is tai chi chuan a reactionary art?

[bruce]

the websters dictionary is normally a good source right lol ...

is other words ...

i feel that in keeping with tai chi chuan principals you must only act in response to what the other person is offering you.
i.e if there is not attack/danger there is no need to do anything but if there is how you respond is important as you said up there leading is not forcing.

[bailewen]

Webster's is not wrong. It's just not very complete.

There's nuances and connotations not referenced. Just look up "reactionary" and "responsive" in Wikipedia and you'll see part of what I'm getting at. "Reactionary" has mostly political info. "Responsive" is mostly biological but none of that is relevant to the distinction I was trying to make. As I googled around a bit looking for something relevant I noticed that some people connect "reaction" to "reflex" but "responsive" has a more complex decision making process present. There is "mind" present.

In business, "reactive" is a passive state. It's defensive but "responsive" means that you are quickly adapting to market conditions. In fighting, you never want to be on the defensive. You want to be adapting to your opponent. It's neither offensive nor defensive. The idea of responsiveness and "she ji cong ren" is a different paradigm from the idea of "offense" vs. "defense". You do neither. You match you opponent. In this way it is the same as Aikido. You have to "join" with his movements.

I am trying to tease out the idea that if you are "reacting" (for lack of a more precise term), it implies that the other guy is calling the shots. "Responding" (again, for lack of a more precise term) implies a very different kind of a relationship.

[Wanderingdragon]

All fighting is reactionary, if you are the aggressor you still must react to reaction, Tai Chi has the aura of being passive , and only reacting to aggression which is simply the philosophy of the Art .

[bruce]

Webster's is not wrong. It's just not very complete.

There's nuances and connotations not referenced. Just look up "reactionary" and "responsive" in Wikipedia and you'll see part of what I'm getting at. "Reactionary" has mostly political info. "Responsive" is mostly biological but none of that is relevant to the distinction I was trying to make. As I googled around a bit looking for something relevant I noticed that some people connect "reaction" to "reflex" but "responsive" has a more complex decision making process present. There is "mind" present.

In business, "reactive" is a passive state. It's defensive but "responsive" means that you are quickly adapting to market conditions. In fighting, you never want to be on the defensive. You want to be adapting to your opponent. It's neither offensive nor defensive. The idea of responsiveness and "she ji cong ren" is a different paradigm from the idea of "offense" vs. "defense". You do neither. You match you opponent. In this way it is the same as Aikido. You have to "join" with his movements.

I am trying to tease out the idea that if you are "reacting" (for lack of a more precise term), it implies that the other guy is calling the shots. "Responding" (again, for lack of a more precise term) implies a very different kind of a relationship.

responsive might be a better word for what i am getting at ... i see what you are saying ...