Ki, Kokyu, and Attitudes

[Ron Tisdale]

So why can't you just say

"I win"

and go? You don't buy what he's selling. Fine. Let others discuss. We now know how you feel.

insult and invictive---things that you are now doing as well.

And where do I do this??? The use of the word whine is not an insult.

Best,
Ron

[cxt]

Ron

Like I said, I wish to have a discussion that is based somewhat in reality.

I don't feel that groundless, unsupported, illogical conjucture advances discussions concerning topics like "ki" and "kokyo."

Too much "dragon ball Z" taint about such talk already.

And allowing things to slip into the realm of "cause I say so" only HURTS it further.

If your honestly interested in having an honest discusion, then you should be doing EVERYTHING you can keep things on the "up and up" so to speak.

You should have no more tolerence for sloppy logic and poor reasoning than I do.

If there is "simple physics" that explain "ki" etc then you should be ASKING to see it----just like I am.

Oh, and I am pretty sure that catagorizing peoples posts as "whining" is in point of fact meant to be an insult.
If it was not--you would not be using a descriptive with a negative meaning now would you.


Chris Thomas

[Mark Murray]

Okay, I'm not the moderator for this forum, but I *am* asking for a short time-out on the back and forth postings. (On-topic posts are fine.)

Chris, PM the moderator and take your issues up with him.

Mike, I think at least one of Chris's questions was valid in this thread. Your defining of ki/kokyu. You mention it in reference to Japanese martial arts in your first post. It'd be nice to read about your definition of those words.

Thanks,
Mark

[Ron Tisdale]

To treat with gross insensitivity, insolence, or contemptuous rudeness. See Synonyms at offend.
To affront or demean: an absurd speech that insulted the intelligence of the audience.
Obsolete. To make an attack on.

I have not done this. whatever, flame on...
Best,
Ron

[cxt]

Ron

And as the person that you address the comment to--I feel that mis-charcterizing my direct questions as "whining" to be both "contemptous" and "rude."

Nice that you ignore 95% of my post in order to argue definations

Directly on topic AGAIN.

I simply wish to have the "simple physics" that explain "ki" to be posted.

As should you!!!!!

I also would like to have my questions concerning Ueshiba, the "death penalty" for teaching outsiders, etc answered.

If Ueshiba was able to learn the skills in China than clearly people were not frightened of a "death penalty" NOT to treach them.
And if they would do so then--then why not at other times??

It also begs the question as to where/how Takeda developed HIS skills--which were at the very least the equal of Ueshiba's--and Takeda did not go to China to learn them.
Yet its been suggested that the Japanese/Okinwans ie outsiders, did NOT learn them.

Which either way you cut means that that posit is seriously flawed.

It also begs the questions as to why Ueshiba did not pass the skills onto his own son, or the people that trained with him for decades, or anyone else.

But folks like Mike claim to have learned them.

Lots of serious questions here,

No answers.

And if your serious about having a discussion on this topic--you should be standing over here with me, asking that these questions to be answered.



Chris Thomas

[mikesigman@eart]

In a lot of ways, Ron, I see Chris' attitude to be part of what I was talking about at the inception-post of the thread. Despite previously trying to assert that he knew and used some of these things, he's in a bad situation. He can't very easily lay out a basic part of the discussion and have a viable dialogue because he pretty obviously is lost. So he resorts to an offensive approach and this is pretty much what I said happens.

Now, not everyone is ignorant. But some of us are more ignorant than others and nobody knows it all (well, I have seen a few people that maybe know almost all of it). Some other poster could probably easily lay out a scenario of "moving from the center", even if Chris can't, so there is no implication that "everyone is ignorant", as Chris is trying to imply.

But let's take the kokyu/jin issue in the martial context and see what happens in the discussion. I'll try to lay out the start in order to indicate that this can be dealt with using physics, kinesiology, etc., but the point in starting the thread was that I wanted to have "attitude" measured in relation to the discussion. And let's carefully watch that part, particularly from people who represent themselves as "teachers" in these arts that should contain elements of ki and kokyu-power.

