windwalker wrote:General comments.
Many people freely talk about high level concepts of the arts they say they practice...
and then go on to mock others showing/demoing what they talk about but never manage to show....
People ask for explanations as here claiming they've emptied their own cup, and then start with "What else is there"
one might first understand what they say they practice, the theory that they write about which it's based on...already outlines "what else is there"
dropping what one knows..
Many threads on Adam Minzer, suggesting what he demos is quite easy to do, "basic" or by others even fraudulent....
Only a few, say they have visited him,,,notice they tend not say much....Why would they....
As the question itself..."Show me".
Doesn't work like that....If one has an interest they should seek out the more public teachers they have commercial public programs
For those teachers some call traditional one might have to show them that they'er worth teaching....
for the more privet ones, might not even be something they'ed be interested in doing...
The "show me " thing
funny
Even doing this....Some might feel they have some basic skill already developed....The teacher may not think so...
What then ?
Had a couple of decades of taiji experience before meeting my last teacher. Quite by accident...
He had what I felt taiji should be like,,,,It would be another 10yrs of training with him and his group just to gain an understanding
working on basic skills...
Another 10yrs to come my own understanding and maybe some small skill sets..
can you actually do it?
I think anyone who practices taiji, should be able to "do it" or understand the how/what and why / it's done according to their level and ability
Adam Minzer can "do it"
He is quite public and seems to be quite available with many programs, helping others to understand his work...
Well I don't like to speak vaguely and beat around the bush. I don't like to speculate about what I can't confirm or reproduce. I take the tools that I have, see what they can do, and look for more tools.
So let's talk about Chi and physics for a second.
First, Newton's Laws:
https://www.britannica.com/science/Newt ... -of-motion1. A body at rest or moving at a constant speed will continue to do so until acted on by a force
2. The force is equal to the mass of the body and the acceleration (defined as a change in speed, not just going faster)
3. When two bodies interact, they exert an equal and opposite force against each other.
Can we all agree that this is the way the universe works and that no matter how much Qi we think we're moving around, our Taijiquan does not defy this set of laws? If you disagree with this point, then we need to have a serious talk about it before we move on.
As always I DO NOT think I'm that great at Taijiquan, I DO NOT think I've "got it" if I did I'd either be running a full time school or retired from the community with nothing to gain but sullying my art with inferior influence.
So now that I've established that, how about you break it down?
Here's my understanding.
Two free-floating fully inflated balloons bump into each other, they will both bounce away.
If you throw a balloon against a balloon taped to the wall, one will stay and the other will bounce away.
This is a direct illustration of the three laws of motion.
In the first case, the bodies interact, they exert equal force, and their momentum changes.
In the second case, the bodies interact, they exert equal force, but it is all directed back into the free floating balloon.
Or a brick wall, if you run into a brick wall headfirst, you will likely stop dead in your tracks. The wall will exert force equal to your mass and acceleration, aka the change in speed from charging ahead to a dead stop.
Now the wall doesn't think about the force, it doesn't DO anything to exert it, by virtue of it's mass and structure it is just passing the force through to the ground and back out at you again.
Quite simply, there is no acceleration without force, the only question is how is the force being generated and directed.
Now it may not be "about" force, and when we say force or read it in the classics we don't always mean the same thing we do when discussing it from a physics perspective. Just like "theory" it's a word that gets imprecise outside of academia.
So, force.
We're admonished not to use force
against force.
If someone strong is pushing directly against us, we don't push directly against the line of their force. They could be stronger, it is hard on our body and may cause injury. It puts more energy into the system which makes it more difficult to control.
We're told that 4 oz can deflect 1000 lbs.
I mean, kind of, the measurements are a bit off, aren't they? But what I've understood that to mean is that, if someone strong is pushing directly against us, they have a strong line of force. If I let them connect, then yield slightly and turn, I can potentially throw them out or make them fall. That works. There's also just adding to their push and changing direction.
Now here's the thing, though. If I don't have something with at least 4 oz of support to back me, I can't even apply that 4 oz. I usually understand that support to be the earth through whatever interface I have with it at the moment. In a grappling or throwing context it could be your opponent's body. It zero gravity it could be a wall.
The movements are directed by the thought within, not the force without, or something like that. This is all off the top of my head over morning coffee so pardon me if my quotes are imprecise. This is basically my working knowledge so it's what counts anyhow, right?
That's about Li. It doesn't mean we're not using force, because, again, there is movement, there is acceleration, therefore, force is present.
That doesn't mean we're using dumb force, Li. Which I essentially understand as direct application of muscular force.
I understand this more as we're cultivating a different way of engaging the body. There are studies regarding the effects of intention on grasp, perhaps the most sophisticated science we have regarding kinesiology unfortunately. We're essentially applying this change in intentionality and perspective to the entire body. It has nothing to do with hands and the entire body is a hand.
So with the mind aspect, what I personally work on is eliminating unnecessary muscular tension, changing the way I engage and address my body to be more in line with the Kohnstamm phenomenon, and feeling the energy flow through my body, learning to direct and channel that with as little interference as possible and as little noise from my own engine as possible. This serves my purposes in many ways.
But this is the way energy flows through a structure, not electricity through an extension cord. Again, I'm not completely closed to the idea that we're emitting invisible energy and it can make for a useful model to achieve this change in intentionality, but it seems highly improbable from a physiological standpoint.
But we must recognize that there is no movement without some muscular action of some sort. That's just the way human bodies work. Even movement in stillness requires internal change to be dynamic and effective.
By. All. Means. Prove. Me. Wrong. Please.
Among other things, of course. It's a many faceted jewel. That's part of why these discussions get so stupid is because we're talking about different things with the same words and leaving too many things unsaid and assumed.
And let's face it, an air of mystery and laying out enticing breadcrumbs serves the brand and our ego, but does it truly serve the art we claim to love who's slow death due to committed teachers and students?
As far as mind control, I'm not a denier, but I haven't seen firm evidence either. People are just so weak and scattered generally it doesn't seem much more of a stretch. I see it more of a Shen issue than a Yi or QI control, but that's just me...