Quick-Set; sometime the ideas just seem to bounce off. Other times they find a little niche all their own.
-Michael
-Michael
Dead Space.....
- Thread starter Goldendragon7
- Start date
R
Rainman
Guest
I am saying about 20 different things at once because these concepts, theories and principles, are all working simultaneously. There is no one thing that will put an end to dead space and there are many causes and many patches to fix the holes.
Dead space is a pause in action for no reason with both hands, the left hand, the right hand etc.
Peeved? At what? Some ol' fart calling me names then getting himself all in a tizzy going back and re-editing his post for more nonsense. I'm the smiling pig remember? Pig means pretty intelligent guy doesn't it? :shrug:
You still haven't told me what you see. Not one person has done the exercise... I have heard every excuse in the world- somehow *DUCK* I was gonna say everything but the kitchen sink but it just sailed over my head. This is not a geometry lesson Kenpo is a psuedo science. Not that it isn't real but humans are in a constant state of flux so we are constantly adjusting.
A particular point I will make is the kind of ellipses, circles, and or infinity symbols used while perfoming kenpo have depth. You don't have to change planes because planes are not flat either unless the technique you are using asks you to do so. When you try to make these shapes flat and change direction you get a pause because a corner has been made. That is why I say circles are not flat- This is a Kenpo board so I would have thought that everyone knew a hard science such as geometry can only be used to an extent. Humans have dimension so why even use one dimensional models when talking to other teachers?
Originally posted by Michael Billings
Just to add to Kenopomachine's post: (nice analogy by the way, line of motion, path of motion)
A line of motion that does not stay on the same plane is an Arc, i.e. a hooking punch.
A path of motion that does not stay in the same plane, becomes three dimensional, and follows the outside of the imaginary construct (universal pattern), e.g. the path of motion found in the first moves of Snaking Talon (at least the way I do it now), or any stike which follows an arcing path (think of your right arm starting from a thrusting inward block postion, then you anchor the elbow as the inward downward forearm blocks and uppercut, or strikes the radial nerve along the inside of the right arm in a "scooping" kind of motion.
Hard to convey in words, but easily understood since the joints of the body allow for rotational and hinged movements. More confused
-Michael
Howdie Mr. Billings:
I am curious about the application of snaking talon here? Is it not true that as you move in depth executing the inward and outward of the arm (path or line) doesn't matter at this point, that the "figure eight" used is no longer a flat 1 dimensional geometrical shape?
For example: Snaking talon, as I execute the right inward downward handsword, that handsword (block as you described it) is in fact moving toward you and away from your opponent, continuing or elipsing to change planes and now follow an upward and outward plane back into the depth of the opponent there by again changing the dimension of the figure eight. Or is the figure eight still one dimensional but simply executed in part on one plane and another part on another plane?
no my syntax's are not good neither is my grammer, thus the reason I do not post very often and have an editor.....
Mr. Billings, you know me well enough to know that this is an honest question and I really am just trying to clear something up for myself, well maybe.
Todd :asian: :asian:
YES! I understood exactly what you said. I think I was thinking of it as separate planes, even though there is no pause in the motion, rather a path as the orbit changes. I can easily think of it as a figure 8, that is on a sheet of light plastic, like the folder covers students use. The plane is then flexible and in more than 2 dimensions, even though the path was "drawn" on what "was" a flat surface previously.
Are we talking the same thing here? We are at least getting closer.
Thanks,
-Michael
Are we talking the same thing here? We are at least getting closer.
Thanks,
-Michael
Elastic would be a better term for the geometry of the plane as it is "adjusted" to meet the attack.
-Michael
-Michael
Well I guess what I am getting at is that if you step back and look at it from a distance it looks one dimensional, but when you look at it from all views it takes on a new form, thus changing perception of what was and what is.
R
Rainman
Guest
I don't think you did-
Height, width and depth. 3 dimensions. There never was a flat except in your earlier years or what was drawn on a piece of paper. Kenpo is at least a 3d art all the time whether you know it or not.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Well, I'm starting to understand the use of the name, "Rainman."
One of the issues here is that we gotta use words to talk to one another, and to explain, and to learn. It's pretty old information, really, but it might help if I mention it: our words are at best analogues of reality, models of what's real, and shouldn't be confused with reality itself. Even the Universal Pattern is such a model.
But this doesn't mean that we should throw out these models, or that we should throw in more and more arcane language, more and more elaborate models just for the hell of it. That's theory run amuck--and I write this as somebody who's read his share of Derrida...
"Circles," "flattened circles," "ellipses, "infinity signs," "figure eights," "planes," are perfectly good models. I think it's quite correct to use them, and quite correct to note that of course one doesn't move in single dimensions. But see good old, "Flatland," by E.A. Abbott, for more...but avoid doubletalk, and language that serves to exclude rather than include students.
A useful analogy in thinking of Snaking Talon is Mr. Parker's old, "squeegee," comparasion. That's theoretical language that enables students to learn--to start finding one of the many, infinitely many, things in martial arts that can't be explained or modeled all that well.
One of the issues here is that we gotta use words to talk to one another, and to explain, and to learn. It's pretty old information, really, but it might help if I mention it: our words are at best analogues of reality, models of what's real, and shouldn't be confused with reality itself. Even the Universal Pattern is such a model.
But this doesn't mean that we should throw out these models, or that we should throw in more and more arcane language, more and more elaborate models just for the hell of it. That's theory run amuck--and I write this as somebody who's read his share of Derrida...
"Circles," "flattened circles," "ellipses, "infinity signs," "figure eights," "planes," are perfectly good models. I think it's quite correct to use them, and quite correct to note that of course one doesn't move in single dimensions. But see good old, "Flatland," by E.A. Abbott, for more...but avoid doubletalk, and language that serves to exclude rather than include students.
A useful analogy in thinking of Snaking Talon is Mr. Parker's old, "squeegee," comparasion. That's theoretical language that enables students to learn--to start finding one of the many, infinitely many, things in martial arts that can't be explained or modeled all that well.
The way I look at Kenpo is always in 3-Dimensions. What I thought the disagreement, or rather misunderstanding, was of the way we fill the space. I clearly understand what Robert is saying. as I heard Mr. Parker use this analogy on more than one occassion.
I "see" interlocking planes, and that is how I have always thought of movement. Then there are patterns on those planes which may be "paths" of motion, or "lines" of motion. Either way, there is height, width, and depth throughout the "path" of your motion, whether and enongated circle, or an arc following the "heart" shape, so that even movement on the plane involves all 3-Dimensions.
I am not sure where this discussion is going at this point, and I am open to the dialogue, but Rainman, I am not getting your analogy, whereas I thought I understood Mr. Durgan's. Granted he and I have spoken in person, and it is easier to understand when demonstrating in person.
And ... by the way, I think I did get it. The one dimension was an exercise in logic, not an application of movement.
-Michael
I "see" interlocking planes, and that is how I have always thought of movement. Then there are patterns on those planes which may be "paths" of motion, or "lines" of motion. Either way, there is height, width, and depth throughout the "path" of your motion, whether and enongated circle, or an arc following the "heart" shape, so that even movement on the plane involves all 3-Dimensions.
I am not sure where this discussion is going at this point, and I am open to the dialogue, but Rainman, I am not getting your analogy, whereas I thought I understood Mr. Durgan's. Granted he and I have spoken in person, and it is easier to understand when demonstrating in person.
And ... by the way, I think I did get it. The one dimension was an exercise in logic, not an application of movement.
-Michael
