the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

bailewen, I don't claim or accept credit for the teaching/learning model I hold to. It's a very old idea. I wrote the same thing to you about a year ago when I replied to another of your posts on a related (very similar) topic.

Without the neutrality principle, I honestly don't understand how anyone could train tjq's basic fighting method, and beyond. The only things I can take credit for are the exploratory drills and exercises I've developed. Other than that, nothing new under the sun.

I do agree with your dad that it actually is high level stuff as far as educational theory goes, but it's pretty unsophisticated in practice.

And yeah, Chris, old Chuang did get it.

-"The right way to go easy is to forget the right way, and to forget that the going is easy"

Hey Shooter,

Where your personal application of the method seems unique in my experience is the totality and literalness with which you apply the principle. Lots of people interpret "neutral" as "balanced" or "relaxed" or "gentle" or whatever, and often it's only applied in either the physical or cognitive realm. It's a big step to go to where "nothin'" really means NOTHING, and going there fully and consistently has some pretty significant intellectual/philosophical/spiritual consequences, in my opinion. It reminds me of the Buddhist concept that in order to experience any real change you have to die to yourself intellectually, first. Richard Bandler (and I'm sure he's not alone) often says that the deepest human instinct is not survival, it's familiarity. Anyone that does healing work sees it all the time-- people will literally kill themselves before making an uncomfortable change in their lifestyles, or even their thought processes.

Then again, that's all just me sitting in my chair typing. It may be a totally different thing when you're out in the woods, just you and the Yeti...

holding to the center is a pretty old, and proven idea, in my understanding.

it can be demonstrated in terms of physics. and, metaphorically, or psycho-physically, either one...in terms of practice. in a lot of arts/fields.

so can the idea: "go with it, to get it"...

IMO, it's sometimes a beginning idea (as it's fundamental), but hard to follow under pressure. but that doesn't mean it isn't right. IMO, it's pretty advanced in any art, under pressure.

i believe in this, and strive (not always successfully) to follow it in a lot of avenues. including my life.

because it's hard to realize all the time, doesn't mean it isn't central...

very hard to maintain, when the seas threaten to capsize one. but the right idea, IMO.

best...

Hmmmm... is this guy talking about training IMA and learning how to understand the fundamentals that prepare you to expect the unexpected what an optimal learning experience

Hmm, sarcasm. As in, I hear it's pretty useful to use overwrought equivalencies and sarcasm on a thread where legitimate on-topic ideas are already being shared with goodwill and generosity. On second thought, perhaps maybe it isn't.

No biggie Chris, just Saturday night gooffin' ...on a thread that has made some valid points but with too much intellectual posturing

Wanderingdragon,

RE: "...on a thread that has made some valid points but with too much intellectual posturing". Since you have not specified, I will have to ask you to provide either a) even a single example of anything I've written which constitutes posturing of any kind, intellectual or otherwise, if your accusation is leveled at me, or b) clarification about whose comments you make your accusation.

Otherwise, from the pattern of your repeatedly requiring correction about what is being discussed, it would seem more likely that perhaps you simply aren't understanding the topic about which we are having the discussion. You continue to confuse the topic of whether or not someone's responses are naturally generated or purely trained with whether or not that person is mentally/physically relaxed and prepared for real violent assault. Both are, as has been previously pointed out, vital and important topics, but both are not the topic about which the rest of us have been making various points.

An A is an A

Wanderingdragon wrote:No biggie Chris, just Saturday night gooffin' ...on a thread that has made some valid points but with too much intellectual posturing

From my standpoint I don't see any of it as intellectual posturing at all-- quite to the contrary I've found the vast majority to be extremely helpful in terms of evaluating and contextualizing my own training. In short, for me it's part of the process of stripping away the garbage and improving what's important. It all comes down to individual experiences and the mental framework from which we each approach our lives.

To me, what you talk about makes sense, but only for someone who already has some natural ability and experience. So if you're already a fighter, what you talk about may be enough. For someone who doesn't have the practical experience, for example, imagining people attacking and interacting with the environment as a training tool can very easily lead to fantasy and delusion. I like some of the ideas you've presented, but they're just not accessible to me in the way that you've presented them, and that's not meant as a criticism of you or what you've presented at all, it's just an acknowledgment that we probably have pretty different backgrounds and world views. It's not a question of better or worse at all, just what's available.

My 2 pennies, presented with 10 penny words...

My point has always been, even if youare not a fighter, you still flinch, to learn to control that response is all of takes to become one. Flinching is a nervous reaction, learning to control that is learning to protect yourself, doing that is about walking and breathing. Truly sorry if I really don't get it.

Brian, I'll see your intellectual posturing and raise you one volution of the A, B, C and D quadrants. Yeah, I got drills for that.

We're still talking about learning, right? 'Cause I think it's important to understand how to get there from anywhere.

Your previous post (re: consequences) had me on the pivot of being heartened and alarmed. That was a pretty clever riff on the neutrality principle, man.

I'll say this and then I'll quit f&@#ing wit y'all, just that I think it's important to know where to start, before you can move forward.

Nice. We'll keep that in mind, since none of us has ever started or moved forward with anyone before. (Sigh.)