Hi Louis,
Thanks for your contribution.
While I do have my own view on things I do not read Chinese and you are a reliable and generous source to some interesting material.
Until this thread I had never had access to YZJ's views.
I do find some contradictions in your views.
EG.that yes you say leading from the upper torso involves a different principle, but then as long as it moves the waist, since it then involves the waist, it is in accord with the classics.
But, in more carefull re-reading of the first excerpt at the top of page, I find that YZJ himself notes that the upper torso turnings depart from the general principle, that they are "different". But,since these turnings are a part of the traditional form, they have to be accounted for.
Many generalizations have exceptions, no problem.
In your second excerpt YZJ talks about roll back and just about the waist
Re waist turning:
"If excessive it will produce tension in the waist, and an attendant feeling of obstruction (bieqi, lit., ‘choking the qi’).
Upper torso turning will choke more qi than lower torso turning.
And here we are back to what I was concerned about.
If he finds tension in the waist it may be due to upper torso rotation.
If the waist is turned solely from the hip joint within the proper range of movement there in NO tension.
The whole torso is relaxed, everything in its restful place, no muscles tensed. All the work is done by the hip joint muscles, the hip rotators.
If he means not to exceed the proper range of movement for the hip joint that would be very basic.
But, what may be involved are the way the arms are moved, swung by some. This would be in keeping with his favorite saying. And it could be those swinging arms that are causing upper body rotation.
This leads to the matter of how the arms are moved. Mine don't swing across the body in a horizontal plane, but turn in vertical circles. Doing that involves no torque to the upper body.
The way I do the Tai Chi movements now, I no longer do forms, I only move the whole torso from the hip joints, and ,of course, my arms turn like wheels, or as if turning wheels.
If someone who didn't know what I was doing would see me, they might think that I was trying to fly when those arms are moving like wings of some old bird.
Too old to play with balls.
Not to leave out that I move my feet according to circumstance.
Take care,
Ron
[This message has been edited by RonKreshmar (edited 05-14-2003).]
[This message has been edited by RonKreshmar (edited 05-14-2003).]
Single weightedness?
-
Louis Swaim
- Posts: 1390
- Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 7:01 am
- Location: Oakland, CA
Hi Ron,
You wrote: “I was suggesting that re the classics when it comes to chosing what they mean that in making those choices some knowledge of anatomy, kinesiology, and yes, even, proprioceptive kinesthesis would be relevant.”
I for one embrace your suggestion. I firmly endorse testing, questioning, and doubting any sort of authority, including classical taiji teachings. My first taijiquan sifu used to say, “I am my own test tube.” This was his way of bringing scientific method right into his immediate interface with life, and he constantly encouraged this experimental approach in his students. I also recall him telling a story about an elderly friend he would visit in Hong Kong, who used to ask him at each visit to please perform some quan because she just loved to watch. One day she got very serious, and told him to always be especially careful not to injure himself in any way. She said the human body is like fine porcelain, and once a crack has appeared, it will never disappear. He told us this made a profound impression on him, and said we should learn our limitations and to always protect our bodies from injury.
I’ve always practiced with that in mind. The taiji classics, I found, endorse that approach too. “Without excess, without insufficiency.”
I look forward to more discussions!
Take care,
Louis
You wrote: “I was suggesting that re the classics when it comes to chosing what they mean that in making those choices some knowledge of anatomy, kinesiology, and yes, even, proprioceptive kinesthesis would be relevant.”
I for one embrace your suggestion. I firmly endorse testing, questioning, and doubting any sort of authority, including classical taiji teachings. My first taijiquan sifu used to say, “I am my own test tube.” This was his way of bringing scientific method right into his immediate interface with life, and he constantly encouraged this experimental approach in his students. I also recall him telling a story about an elderly friend he would visit in Hong Kong, who used to ask him at each visit to please perform some quan because she just loved to watch. One day she got very serious, and told him to always be especially careful not to injure himself in any way. She said the human body is like fine porcelain, and once a crack has appeared, it will never disappear. He told us this made a profound impression on him, and said we should learn our limitations and to always protect our bodies from injury.
I’ve always practiced with that in mind. The taiji classics, I found, endorse that approach too. “Without excess, without insufficiency.”
I look forward to more discussions!
Take care,
Louis
-
Louis Swaim
- Posts: 1390
- Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 7:01 am
- Location: Oakland, CA
Greetings Ron,
One further (admittedly impressionistic) observation I would make about some approaches to kinesiological study is a tendency to follow the traditional Western medical approach to anatomical study. By that I mean that anatomical forms are studied by means of the ‘form and function’ model, through which muscles and joints are viewed in relative isolation. This muscle’s function is X, that joint’s function is Y, etc. It’s far from a holistic approach, and I think that it would benefit from the movement insights from arts like taijiquan, which view muscles and joints more as integrated systems.
As you know, I like to try to ferret out the conceptual metaphors with which we think, and my sense is that by and large, Western science tends to conceive of the physical world (and often, in point of fact, psychological processes) using metaphors grounded in machines and mechanical models. The very notion of “structure” as applied to organic forms, for example, is packed with metaphorical baggage. Not only is “structure” an entailment of “construction,” that is, something built with tools, but it is also rooted in pre-medieval teleological assumptions about design in nature. The word “function” at least in its entailment of “purpose,” shares these teleological overtones. Taiji knowledge has its array of metaphors, but we would do well to recognize that scientific disciplines have their own array of (unconscious) metaphors that flavor our understandings and actions.
One of the more egregious applications of the “mechanical” flavor of kinesiological knowledge, in my opinion, is weight training (not to mention it’s more extreme counterpart, ‘body building’ (construction metaphor!). I’m not saying that weight training doesn’t have therapeutic and remedial value, but I think as a whole it reflects some mistaken assumptions about muscle and joint systems. On one level it is useful to apply analogies of hinges, ball joints, pulleys, levers, etc., to muscles and joints. But the body is not a machine, and this approach can miss the forest for the trees. The approach of doing isolated weight routines—this exercise to “strengthen” muscle group A; another exercise to enlarge muscle group B—may remedy some weakness, or help to heal or prevent joint and tendon injuries. But the prescribed exercises are essentially mechanical, using mechanical equipment that requires using muscles in essentially mechanical trajectories and planes. Not only are those mechanical movements not necessarily in accordance with natural organic movement, but by training muscles in isolation one gains little in the way of balanced and coordinated use of muscles and joints in progressive, unified movement. One can spend hours and years “sculpting” (another fun-packed metaphor) one’s body through weight training and never learn to move gracefully and efficiently on this earth.
Take care,
Louis
One further (admittedly impressionistic) observation I would make about some approaches to kinesiological study is a tendency to follow the traditional Western medical approach to anatomical study. By that I mean that anatomical forms are studied by means of the ‘form and function’ model, through which muscles and joints are viewed in relative isolation. This muscle’s function is X, that joint’s function is Y, etc. It’s far from a holistic approach, and I think that it would benefit from the movement insights from arts like taijiquan, which view muscles and joints more as integrated systems.
