Dead Space.....

[rmcrobertson]

1. An infinity sign...a lemnulus (sp?) is two flattened circles.

2. Double factors does not mean only blocking twice.

3. Look at the, "step," up from the downward blocks in Short 1.

My point is, again, that sometimes small circles are good, sometimes big ones are. The trick is to learn the spectrum between "small, " and, "big," in a meaningful fashion, and to apply the choices correctly.

 

[Rainman]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
1. An infinity sign...a lemnulus (sp?) is two flattened circles.

Says who? Not the infinite insights.

2. Double factors does not mean only blocking twice.

Right, it never means that unless you want to be hit.

3.

Look at the, "step," up from the downward blocks in Short 1.

You assume too much. I use an open ended triangle to a side cat and slide into a horse stance and into meditation.

My point is, again, that sometimes small circles are good, sometimes big ones are. The trick is to learn the spectrum between "small, " and, "big," in a meaningful fashion, and to apply the choices correctly

The thing about looking at circles big and small is it leaves too much room for interpretation- that leads to mistakes and ultimately can enhance your chances of losing or even being bested. In my world they are predetermined by way of the universal pattern... it shows intersection points. What is known about alignment enhances this further, then structural intergrity, and pinpoint accuracy.

 

[rmcrobertson]

If you think an infinity sign isn't two flattened circles, you're using some kind of weird non-Euclidean geometry.

Sorry too, but that double-factor really does include (among other things) breaks.

And that side-cat...hmm. I disagree.

Let me repeat: sometimes, small circles are appropriate, sometimes large. In you're at an advanced stage in your training, the mistake lies in insisting that only one or only the other is correct. If you're teaching, I think that the mistake is to project your own training onto the student's.

As for the Ideal phase--I agree with the late-lamented Clyde that at very advanced levels, matters resolve themselves into their original simplicity.

It's like that old Zen thang:
"When I started studying Zen, mountains were mountains and rivers were rivers. After I studied Zen for a while, mountains were not mountains and rivers were not rivers any more. Now that I understand, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers again."

 

[Rainman]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
If you think an infinity sign isn't two flattened circles, you're using some kind of weird non-Euclidean geometry.

Sorry too, but that double-factor really does include (among other things) breaks.

And that side-cat...hmm. I disagree.

Let me repeat: sometimes, small circles are appropriate, sometimes large. In you're at an advanced stage in your training, the mistake lies in insisting that only one or only the other is correct. If you're teaching, I think that the mistake is to project your own training onto the student's.

As for the Ideal phase--I agree with the late-lamented Clyde that at very advanced levels, matters resolve themselves into their original simplicity.

It's like that old Zen thang:
"When I started studying Zen, mountains were mountains and rivers were rivers. After I studied Zen for a while, mountains were not mountains and rivers were not rivers any more. Now that I understand, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers again."

Can't really have this conversation- you have not been taught how the universal pattern works. You have not read your II's lately either... or at all. Try page 176 volume 4. Nothing flat there at all and nothing weird. Just plain ol' info right out of a book for all to see.

Neither large or small circles are efficient, arcs and elipses connected by lines are.

You don't have to repeat anything-

The zen thing without the flowery chinese meataphors= 1000 times slow for one time fast.

Clyde has only part of the information if that is what he truely thinks. The art manifests itself the way it was practiced- When angles/targets are not optimum you have not cancelled the opponent.

I'll spell this out for you as well- cats are transitional unless you like posing in them.

 

[Kenpo Yahoo]

There is a problem with arguments that suggest that one such notion, in this case big circles vs. small circles, is better than another. What should be noted is that there is such a thing as circles that are too big and circles that are too small. Neither are good and both represent a serious lack of understanding on the part of the practitioner.