The kokyu/jin skills are the easiest to explain, but the hardest to do at goodly skill levels. It's like stretching a string between 2 nails and plucking it. Technically, you could say that you have "made music". But then look at the person who plays nouveau-flamenco guitar and realize that he too is "only plucking strings".... yet the difference between the 2 examples is huge. Same with kokyu/jin skill. You can "move something with your dantien", for instance a table, by just walking up to it, putting your belt-buckle agains the edge of the table, and then moving forward. Or you can learn to take the arm of uke and push him forward in "ikkyo" using the legs walking the body forward and say you "use moving from the hara all the time". However, Kokyu/jin skills go way up in sophistication. There are usages in the store-and-release of great sudden-power, the ability to stand still and yet manipulate moving vector-directions of force, and so on... and all of these can legitimately be compared to moving that table with your belt buckle, just as the guitar-player is technically doing the same thing as the guy who plucked the string stretched between two nails.

So having said that, what differentiates the use of kokyu/jin power from normal movement? The most comprehensive explanation, in my opinion (well, it's used by a lot of Chinese, too, TBH), is that you're sourcing your force from the lower-body/ground or from your weight.

As an example, consider holding a liter-bottle of water in both hands, out comfortably in front of your chest. Most people use their frame as some sort of "tower" and the shoulders/arms work off of that tower to hold the bottle. In a kokyu/jin description, the actual originating force comes from the ground so that the vector resultants take pretty much the shortest distance from the ground to the waist to the bottle and the shoulder/arms and torso do no more that convey or "transmit" that artificially-directed force origin. I.e., the bottle could be pictured (in the kokyu/jin example) as sitting at the apex of a triangle that has a base between the two feet, the sides go from each foot to the corresponding side of the pelvis/midsection/hara and then the sides bent out to and meet at the hands holding the bottle.

Moving the bottle in a small up-down, side-to-side circle involves adjusting the forces from the ground by manipulating the legs and the waist. That is what "moving from the center" means, in using a very simple example. It can get quite complicated.

The problem is that to convince your mind to begin accepting this new usage of force origins so that it becomes automatic takes a deliberate re-training of the body over a long period of time (and BTW, that's why a Taiji form is done so slowly at first). Someone who plays arbitrarily with a few coarse examples of "using the center" is not really even in the game. A person who moves honestly using the center a few minutes a week and then the rest of the week uses normal motion will never re-train the mind and body to accept the new form of motion (which is the major reason why weight-training, etc., is discouraged for beginners). It's easy to feel (if you have the experience)even in someone's handshake whether they have acquired this different skill of movement... so the "I already do that" people often unknowingly make themselves the butt of sideways glances in some martial arts circles.

Kokyu/jin is said to be the physical manifestation of ki/qi, so this discussion can get unbelievably complex. But this simple example should be a start for the discussion of whether these things are really missing in most western versions of Asians martial arts.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

[mikesigman@eart]

Oh, and just to use my very basic example above.... why bother to do things this way, Chris has asked in the past. Just to give ONE reason why: if you use the mind to arrange the force-carrying paths so that the solidity of the ground is simply conveyed through the bones (and the resultant vectors, sometimes), then the ground can "hold" things rather than your having to use your other musculature to initiate power/forces to hold something. So what happens is that manipulating this kind of forces for your power, instead of needing strong arms, etc., can make a relatively small person quite strong, once he has conditioned his body to "carry" the power of the ground (or weight), rather than "initiate" power to oppose forces.

FWIW


Mike

[Mark Murray]

I simply wish to have the "simple physics" that explain "ki" to be posted.

Done. If you'd like to share your views, that'd be fine, too.

I also would like to have my questions concerning Ueshiba, the "death penalty" for teaching outsiders, etc answered.