As you know, I like to try to ferret out the conceptual metaphors with which we think, and my sense is that by and large, Western science tends to conceive of the physical world (and often, in point of fact, psychological processes) using metaphors grounded in machines and mechanical models. The very notion of “structure” as applied to organic forms, for example, is packed with metaphorical baggage. Not only is “structure” an entailment of “construction,” that is, something built with tools, but it is also rooted in pre-medieval teleological assumptions about design in nature. The word “function” at least in its entailment of “purpose,” shares these teleological overtones. Taiji knowledge has its array of metaphors, but we would do well to recognize that scientific disciplines have their own array of (unconscious) metaphors that flavor our understandings and actions.
One of the more egregious applications of the “mechanical” flavor of kinesiological knowledge, in my opinion, is weight training (not to mention it’s more extreme counterpart, ‘body building’ (construction metaphor!). I’m not saying that weight training doesn’t have therapeutic and remedial value, but I think as a whole it reflects some mistaken assumptions about muscle and joint systems. On one level it is useful to apply analogies of hinges, ball joints, pulleys, levers, etc., to muscles and joints. But the body is not a machine, and this approach can miss the forest for the trees. The approach of doing isolated weight routines—this exercise to “strengthen” muscle group A; another exercise to enlarge muscle group B—may remedy some weakness, or help to heal or prevent joint and tendon injuries. But the prescribed exercises are essentially mechanical, using mechanical equipment that requires using muscles in essentially mechanical trajectories and planes. Not only are those mechanical movements not necessarily in accordance with natural organic movement, but by training muscles in isolation one gains little in the way of balanced and coordinated use of muscles and joints in progressive, unified movement. One can spend hours and years “sculpting” (another fun-packed metaphor) one’s body through weight training and never learn to move gracefully and efficiently on this earth.
Take care,
Louis
Whew!
I hope you guys got all that. I sure didn't.
I can follow along for the most part, but my knowledge of anatomy and kinseology (hope I got that right) are not adequate to the job of completely following all the ins and outs of the current discussion.
I'm not sure if I'm following this correctly, as I'm on some doctor prescribed medications due to my recent near death (hey, it SEEMED that way!) experience at the hands of a flu bug so bad it could be weaponized and may not be getting this all in a proper frame of mind.
From what I understand, this discussion was based on YZJ's statement of waist location and how it turns independantly of the pelvis. Ron has taken the position that this is not physically good for you in that it will cause damage in your lower back and has presented his case in a very thorough manner with the backup of anatomical data to show his points.
The rest of the crew are countering his arguments with some differing anatomical data and also are trying to clarify for Ron (and the rest of us) that some of these problems may only be due to lack of accurate translation.
Am I at least understanding the salient points of the debate correctly?
If I am, then what Ron seems to be saying sort of leans in the direction I have previoulsy trained, in that single weighted as I have described it here NOT as it means in more widely based usage has some basis from an anatomical viewpoint.
I hope I'm getting this right, because I am still a bit fuzzy headed.
IF I'm following what he seems to be saying around all these medical terms then his argument does lend weight to something that I have found perplexing for the last year or so...
That being; the whole idea of not using the "hip" as my focal point for turning my body, rather using a spot slightly above my hips and keeping my lower base steady while my upper body turns.
I have watched the training tape I have of Wu Kwong Yu and on that tape, as I mentioned earlier, I never hear the word "waist" used at any point in the narrative. Not once.
The only point of focus is the "hip", as in "turn your hip to the left" and "bring you arm with you by pivoting on your hip". This is very much as I remember the training I received there.
In the particular flavor of Wu style I learned as taught to me by Sifu Eddie and his disciples, I don't believe this theory of opposing turning points was used, at least not in this way. There is a slightly similar idea but it too has some differences.
I was trained in that academy to use my "hips" to command my movements BUT that there was a point in my body known as the tantien (dantien, whatever) that was the center point of my body. These places were always held seperate, but were used together to keep you on "point". You focused on your tantien (there are three tantiens, upper, middle and lower but the primary focus was in lower so I will keep to that one for the sake of this discussion) to keep your focus in the dirction you wished to be pointing (I originally was going to say "facing" but that's not always true either as in some postures your lower tantien could be in line with the middle, but the upper may have been focused elsewhere, but I digress) but you used your "hips" to make all your body movements.
By the way, and not on point but to pick up something that was said earlier, in the style of Wu family TCC I learned, it is proper in places during the form to "lead with your shoulder". Your hips generate the movement, but the shoulder leads the way.
I will need to get further clarification, as it's been quite a while since I trained Wu style seriously and I am beginning to run a lot of these two styles together, but I don't believe there's a point in the Wu style I learned that ever emphasizes moving your "waist" independantly of your "hips".
In Wu Kwong Yu style "Grasp Birds Tail" the "rollback" aspect does not have this independant turn. The breakdown from bow stance is: "Toe down, go forward, shifting all the weight of your body to the right leg. Turn your hip to the left, bringing your hands with you, keeping them even with the centerline of your body. Now, turn your hip back to the right and go past your centerline forty five degrees. Now go back, shifting your weight to the left leg. Turn your hip to the left, bringing your hands with you to the centerline of your body, right toe up."
No seperation of upper and lower exists in this breakdown, anywhere. Nor does it in Wu Tai Sins video. Almost exactly the same breakdown in narrative accompanies his video as well. No mention independant "waist" turning, leaving your hips locked in place while the rest moves.
Now, if I missed the point to Wu style and this theory does exist I will find out soon enough, as I have sent to my Wu family disciple relative for clarification of the point. However, from my memory I never have heard of this idea.
I was some surprised, to say the least, when my YCF instructor made this point during roll back.
Now, don't get me wrong, please.
I LIKE the independant waist movement idea. I have been having a ball with it. I seem to be able to do this with ease, which is one of the few things about YCF style I DID pick up easily.
It makes roll back a TON easier, for one thing, in large frame YCF style, but in small frame Wu style I have not found it to be very effecient.
Anyway. I will wait to hear from my "expert" in Wu style, which I am NOT. And will continue to practice Wu style as closely as I can to Sifu Eddie's specifications while at the same time practicing YCF style according to my instructors specifications.
I have NO problem with the idea as presented and have figured out some really great applications for this movement, especially in close fighting with an opponent.
I don't believe one is RIGHT and the other WRONG. Simply that they are different and will be used for different purposes in different applications while using different styles.
To have both of these ways to move in my bag of tricks can't help but make me a better practicioner of BOTH styles.
I hope you guys got all that. I sure didn't.
I can follow along for the most part, but my knowledge of anatomy and kinseology (hope I got that right) are not adequate to the job of completely following all the ins and outs of the current discussion.
I'm not sure if I'm following this correctly, as I'm on some doctor prescribed medications due to my recent near death (hey, it SEEMED that way!) experience at the hands of a flu bug so bad it could be weaponized and may not be getting this all in a proper frame of mind.
From what I understand, this discussion was based on YZJ's statement of waist location and how it turns independantly of the pelvis. Ron has taken the position that this is not physically good for you in that it will cause damage in your lower back and has presented his case in a very thorough manner with the backup of anatomical data to show his points.
