A matter of perspective - taijiquan

[HoffmanBot3k]

for the record, the 2 people I am talking about have been doing taijiquan most of their lives, And at the time this was said by them, one was one was in his 50s and the other in his 70s. Both trained many years in China....one is a member of a taijiquan family. Now one is in hie 70s and the other in his 90s

Sounds good. But I can continue to do math for many, many more years, but there is no guarantee that my equations will come out right. The argument for supreme mastery via the count of years is flawed. In fact, it's an emotional argument. So, sorry I spoiled your parade.

 

[Xue Sheng107 24]

I find that the older one traces back Yang Style, the more "Chen Style" it becomes, which... makes a lot of sense.

For example, how Yang Chengfu stands here in Push Hands, his legs are how Chen Style would stand.

View attachment 33393

Yang Luchan learned Taijiquan from Chen Changxing (Chen Village)
Yang Luchan had 2 sons Yang Banhou, and Yang Jianhou he taught them Taijiquan
Yang Jianhou had 2 sons, Yang Shaohou and Yang Chengfu
Yang Jianhou possibly changed the form a little, and he taught Yang Changfu
Yang Banhou taught Yang Shaohou, allegedly the same form Yang Luchan taught
Yang Chengfu changed the Yang family style by removing all of the obvious fajin.
The form Yang Chengfu made is the form we tend to see today

 

[Xue Sheng107 24]

Honestly, that doesn't really mean anything to me, given the fact that members of each family have indicated not-so-positive things about members of their own family/relative lineage.

So... that pretty much creates a paradox.

Fact, ok, who in the Chen family are you talking about?

My teacher is not a member of the Yang family, he was taught by Tung Ying Chieh who was a student of Yang Chengfu

 

[Xue Sheng107 24]

And what does any of this

“What is the probability that natural selection would shape sensory systems to report true properties of objective reality? … The probability is zero.” (Donald Hoffman)

The following link leads to my blog where morality, martial arts, Darwinism, and Asian philosophy are taken seriously. It is not for everyone.
(A Blog about Nothing)

Have to do with this thread? Frankly did not make this to promote your blog

 

[HoffmanBot3k]

And what does any of this

“What is the probability that natural selection would shape sensory systems to report true properties of objective reality? … The probability is zero.” (Donald Hoffman)

The following link leads to my blog where morality, martial arts, Darwinism, and Asian philosophy are taken seriously. It is not for everyone.
(A Blog about Nothing)

Have to do with this thread? Frankly did not make this to promote your blog

Right, so martial enthusiasts like to rely upon their perceptual systems in order to answer the questions imposed by Darwinian pressures. Do you not know this?

Also, it is vitally important to know that what we think we see as targets out there are icons of perception--not reality as it is. Do you not know that when the Kyudo archer aims at the target, they are instructed to think of the target/icon not as a separate object "out there." Instead, they in instructed it is a part of them, or as Herrigal explains "If the target and I become one, this means that I and the Buddha become one. Then, if I and the Buddha become one, this means that the arrow is in the center of an unmoved center, which is both existent and nonexistent, and thus in the center of the target." So, if you think you see the target as is, Kyudo is saying...not really. We evolved not to see the truth, but instead, to see fitness points (as I wrote already...food, water, shelter). Read Hoffman for more (I noted the books already).

As for my blog, I would suggest it is not for you.
Now, if you are quite done, and since I am not being paid to tutor you, I would like to "bye, bye now."

 

[Xue Sheng107 24]

Right, so martial enthusiasts like to rely upon their perceptual systems in order to answer the questions imposed by Darwinian pressures. Do you not know this?

Also, it is vitally important to know that what we think we see as targets out there are icons of perception--not reality as it is. Do you not know that when the Kyudo archer aims at the target, they are instructed to think of the target/icon not as a separate object "out there." Instead, they in instructed it is a part of them, or as Herrigal explains "If the target and I become one, this means that I and the Buddha become one. Then, if I and the Buddha become one, this means that the arrow is in the center of an unmoved center, which is both existent and nonexistent, and thus in the center of the target." So, if you think you see the target as is, Kyudo is saying...not really. We evolved not to see the truth, but instead, to see fitness points (as I wrote already...food, water, shelter). Read Hoffman for more (I noted the books already).

As for my blog, I would suggest it is not for you.
Now, if you are quite done, and since I am not being paid to tutor you, I would like to "bye, bye now."

Now that's funny.... not asking you to teach me anything,... but I will say you have one heck of an ego there. Which does not gel with the stuff you are posting'

Now do you have any idea what this thread is about? And what does anything you are saying have to do with it? That is the only thing I was asking

Basically sonny, your off topic. Now if you wish to discuss the stuff you are posting I invite you to start your own post and not hijack mine......

 

[HoffmanBot3k]

Now that's funny.... not asking you to teach me anything,... but I will say you have one heck of an ego there. Which does not gel with the stuff you are posting'

Now do you have any idea what this thread is about? And what does anything you are saying have to do with it. Basically sonny, your off topic. Now if you wish to discuss the stuff you are posting I invite you to start your own post and not hijack mine......

