by klonk on Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:12 pm
Well, I don't like what I see, above, of Slo-Flo, but for another reason. It trivializes some aspects of the gospel by naming taiji moves after them, and describes the whole practice in over-spiritual terms.
It is understandable, though, to want to make a clear separation between Christian beliefs and the lurking power pantheism behind BAD taiji. I refer to the lin kong jin nonsense which is, plainly, a superstitious aberration. When offering things to the public it is well to make a big separation from what you don't endorse.
As for GOOD taiji, there is still some chance that the classical theory used to describe it will be taken for more than what it is and entails. Westerners are prone to do this. Here again you don't want to seem to promote something that leads to misunderstanding.
In my own case, I am not a pantheist and look at the classical theory of a universally enabling life force as reflecting a cultural and religious context in which the idea arose. I do not believe it but respect it, if that makes any sense. If it is true, it is certainly an incomplete description of 'things unseen.' It is not at all a complete analog for the idea of spirit (breath, pnuema, ruach) as a Christian would look at it, though it may share some similarities and even some sources of inspiration through experience.
So, while I think there is a reason for Christians to scrutinize some spiritual overtones attached to taiji, to make sure they are not misleading anyone, or misleading themselves, I think it could be done better, much better, than what I just saw. In fact, I disliked the Slo-Flo promo a good deal.
I define internal martial art as unusual muscle recruitment and leave it at that. If my definition is incomplete, at least it is correct so far as it goes.