GrahamB wrote:Personally I find it hard to understand how Tai Chi can be done without a model that revolves around the dantien, rather than the spine, as the nexus of movement, but that's just me.
GrahamB wrote:Whatever theory people use to explain what they do I guess is ok... it's what they actually do that matters. The map is not the territory, etc...
Personally I find it hard to understand how Tai Chi can be done without a model that revolves around the dantien, rather than the spine, as the nexus of movement, but that's just me.
charles wrote:GrahamB wrote:Whatever theory people use to explain what they do I guess is ok... it's what they actually do that matters. The map is not the territory, etc... a model that revolves around the dantien, rather than the spine, as the nexus of movement, but that's just me.
The map is not the terrain, but the model is not the actual thing either: it's a model.
Bao wrote:GrahamB wrote:Personally I find it hard to understand how Tai Chi can be done without a model that revolves around the dantien, rather than the spine, as the nexus of movement, but that's just me.
Why should use of spine and dantian be mutually exclusive? I see all of what Steve speak about rather integrated with dantian, moving from the center and Tai Chi principle of movement in general.
GrahamB wrote:Bao wrote:GrahamB wrote:Personally I find it hard to understand how Tai Chi can be done without a model that revolves around the dantien, rather than the spine, as the nexus of movement, but that's just me.
Why should use of spine and dantian be mutually exclusive? I see all of what Steve speak about rather integrated with dantian, moving from the center and Tai Chi principle of movement in general.
Well, a spine is a spine and a dantien is a dantien - I think you get different results moving from each. YMMV.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests