Internal Martial Arts

**Omar** · Posted On: 2/08/2007 10:55am

It's only as much a problem as you make it.

You raised 4 "problems".

1. vague
2. metaphorical
3. undefined
4. non-rational

I argue that:

1. They are not vague at all when demonstrated. The exact same ideas, other than the concept of "qi" is pretty much clearly addressed by any coach or training worth his salt in every country in the world.

2. Metaphore is an essential teaching tool in all fields, athletic or not. I challenge you to find ANY professional coach or trainer who does not rely on metaphor to either teach or to confirm understanding. Many communications experts believe the ablility to express a thing in metaphore is one of the surest confirmations of true grasp of the subject.

3. I have defined the terms very clearly on this thread. This is also not much of an issue if you actually speak the language.....which I do.

4. Violence is not generally a rational activity. In fact, I can make a pretty strong argument that the urge to train unarmed H2H is not rational right from the get go. Ignoring that point for a moment I can further argue that people are not rational. Some are more rational than others but the human psyche has a STRONG non-rational component and with the two exception of vulcans and androids, a non-rational approach is an extremely powerful approach in many cases. The unwillingness to explore non-rational approaches is a tremendous handicap in MANY endevours.

**Tomas Drgon** · Posted On: 2/08/2007 11:29am

Originally Posted by Omar

1. They are not vague at all when demonstrated. The exact same ideas, other than the concept of "qi" is pretty much clearly addressed by any coach or training worth his salt in every country in the world.

2. Metaphore is an essential teaching tool in all fields, athletic or not. I challenge you to find ANY professional coach or trainer who does not rely on metaphor to either teach or to confirm understanding. Many communications experts believe the ablility to express a thing in metaphore is one of the surest confirmations of true grasp of the subject.

3. I have defined the terms very clearly on this thread. This is also not much of an issue if you actually speak the language.....which I do.

4. Violence is not generally a rational activity. In fact, I can make a pretty strong argument that the urge to train unarmed H2H is not rational right from the get go. Ignoring that point for a moment I can further argue that people are not rational. Some are more rational than others but the human psyche has a STRONG non-rational component and with the two exception of vulcans and androids, a non-rational approach is an extremely powerful approach in many cases. The unwillingness to explore non-rational approaches is a tremendous handicap in MANY endevours.

1. in my experience, when demonstrated, the skill boils down to something that can be easily explained without using metaphors and without the need to understand a particular language (Chinse). As if the methaphors were there to cloud things.

2. dtto

3. dtto

4. this is not about violence but about training a skill set and the best ways to achieve progress in raining. A very rational endeavor.

Tomas

**DAYoung** · Posted On: 2/08/2007 3:42pm

Originally Posted by Tomas Drgon

You may as well argue whether Jackson Pollock was a good painter or a bad painter.

Pollock was a good painter, because his artworks afford good aesthetic experiences (to those able to appreciate their artistic value). However, his works do not possess as much artistic value as those of Matisse or Picasso, whose works offer significantly more rewarding experiences.

**Bang!** · Posted On: 2/08/2007 5:00pm

Those who appreciate Jackson Pollock less do so only because they lack the sufficient internal structure.

**DAYoung** · Posted On: 2/08/2007 5:03pm

Originally Posted by Repulsive Monkey

Those who appreciate Jackson Pollock less do so only because they lack the sufficient internal structure.

Exactly. Aesthetic experience means oceanic chi.

**Omar** · Posted On: 2/08/2007 7:04pm

Originally Posted by Tomas Drgon

1. in my experience, when demonstrated, the skill boils down to something that can be easily explained without using metaphors and without the need to understand a particular language (Chinse). As if the methaphors were there to cloud things.

2. dtto

3. dtto

This is really a critique of an individuals teaching ability more than a critique of the concepts themselves. I haven't actually claimed any particular fluency in Chinese was needed. "Qi" is the only relevant term that is alien to western speakers and that can be worked around. A good teacher should not alienate his students. As a teacher, refusing to use metaphore would be crippling and stupid. The problem is not metaphore or abstraction. It is simply the specific choice of metaphore is something that doesn't work for you. A good metaphore does not cloud things. It illuminates. For instance:

"How can you be expected to learn to fight without sparring. To learn to swim you need to get in the water. Doing forms is just going through the motions of swimming without ever getting wet."

That's a metaphore. So is the playing chess thing in the aliveness video everyone around here loves so much. The whole point of a metaphore is to help you understand something difficult by relating it to something familiar. That's really nothing to do with any of the ideas presented in "internal" martial arts. Your complaint is about poor teaching.

4. this is not about violence but about training a skill set and the best ways to achieve progress in raining. A very rational endeavor.

Tomas

The process is not as rational as you think. MUCH learning is not rational. Make sure you are not confusing IRrational with NONrational or illogical. I was careful to call it a largely NON-rational endeavor. No time to elaborate this morning. Maybe when I get back later.

**Phrost** · Posted On: 2/08/2007 7:16pm

That's a metaphore. So is the playing chess thing in the aliveness video everyone around here loves so much. The whole point of a metaphore is to help you understand something difficult by relating it to something familiar. That's really nothing to do with any of the ideas presented in "internal" martial arts. Your complaint is about poor teaching.

Aside from Much Love and Cullion's schools, how many IMA schools spar full contact? I'm not talking about push hands either.

**Bang!** · Posted On: 2/08/2007 8:13pm

Originally Posted by Phrost

Aside from Much Love and Cullion's schools, how many IMA schools spar full contact? I'm not talking about push hands either.

I've been pondering all this stuff for the past few days and have come to the conclusion that there is a fundamental dichotomy in CMA: Teachers who were actually trained properly and kept their **** going and people who basically decided to start their own schools and dress any weak points in vaguely-worded fancy pants. Yes, I'm sure that there are a lot of little variations and permutations within, but that's the bulk of it.

I sort of sound like a lineage bitch, but I would hazzard a guess that 95% of people who can do something came from a lineage of people who could do something.

My school focusses on stand-up grappling, so we don't do a ton of "full-contact" striking, but we do train regularly with full resistance. One of our sister schools in London (Brit IMA schools seem to be better about this stuff than their North American counterparts) also has a very competitive san shou team. I know of another IMA school in Toronto (just outside, actually) that has sent students to fight san shou in China. I'm sure there are more around that I'm not familiar with.

This stuff isn't actually unusual. It's just that the small number of "legit" IMA schools gets drowned out by the huge number of form fairies and silly willies.

Fun footnote. A couple of our guys recently came back from a competition in Hong Kong (just forms). Somebody came on stage to demonstrate no-touch chi miracles and one of the audience members heckled them by shouting out "This is bullshit!" over and over again.

**Mr. Mantis** · Posted On: 2/08/2007 8:28pm

Originally Posted by Repulsive Monkey

Fun footnote. A couple of our guys recently came back from a competition in Hong Kong (just forms). Somebody came on stage to demonstrate no-touch chi miracles and one of the audience members heckled them by shouting out "This is bullshit!" over and over again.

Dude, get the video of that ****! You gotta be able to track it down. You know they tape everything.

**Teh El Macho** · Posted On: 2/08/2007 8:39pm

Ok dudes. I'm going to have ask you this question. Can you please list what are the main external and internal martials? I keep fucking racking my head trying to follow up this converstation.

So far I can finally understand Tai Chi is internal, but what about Bagua, Hung Gar, Choy Lay Fut, WC, 5 Animals, S/N Mantis? Sorry for the derail, but I'm sure this will answer questions for many (and since as far as my search-fu is concerned, hasn't been answered before.)

Thanks - El Mucho Macho.