Enskilment into the Environment: the Yijin jing Worlds of Ji

[Bob]

Interesting read - martial arts research sections

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... MGM5M2IyYg

Abstract
The Yiji jing 易筋經 (The Canon for Supple Sinews) of 1624 describes martial training
currently practiced, particularly in Chinese communities. This article compares two forms that
the two co-authors learnt in different places: Singapore and Kunming in the People's Republic
of China. One form is known as the Hong Fist (hongguan 洪拳) version of the Yijin jing, the
other was taught as a form of qigong 氣功. This article focuses on the training of the authors
in their respective practice. It demonstrates that the techniques learned instilled in the authors
an attentiveness to the meanings that shaped their practice. These meanings were not
primarily comprehended in a cognitive fashion but felt and experienced. In particular, the
materiality of the environment, or more precisely the resistances that the environment posed
to a practitioner, appear to have shaped the practice of the Yijin jing in distinctive ways. As
argued here, the practitioners enskilled themselves through their practices into a world of
either jin 筋/勁 (sinew/power) or qi 氣 (breath/wind).
Key words: Yijin jing 易筋經, qigong 氣功, jin1 筋 (sinew), jin4 勁 (power), qi 氣
(breath/wind), enskilment

[everything]

are these non-native English writers? they seem to use unclear words like "enskilled" and "materiality" and it's not clear to me why the language is unclear - poor writing, deliberate obfuscation, unclear meaning in their minds, or lack of familiarity with the language. whatever the reason, this article is really hard to read, and it's not very clear if the authors have any point. getting hit for some kind of "power" and "qi" as "deepened breathing"? is that it? did you get a lot more out of it?

[Bob]

It's an academic sociology publication - Elisabeth Hsu is no rookie when it comes to the Chinese language, Chinese medicine, and her field research in the Yunnan provine - if you are really interested give her name a google - some posters on the board claim to do research - I believe she is out of Cambridge and has been doing this since maybe the 1980s

[robert]

I thought it was interesting.

Whenever Hsu spoke of muscle ache and muscle power Lim corrected her, “You must stop
thinking about this thing called ‘muscle’. The book is called Yijin jing, not Yiji jing 易肌經
(Canon for Supple Muscles); the muscles are external and fragmented, while the sinews are
internal and integrated. Muscle power is crude, the jin4 delivered via the jin1 is subtle.”

Jin1 (筋) is often translated as muscle/tendon or sinew, but when Chinese martial artists use the term it's occasionally in contrast to muscle as in this case.

[Bob]

https://www.isca.ox.ac.uk/people/profes ... sabeth-hsu

Just a small piece of the puzzle not the total picture

You may find her writing academic but it helps sort out many of the BS claims made about Chinese martial arts culture & development - academics have their place

[Bao]

The first known set of Yijinjing was published in the 19th century. There are no proofs that it should be older than that, though the individual exercises put together are older. It's very unlikely that they come from the same source.
... So I've heard...

[everything]

ok cool. but I don;t give any fucks if she's a respected scholar of whatever famous schools. that's irrelevant.

the article is hard to read in English. still no idea what it's saying. anyone here have some interpretation? I'm genuinely interested if people of rsf see some point here. not interested at all in any details about creds of this author, sorry not sorry.

[Bhassler]

ok cool. but I don;t give any fucks if she's a respected scholar of whatever famous schools. that's irrelevant.

the article is hard to read in English. still no idea what it's saying. anyone here have some interpretation? I'm genuinely interested if people of rsf see some point here. not interested at all in any details about creds of this author, sorry not sorry.

It is clear, just not necessarily easy. To say you want them to write about abstract concepts without using abstract language is like saying you want someone to tell you how to build an engine without using words like "carburetor", "spark plug", or "gasket".

Lots of people bitch about the watering down of CMA because folks want everything to be easy and all about the feel-goods. CMA teachers eventually give in, and we get watered down, bullshit MA. The cognitive state of the world is not any different. We get lots of famous and would-be famous authors (or content providers) who put out a bunch of crap and the vast majority of people don't have any tools to discern for themselves why it's garbage. The real criteria for most people is not whether or not something is any good, but whether or not it makes them feel good about the largely baseless worldview they already have.

And actually, there's nothing wrong with any of it, but we all get to choose the games we play and the resultant prizes that we get.

[windwalker]

ok cool. but I don;t give any fucks if she's a respected scholar of whatever famous schools. that's irrelevant.

the article is hard to read in English. still no idea what it's saying. anyone here have some interpretation? I'm genuinely interested if people of rsf see some point here. not interested at all in any details about creds of this author, sorry not sorry.

FWIW

thought it was quite clear.

Basically delineating the same practices based on view points of "jin" or "qi" development.
It might help some to distinguish why their own or others practices might be different and
help to understand why this is so.

Of course in reading ones back ground may prevent one from understanding the point....In this day an age of cell phones
video it might have helped to show the movements done with different focal points of practice.

Interesting a blog kind of illustrates the differences in thought "not directed at any poster, just in light of some of the comments"

Comparing Chinese and Western students, are there any differences in their approach to Taijiquan and practising it?

It’s harder for Western students to grasp a concept that’s inherent in the Chinese psyche and its culture. At times it seems impossible, as Western students try to interpret the concept on the basis of their own beliefs and interpretations. In approach and practice, Chinese students do, while Western students question. Chinese students go by feeling and sensing movement, while Western students are concerned with the mechanics, or kinetics, of movement.

https://chentaijisi.wordpress.com/2018/ ... n-ziqiang/

[taiwandeutscher]

Many thanks, Bob, interesting find, which I like a lot, but I'm an academic nerd myself.
It is high time, that MA and all it's sub areas are thoroughly researched, to get away from all that myth and hearsay.
Both authors bring a lot to the table, accurate language skills (classical and modern Chinese), academic training, and practical experience, all preconditions for successful research in that field!

[Bob]

It's another tool in the tool box - IMO the credentials are important because it calls attention to a potential authoritative source - it shouldn't be treated uncritically but held in contrast or similarity to other sources - all I was trying to convey is that her material should be given serious consideration - may be a good source of insights - agreed that the paper is abstract in places but she is no armchair academic

[everything]

No. Spark plug is a clear term.

Materiality and enskillment is not clear at all.

Google doesn't even define enskillment.

So it reads poorly.

I would love it if there were something smart that requires bullshit words and now things make sense.

But this isn't the case as we all know.

[everything]

Look you guys have some IMA skill and knowledge.

Does Fedor need Classical Chinese to kick ass

If we need that, something is insanely wrong.

Qi is qi. Physicists ("real scientists") cannot define it.

Linguistics is definitely not the answer, though.

Next someone will say it's all about theater!!!

Oh wait...

[windwalker]

No. Spark plug is a clear term.

Materiality and enskillment is not clear at all.

Google doesn't even define enskillment.


So it reads poorly.

I would love it if there were something smart that requires bullshit words and now things make sense.

But this isn't the case as we all know.

interesting

In this thesis, I suggest that through learning wheelchair basketball, players undergo bodily “enskillment” characterized in terms of both the degree of body-chair unification and processes of corporeally mediated intersubjective attunement. Exploring the case of one player recovering from spinal cord injury whom I call Richard, I describe how bodily enskillment can work in accordance with physical therapy to influence individual existential self-transformations.
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3tk0m3v9

ma·te·ri·al·i·ty
/məˌtirēˈalədē/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the quality or character of being material or composed of matter.
LAW

"spark plug" is clear because one has prior knowledge required to make it so

[Trick]

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

Albert