IT/IS

[Muad'dib]

Actually Rant Not Over.

The other thing that has been bothering me about this is the same thing that bothered me about Dan Brown's book "The Da Vinci Code". It's not that it's a poorly written novel. It's not that it makes up facts, since it is a work of fiction. Nor is it that some people started taking it as gospel truth, even when they had a problem with the gospel itself.

No, the problem here is that IT is merely pseudo-intellectual blather panders to people.

Can't figure out what Peng is? It's "Ground Path" (and it sparkles!)

Oh, well, hey, I can get ground path. I mean, you have the ground. You have a path... I get it! And more importantly, I feel smarter for getting it. Thanks Ground Path (tm)!

Perhaps I am being overly vehement here, but the point is not to intellectually understand "Ground Path" or "Peng" for that matter. Trying to develop an intellectual framework without the basis of experience is like 7 blind men trying to describe an elephant. It will not do.

But hey, Ground Path(tm)? I get it. I can replicate it! Because I get it! Yeah, I get it. I feel smarter!

Yes! Yes! You are! Good job, golf clap. The night has lifted and you can now go one without practice, because YOU GET IT.

But you don't.

BTW, this is not actually a shot at the ability or practices of those people who I have encountered who most use the "fascial" explanation. I've met a few of them and they are some of the hardest working, hardest studying guys I have had the pleasure of meeting. And some of them have some skill as a result.

But I don't know, it just seems a disservice somehow to buy into the new/old flavor just because it's got a great new, more colorful label.

guess that's it for now.

[BruceP]

Mut, you're welcome

[Bhassler]

I agree, Zhong Kui, and that's in part why I ask for something concrete that any Joe of the street could feel and recognize. So many people talk about it as if it is singular and unmistakable, yet no one seems to be able to point to a succinctly reproducible phenomena and say "this is an example." I ask Shooter because he's come up with and written about some brilliant experiential learning methods over the years, and based on what he's written compared with my own experience, I have no doubt he knows his stuff. I'm sure Dan Harden and a lot of other guys do, too-- I just haven't gotten any one else to go beyond saying "it's fascia, it has to be felt."

I've stated in the past that I believe the core of IS is efficient dynamic skeletal transmission of force, and if you have that then the rest will follow-- everything else is just refinement or enhancement. I like this definition because it is independent of mechanism (I don't try to explain the details of HOW the skeleton transmits force) and there are a million ways to teach and explore it independent of outside authority.

[Muad'dib]

I believe the core of IS is efficient dynamic skeletal transmission of force, and if you have that then the rest will follow

It may be, but whether it is or it is not is immaterial. Practice is. If you practice correctly, the rest will follow.

Edit: Let me clarify. I do not believe discussing dynamic skeletal transmission of force(TM) will help you practice, any more than writing down the mathematical theorems proving that the fourth dimension exists allow us to travel through it. Hence the rants.

[somatai]

I like your definition Brian and agree with it, but wonder why this is such a confusing area for folks. Dan tien and connection are so clear when you see and feel them that I am not sure what all the fuss is. Having felt Dan (bodywork) it is clear to me what he is saying, because he can do it.....my teacher talks about chi and dan tien and six harmonies and all the developmental attributes of the animals and these are all real demonstrable energies and things to train, in fact it is what we train....fighting is an after thought and if you have not developed the body, then fighting is irrelevant......internal is just a linguistic distinction, but what is being pointed at is real and not common and so the distinction is merited.

[Void]

I've stated in the past that I believe the core of IS is efficient dynamic skeletal transmission of force, and if you have that then the rest will follow-- everything else is just refinement or enhancement. I like this definition because it is independent of mechanism (I don't try to explain the details of HOW the skeleton transmits force) and there are a million ways to teach and explore it independent of outside authority.

This may be me getting the wrong end of the stick! but the IS I work on training is quite a bit to do with removing structure and getting the skeleton out of the way That's not to say that posture doesn't play its part of course.

[Chris Fleming]

[Muad'dib]

Actually, in that picture the fascia would be the nails and the wood.

[Ian]

Hi Bruce,

IT jams force vectors from external sources at their origin by entering the structure of that source and connecting said structure via one's IT response.

Isn't this simply 'cutting the force'? As far as I understand, it's a tactic that can be used whether or not a person has any internal training.

