dedicated to the discussion of the chinese internal martial arts of xingyiquan, baguazhang, taijiquan, related arts, and anything else best discussed over a bottle of rum
Thought it best to ask directly about the "rudimentary"
This clip below illustrates very well what I meant by using two fingers to push someone is "rudimentary". And it also illustrates very well at least some of the things the HME guys play with in their videos.
It can look impressive if you don't understand the simple mechanics behind it. But most of what you see out there are all based on principles and methods that are very, very basic.
It's basic. And what you see most (honest ) "masters" do is basic.
.... And it should be basic. Every famous musician, pianist or violinist etc. are using the same basic principles as beginners, but the masters are great just because they are masters of using and understanding the basic methods and principles. They don't need to speak about qi, yi or any energies. The proof is in the pudding. In their actions, in what they do.
What they do is advanced because they have mastered the basics and taken the basics to a new level.
So let me compare with an advanced practitioner. Here Wei Shuren: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN7la7-U0oM What you see here is also basics. Song (relax and release), keeping balance, structure and internal alignment etc. (Ok then, yeah I know, understanding "internal alignment" is a somewhat more advanced concept. Hopefully people get my point anyway. )
Last edited by Bao on Mon Oct 17, 2022 12:19 am, edited 2 times in total.
Thoughts on Tai Chi (My Tai Chi blog) - Storms make oaks take deeper root. -George Herbert - To affect the quality of the day, is the highest of all arts! -Walden Thoreau
Chinese science allows for and understands western concepts. It’s the western science that does not understand or allow for Chinese concepts.
Many of the old masters were engineers or familiar with western thought and ideas. They could understand it from one point of view, with an understanding it was not the only point of view
There are key concepts that western science does not address , without allowing for them to be addressed somethings may not make much sense.
Usually what happens is people try to take concepts and remake them without having to skill sets or Experience from which to draw from.
Case in point
My teacher felt that’s some of what was written in what are called the taiji classics Was not correct, very misleading.
He recommend not reading them, gain knowledge and skill directly through practice.
lol... you just said "Chinese Science"
here's your first lesson: there is only one science and it's universal.
It's also obvious my your subsequent responses that you didn't mean Science at all. As in the Scientific method, you know the one that's made so much progress and innovation over the last century or two.
It's a pretty good system for detecting bullshit. it's like you claim something, then your peers ask you to prove it.
works for martial arts bullshit too. That's your phd isn't it?
LOL
Last edited by cloudz on Mon Oct 17, 2022 6:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Steve James wrote::) The problem is that Chinese speakers don't all agree, anymore than English speakers do. Of course, "doing" is its own language.
In most tcc "classics," there are no definitions. Everything is explained of "like"ness to something else; "like a cat playing with a rat," or "like snow bending pine boughs," etc.
"like a cat playing with a rat" is a partial phrase. here's the full sentence
The spirit is like a cat pouncing on a mouse.
That sentence has to do with the spirit of Taiji being like a cat playing with a rat. Not Sticking or adhering.
Also, To say there are no definitions is stretching your "like"ness point a little bit far. I get your point, Classics are kind of like a piano prompt book for those who pretty much already know the song.
But, In several of the "Classics" -- Sticking is more defined than your post seems to suggest.
Taijiquan Treatise, He is hard while I am soft – this is yielding. My energy is smooth while his energy is coarse – this is sticking.
Yang Banhou's 40 chapters, from the late 1800's, goes even further and tells you sticking's usage does
[3] STICK, ADHERE, CONNECT, FOLLOW Sticking means to lift up high. Adhering means to stay and be attached.
Yang Changfu, in his Methods of Applications, also repeatedly tells you where to stick. Here's just one example.
use my wrist to stick to his forearm, using a horizontal energy to ward off forward and upward. I must not stiffen and try to match him. The result of all this is that the opponent’s force will thus finish, and then when I move, his position will naturally destabilize.
I have come across and drilled that version of "stick"; some people show it and describe it as a kind of plucking upwards. It can look like a 'lifting up' for example there is one fairly popular northern wu applications video where this version is shown that I can recall.
My personal; opinion is that whilst it's right it not solely 'right'; in that single terms cannot be (so easily) divorced from wider inherent skills and methods. there is a lot of confluence and convergence going on. So really it's used here as a method of floating/plucking up or expressing peng /ward off. It can do that.
the important thing is usage of terminology (there can't be any absolute right or wrong per se) and that has and always will be changeable. Perhaps in older systems the terms were (inter)related to other skills and today in some systems they are more simplified and discreet as a starting point. There always has to be that (starting point).
if you take Adam Mizners explanation, it would be like you have already done stick adhere join and follow - and the follow is taking them upwards. you may or may not need other methods to get there.
the more important aspect (over what we decide to call this or that) is whether your'e recognising/seeing/ training the various skills in various contexts as you progress, and how you can make them inherently useful to your tactics and techniques.
Last edited by cloudz on Mon Oct 17, 2022 7:07 am, edited 4 times in total.
Bao wrote:It's basic. And what you see most (honest ) "masters" do is basic.