According to Freud, we all have egos, egos that are tossed between morality and sheer Darwinian need. So, it's pointless to say that I have an ego thereby.

Your thread begins with a question of perceptions; however, you err when you make a statement that says "due to the years spent training, and due to age, all perceptions are thereby correct," or as you put it, "But from each persons perspective, based on their years of training, they are all correct." What you desire to do is argue that "perspective" or one's encounter with qualia is a universal qualia. However, as modern cognitive science tells us, one's experience cannot be mapped via a neuronal pattern; therefore, experience as the Buddhist "Jin Gang Sutra" teaches, is quite empty.

 

[Xue Sheng107 24]

According to Freud, we all have egos, egos that are tossed between morality and sheer Darwinian need. So, it's pointless to say that I have an ego thereby.

Your thread begins with a question of perceptions; however, you err when you make a statement that says "due to the years spent training, and due to age, all perceptions are thereby correct," or as you put it, "But from each persons perspective, based on their years of training, they are all correct." What you desire to do is argue that "perspective" or one's encounter with qualia is a universal qualia. However, as modern cognitive science tells us, one's experience cannot be mapped via a neuronal pattern; therefore, experience as the Buddhist "Jin Gang Sutra" teaches, is quite empty.

wait, I thought you said

Now, if you are quite done, and since I am not being paid to tutor you, I would like to "bye, bye now."

Please stop, I am not impressed, not buying what you are selling, don't care, and it has nothing to do with this thread... and I have reported you for hijacking the thread all ready....so please, just stop...now go away boy you're bothering me

 

[HoffmanBot3k]

wait, I thought you said



Please stop, I am not impressed, not buying what you are selling, don't care, and it has nothing to do with this thread... and I have reported you for hijacking the thread all ready....so please, just stop...now go away boy you're bothering me

Don't blame the dog if he bites the neighbor who prods him. It will be my great delight to be rid of your words. As the "Jin Gang Sutra" reports, there is no one to save and nobody to save them. Have a great Friday night.

 

[Xue Sheng107 24]

Don't blame the dog if he bites the neighbor who prods him. It will be my great delight to be rid of your words. As the "Jin Gang Sutra" reports, there is no one to save and nobody to save them. Have a great Friday night.

OK, lets try this

Time swiftly passes by and opportunity is lost. Take heed, do not squander your life" - Japanese Zen master Dogen.... and you are squandering mine

And to also take a page from Zen in the martial arts..... I will not allow you to waste anymore of my time.... so...unlike you.... I have nothing to prove...therefore...when I say I am done responding to you...I am actually done......

I await your childish response in the form of a laughing emoji.

You have a nice day

 

[isshinryuronin4 3]

You did not show me the picture of the neuronal pattern of a "feeling."

??? I've got some pics of my grandkids, but nothing like what you're asking for, for some reason. I'm not a student of neural cognitive psychology, just a simple martial artist.

Have you ever read Bertram Malle's "Folk Theory of Mind: Conceptual Foundations of Human Social Cognition"?

His "conceptual framework" seems another way to say "context." Like in seeing a static stance and judging its value. Hard to do if one doesn't know in what context (how it fits into the fighting system) it's being used. And how well we can judge a TMA element depends on what Malle calls "epistemic access", which seems a fancy way to describe how info is acquired. Experience is one of those sources. Beyond these things, that were touched upon in my post, nothing you're talking about (and likely making little sense to most all of us as we don't have the "conceptual framework") has anything to do with the general subject in this thread. Perhaps you should be on another chat site. I encourage you to look for other places to post.

It is not folk psychology like you are discussing

I'm discussing the physical considerations of stances.

nor do I care for your offerings. Good bye.

Ditto.

 

[Same Trick59 10]

I practice Chen Style, and technically, there isn't a "correct height" to practice because it does vary due to things like one's age, health, or mood.

In theory, Yang Style was said to have different heights of practice, but whether or not the average person trains it that way is a different story. For example, Yang Banhou was said to have practiced underneath a high table, which forced him to practice low.

Low stance practice isn't really about usage, although it can be. Realistically, in usage, I will be in a higher, shorter stance.

The thing with low stance is to have the benefits of it carry over into the high stance. Because not only must I deal with my own weight, but I also have to deal with the additional weight of my opponent's pressure stacked on top of all that.

It is like training to lift 100 lbs to make lifting 50 lbs much easier.

Another incentive to avoid teaching a low stance is that it is less forgiving of errors. Any misalignment in the legs in the high stance is something people can get away with more easily. But once they get into a low stance, the consequences of those misalignments will be magnified.

So, given that most who practice Yang do so for health, I can see why they wouldn't want to teach low stance due to that risk.

Personally, I don't think it's about "Low stance" being more correct. Rather, I think it ought to be more like: "Does one practice low stance in addition to middle and high stance?" Because if one only practices high stance, they do not gain the benefits of low stances to carry over into the high stance.