The rest of the crew are countering his arguments with some differing anatomical data and also are trying to clarify for Ron (and the rest of us) that some of these problems may only be due to lack of accurate translation.
Am I at least understanding the salient points of the debate correctly?
If I am, then what Ron seems to be saying sort of leans in the direction I have previoulsy trained, in that single weighted as I have described it here NOT as it means in more widely based usage has some basis from an anatomical viewpoint.
I hope I'm getting this right, because I am still a bit fuzzy headed.
IF I'm following what he seems to be saying around all these medical terms then his argument does lend weight to something that I have found perplexing for the last year or so...
That being; the whole idea of not using the "hip" as my focal point for turning my body, rather using a spot slightly above my hips and keeping my lower base steady while my upper body turns.
I have watched the training tape I have of Wu Kwong Yu and on that tape, as I mentioned earlier, I never hear the word "waist" used at any point in the narrative. Not once.
The only point of focus is the "hip", as in "turn your hip to the left" and "bring you arm with you by pivoting on your hip". This is very much as I remember the training I received there.
In the particular flavor of Wu style I learned as taught to me by Sifu Eddie and his disciples, I don't believe this theory of opposing turning points was used, at least not in this way. There is a slightly similar idea but it too has some differences.
I was trained in that academy to use my "hips" to command my movements BUT that there was a point in my body known as the tantien (dantien, whatever) that was the center point of my body. These places were always held seperate, but were used together to keep you on "point". You focused on your tantien (there are three tantiens, upper, middle and lower but the primary focus was in lower so I will keep to that one for the sake of this discussion) to keep your focus in the dirction you wished to be pointing (I originally was going to say "facing" but that's not always true either as in some postures your lower tantien could be in line with the middle, but the upper may have been focused elsewhere, but I digress) but you used your "hips" to make all your body movements.
By the way, and not on point but to pick up something that was said earlier, in the style of Wu family TCC I learned, it is proper in places during the form to "lead with your shoulder". Your hips generate the movement, but the shoulder leads the way.
I will need to get further clarification, as it's been quite a while since I trained Wu style seriously and I am beginning to run a lot of these two styles together, but I don't believe there's a point in the Wu style I learned that ever emphasizes moving your "waist" independantly of your "hips".
In Wu Kwong Yu style "Grasp Birds Tail" the "rollback" aspect does not have this independant turn. The breakdown from bow stance is: "Toe down, go forward, shifting all the weight of your body to the right leg. Turn your hip to the left, bringing your hands with you, keeping them even with the centerline of your body. Now, turn your hip back to the right and go past your centerline forty five degrees. Now go back, shifting your weight to the left leg. Turn your hip to the left, bringing your hands with you to the centerline of your body, right toe up."
No seperation of upper and lower exists in this breakdown, anywhere. Nor does it in Wu Tai Sins video. Almost exactly the same breakdown in narrative accompanies his video as well. No mention independant "waist" turning, leaving your hips locked in place while the rest moves.
Now, if I missed the point to Wu style and this theory does exist I will find out soon enough, as I have sent to my Wu family disciple relative for clarification of the point. However, from my memory I never have heard of this idea.
I was some surprised, to say the least, when my YCF instructor made this point during roll back.
Now, don't get me wrong, please.
I LIKE the independant waist movement idea. I have been having a ball with it. I seem to be able to do this with ease, which is one of the few things about YCF style I DID pick up easily.
It makes roll back a TON easier, for one thing, in large frame YCF style, but in small frame Wu style I have not found it to be very effecient.
Anyway. I will wait to hear from my "expert" in Wu style, which I am NOT. And will continue to practice Wu style as closely as I can to Sifu Eddie's specifications while at the same time practicing YCF style according to my instructors specifications.
I have NO problem with the idea as presented and have figured out some really great applications for this movement, especially in close fighting with an opponent.
I don't believe one is RIGHT and the other WRONG. Simply that they are different and will be used for different purposes in different applications while using different styles.
To have both of these ways to move in my bag of tricks can't help but make me a better practicioner of BOTH styles.
-
RonKreshmar
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2003 6:01 am
- Location: Nanaimo, B.C.
Hi Wushuer,
You say,
"I LIKE the independant waist movement idea. I have been having a ball with it. I seem to be able to do this with ease, which is one of the few things about YCF style I DID pick up easily."
There is no INDEPENDENT waist movement if the hips are fixed and movement is initiated from the UPPER TORSO. There is THORACIC spinal movement, possibly damaging to the lumbar spine if it exceeds it's small, small, small, range of movement of about 11 degrees.
If you do not have good strong muscles to protect your lumbar spine you will damage your lumbar spine.
YZJ notes that this movement where the hips don't move is an EXCEPTION to the rules of movement. But, tradition is tradition.
So,
"When one sits solidly over the right leg, the lower frame [xia pan] does not move—it is only the UPPER TORSO [shang shen], using the waist as a pivot, that guides the turning movement of the two hands—the kua and the buttocks are essentially immobile."
Upper torso rotation!
The waist is NOT a pivot for UPPER Torso rotation. The rotation takes place in the UPPER TORSO, in the thoracic spine, and if done ballistically it can cause serious injury. If done slowly,gently, repeatedly it can cause injury.
It's not just the little turn in Single Whip, nor the turn in Roll Back.
Once this is OK, you'll find it in TURN AROUND AND KICK HORIZONTALLY, SWEEP LOTUS,
and any time the arms sweep in front of the body in the horizontal plane.
Take care,
Ron
You say,
"I LIKE the independant waist movement idea. I have been having a ball with it. I seem to be able to do this with ease, which is one of the few things about YCF style I DID pick up easily."
There is no INDEPENDENT waist movement if the hips are fixed and movement is initiated from the UPPER TORSO. There is THORACIC spinal movement, possibly damaging to the lumbar spine if it exceeds it's small, small, small, range of movement of about 11 degrees.
If you do not have good strong muscles to protect your lumbar spine you will damage your lumbar spine.
YZJ notes that this movement where the hips don't move is an EXCEPTION to the rules of movement. But, tradition is tradition.
So,
"When one sits solidly over the right leg, the lower frame [xia pan] does not move—it is only the UPPER TORSO [shang shen], using the waist as a pivot, that guides the turning movement of the two hands—the kua and the buttocks are essentially immobile."
Upper torso rotation!
The waist is NOT a pivot for UPPER Torso rotation. The rotation takes place in the UPPER TORSO, in the thoracic spine, and if done ballistically it can cause serious injury. If done slowly,gently, repeatedly it can cause injury.
It's not just the little turn in Single Whip, nor the turn in Roll Back.
Once this is OK, you'll find it in TURN AROUND AND KICK HORIZONTALLY, SWEEP LOTUS,
and any time the arms sweep in front of the body in the horizontal plane.
Take care,
Ron
-
RonKreshmar
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2003 6:01 am
- Location: Nanaimo, B.C.
Hi Louis,
Kinesiology, the science of movement, has come along way since it started about a century ago. (Caveat, there is also a modern new age take off on the science joining it with Chinese acupuncture kind of ideas, same name different game)
New methods of imaging, photography in those days, did what the microscope did in bacterial research.