.... And it should be basic. Every famous musician, pianist or violinist etc. are using the same basic principles as beginners, but the masters are great just because they are masters of using and understanding the basic methods and principles. They don't need to speak about qi, yi or any energies. The proof is in the pudding. In their actions, in what they do.
What they do is advanced because they have mastered the basics and taken the basics to a new level.
Why would they not speak of qi, yi ect...which are basic, with out an understanding based on this some things that make the method work won't be available.
wei shuren ,teaching basics, based on theories built on the basic idea of yi, qi ect.
Prior to meeting Master Wang Yongquan, Master Wei was a contented master of Chen style Tai Chi Chuan. A friend told him of an old master with superlative skill that he must meet. Master Wei famously said that there was nothing more for him to learn in Tai Chi Chuan since he had attained a high level of skill.
The friend persisted. Some two years later a reluctant Master Wei stood before Master Wang who was sitting down in a rattan chair. Master Wei was skeptical and it must have shown on his face. Master Wang waved Master Wei over. Leaning back in his chair Master Wang asked Wei to extend his middle fingers. Master Wang grasped both of Wei's middle fingers by the tips, showed Wei that it would not be easy if not impossible to fajing him in this manner.
In the next instance Master Wei was thrown back, an expression of surprise on his face.
He had not expected this and in his heart knew that for all his Chen style attainment he just did not have anything close to what Master Wang just demonstrated on him.
So on the wrong side of fifty Master Wei set aside all that he had learned before and began to learn afresh from Master Wang.
An example of someone feeling they have mastered the "basics" finding that maybe his basics did not lead him to an understanding of the skill he was looking for.
Regarding the clip
I have not the least interest to speak with one of Adam's many self-proclaimed marketing managers. If I wanted to learn more about anyone's true skills, more than I can see with my own eyes, I would seek him up.
Anyone relating their experiences is now a "marketing manager"
No one mentioned learning, what was mentioned If one had questions they could ask directly
your comment asked directly
some one made a comment "If you understand balance and how to unbalance (which is rudimentary knowledge in Tai Chi), then it's no problem to use two or one finger to move someone."
Do you feel what you've described was a matter of not understanding balance and how to take it...
thanks for sharing
His answer
Funkalopigus 21 hours ago What I experienced went far, far beyond understanding and manipulating balance. I have decades of experience with taking people off balance and have gotten pretty good and holding my own, and this was light years beyond any of that.
Thought it best to ask directly about the "rudimentary"
This clip below illustrates very well what I meant by using two fingers to push someone is "rudimentary". And it also illustrates very well at least some of the things the HME guys play with in their videos.
It can look impressive if you don't understand the simple mechanics behind it. But most of what you see out there are all based on principles and methods that are very, very basic.
It's basic. And what you see most (honest ) "masters" do is basic.
His demo is basic, drawing wrong conclusions from it....
although in some. aspects its correct....in that teachers do ask for people to use their force.... The reason they ask this, by doing so people automatically are engaging their "yi" "qi" ect. which is what is acted on..
Once they understand how to "fan song" the same demo will be even more dynamic, "most of them questioned "
Having a greater effect acting directly on their "qi" obviously not interacting on their mechanics, which the teacher in clip posted shows..
Last edited by windwalker on Mon Oct 17, 2022 10:35 am, edited 2 times in total.
" It’s all in the Form; but only if it is, ALL in the Form."
yep... that's the ridiculous testimonial I mentioned some time ago. It's the biggest pile of nonsense. the poor guy doesn't have the self awareness to figure out 'the con' he's part of.
I personally know someone who was and is a bigger and badder fighter than that guy will EVER be. He went to Adams seminars. And just like that guy, he went to learn and experience things..
You don't go to these things wanting to challenge and fight people, you go there and pay your money to learn stuff.. and it follows that you play along and are respectful to other human beings.. It just so happens to learn that stuff; you do so under the requisite set ups.
He's also a huge fish out of water and would have the same experience playing with Adam that any newbie at tai chi would have playing with anyone who has 20+ years experience.
He would have little chance of controlling and pushing me around in a PH set up of my choice never mind my teacher. And I'd extend that to free pushing - which I never see Adam taking part in with random people.
That testimony is just hyperbole based on a noobs fantasy fulfilment.
Anecdotes aren't real science.. but you wouldn't know that i guess. The video of Adam pushing with his peer is real evidence.
get him doing that again today against a real peer, on film.. Please let me choose !
then we'll really see what's what with his and your bullshit brainwashing crap.
Last edited by cloudz on Mon Oct 17, 2022 7:32 am, edited 2 times in total.
I'm fairly certain one of his lineage descendants appears to be pushing in that old 'masters clip' that came up in that vs. peer thread.
Again, where where all these demonstrated high level skills in his match ? Nope, just plain old power and skill at work - you know the boring stuff that takes a bit of sweat.
not reading some pie in the sky intellectual bullshit about yi and qi.
I look at what one can do or has experienced from a body of knowledge based on a worldview from a different culture...
