Thanks Bruce,
I may just be dense, but even though I think that I understand this intellectually, I still do not see it as being easy to successfully translate into practice. I understood the OP as possibly referring what sports often call “being in the zone” or “in the flow” (the flow state) or even “unconscious”; but that state is not typically easy to achieve consistently, and much training seems to be a prerequisite. However one thinks that they achieve this state for their activity (e.g., through meditation, qigong, repetition, pre-activity rituals, superstitious practices, etc.), it does not seem to be a common state, nor does it seem to be easily reproducible. Training seems to increase the odds of sometimes achieving this state, but nothing appears to ensure achieving it (at least for us mere mortals).
While your reference to a “Neutrality Principle” will have numerous specific meanings to you, it seems to match my understanding as well (I have not noticed anything that I would disagree with whenever you have brought it up). I want to maintain mental, emotional, as well as physical neutrality when interacting with others. But this is like saying “act without ego” (i.e. neutral) which is intellectually understandable, but difficult to do.
For example, I practice TJQ because I like and enjoy it, which is NOT being neutral (likes and dislikes are not neutral), but it has motivated me to continuously maintain my practice since 1979 (although more as a hobbyist than as a more serious practitioner). I intellectually understand the idea behind forgetting oneself and merely following the opponent, but that does not mean that I do not consistently have errors (excesses and deficiencies); though less than perhaps many other (especially lesser trained) practitioners, the errors are still evident (at least to me).
I have undergone training where one person closes their eyes and follows another’s movements while attempting to maintain a constant pressure at the point of contact. But even when practitioners can do this well, it does not seem to translate into being able to do it well during free play (even in the relative safety of push-hands play) when the partner/opponent is trying to take advantage of mistakes to take and maintain control.
I seem to be missing something when you state that:
BruceP wrote:The "common way of reacting against aggression" aint so common when you consider the individual's personal threshold and perceptual catalyst(s) of those 'reactions'. I make a clear distinction between reaction and response. Reaction is what you 'think' you should do and response is what you do without thinking.
Much of what humans do as either reaction or response seem to be incorrect, and need training to correct. You seem to imply that “response” would be correct whereas “reactions” are often wrong?? This point is not sufficiently clear for me to understand.
BruceP wrote:... how tjq postures and sequences aren't a collection of applications/techniques - they're just a bunch of ideas for applying the movement sequences in any number of ways to suit the situation. I don't believe in techniques and have never drilled a single one or sought to affect any under pressure.
I also like the practice of responding to what is actually happening, rather than trying to impose specific techniques on an interaction. That being said, I do also practice techniques, but I try to view each interaction as unique, and I try to keep aware of even slight differences throughout the practice.
BruceP wrote:In short, the drills I've developed are non-contextual, open-ended and serve no real purpose as far as martial skills development. The drills take an individual into a natural state ...
I guess that I do not understand because I do not have the benefits of these drills that you have developed.