There's also the question of: Does the methodology of their high stance still translate into the low stance without any compromises?

For example, there are a lot of "rules" that one holds in a high stance that they cannot figure out how to rectify in a low stance. For example, knee passing beyond the toeline.

Some schools teach "tuck the tailbone," where they push their pelvis far forward beyond neutral. As a consequence, low-stance practice will be more problematic for them because it will push their knees forward. Their knees do not have much room left in the low stance. It is by pulling the pelvis back that the knees can have more room.

If it’s TJQ we talking, then there should be - high in the low and low in the high, just as we seek the straight in the curved and curved in the straight, health in the martial and martial in health(kind of).
Was there even any TJQ before Yang LuChan

 

[QuantumKitty]

If it’s TJQ we talking, then there should be - high in the low and low in the high, just as we seek the straight in the curved and curved in the straight, health in the martial and martial in health(kind of).
Was there even any TJQ before Yang LuChan

Well, Xue Sheng seems to think so when they wrote:

Yang Luchan learned Taijiquan from Chen Changxing

Maybe go argue with Xue Sheng about it.

 

[Kung Fu Wang114 144]

The form Yang Chengfu made is the form we tend to see today

My Taiji has nothing to do with Yang Chengfu.

Yang, Jian-Hou -> Li, Jing-Lin -> Chang, Tung-Sheng -> me

 

[Same Trick59 10]

Right, so martial enthusiasts

. Do you not know that when the Kyudo archer aims at the target

Kyudo is probably counted as a martial art, but does it contain the true martial spirit reached when the target aim to not be the target but instead the one first to shoot and nail its arrow .

 

[Kung Fu Wang114 144]

If it’s TJQ we talking, then there should be - high in the low and low in the high,

Here is the problem. Some Taiji people put physical limitation on themselves such as "knee should not pass toes". When you get low, sometime your knee has to pass your toes.

Combat and health sometime don't go together. When someone only care about health and don't care about combat, getting low will have no meaning for them.

In this picture, his right knee passes his toes.

In this picture, his left knee also passes his toes.

 

[QuantumKitty]

Here is the problem. Some Taiji people put physical limitation on themselves such as "knee should not pass toes". When you get low, sometime your knee has to pass your toes.

Combat and health sometime don't go together. When someone only care about health and don't care about combat, getting low will have no meaning for them.

In this picture, his right knee passes his toes.

View attachment 33397

In this picture, his left knee also passes his toes.

View attachment 33398

Chen Zhaokui, low stance, knee does not pass the toes, weight on the right leg, no leaning, very upright. Apparently, it can be done.

Btw, I am not saying it has to be this idealistic in actual combat usage.

I'm just saying, in terms of form practice, it can be done.

 

[Marsha Larts]

Great.
But you imply that "mind" has some sort of separate agency from the Default Mode Network, or did you mean DMN? Also, are you a mind/body dualist? In our contemporary cognitive sciences, "mind," the eyes, and the body are integrated systems. They are not acting in separate hallways in separate buildings at all. Also, can you show me an academic paper that proves absolutely that the body is "almost hard-wired"? What would "almost hard wired" really mean?

Ok, that tells me we're on different pages regards mind/intent and 'the way' I experienced applying it to the development of taijiquan - read; neuroplasticity and motor imagery, among other mind/intent 'excursions'.

Yeah, almost hard wired - kinda like the Moro Reflex and Tonic Neck Reflex.

Also, in cognitive science, the eye doesn't "see" anything. Hoffman likes to joke that your hands "see just as good as your eyes." In other words, "Perception is an interface, not a window (Hoffman)." So, when we see an icon out there (what you call "form") it is by no means mirrored as-is in your head. Humans evolved to note icons that nourish us, protect us, and etc. There is no such thing as seeing veridically because as experiments show (see my former post) evolution does not favor perception at all. So, "seeing" truth is not on the horizon. In terms of "icons," think of your home computer screen. The icons are not programs, instead, they link us to the program. As Hoffman says, "take icons seriously, but not literally."

Cool

A matter of perspective, I suppose. I share my perspective in my own words, as imprecisely as I please. That way, I don't need to co-opt and/or regurgitate someone else's perspective, but if that's working for you then carry on.

So long, Bot

 

[Same Trick59 10]

Well, Xue Sheng seems to think so when they wrote:



Maybe go argue with Xue Sheng about it.

Right, it was more as a general musing than a direct question toward you, but as you seemingly took it as a question toward you maybe you have an answer to give on it rather than point toward other posters in the thread ?

 

[Kung Fu Wang114 144]

Chen Zhaokui, low stance, knee does not pass the toes, weight on the right leg, no leaning, very upright. Apparently, it can be done.

View attachment 33399

Btw, I am not saying it has to be this idealistic in actual combat usage.

I'm just saying, in terms of form practice, it can be done.

Your picture shows horse stance which has no issue. The issue mostly happens in Pu Bu. Taiji uses Pu Bu in slant body down.