It has been my experience that the majority of people who have a problem with this topic fall into the big circle category. This also seems to be a prevailing method among the older generation of kenpoists. However, I have also seen those who go too far the other way and become T-Rex kenpoists (you remember the T-rex with its short arms). It is possible to hit and do serious damage with 2--6 inches of movement instead of 24 inches of movement however this requires an understanding far beyond the basic and should be addressed in a progressive nature in order to facilitate understanding and execution.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Rainman: been taught perfectly well, thanks. Didn't say jack about cats being transitional or not. Also didn't mention Clyde's teaching me anything about circles, ellipses, or tesseracts. Let me suggest that when you discuss things with others, you avoid the patronizing tone of, "can't discuss..you have not been taught." I mean, hell, I suspect you wouldn't care for it IF I were to say: "Can't discuss this with you...you haven't been taught decent sentence structures, and your syntax makes your meaning impossible to decipher." Have nothing further to say on the subject until someone else chooses to comment.

 

[jeffkyle]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

As for the Ideal phase--I agree with the late-lamented Clyde that at very advanced levels, matters resolve themselves into their original simplicity.

It's like that old Zen thang:
"When I started studying Zen, mountains were mountains and rivers were rivers. After I studied Zen for a while, mountains were not mountains and rivers were not rivers any more. Now that I understand, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers again."

Very well put!

 

[jeffkyle]

Everything should be in a straight line...straight forward and backward! :shrug:

Hey...it works for some people!

 

[Michael Billings]

I understand your discussion of "Circles", but another way of saying what I think you are arguing is "Pieces of Circles", or "Arcs or ellipses".

Orig posted by Rainman

In my world they are predetermined by way of the universal pattern... it shows intersection points. What is known about alignment enhances this further, then structural integrity, and pinpoint accuracy.

Re: Efficiency - "arcs and ellipses connected by lines are (efficient)"

Even I missed your description of :

Rainman posted

I use 3 of 4 points of an infinity symbol on a #4. No big flat circles for me on ram and eagle.

Snakes of wisdom. Not a flattened circle at all. An elipse on a #7.

Since I do not know what the #'s you reference are, and I do not have Infinite Insights here at work to try to interpret your description. We are talking the same language, but not sharing the same dialect. Help out here, and please don't insult my instructor also. I do not mean this sarcastically at all, but in all seriousness. Your teacher has chosen to interpret things in a way that most of the Kenpo community does not share ... I get around, I know! But I like what he, does, especially with levers and fucrums. Given that I respect and somewhat understand where you are coming from, it is you that has a little different interpretation of things, that does not make it the best or only. Others do the same things, they just do not put it in the frame of reference you use. So it is not always a safe assumption that they are necessarily disagreeing with you ... first they have to understand you. What is simple for you, due to your having done it for so long and it's introduction to you they way you had it, may need more explanation if you want to have a good discussion and it not just go the way of the wind the way this one did.

I think you are conveying good knowledge, but in a way that is not being clearly understood, or there would not be as much disagreement. Put aside "how it is being communicated" for right now, I want to understand it, given I do understand Arcs, Ellipses, and Open-Ended Triangle (where the ends of the open-ended triangle could be connected by an arc (in either direction)) or a straight line, depending on circumstances required for self-defense at that instant.

Now I do not get your definition of an Infinity Sign at all. Robert defines it as I know it, say "a flattened figure 8 on it's side", just to have a visual representation. Where are you going with this?

Thanks,
-Michael

 

[Rainman]

Originally posted by Michael Billings
I understand your discussion of "Circles", but another way of saying what I think you are arguing is "Pieces of Circles", or "Arcs or ellipses".



Even I missed your description of :



Since I do not know what the #'s you reference are, and I do not have Infinite Insights here at work to try to interpret your description. We are talking the same language, but not sharing the same dialect. Help out here, and please don't insult my instructor also. I do not mean this sarcastically at all, but in all seriousness. Your teacher has chosen to interpret things in a way that most of the Kenpo community does not share ... I get around, I know! But I like what he, does, especially with levers and fucrums. Given that I respect and somewhat understand where you are coming from, it is you that has a little different interpretation of things, that does not make it the best or only. Others do the same things, they just do not put it in the frame of reference you use. So it is not always a safe assumption that they are necessarily disagreeing with you ... first they have to understand you. What is simple for you, due to your having done it for so long and it's introduction to you they way you had it, may need more explanation if you want to have a good discussion and it not just go the way of the wind the way this one did.

