New private sub-section for internal power discussions

[kwameb]

What about people who just would like to learn, and maybe ask a question or two, like myself?

[nianfong]

An interesting thought, guys. No decision has been made yet, but let me field this and see what you guys think.

For a while now, I've been considering making a Great Old Ones subforum, for us eF old-timers. What if I make a Great Old Ones subforum that can only be POSTED TO by Great Old Ones or both GOO's and 5-star Wuji members. Anyone could read it, so there would be no talking behind people's backs.

I figure if you make it to 5-star wuji, you probably aren't completely full of shit, and at least you should know some manners, but limiting it to GOO's would be easier.

The non-GOO members could ask questions through any of the many GOO's out there, or ask an admin/mod to post in their stead.

What do you all think?

-Fong

[Ian]

I like how IMAs make people so relaxed and easy going

[Chris McKinley]

Fong,

There are several possible axes here that don't completely overlap. There's the Great Old One vs. non-Great Old One axis. There's internal and external are different vs. internal and external are the same. There's also potentially the common RSF/CIMA understanding of what internal power is vs. "the IP/IS crowd"'s understanding of what it is, though of course they may end up being the same, the jury's still out on that one because the latter group has never fully clarified their views stated in the positive.

For example, John Wang is an example of someone who is both a Great Old One, and very well-respected, and someone who doesn't believe in the difference between internal and external. OTOH, there may be some newcomers to our forum who are very interested in the topic of internal power and perhaps even very well-versed in its development who are nonetheless not Great Old Ones. There are also probably a significant number of others who fall somewhere in between. As yet a third possibility, what about someone who may be a Great Old One and who believes in internal power as a distinct phenomenon, but who believes it is something very different than what the IP/IS folks put it forth as being? Should that person be excluded as well?

I think seniority or volume of output is not necessarily the best way to delineate between posters on this matter, assuming that delineation of any kind has already been determined to be necessary and appropriate.

[DeusTrismegistus]

I don't know why people don't just discuss this stuff on the main forum and ignore the disbelievers and athletic only comments

[Chris McKinley]

I don't know why people don't just discuss this stuff on the main forum and ignore the disbelievers and athletic only comments

As someone who has pushed for more substantive on-topic and realistic discussion of combat on this forum for many years, that's certainly what I've been used to. I'm of two minds on this issue currently. I see real value in having a forum dedicated, at least broadly, to specific on-topic discussion. However, there are usually more ways that such a thing can go wrong than that it can go right. These things have a way of turning into "cool kids" clubs and echo chambers. We all saw what happened to CyberKwoon a few years ago as a perfect example. E-budo had additional issues going on, but it's another example.

[snafu]

Fong,

There are several possible axes here that don't completely overlap. There's the Great Old One vs. non-Great Old One axis. There's internal and external are different vs. internal and external are the same. There's also potentially the common RSF/CIMA understanding of what internal power is vs. "the IP/IS crowd"'s understanding of what it is, though of course they may end up being the same, the jury's still out on that one because the latter group has never fully clarified their views stated in the positive.

For example, John Wang is an example of someone who is both a Great Old One, and very well-respected, and someone who doesn't believe in the difference between internal and external. OTOH, there may be some newcomers to our forum who are very interested in the topic of internal power and perhaps even very well-versed in its development who are nonetheless not Great Old Ones. There are also probably a significant number of others who fall somewhere in between. As yet a third possibility, what about someone who may be a Great Old One and who believes in internal power as a distinct phenomenon, but who believes it is something very different than what the IP/IS folks put it forth as being? Should that person be excluded as well?

I think seniority or volume of output is not necessarily the best way to delineate between posters on this matter, assuming that delineation of any kind has already been determined to be necessary and appropriate.

The sticking point here seems to be not so much a forum where people can discuss internal power, but a forum where only people who know what the hell they are saying can discuss amongst themselves to weed out us peanut throwers. I think even someone like John Wang would be a valuable contribution to such a forum because even though he might not believe the difference in internal and external so much, he has the experience and language to back it up in a reasonable fashion, whereas most others do not.

OTOH, maybe instead of going by seniority, you could either have forum members publically, or forum moderators privately, vote on who gets to post in there. Everyone else can only read. Think of it like representative forumocracy. You can give different viewpoints a voice, but at the same time, the number of voices is small enough and each one profound enough that the dialog can be focused and insightful.

[Bodywork]

From Shen fa size matters thread:

I see a big red flag on this one as it relates to the possibility of a new sub-forum. Here we have a point of legitimate difference and possibly legitimate disagreement. Already, though, we have broad-brushed dismissal and invalidation of something based on the fact that it doesn't fall into the narrow confines of a particular definition of what ought to be "proper" training of internal methods. This doesn't bode well.

Well if you can read someone telling you to disconnect your body and move from your shoulders separately from your legs and it DOESN"T send up red flags in your head...I have nothing further to say.
As Dmitri pointed out and oh about fifteen emails I got pointed out...it violates all the rules.
It's okay that you don't get it and that it's all just talking points that need to be investigated according to you. It just doesn't alter reality. Again I think it is Mr Glenn's interpretation and not what is really going on anyway. Basic internals are consistent and from Shihan to ICMA grandmaster level people I have yet to see anyone "blow my mind" (as Mr. Glenn put it).

As for any debates I will stick with hands on. No one is ever going to confuse the way a grand master level Internal artists feels...from jimmy at the gym, and I am not about to get into 6 more pages of debate of someone trying to make a case that they do.