The link below gives just one application,
mind boggling detail.
http://www.oandp.org/jpo/library/1997_01_010.asp
Rather than studying joints and muscles in isolation, kinesiology as applied in sports, is a completely wholistic approach. About as circular as a circle could get.
Yes, there have been many attempts at reductionism in Western science.
And in philosophy, Dennett is still chasing Ryle's ghost in the machine.
At the beginning, with Aristotle as the culmination, nature and art were distinct.
Ideas of practice, and production, and theory were kept distinct. Not cut off from each other, but distinct. Reductionism was what was to be overcome. It's metaphor driven. One thing is like another thing, into one thing is another thing.
Mechanism applied to nature in the 19th century is as odd as applying animistic principles to computers.
Structure, per se, does not entail construction. There are natural structures and structures by art, (production).
Both may have purposes, natural ones and instrumental. Teleology has appropriate and inappropriate applications. Just about every good idea has had misapplications.
A clear account of the Western view can be found in Aristotle. His "On Categories" and for you, his "Poetics" which deals with metaphor, are all accessible on the web.
Aristotle asked four questions re any thing.
What is it? Aiming at its essence, class, based on difference.
What is it made of? Its stuff, its matter.
How is it made? By art, by nature.
What is it made for? if anything.
The pre-Aristotlean views contain ideas the same as in China.
The difference in presentation of the principles derives from the use of phonetic alphabet vs the ideograph.
Metaphor, transfer of alien terms, is based on shared attributes.
Its principle is similarity.
S is M
P is M
S is P or P is S
Predication,
S is M
M is P
S is P
leads to Science, to logic, syllogism, to knowledge of relations.
Both West and East have metaphor.
But via the Greeks we have metaphor and logic, the logos.
S is P as metaphor, and S is P with the 'is' and then "is not" as copula.
Plato's cave is the metaphor for those chained to metaphors vs those who have seen the concept, definitions, analytic knowledge.
Metaphors are pre-logical tools for knowledge and much can be done with them.
We spend most of our lives using only metaphors. But the analytic use of language is there for those who wish to acquire it.
Metaphors can be confusing.
A metaphor can be formed through one single shared attribute between two objects, and that attribute can be anything, something totally non-essential.
Thinking in complexes, syncretic thinking, can involve multiple metaphors re one object.
If elephants have big ears, some person with big ears can be called an elephant. If big feet, if big nose, etc.
As applied to T'ai chi, names applied to one thing on the basis of a single attribute.
Golden Pheasant stands on one leg.
Golden Chicken stands on one leg.
Golden Cockerel stands on one leg.
Pheasant is a bird fancied by poets.
Chickens in the hierachy of Chinese images, are to pheasants what pigs are to horses.
But,chickens are fancied by farmers. They stand on one leg and are fierce, good fighters.
(In the West a chicken is a coward)
Golden Cock is a juicy roasted male chicken, a capon.
A capon is a castrated chicken. A eunuch is a castrated male, some of which get as fat as do capons.
So, we have fat eunuch standing on one leg.
The old timers were not nice poeple, but they did have a sense of humour.
When it comes to bio-mechanical knowledge it is very " useful to apply analogies of hinges, ball joints, pulleys, levers, etc., to muscles and joints.
If you want to break someone's arm you have to know about leverage.
If you want to turn your hips to avoid an attack and counterattack at one stroke, ie. move in an arc away from and towards, you have to know about standing like a weighted scale.
The example of the waist as hinge or as axle is an example of syncretic metaphors.
It is both, and more, it's a lever.
How is it a banner? A banner has two poles carried by seperate carriers, to change direction one side has to stand still while the only the other side moves.
All highly accurate mechanical metaphors which can give way to precise analytic comparison in terms of general principles.
Ie. in terms of definition of levers, classes of levers, definitions of axles, etc.
Metaphor can obscure in an odd way.
To say that the hips joint is like the axle of wheelcart may require that you know about wheelcarts.
But, in fact, the hip joint is the axle of a human body. Both it and wheelcarts can be understood in terms of axle, as such, with each as a sub-kind of axle.
More later,
Ron
[This message has been edited by RonKreshmar (edited 05-15-2003).]
[This message has been edited by RonKreshmar (edited 05-15-2003).]
[This message has been edited by RonKreshmar (edited 05-15-2003).]
Kinesiology, the science of movement, has come along way since it started about a century ago. (Caveat, there is also a modern new age take off on the science joining it with Chinese acupuncture kind of ideas, same name different game)
New methods of imaging, photography in those days, did what the microscope did in bacterial research.
The link below gives just one application,
mind boggling detail.
http://www.oandp.org/jpo/library/1997_01_010.asp
Rather than studying joints and muscles in isolation, kinesiology as applied in sports, is a completely wholistic approach. About as circular as a circle could get.
Yes, there have been many attempts at reductionism in Western science.
And in philosophy, Dennett is still chasing Ryle's ghost in the machine.
At the beginning, with Aristotle as the culmination, nature and art were distinct.
Ideas of practice, and production, and theory were kept distinct. Not cut off from each other, but distinct. Reductionism was what was to be overcome. It's metaphor driven. One thing is like another thing, into one thing is another thing.
Mechanism applied to nature in the 19th century is as odd as applying animistic principles to computers.
Structure, per se, does not entail construction. There are natural structures and structures by art, (production).
Both may have purposes, natural ones and instrumental. Teleology has appropriate and inappropriate applications. Just about every good idea has had misapplications.
A clear account of the Western view can be found in Aristotle. His "On Categories" and for you, his "Poetics" which deals with metaphor, are all accessible on the web.
Aristotle asked four questions re any thing.
What is it? Aiming at its essence, class, based on difference.
What is it made of? Its stuff, its matter.
How is it made? By art, by nature.
What is it made for? if anything.
The pre-Aristotlean views contain ideas the same as in China.
The difference in presentation of the principles derives from the use of phonetic alphabet vs the ideograph.
Metaphor, transfer of alien terms, is based on shared attributes.
Its principle is similarity.
S is M
P is M
S is P or P is S
Predication,
S is M
M is P
S is P
leads to Science, to logic, syllogism, to knowledge of relations.
Both West and East have metaphor.
But via the Greeks we have metaphor and logic, the logos.
S is P as metaphor, and S is P with the 'is' and then "is not" as copula.
Plato's cave is the metaphor for those chained to metaphors vs those who have seen the concept, definitions, analytic knowledge.
Metaphors are pre-logical tools for knowledge and much can be done with them.
We spend most of our lives using only metaphors. But the analytic use of language is there for those who wish to acquire it.
Metaphors can be confusing.
A metaphor can be formed through one single shared attribute between two objects, and that attribute can be anything, something totally non-essential.
Thinking in complexes, syncretic thinking, can involve multiple metaphors re one object.
If elephants have big ears, some person with big ears can be called an elephant. If big feet, if big nose, etc.
As applied to T'ai chi, names applied to one thing on the basis of a single attribute.