If Ueshiba was able to learn the skills in China than clearly people were not frightened of a "death penalty" NOT to treach them.
And if they would do so then--then why not at other times??

The way I read Mike's statement is in no way how you took it. And I've also heard that "at times in Chinese history", it was forbidden to share those skills. China's big and has a long history. If you can refute that claim for all of China's history, I'd like to hear about it. Besides the fact that Mike did say this, "My late realization about these skills was because I had the unfortunate preconception that the "internal strength" skills were so closely guarded by the Chinese ..."

Note "unfortunate preconception". I'm not sure where you take that Mike was signifying that it was written in stone and immutable.

It also begs the question as to where/how Takeda developed HIS skills--which were at the very least the equal of Ueshiba's--and Takeda did not go to China to learn them.
Yet its been suggested that the Japanese/Okinwans ie outsiders, did NOT learn them.

Which either way you cut means that that posit is seriously flawed.

It also begs the questions as to why Ueshiba did not pass the skills onto his own son, or the people that trained with him for decades, or anyone else.

Off topic. If you want to talk about those issues, open a new thread for them. Or do a search to see if they've been talked about before.

[cxt]

Mike

Then PLEASE HELP me.

Please post the "simple physics" that explain "ki" you claim to have.

And PLEASE address the various holes, errors, and unsupported conjecture in your posts concerning the "death penalty" for treaching outsiders, the conjucture concerning Ueshiba etc.

You have taken the time to post A LOT of stuff that fails to adress either question.

All I am doing is asking for your help.

If you can't or won't answer the questions for the "debate" you also claim to want to have.

Then answer them to help those of us that are asking for the information.

A "simple physics" that would explain "ki" would be solid gold to people.

Why on earth would you claim that such "simple physics" exsist--yet can't or won't provide it?????????

Or did I just answer my own question?


Chris Thomas

[kimiwane]

ki/kokyu (same as qi/jin, in this usage)

Mmmmm. Nope.

ki/qi are equivalent, but jin/kokyu are not.

Kokyu is an organization of mind, body and ki with the breath. It is NOT an "issued" power.

Once you have kokyu, yes, you can issue jin, but kokyu is NOT a "power". It's just an integration. Once you have it, you can channel power through the organized body, but kokyu, itself, is just a specific organization of self.

[cxt]

Murry

Actually they ARE VERY MUCH ON TOPIC--they were brought up by Mike himself on his post on THIS topic on page 1.
All go directly to the conjuctures that Mike raised.
He wants to argue when and how and where Ueshiba learned what he knew--then he has to consider all the other people/locations etc.

(If Mike does not wish to deal with "other" explainations for his baseless conjucture--then he should not have introduced them in the first place.)

Plus if he wishes to establish China as where Ueishba learned the "secrets" then Mike himself must explain where Takeda learned them.

See, Mike sets up China as where Ueshiba got his power--yet Takeda, Ueshiba's main teacher did not go there--and he had the same abilties.
Thus the most logical explanation is China NOT being needed at all.

And in answer to your question-

Because if the "death penalty" was "sometimes" in force and "sometimes" not then that there was "penalty" at all is irrelevnt to the conjucture that the Chinese did not teach the Japanese/Okinwans.
Maybe they just taught them during one of the "sometimes not."
Or maybe some folks just were not scared.
Stright Occams Razor answer to the conjucture.

In any case I have yet to read any proof that that a formal or informal "death penalty" even existed for teaching outsiders.

One that applies to ALL chinese of all styles in all locations.

Or any proof that NO-ONE in the WHOLE of China, througout all of its 1000's of years of history, would ever break that rule.
Not a single monk, all pissed that the gov burned down his temple and murdered his fellow monks would EVER even consider teaching outsiders?
Not one single displaced gov offical fleeing from the Mongols or the Manchu would teach outsiders to maybe fight his bitter enemies??

I mean come on.



Chris Thomas

[M. McPherson]

And if your serious about having a discussion on this topic--you should be standing over here with me, asking that these questions to be answered.