I think it makes people angry when you tell them "Sorry it's not open for debate and I don't care what you think about it. People are really wierd about being wrong and someone being confident, on their game and knowing what they are talking about. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry on the net thinks they magically earned the right to debate things that they are totally clueless about because they own a computer and a pair of boxing gloves.
If they are unsure, they want everyone else to be unsure so they can...talk it through. All of these western based forums have not changed one freaking thing about attaining power with internals. Not one. The Asians knew what they were talking about.

Dan

[Bodywork]

I agree with Chris that picking people who have hung around the longest and who are polite as a qualifier to talk about internal power seems like a very strange qualifer for anything.
How about a list of people that ten or more people from here who themselves are vetted...have gone out and have felt and all agree they feel different than what anyother grappler feels like.

I spent a year listening to this/ guy argue about power and aiki until I saw him move.
Should he be on a list of people worth listening to because he was a member from way back and polite? That has been the scource of the problem about getting out information that has any meaning at all.

[Bodywork]

Long ago and far away there was a time when what you actually could do and not how successfully you could bullshit and debate.......is what mattered.

[Antony Wood]

Hello all,

I strongly believe there is no reason for a private sub-section. RSF is positive and civil enough that any topic can be discussed in the open. If people contribute and share valuable and insightful ideas, thoughts, and experiences in an intelligent and professional manner, wont that generate more of the same? Posts that are either personal or derogatory can simply be ignored. A private section would exclude itself form valuable contributions. I would hate to see IP discussion disappear into the realm of wizards, right under the noses of muggles... Just doesn't sit right.

respectfully, Antony

[Chris McKinley]

Dan,

Well if you can read someone telling you to disconnect your body and move from your shoulders separately from your legs and it DOESN"T send up red flags in your head...I have nothing further to say.

It's not a matter of whether it's something that I personally espouse or prefer. It's a matter of a different approach that you are simply, by your own admission, unfamiliar with and yet felt justified in dismissing wholesale and out-of-hand. If that is the kind of thing one can expect out of the new sub-forum, it's not exactly encouraging.

It's okay that you don't get it and that it's all just talking points that need to be investigated according to you.

LOL, son. There's nothing that you personally are capable of bringing up that I won't get, though I don't have the same confidence about you. Try again. You'll also notice that I didn't state that "it's all just talking points that need to be investigated". That's just more of your bullshit way of ignoring people's actual statements and judging them on words you put in their mouths. Weak ass shit as far as I'm concerned. I'm just getting to the point that you don't need to be so dismissive about something you don't know jack shit about, especially if you're in the middle of trying to sell the idea that we need to have a forum that's invite-only. You say you want to hear about other people's views on internal power and yet your behavior here is the exact opposite.

Part of the problem here is that you are setting yourself up as the arbiter of what constitutes sufficient knowledge of internal power to be able to exclude all those that don't have the same level of knowledge, and yet.....we have yet to see anything from you that would provide sufficient evidence that you yourself deserve to receive such an invite. Kinda ironic, huh? I'm sure we'll hear more about how you've met with this one, or touched hands with that one, etc., etc., which is all nice and such. But that's not anything that many of us couldn't claim. It's also not anything that frankly anybody couldn't claim if they merely wanted to.

I'm not sold on you or your competency to arbitrate or moderate such an exclusive sub-forum. You're too unstable, paranoid and even occasionally dishonest (as you just were with me in this very exchange) in conversation when people disagree with you. Even if you have real skills, you're just not qualified to manage something of that nature IMO.

[GrahamB]

I don't know why people don't just discuss this stuff on the main forum and ignore the disbelievers and athletic only comments

History shows that people are not able to handle that concept.

[GrahamB]

I like how IMAs make people so relaxed and easy going

That's why they are good for health.

It's a good point that IMA's cover a very wide range of subjects - history, health, fighting, performance, esthetic, culture, etc.... so separating out this modern concept of IP into its own forum isn't a weird idea.

This modern concept of "internal power - IP" or "internal strength - IS" (and while it is based on old knowledge, the idea of it as a separate thing that can be identified [is] a modern concept, thanks to people like Sigman)

[DancingDragon]

Some observations as a noob. The main section "Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan" and its subtitle makes it sound like an all encompassing free for all. The FAQ also doesn't really define much of what RSF wants to be. After poking around a bit, I see that you mainly want to be experts talking about fighting. If that's the case, you can say so... like "advanced/professional/expert IMA combat forum" instead of "internal martial arts forum" and be more specific about what goes in "Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan". (I was considering posting my shoe question in Off Topic but then decided it wasn't quite off topic either. )

I think if you want to be welcoming to everybody including noobs, you should have a place for noobs to post lame questions. Otherwise, just say this is not a place for noobs. Similarly, if you want to mainly talk about fighting and not stuff like the health aspects of tai chi, then you should say so or create a place for more peripheral IMA topics which aren't exactly off topic either.

Also, another suggestion is to add Google search to the forum or replace the forum search with Google search. That might eliminate some repetitive posts. (I wouldn't have needed to post my shoe question if I had used Google search first.) The search function that comes with the forum software sucks. It's probably like some SQL LIKE query.

My guess is that you could be getting more random visitors coming in via all sorts of Google searches since forum posts appear in Google results much more than a few years ago. RSF is not quite my type of crowd but it's the only tai chi forum I've seen that gets more than one post every two weeks.

And yes, it would be nice if every section were readable even if not writeable.