Golden Pheasant stands on one leg.
Golden Chicken stands on one leg.
Golden Cockerel stands on one leg.
Pheasant is a bird fancied by poets.
Chickens in the hierachy of Chinese images, are to pheasants what pigs are to horses.
But,chickens are fancied by farmers. They stand on one leg and are fierce, good fighters.
(In the West a chicken is a coward)
Golden Cock is a juicy roasted male chicken, a capon.
A capon is a castrated chicken. A eunuch is a castrated male, some of which get as fat as do capons.
So, we have fat eunuch standing on one leg.
The old timers were not nice poeple, but they did have a sense of humour.
When it comes to bio-mechanical knowledge it is very " useful to apply analogies of hinges, ball joints, pulleys, levers, etc., to muscles and joints.
If you want to break someone's arm you have to know about leverage.
If you want to turn your hips to avoid an attack and counterattack at one stroke, ie. move in an arc away from and towards, you have to know about standing like a weighted scale.
The example of the waist as hinge or as axle is an example of syncretic metaphors.
It is both, and more, it's a lever.
How is it a banner? A banner has two poles carried by seperate carriers, to change direction one side has to stand still while the only the other side moves.
All highly accurate mechanical metaphors which can give way to precise analytic comparison in terms of general principles.
Ie. in terms of definition of levers, classes of levers, definitions of axles, etc.
Metaphor can obscure in an odd way.
To say that the hips joint is like the axle of wheelcart may require that you know about wheelcarts.
But, in fact, the hip joint is the axle of a human body. Both it and wheelcarts can be understood in terms of axle, as such, with each as a sub-kind of axle.
More later,
Ron
[This message has been edited by RonKreshmar (edited 05-15-2003).]
[This message has been edited by RonKreshmar (edited 05-15-2003).]
[This message has been edited by RonKreshmar (edited 05-15-2003).]
When seated turning involves what I, at least, call the waist. Obviously in this position the hips are locked, because you're sitting on them.
"Is using this "waist" turn harmful to your health?", semms to be the question.
Maybe I'm missing the point? But it seems that what Ron is trying to say is that this type of turn can cause long term harm to your body, not that it's not effective or that it can't be done.
"Is using this "waist" turn harmful to your health?", semms to be the question.
Maybe I'm missing the point? But it seems that what Ron is trying to say is that this type of turn can cause long term harm to your body, not that it's not effective or that it can't be done.
-
Louis Swaim
- Posts: 1390
- Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 7:01 am
- Location: Oakland, CA
Greetings,
I don't buy the "long term harm" argument. I've been doing it this way for 29 years. I think the advisories about long term trauma may be applicable to industrial injuries -- lifting objects and turning of the torso, and sports that may push the limits of range of motion. If anything, the kind of upper torso movement I learned in taiji helps to preserve innate range of motion. Injuries are more likely to occur in individuals who have gradually lost mobility in joints from lack of exercise, then strain their joints in some movement because they have not developed good kinesthetic awareness of proper range of motion.
Take care,
Louis
I don't buy the "long term harm" argument. I've been doing it this way for 29 years. I think the advisories about long term trauma may be applicable to industrial injuries -- lifting objects and turning of the torso, and sports that may push the limits of range of motion. If anything, the kind of upper torso movement I learned in taiji helps to preserve innate range of motion. Injuries are more likely to occur in individuals who have gradually lost mobility in joints from lack of exercise, then strain their joints in some movement because they have not developed good kinesthetic awareness of proper range of motion.
Take care,
Louis
Louis,
I don't know, myself. I feel no harm from this movement, but I'm not a doctor or physical therapist.
I used to install and repair security cameras for a living. I spent a lot of time with my hands up over my head, my head tilted back all the way on my neck looking up at what I was doing while standing on ladders or in a bucket lift that wouldn't quite reach high enough.
I never noticed any harm from it while I was doing it. Never had a neck ache, never had any real discomfort from doing these things while I did them.
Now, nearly nine years later, three jobs down the line and long after I stopped doing any of these things, I have had some pretty serious problems with my neck.
"Cervical ridiculitus" my Orthopedic surgeon called it, which is a pretty ridiculous term (SORRY! couldn't stop myself) but a very painful thing to go through. My Ortho went over what might have caused such a severe bend to my neck and consequent loss of cartilidge between the cervical bones, the only thing he could find that would have caused it was the years I spent installing those cameras. He said he'd had more than a few patients who did that, or similar things, with the same problem.
It hit me while installing a ceiling fan, of all crazy things, once again holding my arms up above my head with my neck craned back, standing on a ladder.
I didn't have a problem that day, but the next morning I woke up and quite literally could not feel my entire left arm. When I did feel anything, it was intense, nearly unbearable tingling pain.
That was over a year and quite a bit of physical therapy ago and I still have occassional symptoms.
After that, I tend to be a bit wary when it comes to my body and how I use it.
That said, YCF style TCC quite literaly saved my neck during the ordeal.
I was taking the 13 posture class at that time, evaluating whether my current instructor was teaching a genuine method of TCC (I had met quite a few who were not) before I plunged into the 103 posture courses. It was a 12 week course and this happened right about week nine.
I actually went to one class after I started hurting and my YCF Center director noticed that something was bad wrong at first glance.
He convinced me to get a doctors help.
I missed the next class because I coldn't move my arm very well but was able to attend the last class and pick up most of the last few forms. Though I was very uncomfortable through it, I was adamant about finishing what I had started.
When I got to physical therapy my PT asked what, if any, exercises I did. When I told him I did TCC he was intrigued and asked me a lot of very intelligent questions about it. Then he asked me to demonstrate some for him and since I was just learning the 13 posture form and knew most of it but hadn't done any Wu style for quite a while I used as much as I knew of the 13 posture form to demo TCC for him.
He was impressed with how straight my back was through the motions and how tucking in my hips (another Wu term) made it that way.
He noticed that I did not have full control of my neck, in that it was skewed off to the side and I was unable at that time to straighten it out.
He didn't say anything that week, other than that I should do this form as often as I could take the pain, as a physical therapy. But the next week he came in with reams of print outs from the internet on TCC and it's uses in physical therapy.
He then had me chart how often I did the form and how much pain was involved, relatively, when I did them. He used TCC and how straight my neck and back were as guides to help me get through this episode.
I was able, eventually, to run through an entire Wu style 108 posture form for him with the requisite straight neck and at that time he "graduated" me out of PT with the admonition that I continue TCC as therapy for this problem I will apparently have my entire life. This is also where I picked up my TCC stair walking, that I have mentioned here before.
So...
I believe in the theraputic and recuperative powers of these forms, as I have used them for just that succesfully.
My PT believes, and so do I, that if I had continued to practice Wu style TCC I probably would not have suffered from this problem as doing TCC makes you aware of your body and how it is aligned. He felt that it was when I stopped doing the forms and let myself get "bent" because of years of tension accumulating in my neck that the degeneration got as bad as it did. If I'd have kept on doing the forms, I would not have allowed my neck to bend the way it did, or at the very least it would not have been as bad as I would have noticed it sooner.
So...