I think you are conveying good knowledge, but in a way that is not being clearly understood, or there would not be as much disagreement. Put aside "how it is being communicated" for right now, I want to understand it, given I do understand Arcs, Ellipses, and Open-Ended Triangle (where the ends of the open-ended triangle could be connected by an arc (in either direction)) or a straight line, depending on circumstances required for self-defense at that instant.

Now I do not get your definition of an Infinity Sign at all. Robert defines it as I know it, say "a flattened figure 8 on it's side", just to have a visual representation. Where are you going with this?

Thanks,
-Michael

Nothing is flat. The universal pattern is only drawn flat. This is not new information everything I said is referenced in book 4.

There is no insult... notice I said truely- which is an idication that he gave his student as much as he could handle at that particular point in time. It is up to the student to grow and not just sit on information... there is always more.

I don't have an argument for large or small circles I use elipses and some are tighter than others by way of where I reference the 9 planes.

I would say with your knowlegde of contact manipulation you have a pretty good idea of dimensions and ranges. That being said I need you to have a point of reference and I provided one. The importance is how the figure is drawn, look and tell me what you see.

3 of 4 points- look at the universal patch on your arm, see the elipses? They have a dividing line, 3 or 4 parts may have been easier since I don't have a mirror to draw on.

We have a different way of looking at things: I dunno, to me it is normal. If you read The Mad Kenpo Scientists post that is pretty much how I look at movement. I pretty much have used the same theme throughout this thread, I just refined some of the terms. Round off the corners and elongate the circle. I don't use that sort of slang because it is too vague. I prefer elipses, arcs and planes. Add targets to that- exact targets as I have seen you write about and now we get to- oh, say precision. Of course we are human and precision of movement is something that is strived for... Not the best I can be but better than yesterday.

Where am I going with this? How far do you want to go?

 

[Rainman]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Rainman: been taught perfectly well, thanks. Didn't say jack about cats being transitional or not. Also didn't mention Clyde's teaching me anything about circles, ellipses, or tesseracts. Let me suggest that when you discuss things with others, you avoid the patronizing tone of, "can't discuss..you have not been taught." I mean, hell, I suspect you wouldn't care for it IF I were to say: "Can't discuss this with you...you haven't been taught decent sentence structures, and your syntax makes your meaning impossible to decipher." Have nothing further to say on the subject until someone else chooses to comment.

Another assumption on your part, never said anything about quality, I referenced quantity. Don't believe you said anything I haven't heard too many times before anyhooot. You have no information I have not come across years ago, in fact I write something and you repeat it later on- you will see this if you go back and read all the words in all the posts. Well thanks for the advice on my sentence structure I'll take a look at it.:moon:

 

[Brother John]

what's the point?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Yeah, I'm pretty baffled too, and I especially don't understand what the necessity is for the tone of the comments. Maybe it's just me, but they look like...well...bad manners.

I'm afraid, too, that I don't quite get what the need is to explain stuff like, "the universal symbol isn't flat." Of course not; it's a more-or-less two dimensional representation of a sphere, and I thought most folks got that. I know I do, and I'm pretty sure Mr. Billings does.

It looks to me, though, as though we have large areas of agreement and just some terminology differences. So could I ask about one thing--a translation of the following phrase:

"Snakes of wisdom. Not a flattened circle at all. An elipse on a #7."

I apologize if the disagreement is partly my fault; I certainly hadn't meant to single out your post for any criticism. And I do want to get your point--so, an explanation, please? Just of the comment on Snakes of W., if you don't mind.

 

[Rainman]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Yeah, I'm pretty baffled too, and I especially don't understand what the necessity is for the tone of the comments. Maybe it's just me, but they look like...well...bad manners.

I'm afraid, too, that I don't quite get what the need is to explain stuff like, "the universal symbol isn't flat." Of course not; it's a more-or-less two dimensional representation of a sphere, and I thought most folks got that. I know I do, and I'm pretty sure Mr. Billings does.

It looks to me, though, as though we have large areas of agreement and just some terminology differences. So could I ask about one thing--a translation of the following phrase:

"Snakes of wisdom. Not a flattened circle at all. An elipse on a #7."

I apologize if the disagreement is partly my fault; I certainly hadn't meant to single out your post for any criticism. And I do want to get your point--so, an explanation, please? Just of the comment on Snakes of W., if you don't mind.

