleties of language, yada, yada, yada, till the cows come home. Feel free, if so inclined. But, until you come up with a reasonable explanation - or ask him directly - you can't use that as a means to win your argument and tell everyone else they are wrong. They might be wrong, but that isn't substantiating evidence of it.

Can you understand that? That he is capable of teaching in one "framework" while also acknowledging that one doesn't have to believe in that "framework" in order to excel? As others have put it, that the map is not the territory and there are different maps that can be used to describe the territory? That is central to the discussion in this thread. Can you PROVE that the "qi map" produces "better" results than a different map? That is what the discussion of this thread is about. CAN YOU PROVE IT? If not, yours is an opinion, just like others' opinions. And no more or less valid. I don't see anyone here insulting people because they believe in qi. I don't see anyone here telling people they are the problem for the current state of Taijiquan because they believe in qi. There are differing view points. You prefer one, the one that has been traditionally used. Is there a better one? One that is more effective?

Can you understand that? If not, it isn't possible to continue this discussion.

[willie]

.

[Taste of Death]

...

To feel someting, you need awareness.
Feeling the emotion in your body needs also awareness.
Feeling the blood.. bones etc. Aren`t this different sorts of qi?
Don't try to produce qi.. but observe the things with awareness.. (more attention/ stronger feelings)

Why would I want an external focus when doing an internal martial art? An internal focus of attention is the defintion of cima.

Because it's more effective. Why persist in using outdated methods? Nostalgia?

For my external focus ... i watch TV .. :-P
It's very easy to loose yourself when you focus on the outside..
I think it's better to focus first on the inside.. later maybe try to feel your body/feet, when you look outside.. changes but with a root.

+1

[Trip]

To feel someting, you need awareness.
Feeling the emotion in your body needs also awareness.
Feeling the blood.. bones etc...

It's very easy to loose yourself when you focus on the outside..
I think it's better to focus first on the inside.. later maybe try to feel your body/feet, when you look outside.. changes but with a root.

I think the problem is when it comes to qi most are focused on the imaginary.
The charlatans & quacks of the Taiji world etc., etc., and lumping them in with what you’re trying to point out.

Something that is real but very subtle, very light. That is and is hidden in the breath, Concealed in the Taiji braid of Mind-Qi-Body.
Even its English translation clears up little.

The truth is for a guy who just wants to get strong at weights or wants good fast martial techniques, they honestly don’t need it. Their muscles grow, their movement is fast, voila!

Look at some of the things the op said in his first posts.

...For those I would suggest other less complex imagery to aid in learning such as drawing lines in the air with the hands/feet or moving imaginary objects around. These visualizations are simply a means to an end, and can be discarded once the basic movement becomes more automatic.

To sum up, what we actually think about to produce movement in the martial arts doesn’t matter in the least, as long as it helps us move the way we want to, whether it be qi energy flowing from your dantian or equally imaginary arcs, angles, and line segments in the air. After all, the goal for martial artists should be to not have to think about their own movements at all, but to devote those precious cognitive resources to discerning the movements of the opponent.

I absolutely respect the powerful effect those ideas can have on ones life.

He argues imaginings help to quicken learning and enhance external movement. And, afterwards the imaginings should be discarded.
It is effective for him for what he wants to do.
And, it is true, imaginings can be easily discarded.

You are focused on sensing a subtle real--inside you.
But it's very light, super subtle and easily obscured by your own breath, whose concept is hard for most to understand & explain: Something not to be discarded but enhanced and circulated.

It seems like you’re talking about the same thing but you’re not.
It seems like it’s easy for you to just tell him the quiet sensation, is real.

But it turns out it’s not that easy.
Never has been.

[D_Glenn]

How many different ways can we use the term Qi before it becomes useless?

... I thought it already was ...

***
In Chinese internal martial arts texts it's used in many different ways depending on context, or if it's not in a mnemonic where syllable count is not important then it's used in the 2 character word, so you don't need context.