I, too, have a hard time believing that this is bad for my spine...
But again, I really am not qualified to say.
Just wanted to put in my personal plug for TCC and it's ability to HEAL, not harm the body.
I will continue to keep my eye on the situation and pay close attention to my lower back for any signs of strain or degeneration, but I don't think I'll be obsessed with the idea.
I still like movement from the "hip". How could I not? It's what I'm used to, I know it works and how it works.
That does not mean I'm finding this seperate "waist" movement theory lacking. In fact, I am very interested in learning more about it as, like I said, I have been experimenting with applications for it and have found some very good ones.
Roll Back using this "waist" turn has a lot of new, to me, ways of directing energy, for one.
Anyone else have any cool postures this would be beneficial to use on? I know it's the "exception" rule, but it seems there is a lot of good things that can come from it.
I'd like to learn more of them.
[This message has been edited by Wushuer (edited 05-16-2003).]
I don't know, myself. I feel no harm from this movement, but I'm not a doctor or physical therapist.
I used to install and repair security cameras for a living. I spent a lot of time with my hands up over my head, my head tilted back all the way on my neck looking up at what I was doing while standing on ladders or in a bucket lift that wouldn't quite reach high enough.
I never noticed any harm from it while I was doing it. Never had a neck ache, never had any real discomfort from doing these things while I did them.
Now, nearly nine years later, three jobs down the line and long after I stopped doing any of these things, I have had some pretty serious problems with my neck.
"Cervical ridiculitus" my Orthopedic surgeon called it, which is a pretty ridiculous term (SORRY! couldn't stop myself) but a very painful thing to go through. My Ortho went over what might have caused such a severe bend to my neck and consequent loss of cartilidge between the cervical bones, the only thing he could find that would have caused it was the years I spent installing those cameras. He said he'd had more than a few patients who did that, or similar things, with the same problem.
It hit me while installing a ceiling fan, of all crazy things, once again holding my arms up above my head with my neck craned back, standing on a ladder.
I didn't have a problem that day, but the next morning I woke up and quite literally could not feel my entire left arm. When I did feel anything, it was intense, nearly unbearable tingling pain.
That was over a year and quite a bit of physical therapy ago and I still have occassional symptoms.
After that, I tend to be a bit wary when it comes to my body and how I use it.
That said, YCF style TCC quite literaly saved my neck during the ordeal.
I was taking the 13 posture class at that time, evaluating whether my current instructor was teaching a genuine method of TCC (I had met quite a few who were not) before I plunged into the 103 posture courses. It was a 12 week course and this happened right about week nine.
I actually went to one class after I started hurting and my YCF Center director noticed that something was bad wrong at first glance.
He convinced me to get a doctors help.
I missed the next class because I coldn't move my arm very well but was able to attend the last class and pick up most of the last few forms. Though I was very uncomfortable through it, I was adamant about finishing what I had started.
When I got to physical therapy my PT asked what, if any, exercises I did. When I told him I did TCC he was intrigued and asked me a lot of very intelligent questions about it. Then he asked me to demonstrate some for him and since I was just learning the 13 posture form and knew most of it but hadn't done any Wu style for quite a while I used as much as I knew of the 13 posture form to demo TCC for him.
He was impressed with how straight my back was through the motions and how tucking in my hips (another Wu term) made it that way.
He noticed that I did not have full control of my neck, in that it was skewed off to the side and I was unable at that time to straighten it out.
He didn't say anything that week, other than that I should do this form as often as I could take the pain, as a physical therapy. But the next week he came in with reams of print outs from the internet on TCC and it's uses in physical therapy.
He then had me chart how often I did the form and how much pain was involved, relatively, when I did them. He used TCC and how straight my neck and back were as guides to help me get through this episode.
I was able, eventually, to run through an entire Wu style 108 posture form for him with the requisite straight neck and at that time he "graduated" me out of PT with the admonition that I continue TCC as therapy for this problem I will apparently have my entire life. This is also where I picked up my TCC stair walking, that I have mentioned here before.
So...
I believe in the theraputic and recuperative powers of these forms, as I have used them for just that succesfully.
My PT believes, and so do I, that if I had continued to practice Wu style TCC I probably would not have suffered from this problem as doing TCC makes you aware of your body and how it is aligned. He felt that it was when I stopped doing the forms and let myself get "bent" because of years of tension accumulating in my neck that the degeneration got as bad as it did. If I'd have kept on doing the forms, I would not have allowed my neck to bend the way it did, or at the very least it would not have been as bad as I would have noticed it sooner.
So...
I, too, have a hard time believing that this is bad for my spine...
But again, I really am not qualified to say.
Just wanted to put in my personal plug for TCC and it's ability to HEAL, not harm the body.
I will continue to keep my eye on the situation and pay close attention to my lower back for any signs of strain or degeneration, but I don't think I'll be obsessed with the idea.
I still like movement from the "hip". How could I not? It's what I'm used to, I know it works and how it works.
That does not mean I'm finding this seperate "waist" movement theory lacking. In fact, I am very interested in learning more about it as, like I said, I have been experimenting with applications for it and have found some very good ones.
Roll Back using this "waist" turn has a lot of new, to me, ways of directing energy, for one.
Anyone else have any cool postures this would be beneficial to use on? I know it's the "exception" rule, but it seems there is a lot of good things that can come from it.
I'd like to learn more of them.
[This message has been edited by Wushuer (edited 05-16-2003).]
-
RonKreshmar
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2003 6:01 am
- Location: Nanaimo, B.C.
Hi All,
Steve,
When seated,as Wushuer points out, your hips are fixed, just as in YZJ's example.
If you turn your upper torso you are NOT turning it on the UPPER Waist, the lumbar area between the hips and the rib cage, but via the thoracic spine's ability to do that movement.
YZJ thinks of the UPPER WAIST as a PIVOT point. It isn't. The rotation of the UPPER TORSO takes place in the UPPER TORSO.
The confusion is due to that the UPPER TORSO rotation can be seen as RELATIVE to the HIPS and lumbar area, especially if the hips are not moved.
At most you will get 11 degrees of safe UPPER TORSO rotation, remember the lower torso, the hips are NOT moving, not turning.
Nor is the lumbar spine since it is fixed to the hip by the sacrum.
So, as a result YZJ, gets tension in the lumbar area above the hips. This is due to those muscles contracting so as to not let the thoracic spine turn beyond 11 degrees.
As they are contracted, any further movement of the upper torso will start turning the hips. That was what the broomstick demonstration was meant to show.
But if it is doing this it is also torquing the lumbar spine, especially if any of the lower back muscles are weak.
These muscles are meant to work the other way around. When the hips move during walking these muscles connect the upper torso to the hips so as to achieve the "contrary" hip/shoulder rhythm.
You don't move your hips by turning the upper torso.
Because YZJ thinks he is using the waist as a pivot for UPPER TORSO rotation he believes he is in accord with the classics re the legs, waist, fingers co-ordination.
He isn't. Nowhere is it said to move the UPPER TORSO relative to the hips, whether the hips are moving or not moving.
Here is another version of how to move the torso.