This seems to be a common approach that religious people take to science. If science contradicts, or does not support, one’s religious dogma (or political ideology, or cultural traditions, or superstitions…) then they claim that science is just another belief system or matter of faith, and then assume that one’s own viewpoint does not need to change or be influenced by the scientific evidence. Rather than showing objective evidence that contradicts the current scientific evidence, they would settle for attacking the scientific process itself, or attacking the motivations of those scientists that do not support the religious (…) viewpoints, or just saying that lack of PROOF to the contrary is too little to alter one’s viewpoint…
But religions (…) are NOT science! Some religions try to interpret scientific evidence through their dogmatic prism, but that is still allowing their subjective perceptions to adapt science to their own ends. Scientific evidence itself does not take sides.
Your subjective evidence (or religious or cultural traditions …) may indicate that the Earth is the center of the universe, and that the sun, moon, stars and the galaxy all revolve around the Earth, but that does not make that true, despite how it may appear to your own senses! Science tries to present the best available objective evidence. Tough if it does not support your desired beliefs!
Last edited by LaoDan on Mon Oct 17, 2022 7:43 am, edited 2 times in total.
The whole point of science is to gather evidence to prove things are false. The point of religion is have you accept things as true with zero evidence.
It doesn't seem like the same thing to me, but what do I know, I'm not a blistering idiot.
LaoDan wrote:Your subjective evidence (or religious or cultural traditions …) may indicate that the Earth is the center of the universe, and that the sun, moon, stars and the galaxy all revolve around the Earth, but that does not make that true, despite how it may appear to your own senses! Science tries to present the best available objective evidence.
Tough if it does not support your desired beliefs!
Haha
must be monday
may indicate that the Earth is the center of the universe, and that the sun, moon, stars and the galaxy all revolve around the Earth, but that does not make that true, despite how it may appear to your own senses!
mmm, about that science...would it be the same science that suggested
According to Penn State University, the ancient Greeks firmly held onto several scientific assumptions that formed the basis of the geocentric model:
The Earth is the center of the universe and is stationary. The planets, sun and stars revolve around Earth. All motions in the sky should follow circular paths as objects are attached to spherical shells. Objects obeyed the rules of 'natural motion' meaning they orbited Earth at the same speed.
starting to get a vibe here from some.... Colonialist western views held up as "science" all others non western as "religious or cultural traditions" not supported by the "science" from a western world view point...
could be wrong....
might wanna read this, found it interesting
First, science’s inability to verify qi’s existence does not affirm its nonexistence. In fact, under the philosophical system of idealism, qi might not be said to be less real than things that are verifiable by science.
Similarly, under the instrumental and pragmatic view of science, health professionals should be cautious not to declare what is metaphysically real or unreal but instead what is useful and not useful.
Second, even though qi may be pseudoscientific, it remains useful and indispensable to the correct practice of tai chi and qigong.
if you try to follow the "science" (it seems none of us are scientists or can do the math) ... currently you get to a "string theory" hypothesis if you do all the math. like calculating the temperature or mass of the sun, you don't "measure" the "evidence" directly.
if you get to "string theory", this means everything (underneath energy or mass) is just "strings" that are vibrating.
why? nobody can say. how did that come about? nobody can say.
was there one Big Bang or multiple? nobody can say.
did "everything" come from "nothing"? that's what they think.
how can the ever expanding Universe keep expanding when there is not "something" it's expanding into? nobody can say.
see where this is going?
amateur practices til gets right pro til can't get wrong / better approx answer to right q than exact answer to wrong q which can be made precise / “most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. Source of all true art & science
everything wrote:if you try to follow the "science" (it seems none of us are scientists or can do the math) ... currently you get to a "string theory" hypothesis if you do all the math. like calculating the temperature or mass of the sun, you don't "measure" the "evidence" directly.
if you get to "string theory", this means everything (underneath energy or mass) is just "strings" that are vibrating.
why? nobody can say. how did that come about? nobody can say.
was there one Big Bang or multiple? nobody can say.
did "everything" come from "nothing"? that's what they think.
how can the ever expanding Universe keep expanding when there is not "something" it's expanding into? nobody can say.
see where this is going?
gotta be from the west,,,,you know the deal man "Joe Biden"
those outside the culture, studying traditions of a culture In turn explaining to those within the culture
What their traditions are really about
Last edited by windwalker on Mon Oct 17, 2022 8:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
" It’s all in the Form; but only if it is, ALL in the Form."
Rather than showing objective evidence that contradicts the current scientific evidence, they would settle for attacking the scientific process itself, or attacking the motivations of those scientists that do not support the religious (…) viewpoints, or just saying that lack of PROOF to the contrary is too little to alter one’s viewpoint…
No one is attacking anything... Historically the Chinese understood that western methods depending on apparatuses , to confirm an inner perception of reality would not be able to confirm or not, the "perception" itself inquiring about an outer reality with out building apparatuses to do so...
They developed "culturally " a different approach, whether useful or not dependent on context used in...ie a "theory" by which something is explained allowing for an approach, method used in gaining functional use or understanding from it.
Last edited by windwalker on Mon Oct 17, 2022 10:38 am, edited 2 times in total.
" It’s all in the Form; but only if it is, ALL in the Form."
) "masters" do is basic. 
)