The most basic idea of Qi relates to our breath and heart rate in the saying 'Keep qi in the dantian'. The Dantian being an expanded, relaxed space inside the abdomen but hard on the outside, within this relaxed space is the Inferior Vena Cava (IVC), the large vein before the blood goes up into the cardio-pulmonary system where deoxygenated blood is filtered through the lungs. The IVC can be kept dilated and acts as a reservoir for the blood, where a constricting IVC will force more deoxygenated blood then the cardio pulmonary system can handle and you start losing your breath/ gassing out. So 'Keeping the qi in the Dantian' is a) building a dantian b) establishing a somatic connection to the triggers that dilate or constrict the IVC.

That's just 1 different way that the word qi is used in the CIMA. There's many more though.

.

[zhenwu]

"TaiChiTJ" wrote about this book..
http://ymaa.com/publishing/books/intern ... sideTaiChi

There was a part of the practice where you just have the attention (warm feeling) in the hands, when you practice the form.
So, when i play like this.. the body moves more naturaly.. it follows the relaxed hands. A bit like Foot/Hand-Refelx-Pressure points affect the whole body.

[daniel pfister]

I'll still maintain that the map is not the territory and I'm all about "the territory". Take one of your main points that 'external focus' is better for certain outcomes. This is not something that is 'missing' at all from martial tai chi training. Imagery is often used; in particular visualising the opponent and martial interaction. This is an aspect that is commonly cited by practitioners. Also many of the explanations and directives for force production and movement are not focusing on say qi movement inside the body - the classics even warn of this. If you think about Peng for example and how it is articulated you get exactly what you describe a visualisation that provides an external model and focus - the image is one of a ships buoyancy on water for example.

Hi George,

Peng is a great example of an external attention focus within our IMA traditions. It is one I was taught and continue to teach all the time. Again, my point was not to discard or say anything was missing from our training practices, but to talk about which methods work better than others.

Often the language and ideas of Chinese traditional medicine and/or medical qigong get colluded with our martial art traditions. That is the major point I want to get through because I keep hearing references to medical practice as a way to describe IMA. Some here have said things to the effect that I need to understand the culture/traditions the arts are derived from so as to properly know/teach the art. However, I feel that the Chinese medical tradition is separate from the martial one, and it would be counterproductive to learn Chinese medicine (especially since I dont' care for that model anyway) for the sake of trying to teach IMA skill. People often ask me, "What's the difference between Tai Chi and Qi Gong?" I reply, "One is a martial art, the other is not. I teach martial arts."

Even though I'm a disbeliever when it comes to CTM, I recognize that the same logic holds true for anatomical/biomechanical views of martial art training as well. Understanding movement is not same as producing movement. The car mechanic and driver analogy works well here, to a point. However, my motorcycle manual tells me nothing about how to ride it. I took separate classes for that. As one should for IMA training.

Hopefully we agree that IMA and CTM are separate traditions and disciplines. Now within IMA methods, I have some suggestions about how the external attentional focus (EAF) idea helps us decide which ideas work better.

As you mentioned, Peng is a great EAF model. Xingyi's 5 fists, simple applications, and many form move names also work well. I think teaching the simplest form of the application works best just for the sake of learning the movement; once that's done, more advanced applications of the same move can be taught.

What may not work so well: The idea of the Kua or the hip joint. This is an idea which I am incredibly guilty of using a lot and still do when I can't think of anything better. When I analyze IMA movement in beginners, I often look for how much they're using their hip joints to power whole body movement. Many people have no awareness of how IMA folks use this joint, but telling them to "bend/crease your hip joint" as I have, may not be the most efficient way of actually getting them to do that movement. It's hard to get people to do that who can't do it already, and the research on EAF is one explanation why. A better way would be to teach an application or some other cue where hip joint movement happens more automatically. Telling people to pretend they are throwing a ball underhand to one side seems to work pretty well.

So when evaluating teaching methods, the rule of thumb should be the more externalized the focus (the farther away from the body) the easier it will be to teach. If I remember correctly, a focus of a meter or more away is easiest, while a focus on one specific muscle or joint is the hardest in terms of coordinating multi-joint movements. Some movements in IMA are extremely subtle, so this gets rather hard, especially with close-range applications. But at least we have an idea about which methods are more efficiently learned and which are less so.