The torso, the area of the body from the crotch to the shoulders, is moved as one unit. The shoulders do not, as in walking, move contrary to the hips, they move along with the hips, the upper torso never twists.
This "rotation" is done via the hip joint, via the ability of the hip to rotate externally/internally on the femur, or conversely, for the the femur to rotate externally/internally on the hips.
The co-ordination of these external/internal rotatins will allow the nimble turning of the whole torso.
And single weighting on one side will become very important.
"When going back and forth, on should draw into folds. When advancing or retreating, one should turn THE BODY, and vary the steps."
To take another approach.
Why does on want to turn the torso?
To evade an attack (as well as to follow an attacker).
The upper torso rotation will give one 11 degrees of evasive movement, plus do all that nasty stuff that I have been mentioning.
But, turning on the hip joint the upper torso can be moved 90 degrees without it twisting at all.
Eg. in Audi's scenario 4, with the attacker pushing with his right hand on your left shoulder he will not push you more than 11 degrees and the movement for both of people with stop there.
But, if the defender, without letting the attacker know this, turns his right foot 45 degrees inward, toe-in step, Kou Bu, and then tells the attacker to push really hard, and then the defender shifts all his weight nimbly to his right foot and nimbly rotates his hips/torso on the now fixed femur, the post, his torso can turn 90 degrees from the original position. Just like a gate.
Ron
Steve,
When seated,as Wushuer points out, your hips are fixed, just as in YZJ's example.
If you turn your upper torso you are NOT turning it on the UPPER Waist, the lumbar area between the hips and the rib cage, but via the thoracic spine's ability to do that movement.
YZJ thinks of the UPPER WAIST as a PIVOT point. It isn't. The rotation of the UPPER TORSO takes place in the UPPER TORSO.
The confusion is due to that the UPPER TORSO rotation can be seen as RELATIVE to the HIPS and lumbar area, especially if the hips are not moved.
At most you will get 11 degrees of safe UPPER TORSO rotation, remember the lower torso, the hips are NOT moving, not turning.
Nor is the lumbar spine since it is fixed to the hip by the sacrum.
So, as a result YZJ, gets tension in the lumbar area above the hips. This is due to those muscles contracting so as to not let the thoracic spine turn beyond 11 degrees.
As they are contracted, any further movement of the upper torso will start turning the hips. That was what the broomstick demonstration was meant to show.
But if it is doing this it is also torquing the lumbar spine, especially if any of the lower back muscles are weak.
These muscles are meant to work the other way around. When the hips move during walking these muscles connect the upper torso to the hips so as to achieve the "contrary" hip/shoulder rhythm.
You don't move your hips by turning the upper torso.
Because YZJ thinks he is using the waist as a pivot for UPPER TORSO rotation he believes he is in accord with the classics re the legs, waist, fingers co-ordination.
He isn't. Nowhere is it said to move the UPPER TORSO relative to the hips, whether the hips are moving or not moving.
Here is another version of how to move the torso.
The torso, the area of the body from the crotch to the shoulders, is moved as one unit. The shoulders do not, as in walking, move contrary to the hips, they move along with the hips, the upper torso never twists.
This "rotation" is done via the hip joint, via the ability of the hip to rotate externally/internally on the femur, or conversely, for the the femur to rotate externally/internally on the hips.
The co-ordination of these external/internal rotatins will allow the nimble turning of the whole torso.
And single weighting on one side will become very important.
"When going back and forth, on should draw into folds. When advancing or retreating, one should turn THE BODY, and vary the steps."
To take another approach.
Why does on want to turn the torso?
To evade an attack (as well as to follow an attacker).
The upper torso rotation will give one 11 degrees of evasive movement, plus do all that nasty stuff that I have been mentioning.
But, turning on the hip joint the upper torso can be moved 90 degrees without it twisting at all.
Eg. in Audi's scenario 4, with the attacker pushing with his right hand on your left shoulder he will not push you more than 11 degrees and the movement for both of people with stop there.
But, if the defender, without letting the attacker know this, turns his right foot 45 degrees inward, toe-in step, Kou Bu, and then tells the attacker to push really hard, and then the defender shifts all his weight nimbly to his right foot and nimbly rotates his hips/torso on the now fixed femur, the post, his torso can turn 90 degrees from the original position. Just like a gate.
Ron
Ron,
OK. I kind of see what you're saying. This last post was written in very small words (thank you) so even I could follow it.
I'm a college edumacated guy, but my field is electonics. I don't do well with this medical stuff, so a lot of what has been being written and discussed here has gone WAY over my head.
I agree with you on methods of movement, 100% that from the hip is an extremely efficient method of going single weighted and allowing energy to smoothly go right past you as you pivot on your hip.
Have to, as that's how I do it.
However, I have practiced this upper torso method of movement, and it does a very similar thing, on a smaller scale.
How do you feel about the large vs. small frame debate we've had go on here?
Also, on more question:
What is your position on foot positioning?
By that I mean, in Wu style you tend to keep your feet at 90 degrees of each other, in YCF style it's 45 for bow stance.
Where do you stand?
OK. I kind of see what you're saying. This last post was written in very small words (thank you) so even I could follow it.
I'm a college edumacated guy, but my field is electonics. I don't do well with this medical stuff, so a lot of what has been being written and discussed here has gone WAY over my head.
I agree with you on methods of movement, 100% that from the hip is an extremely efficient method of going single weighted and allowing energy to smoothly go right past you as you pivot on your hip.
Have to, as that's how I do it.
However, I have practiced this upper torso method of movement, and it does a very similar thing, on a smaller scale.
How do you feel about the large vs. small frame debate we've had go on here?
Also, on more question:
What is your position on foot positioning?
By that I mean, in Wu style you tend to keep your feet at 90 degrees of each other, in YCF style it's 45 for bow stance.
Where do you stand?
-
RonKreshmar
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2003 6:01 am
- Location: Nanaimo, B.C.
Hi All,
Louis,
"Injuries are more likely to occur in individuals who have gradually lost mobility in joints from lack of exercise, then strain their joints in some movement because they have not developed good kinesthetic awareness of proper range of motion."
Exactly. You, personally have good back muscles and are careful in your movements.
Therefore you don't need to buy it.
And all those that do not?
How about all those trusting souls who read about the virtue of leading from the UPPER torso with the hips not moving and are told to do it ballistically?
What I am also saying is that when you move the upper torso with the hips not moving you are not moving the whole torso as one unit.
This whole body movement is done from the hips. From the hip joint the whole torso is moved laterally, in arcs, with the upper torso moving along with the bottom without having to contribute any motion itself.
Because of the way the arm movements are done by many practicioners, many use this lateral arm movement to turn the whole torso, especially in the full body turns.
They twist the upper torso so as to turn the hips. Done on ice skates this works good, but.
Wushuer,
Don't get me started on the cervical spine!
Ron
Louis,
"Injuries are more likely to occur in individuals who have gradually lost mobility in joints from lack of exercise, then strain their joints in some movement because they have not developed good kinesthetic awareness of proper range of motion."
Exactly. You, personally have good back muscles and are careful in your movements.