[shawnsegler]

don't know if there's really a shortcut to the physical experience because the exploratory work that I'm familiar with involves a meditative component that took me years to dial in. I wish I could give you a scenario whereby you could have a clear and pointed view, though, because I believe that IT is innate but we lose the educated 'ear' for the frequency IT operates on through our own personal 'hardening' throughout our lives. What may have calloused and dulled my sensitivity to IT will differ from everyone else's hardening, Just as yours will.

Herein lies the problem. The ideas are pretty straightforward once the sensitivity of the entire body (inside and out) is engaged and accessible at all time and you're able to start working with different psychological models that improve on the efficiency how the different types of connective structure occur in the body.

The problem here is that people who try and break it down from a "western perspective" and try and have everything broken down into the all the smalles micromanage-able parts are missing part of what makes the functionality work most optimally, and that is the ability access different aspects of connection in the body in a non specific/synergistic fashion.

It might help a brain steeped in scientific method to have "all the information" about what is "actually going on" in the body at all times..but when you are working with all the disparate elements of the body and creating functional processes that are controllable by the mind, then having all that data simultaneously is not necessarily the optimal way to work it.

Our brains aren't computers and a lot of the times we need to be able to thread together generalities and non specific qualities to actually create functional results.

The problem with abstraction and metaphor often being the optimal way to "grok" and/or create these processes in the body/mind connection....is that a lot of people have trouble with abstraction. But I'm pretty sure that if you spend your life trying to forge a mind body connection that is so linear that you have to go "the ground bone's connected to the bubblng well bone which is connected to fascia bone etc, etc to describe optimal transference of power anytime you want to do anything, then you probably won't get very far with that aspect of it.

Magical chi energy is easier to work with.

My 2c.

[Chris Fleming]

Actually, in that picture the fascia would be the nails and the wood.

I'm training my soffit.

[Muad'dib]

internal is just a linguistic distinction, but what is being pointed at is real and not common and so the distinction is merited.

I'd like to follow up on this. Do you feel that the power that Dan has developed is different then the power your teacher has? Otherwise, I think my point remains that IT's merely linguistic revisionism. Please note again, I am not saying that Dan/Mike/Akuzawa don't have any ability. I'm just worried that it has created a trend that people are latching on to, because it seems more intellectually fulfilling because it is backed by pseudo-scientific terms, while in fact it is nothing new under the sun. It's been my understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, that the skills of the people in question are at least grounded to some extent or drawn from traditional styles. My worry about throwing terms like "fascia" around is not that it's incorrect. It's simply a new trend in mouth fu.

[Interloper]

In the case of Chris's house anatomy, "fascia" just means facing -- as in a piece of board used as a covering to give the house a more finished look or facade.

Fascia in an animal is another kind of "facing" in the form of a stretchy tissue that encases each organ, each muscle cluster/strand, and entire organ groups. It has been found to contain contractile cells (myoblasts) that are found in muscle. This would indicate that the fascia can be manipulated to perform certain muscle-like functions, though not in the same quick-firing way that striated muscle is used. I believe that it's through mental drivers (intent) that the fascia are thus operated and controled in the process of activating various aspects of internal power and structure.

[Upyu]

There's an interesting article from the gutters of pop health:
http://www.menshealth.com/cda/article.d ... __&page=1#

Nothing really new here for some and the basic ideas seem to be right (to be honest I only skimmed through it). Still it's a good quick read if you want to get an idea about the hoopla surrounding the the use of fascia in IT.

[Muad'dib]

That's great. I get it! Now, I am going to go outside and spend an hour training my myoblasts to contract by sheer force of will.

Seriously, its like saying "Qing Gong is easy. All you need to do is fah jing the ground, and use the reflected power to project yourself through space (and time)."

Now, on the other hand, if you want to say something like:

I feel that stance training is one of the fundamental elements of developing internal power using the classical traditions of chinese martial arts. From my perspective this is done because, according to the 1968 article by D.H. Elliot, "The Growth of Tendon Strength", which states on page 6

The thickest tendon, both in absolute size and relative to the cross-sectional area of its muscle, belongs to semitendinosus, a red muscle with prolonged postural activity (Elliott and Crawford, 1965 a). This suggests that the duration of muscle tension might be important factor in the growth of tendon thickness...

Thus, to achieve strong tendons, prolonged holding of horse stance may indeed be the most effective method to develop one of the core elements of internal power.

Well, in that case, I'd be cool with it. But that seems to be missing from the conversations I have seen.