by Chris McKinley on Wed Nov 23, 2011 7:12 am
[I-mon,
Your post was great, too, and there were the seeds of what could eventually be some really spot-on stuff there. But it's the same case as Bhassler's post. You provide some very generalized good advice for some proprioceptive development (which is, to be fair, a whole lot better than most people's typical advice about zhan zhuang), but really nothing which specifically relates to anything not completely explainable by non-paranormal means. All of what you discuss develops normal sensory perception, in very useful ways, I should add, and I am a big fan of what you are prescribing and would even like to see a separate thread for it. Unfortunately though, there's still no discussion of what will develop extra-sensory perception, which is the topic of the thread. Also as with Brian's post, there's also no discussion of how to contextualize that skill set to the context of combat.]
[Deus,
Your post was even more general and abstract. For context here, you know I'm a big fan of your work and your posts, so if anything, I'm wanting to like it. And I do, in the most general sense, but again, nothing you mention has anything at all to do with extra-sensory perception. You name a few specific goals in that post (i.e., start to open and still the mind, the mind learns to be quiet and open yet aware and focused, try to bring that mindset, the mental feeling, into your solo fighting work, bring it into your two person work, bring the meditative mindset into the 2 man drills and finally into sparring), and all really good ones perhaps in that they are contextualizing goals, but nothing at all about how one might go about doing that, nor how to develop the skills in the first place, nor necessarily even what those skills are.]
Perhaps the bottom line about the thread as a whole is that there's so much rapport based on agreement going on that everybody thinks we're all talking about the same thing, why it's good, and how you get it. But there's no evidence that we actually are. We have yet to even define the skill set in anything close to a specific way and that we can all objectively agree on. So far, what limited discussion there has been about methodology has all been about entirely normal sensory perception....nothing "extra-" about any of it. And so far, absolutely no one has offered even a hint of methodology regarding how we might go about contextualizing any of it to the duress of actual combat. Now all that's okay if we are limiting the thread to being a general advocacy piece....sort of a "this ESP stuff is neat, you should check it out!" kinda thing. But if we're purporting to discuss its role in and development for the context of real combat, then at some point in the discussion it needs to be defined as to what it even is so we're not all talking about a dozen different things (which we very well may be so far), a framework needs to be laid out in specific empirical terms for obtaining it (which requires no prior belief), and a method needs to be described for the contextualizing of that newly developed skill set into the context of combat (which includes extreme physiological duress that can never be fully nor permanently removed from the equation).