Did you examine the infinity symbol? Look at the thickness and dimension drawn into the sybol on the page I listed. It is not drawn flat in this particular case. It is not drawn with circles in this particular case. We are not talking particulars but particulates. As it relates to AK, refinement. "Kenpo perpetually refines itself". In order to be functionally self correcting and take anything and turn it into AK-meaning you have to see as many things as possible in the diagram. That is why I gave the reference. You should've seen path, line, ellipses, dimension and some others. So much more than 2 flat circles joined together. Tell me what else you saw... what part of snakes- and what part did you not get?

bad manners is open to interpretation- ever get irritated with someone because they didn't do their homework but "knew" the answers anyway. How to build on something without the foundation I need to build upon?

On agreement- yep there never was disagreement- me whys- you whats. I was wondering when you were going to catch on, but you didn't so I had some fun! BTW my stone face has cracks in it now.

 

[rmcrobertson]

OK, well, if pranks and poor manners interest you more than simply explaining your ideas, that's certainly your prerogative. However, I'm afraid I'm left with the impression that you cannot in fact explain what you mean: I feel sure that this isn't actually true, but it looks like double-talk from here.

I had hoped to learn something from you, honestly. Thanks, then, but I think it best for me to let it go.

 

[Rainman]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
OK, well, if pranks and poor manners interest you more than simply explaining your ideas, that's certainly your prerogative. However, I'm afraid I'm left with the impression that you cannot in fact explain what you mean: I feel sure that this isn't actually true, but it looks like double-talk from here.

I had hoped to learn something from you, honestly. Thanks, then, but I think it best for me to let it go.

You have learned... you thought ellipses were flat. No pranks- pieces. I gave you why's and you answered with what. If you do not tell me exactly what you see when I ask you to look at something I can only give clues which won't do anything but amuse myself. In my mind I have given away much material and many clues to expand on that material. In your mind there is nothing learned or so you say. So there is where I see the humor.

I gave you a simple exercise and the best you can do is make accusations of double talk and use the old reverse psychology tactic of -I can't explain- and- I'm not talking to you anymore. You couldn't even follow through with the exercise and attempt to learn from it. I gave you more answers and you stand there with your hand out and complain. When I was given ideas and exercises by folks I went out and did them and reported my findings. I didn't blow off the experiment and decide the conversation was about me and what I wanted. The things I speak of are universal not system wide. Lastly universal means that they are applicable to all movement as it relates to humans... not sure about animals because I am not so much concerned about being attacked by four legged creatures.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Oh, for crying out loud. I honestly can't think of how to respond to this sort of nonsense in any useful way--or even any polite way, given the extraordinary nature of this response to a simple inquiry. Fortunately, the tone of voice, interpretations, attitude, and intellectual content of this last post speak for themselves.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I generaly feel that teaching the concept of filling in the dead space is done too soon. An eye whip, before any given tech is usefull; however, the base tech is complex enough without inundating the student with advanced material. Strong basic motion is much more important than methods to aid it. I've said my peice.
Sean

 

[Brother John]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Oh, for crying out loud. I honestly can't think of how to respond to this sort of nonsense in any useful way--or even any polite way, given the extraordinary nature of this response to a simple inquiry.

No offense Robert
But this thread died Several posts ago
SO why DID you respond at all?

When the pigs wallow, don't wallow with them...
it only makes the pigs smile
and makes you muddy.

No offense Rainman... not callin you a pig, just that the last several posts have seemed pointless.

Callen'm like I sees'm
Your Brother
John

 

[Brother John]

Originally posted by Touch'O'Death
I generaly feel that teaching the concept of filling in the dead space is done too soon. An eye whip, before any given tech is usefull; however, the base tech is complex enough without inundating the student with advanced material. Strong basic motion is much more important than methods to aid it. I've said my peice.
Sean

and a good piece it was.
Agreed: filling the spaces in shouldn't be taught/done too soon. There's lots of opportunity to do so... and the main portion of the technique has plenty to teach w/out working in the gaps; but don't you think that teaching your students to identify and fill those gaps eventually leads to better understanding of sophisticated/refined motion???

I do.


Your Brother
John