Bhassler wrote:cloudz wrote:I disagree with the opinions you share with David Ross. I wouldn't consider either of you an authority on the subjects of Language and Meaning ..
Meaning and language is very much cultural and it's own sub culture. There is always a creative aspect to language, so history misses the point as any meaningful basis for critique of its development.
The sub culture has imbued its meaning on the terms. And clearly there has been an uptake of its use and acceptance. Otherwise we wouldn't be here
The issues with the history or when and where it happened don't matter.
If it is propaganda then this is counter propaganda and if it's marketing then so is every name given in TCMA.
History in this case is not a justification for any particular treatment of the term in question.
The horse bolted and this just comes off as a grand case of sour grapes if ever there was.
It's really typical of what is a petty world (of martial arts in this case)
Personally I will accept SLT's credentials in this sub culture and related arts to coin what he did, when he did, and why he did so.
It makes me uncomfortable when you say I share an opinion with David Ross. I guess in this case it's true, but I'm not happy about it. To be clear, I first heard that from other people who studied long term in China and spoke the language-- citing David Ross was just convenient based on what came up in a Google search.
Beyond that, I pretty much agree on all points, except your conclusion. My point was not that "internal" as it is commonly understood does not exist, it is that the term is in and of itself an arbitrary application of language after the fact. Because someone does taiji does not mean that they, or even their system, contains "internal" power. A lot has been lost over the years or, in some cases, may never have existed. And just because someone does an "external" art does not mean that they do not do things that many would consider to be manifestations of "internal" power. As an individual, one has to look past the labels and see with their own eyes what's going on with any given practitioner or school.
It's for similar reasons that I object to appeals to authority with regards to SLT, or the taiji classics, or anything else. None of us were there, so all we have to go by are written records and the living arts as they have been passed down. Personally, my first exposure was to the Taiwan lineages of taiji and bagua, and later on I switched to Chen taiji coming out of the CZK lineage in Beijing. Both are internal and effective, but they are markedly different. People love to say that they're all the same, and they use their own experience or the experience of some famous person as evidence, but the problem with that is that it's the practitioner that's the same, not necessarily the original arts.
I've seen karate guys with internal power that would make most taiji guys shit themselves. I've seen really good taiji guys with muscles upon muscles, or silat guys with iron body, or capoeira guys controlling their opponents with pure intent, or aikijujitsu guys knocking over retired pro kickboxers without touching them (using physiology and reflexes, not ki). Really good practitioners do amazing shit, and it's not limited to one brand or label. Conversely, because something is widely repeated or believed does not make it so. I am in favor of experience and thinking, and then the literature is there to help provide context and language around what's already been learned through trial and practice. Too many people put the cart before the horse and wander down the paths of delusion.
I don't think it is arbitrary at all.
it's simple actually. so simple that people don't want it or reject - who knows.
internal arts - what are they
self cultivation, meditation, spiritual practices, chi gong, shen gong, neigong, neidan.
internal and external are analogous to the esoteric and exoteric in western conceptualisation.
martial arts, what are they?
so yeah, there are some martial arts that have integrated practice principles, concepts and theory etc. from internal arts. In this case from the Taoist canon of esoterica.
it's not much of a leap for someone to come along and go oh yeah, let's reflect that integration with a suitable name so we know what we are talking about.
What the fudge does arbitrary have to do with it, it's perfectly logical and reasonable.
The people that reject it are the 'non beliivers', so to speak, maybe you are one. And that's absolutely coolio. But this denial stuff has been around a while.
I say it's for all to see it and accept it for what it was.(and remains so..)
For me i would rather take it as it is, and it has come to be something I dig. I can still separate out these things, but i also love that they can be and have been integrated. There are plenty of great martial arts around, with or without baggage per se. What's the point of choosing or staying with something based on ideology and or concepts you come to reject, because of whatever reason(s)..
When you mention "internal power" though... i see what happened. i was there after all.
yeah. no, forget all that shit. it's not about the physical power yo. power is power - talking in terms of internal and external power is nonsense because the only measurable power in martial arts is external.. some special ass mechanical ways of moving is not internal powah yo.
internal power is the power of mind, and more to the real point it's internal training - infusing mind into the body training and all that other funky stuff we be training. That's the magic beans right there. These are training systems being described so to include internal in the name seems and feels perfectly normal and correct to me now.