Mr. Thomas,

Are you suggesting that serious discussion on this board (well, anywhere for that matter), and one's participation therein, is dependent upon agreement with your perspective, or challenging assertions in a way that you see fit? I'm fairly certain you didn't mean to suggest that. However, the vitriol of your responses (okay, and the wording of the above quote) has me wondering.
So much for a free and civil exchange of ideas, if so.
I have no horse in this race, but consider this a plea from the peanut gallery: if Mike Sigman's perspective, and his challenges to orthodoxy (suggested, overt, however you want to look at them) incense you so, then why not meet with him and see what works or doesn't? Because you seem to be spending an inordinate amount of energy challenging him on this board. I'll echo Ron's question and sentiment and ask, why should you care? None of this is going to be resolved over the internet, nor through the written word. Mike Sigman has given seminars on this, and will probably do so again, so why not attend one? If he's full of it, you'll actually know, and can report here in due fashion. Maybe he'll teach you something, or maybe you'll teach him something. Maybe, as seems to be the case when dueling internet folks meet, you'll realize that, in person, you're not such bad guys, and end up having a beer together.
I'm just dropping in my own two cents because this subject interests me greatly, and I'm getting tired of the incessant noise, the ad hominems and their heated responses that get interjected when people feel like their faith is being challenged. Hop in your car, get on a plane, in a bus, whatever, and feel this (or not) for yourself. Lots of people here go *great* distances for practice and seminars - consider it that, or at least an interesting opportunity. But until that laying on of hands, why bother?
I see that Mr. Sigman has provided not one, but two posts that elucidate (yet again) what he is talking about. I'd like to hope that we can take that as a neutral starting point for discussion, and leave the friction elsewhere.

[mikesigman@eart]

Mmmmm. Nope.

ki/qi are equivalent, but jin/kokyu are not.

Kokyu is an organization of mind, body and ki with the breath. It is NOT an "issued" power.

Once you have kokyu, yes, you can issue jin, but kokyu is NOT a "power". It's just an integration. Once you have it, you can channel power through the organized body, but kokyu, itself, is just a specific organization of self.

So, David.... I laid out the physics for you. In another thread I gave you a direct example of a Japanese Aikido sensei using "kokyu" just as I described it. I say he trumps you and your faith in Feldenkrais as an active part of what kokyu is. If you want to debate me, do it with something other than your simple assertions.

I'll have to see if I can go re-find it in a quick search, but even on AikiWeb I believe someone mentioned that a well-known sensei said that kokyu was the manifestation of ki. Other places list kokyu as "ki power".

But why don't you explain why the Japanese sensei demonstrated heavy body power and called it "kokyu"? Either go to the physics and reproducible results or come up with something besides your simple assertions.

And by the way, you have attempted to imply you already knew these things... now's the chance to show that you have something other than attitude. The foundations are laid out in my posted example of a *simple* kokyu example.

Mike Sigman

[Ron Tisdale]

It also seems to help in absorbing a stronger person's power, right? I find that often in aikido at least, I'm in a position where to do a technique, if I can't absorb or even 're-route' my partner's power, and if they are stronger than I am, I can't really do the technique consistantly.

Best,
Ron

[mikesigman@eart]

It also seems to help in absorbing a stronger person's power, right? I find that often in aikido at least, I'm in a position where to do a technique, if I can't absorb or even 're-route' my partner's power, and if they are stronger than I am, I can't really do the technique consistantly.

Hi Ron:

Sure. A force-path (which is really what "jin" means in its best martially-related definition) can work either way. To absorb an incoming force or to be the path where you "extend the ground outward like a telescoping tube" in a hit, push, etc. If you can just relax and let the leg (preferably the back leg, but NOT in the formation where it's simply acting as a brace out behind you) accept 100% responsibilty for taking someone's push, etc., you will find that it's not long before you become very difficult for people to move.

FWIW

Mike