Therefore you don't need to buy it.
And all those that do not?
How about all those trusting souls who read about the virtue of leading from the UPPER torso with the hips not moving and are told to do it ballistically?
What I am also saying is that when you move the upper torso with the hips not moving you are not moving the whole torso as one unit.
This whole body movement is done from the hips. From the hip joint the whole torso is moved laterally, in arcs, with the upper torso moving along with the bottom without having to contribute any motion itself.
Because of the way the arm movements are done by many practicioners, many use this lateral arm movement to turn the whole torso, especially in the full body turns.
They twist the upper torso so as to turn the hips. Done on ice skates this works good, but.
Wushuer,
Don't get me started on the cervical spine!
Ron
Hi Ron, Wushuer,
funny that you both said that in my example, the hips were fixed. That was my point. At any rate, my question was not rhetorical. I'm still unclear of your answer. Forget YZJ for a second. I'd like to know whether, when seated, *you* would say you are turning with the "hips" or the "waist." If "waist," then are you saying that such a movement is inherently damaging.
I just want to be clear about the language.
Thanks,
Steve James
funny that you both said that in my example, the hips were fixed. That was my point. At any rate, my question was not rhetorical. I'm still unclear of your answer. Forget YZJ for a second. I'd like to know whether, when seated, *you* would say you are turning with the "hips" or the "waist." If "waist," then are you saying that such a movement is inherently damaging.
I just want to be clear about the language.
Thanks,
Steve James
-
Louis Swaim
- Posts: 1390
- Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 7:01 am
- Location: Oakland, CA
Greetings Ron,
I still think that you may be belaboring a non-issue, and projecting tension where there is no tension. You have also made a few misstatements that misrepresent Yang Zhenji’s approach:
Re: “YZJ thinks of the UPPER WAIST as a PIVOT point. It isn't. The rotation of the UPPER TORSO takes place in the UPPER TORSO.”
He did not say “pivot point,” and what he means by a pivot has nothing to do with joint articulation. It is a reference to the temporal-locative character of the waist with reference to its relationship to the entire body’s movement. Just as the hub of the cartwheel in chapter 11 of the Daodejing is a metaphor for how the use of “something” is obtained by means of “nothing”—the empty space at which the spokes converge—the “pivot” does not refer to some physical thing or mechanism, but rather is a metaphor for a location in space and time. Just as the “center of gravity” of a human body is not a physical “thing,” but a convenient fiction for describing a spatio-temporal phenomenon, the “pivot” in like manner refers to the proximal core of distal movement. There’s nothing there. No movement, no stillness, no dotted line, no peanut butter. If human bodies were solid blocks of wood or stone, one could always be consistent in identifying the exact location of their centers of gravity, and they would consistently spin from a fixed pivot. However, human bodies are constantly changing in shape and configuration, and their centers of gravity and optimal pivot points change accordingly.
Again, with regard to the slight torso turn in Single Whip as described by Yang Zhenji, it does not depart from classical principles. Temporally, the turning of the torso is an entailment of the waist’s lead. In the sequence, the waist turns *with* the kua, the kua stops, and the motion continues slightly in the upper torso. This is a natural spiral, just like a cherry blossom blooming. In Chinese, blooming is “kai fang” (open-release). The gentlest of explosions. I can’t speak for those who fantasize about extraordinary explosive powers emerging from their bodies. Maybe they watch too many movies.
I understand your apparent frustration regarding the ambiguity of the traditional term, “yao.” Depending on the context, it is sometimes used to refer to the section of the torso “above the hips, below the ribs”; sometimes more specifically to the musculature in that region; sometimes it refers to the lumbar spine; sometimes it refers to the small of the back; sometimes technically to the mingmen; and in the later case some specific reference to the traditional Chinese medical role of the kidneys often comes into play. The yao is also often closely identified with the kua, because they work together and are connected, but not in a frozen configuration.
Re: “So, as a result YZJ, gets tension in the lumbar area above the hips. This is due to those muscles contracting so as to not let the thoracic spine turn beyond 11 degrees.”
There is no tension in the movement described, and he specifically proscribes movement that will incur tension. So there is no basis for saying that he “gets tension.”
By the way, where is your “pivot” while you are in the process of shifting your weight from one leg to the other? Or do you just wait until you’ve arrived where all of your weight is over one leg before you engage your pivot?
Take care,
Louis
I still think that you may be belaboring a non-issue, and projecting tension where there is no tension. You have also made a few misstatements that misrepresent Yang Zhenji’s approach:
Re: “YZJ thinks of the UPPER WAIST as a PIVOT point. It isn't. The rotation of the UPPER TORSO takes place in the UPPER TORSO.”
He did not say “pivot point,” and what he means by a pivot has nothing to do with joint articulation. It is a reference to the temporal-locative character of the waist with reference to its relationship to the entire body’s movement. Just as the hub of the cartwheel in chapter 11 of the Daodejing is a metaphor for how the use of “something” is obtained by means of “nothing”—the empty space at which the spokes converge—the “pivot” does not refer to some physical thing or mechanism, but rather is a metaphor for a location in space and time. Just as the “center of gravity” of a human body is not a physical “thing,” but a convenient fiction for describing a spatio-temporal phenomenon, the “pivot” in like manner refers to the proximal core of distal movement. There’s nothing there. No movement, no stillness, no dotted line, no peanut butter. If human bodies were solid blocks of wood or stone, one could always be consistent in identifying the exact location of their centers of gravity, and they would consistently spin from a fixed pivot. However, human bodies are constantly changing in shape and configuration, and their centers of gravity and optimal pivot points change accordingly.
Again, with regard to the slight torso turn in Single Whip as described by Yang Zhenji, it does not depart from classical principles. Temporally, the turning of the torso is an entailment of the waist’s lead. In the sequence, the waist turns *with* the kua, the kua stops, and the motion continues slightly in the upper torso. This is a natural spiral, just like a cherry blossom blooming. In Chinese, blooming is “kai fang” (open-release). The gentlest of explosions. I can’t speak for those who fantasize about extraordinary explosive powers emerging from their bodies. Maybe they watch too many movies.
I understand your apparent frustration regarding the ambiguity of the traditional term, “yao.” Depending on the context, it is sometimes used to refer to the section of the torso “above the hips, below the ribs”; sometimes more specifically to the musculature in that region; sometimes it refers to the lumbar spine; sometimes it refers to the small of the back; sometimes technically to the mingmen; and in the later case some specific reference to the traditional Chinese medical role of the kidneys often comes into play. The yao is also often closely identified with the kua, because they work together and are connected, but not in a frozen configuration.
Re: “So, as a result YZJ, gets tension in the lumbar area above the hips. This is due to those muscles contracting so as to not let the thoracic spine turn beyond 11 degrees.”
There is no tension in the movement described, and he specifically proscribes movement that will incur tension. So there is no basis for saying that he “gets tension.”
By the way, where is your “pivot” while you are in the process of shifting your weight from one leg to the other? Or do you just wait until you’ve arrived where all of your weight is over one leg before you engage your pivot?
Take care,
Louis