charles wrote:origami_itto wrote:I generally feel like I'm describing my own experiences accurately, but I understand that much is lost in the transmission. The more I try to communicate the ideas, the closer I feel I get to establishing that communicable conception.
Most people are so afraid of being incorrect they can't bother to try.
I applaud your willingness to try.
Louder, please, hard to hear it from here.
However, I've seen many Taiji students - who often go on to become teachers - attempt to invent and theorize in a vacuum. Very few make much progress beyond creating lots of plausible-sounding theories that don't produce much in the way of results. Certainly one can argue that as long as they - and their students -are enjoying their journey, it doesn't really matter if they make any progress or have any success. I find it frustrating to watch as they chase their tails.
I abhor domestic chores so you will find me nowhere near a vacuum.
I've got a teacher, I get out and push with people who have teachers... I read classics I read western anatomical and kinesthelogical research. I talk to trainers...
Personally my own experience and impression is that I am improving so the work is working out. Maybe I could get there faster? WHO KNOWS. The point is that I'm not just sitting here smoking weed and making stuff up.
The map is not the territory, somebody said.
My other frustration is in having people attempt to use terms and concepts that they don't really understand in order to try to explain what is happening. As a simple example, some Taiji theorists suggest that they are harnessing centrifugal force when practicing slowly and turn the waist to move/drag an opponent. They aren't. Yes, centrifugal force is "a thing" in physics, and it does involve rotation (angular motion) but it isn't relevant or applicable to most push hands practice. It sounds plausible, much like it sounds plausible that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. However, heavier objects don't fall faster than lighter ones, even though it seems plausible. Sounding plausible doesn't make it true.
True.. waist rotation doesn't manifest centrifugal force unless it does.
I don't even know how to proceed with that. Centrifugal force is an accurate way to describe some aspects of push hands interactions. It emerges from a rotational frame of reference, not an inertial.
It seems, then, that the obvious question is rather than try to re-invent the wheel - coming up with new theories about how Taiji stuff works - what methods and thought processes have been shown to be successful? Does it not make sense to focus on those rather than attempt to create one's own un-proven methods, concepts and theories? Just how much theory and abstract concept is required to develop skills in Taijiquan? Certainly, one can spend lots of time attempting to model the effects of inertia, impulse, momentum, gravity, kinetic energy, potential energy and the elasticity of a trampoline, but how relevant are those to developing basic Taiji skills? Are they a distraction from doing more relevant, results-oriented things? It's great to contemplate these sorts of things, but what about the things that skilled people have explicitly said/written to focus on? Have you exhausted those and attained the skill and understanding that comes from those and are ready to investigate things further afield? If you want to see real improvement in your push hands skill and knowledge, for example, get to the bottom of what it means - in practical terms - to separate yin and yang, substantial and insubstantial. As I alluded to earlier, in my opinion, we don't really need better translations of these sort of directions. What we need is a better practical understanding of why they are important.
My teacher says to practice, so I practice. He also says he wasn't allowed to ask questions, so he answers them when I have them and tells me when I am wrong and sometimes comes up with whole seminars to address misconceptions of my own or others that he's run across.
None of these theories are my own invention, not saying anybody else cosigns any of the wacky shit that flies out of my mouth, just saying that I'm not bringing this stuff out of whole cloth. It's in full reference to and awareness of classical concepts and methods. It's a means of understanding them, not supplanting them.
The biggest mistakes I can make are twofold
1) get attached to the sensation of today, we observe in passing, we don't chase, things change and signs of progress today could be signs of stagnation tomorrow
2) get attached to the preciousness of my understanding, as a better model coalesces in my understanding the erroneous pieces fall way.
Both are fingers, not the moon, scaffolding that needs to be discarded at some point.
Yeah, I agree, separation of Yin and Yang is pretty important. It's a different topic than Jinlou though so I wonder what the relevance is?
What I find most disappointing is that, instead of discussing theory to approach a more correct common understanding, people would always rather talk about the people than the topic.
If you have better information, share it. If you can clarify a point, illuminate it. If something seems unfamiliar, consider it might be something you're unfamiliar with.
The point is to serve knowledge, not ego.
That understanding mostly comes from practice under a sufficiently skilled teacher. Such teachers are rare and difficult to find.
They don't come from not questioning and exploring.
That's been a key lesson of every good teacher in every topic but most especially kung fu.
