Abandoning Force — Teaching moments with Sifu Adam Mizner

[Bao]

First, the words he uses aren't accurately describing what he is actually doing. It is misleading and prevents students from progressing more directly. It keeps things in the realm of being mysterious. Only the smart ones will figure out that what he is doing isn't what he says he is doing.

Only "smart" people will understand what Tai Chi is about. Period.

For progress to occur, the focus should be on understanding the incoming forces and how to specifically interact with them, not on some vague notion that something called "force" should be "abandoned".

I agree and do not agree. I agree that "For progress to occur, the focus should be on understanding the incoming forces and how to specifically interact with them."

But what Mizner speak about is not any method or how to interact with different forces. He speak more about a "body standard", a standard of being as well as a standard of doing.

I like how Hao Weizhen expresses it: ”If you are able to use intention to attack the opponent [using jin through the focus on Yi and not using dum force], then after long experience, even intention does not need to be applied, for the body standards will always be conformed to.“

I do believe that both the specific and the general is important. You learn the general by practicing specific things, and you learn how to do specific things correct by focusing on general aspects. When something happen for real it happens fast. Everything goes fast. So you can not bother yourself with "specifics" or details, and instead everything must be automatized by and from a state of "Being". So IMO, both are needed.

[LaoDan]

Charles,

Thanks for articulating the things about Adam’s presentations that make me dismiss his teaching. He may have skills, but he fails to clearly state what he is actually doing – what he says that he does doesn’t seem to match what he is actually doing.

I suspect that he attracts students by using this type of rhetoric because some people seem to associate esoteric or mysterious presentations with being “special”. If it is difficult to understand, then they must be getting something (the “secrets”) that average (uninitiated) people will be incapable of understanding.

I try to approach my teaching from a perspective of trying to make the information as understandable as I am capable of. It is difficult enough trying to put TJQ principles into practice, even when clearly understood; so to use an unnecessarily obscure explanation is, in my opinion, a major disservice to the art. OTOH there clearly seems to be a market for Adam’s esoteric/obscure approach. His approach does appear to make one look at the art from a perspective different than one is used to, and therefore it may succeed in changing how one practices (by breaking old habitual ways of understanding things).

[RobP3]

I suspect that he attracts students by using this type of rhetoric because some people seem to associate esoteric or mysterious presentations with being “special”. If it is difficult to understand, then they must be getting something (the “secrets”) that average (uninitiated) people will be incapable of understanding.

Boom!

[Bao]

...the things about Adam’s presentations that make me dismiss his teaching. He may have skills, but he fails to clearly state what he is actually doing – what he says that he does doesn’t seem to match what he is actually doing.

I suspect that he attracts students by using this type of rhetoric because some people seem to associate esoteric or mysterious presentations with being “special”. If it is difficult to understand, then they must be getting something (the “secrets”) that average (uninitiated) people will be incapable of understanding.

I had a teacher that is a bit similar to Mizner. This teacher was not the best teacher I have had, but I can assure you far more skilled than the person in this topic. This former teacher, extremely skilled and very much admired and with a bit cultish followers, loved generalisations and mysticism. A couple of years after attending classes and seminars, I started to understand the glitch between action and speak. It was first when I stopped listening to him that I started to really learn from him. I can understand why he produces so few good students. Listening to him had actually held me back. It had hurt my confidence because I couldn't understand some of his thoughts. Well, the flaw was not within me. From that point onwards, just being there, feeling him first hand and try to understand with my body instead of "thinking" meant a lot for my progress. Later, I brought this attitude with me. I stopped listening too much on what teachers said, but tried to learn by doing.

What I try to say is that listening is overrated. People put too much value in what teachers says. Mr Mizner has some skills and some very good and older practitioners have become his students. And this is what make me believe that he actually has something going on behind the show. If someone wants to understand what he can or cannot do, he needs to pay him a visit. If you want to learn fro him, you need to meet him. I don't like much of the show and entertainment from a lot of teachers, but if you have the possibility to feel someone real skill first hand, I believe that you should take every chance to do this. You don't need to become friends, you don't need to respect someone's marketing methods. You can still feel skill and learn something from it.

If people cared less about the talk, about the flare and the show, they would understand where the skill lies and they would develop faster. But the same goes for the intellectual and verbally precise teachers. Listening to them is not enough. Talk and explanations are still overrated. "Listening" can still hold you back. Only what you can learn by doing and force yourself to do is important. Explanations should be left out of the equation until you understand what you feel and feel what you do.

[origami_itto]

But what Mizner speak about is not any method or how to interact with different forces. He speak more about a "body standard", a standard of being as well as a standard of doing.

I like how Hao Weizhen expresses it: ”If you are able to use intention to attack the opponent [using jin through the focus on Yi and not using dum force], then after long experience, even intention does not need to be applied, for the body standards will always be conformed to.“

It's the same basic idea he's expressing here in "Maintaining Conditions"

[Bao]

It's the same basic idea he's expressing here in "Maintaining Conditions"

More or less so. But he narrows it the conditions down a bit in the OP vid. But "always not using dumb force" is only a part of the puzzle.

However I like the idea. My teacher spoke about something similar but used the word "integrity." At all costs, you should keep your integrity. I agree. It sounds very general and philosophical, but it works very well practically speaking.

I wrote a whole post about it here:
https://taichithoughts.wordpress.com/20 ... integrity/

You can define it in different ways and look at it in different ways as:

"Structural integrity,
Integrity of balance,
Integrity of mind,
and Moral integrity"

But I like to keep it simple. "Maintaining conditions" is a good way to express it. But I like the connotation of "integrity" better.

[Giles]

You can define it in different ways and look at it in different ways as:

"Structural integrity,
Integrity of balance,
Integrity of mind,
and Moral integrity".

Four good integrities to have. It's possible to use the one as a stepping stone to the other. Or maybe as a constant signpost, as an internal resource, because each of these requires a lot more than one step to achieve or even approach.

On the other hand, if I take your list as a kind of progression from one to the other, it's definitely possible to have structural integrity, or even integrity of mind, without moral integrity. As one becomes more experienced, as one gets 'better', a choice presents itself - either conscious or less conscious - to use one's training to continue to work on one's mental and moral attributes, or instead to compartmentalize, to split one level off from the other.
And that's not a question of what you profess, it's a question of what is.

[Bao]

...if I take your list as a kind of progression from one to the other, it's definitely possible to have structural integrity, or even integrity of mind, without moral integrity. As one becomes more experienced, as one gets 'better', a choice presents itself - either conscious or less conscious - to use one's training to continue to work on one's mental and moral attributes, or instead to compartmentalize, to split one level off from the other.
And that's not a question of what you profess, it's a question of what is.

I don't know really. I did split it up in different categories, but I am not sure if either one can be "true" if you don't have it all. My teacher would not have made such a distinction. He believed that integrity is about who you are and about understanding yourself. Keeping integrity is to keep yourself intact and not compromise yourself in any possible way. This teacher of mine would not give an opponent, student or partner even a tiny little chance to do anything. If you adjusted yourself slightly or began to do anything, he would follow and adapt to your slightest little movement. So practically speaking, it means that you must be completely aware of your opponent's distance and angle and not even let him position himself where he has an advantage. Then you are already at risk to compromise your on standard.

[Ozguorui]

In chasing the Esoteric, I have found that the "secrets" are in the Exoteric......

[Rhen]

To bad laws prevent people from attacking adam and the cult of bs tai chi.

[origami_itto]

To bad laws prevent people from attacking adam and the cult of bs tai chi.

For the sake of comparison, what is not bs tai chi?