Intent Yi (意)

[windwalker099]

You don't seem to understand Yi, Qi and Li at all..... no sense in discussing this further with you..., I await your misused/overused/condescending laughing emoji

Not to disappoint on the emoji — here you go

It’s interesting that those most vocal in judging what is or isn’t Taiji rarely show any proof behind what they write. If this were just about words, they’d win — it’s about doing.

Even with people I don’t always agree with, at least they show their work in videos. One may disagree, they can’t dismiss.

Going forward, I’d ask posters to share experiences rather than speak as unknown authorities without showing any of their work. Sincere questions and comments always welcomed— the authoritative tone some take is getting tiring.

 

[Same Trick]

I made the video of OP for you. Click volume button to unmute.

https://imgur.com/a/CHa2OMh

and the video of the longer version in my post #28...

https://imgur.com/ykvBk3a

Thank you, but not workable here.
The vid show Wang Peisheng? I’ll look around the Chinese tubes

 

[Same Trick]

A maybe different perspective…

Yi 意 is often said to lead the qi, and the body follows — a common saying. A simple analogy might be a pitcher throwing a ball: his yi is on the end point, his body trained to deliver the type of pitch he intends. The “qi” could be thought of as the ball, with the body as the delivery mechanism.

What was shown in the videos, though, is quite different from that pitcher/batter analogy. The practice there is about using intent so the body doesn’t act directly on the opponent’s frame — instead it engages their internal aspects, which then influence their structure.

I find that contrast interesting. It highlights how different training approaches shape what we mean by “yi moves qi.”

If it really were “not that hard, rather simple actually”, most people wouldn’t be asking about what the videos show. They’d be sharing how they’ve done it themselves, or how they felt it from another.

IME, even those who have directly experienced it found it quite difficult to do, let alone reproduce.

What do you mean with “opponents internal aspects” ?

 

[windwalker099]

Thank you, but not workable here.
The vid show Wang Peisheng? I’ll look around the Chinese tubes

You do understand the clip was a training video — not a demonstration of how the skill is actually applied?

If you’ve trained this yourself and found it unworkable, or seen others try and it didn’t hold up, that would be useful to hear. The training methods shown are actually quite common among practitioners in China who work with this approach — it’s not something unusual or unique.

 

[windwalker099]

What do you mean with “opponents internal aspects” ?

The question itself suggests you — like others here — are coming from different experiences and perspectives.

On this thread, I’ve noticed comments saying that I (and others) don’t really “understand” what internal means. Yet the ones making those claims haven’t demonstrated that they do through actions. Which means even if I tried to outline what those internal aspects are, others here would likely just question or reject it.

 

[Marsha Larts]

A very nicely composed post but I’m not sure how it relates to my post you quoted.

I absolutely dislike cooperative PH, meaning such as the common Taiji “grasp birds tail” patterned PH, I think it restrain rather than help the practitioner.
And I don’t understand the question in the OP, maybe because I can’t see the video.

You mention “everyday interactions”, that I think is the great “medium” in where to truly understand Taiji .

It was kind of in agreement with the thoughts you shared having to do with the cooperative nature of push hands being one of format rather than a fixed framework.

Everyday interactions in which this 'phenomenon' occurs can be objectively understood without a lot of wordiness, or the tendency to engage in lengthy debriefing that often denatures the experience itself as is the tendency of many taiji people in their effort to draw correlative parallels with the parts of the elephant they may hold to as the defining measure of what taiji represents as a physical method rather than a mind/intent method.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Going forward, I’d ask posters to share experiences rather than speak as unknown authorities without showing any of their work. Sincere questions and comments always welcomed—

So when you can't defend your position.... you use condescension and then you add rules to prevent people questioning you or opposing your view point.... interesting.....now that deserves a
By the way, you don't set the rules on MT...just to let you know

the authoritative tone some take is getting tiring.

So it is OK for you to come off as an authority, sound authoritative and condescending, but no one should dare sound that way in response to you .... you must be a grand master.... in the true sense of mainland China

 

[Xue Sheng]

It’s interesting that those most vocal in judging what is or isn’t Taiji rarely show any proof behind what they write. If this were just about words, they’d win — it’s about doing.

Even with people I don’t always agree with, at least they show their work in videos. One may disagree, they can’t dismiss.

Oh and for the record, videos are not proof of much,... you can have a video of a man shooting qi into his students and they fall down with out being touched.... all he has done was teach his students how to fall down on cue.... proves nothing.... but when they try it on a person that is not their student ot their accomplice..it faisl misrably..., that may be proof... ot that to could be staged... but I doubt it was staged since the qi shooter comes off looking like an idiot, of ends up getting hit in the head.....and explain exactly how a video would show your Baseball analogy as correct when it is just plain wrong.

You claim to have studied the style of Tung Ying Chieh, read the red book if you want proof, it's in there.....stop trying to come off as a master, quit the condescension and the unneeded, unwanted and unnecessary back handed insults and stop trying to be the grand master... give that a try

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

It was kind of in agreement with the thoughts you shared having to do with the cooperative nature of push hands being one of format rather than a fixed framework.

Everyday interactions in which this 'phenomenon' occurs can be objectively understood without a lot of wordiness, or the tendency to engage in lengthy debriefing that often denatures the experience itself as is the tendency of many taiji people in their effort to draw correlative parallels with the parts of the elephant they may hold to as the defining measure of what taiji represents as a physical method rather than a mind/intent method.

Mind/intent methodology is necessarily a component of function within the Tai Chi context. Tai Chi Chuan however, as a martial art, must be functional as such. Videos of demonstration are worthless as evidence in my opinion. In my experience, these are generally equal to stage performance chicanery. Can they do it while I hit them? Can they use it to prevent me hitting them? Do they have a student that can? I quickly lose interest in lack luster conversations that tend towards “ I have a secret “, or “you haven’t experienced my level of knowledge”. These are the trappings of the hucksters, the charlatans, and the self deluded. A person may very well have abilities beyond the norm or the easy explanation, but they will not have developed that in the absence of the physical ability I speak of. In short, it’s a litmus test that a person of real skill will have no issue with. Now, some will claim age, or infirmity as limiting the ability to prove, to this I invite their student to stand in. I can say for certain that no challenge of this sort was ever denied by any of my teachers, thus my strident position and opinion on the matter. It’s pointless as a discussion unless the discussion is in person and includes pressure testing. We have all seen the dismal results of the many challenges to multiple Tai Chi instructors by a certain Chinese MMA fighter. What is missing there? The “mumbo jumbo” is real, but not without the physical reality.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Not to disappoint on the emoji — here you go

It’s interesting that those most vocal in judging what is or isn’t Taiji rarely show any proof behind what they write. If this were just about words, they’d win — it’s about doing.

Even with people I don’t always agree with, at least they show their work in videos. One may disagree, they can’t dismiss.

Going forward, I’d ask posters to share experiences rather than speak as unknown authorities without showing any of their work. Sincere questions and comments always welcomed— the authoritative tone some take is getting tiring.

Projecting a bit here, you often take the authoritative tone, it reflects a certain haughtiness that annoys. You have much of value to contribute, but your delivery is often lacking. Lastly, a laughing emoji is not a rebuttal of substance, and reflects a sagging argument.

 

[windwalker099]

Projecting a bit here, you often take the authoritative tone, it reflects a certain haughtiness that annoys. You have much of value to contribute, but your delivery is often lacking. Lastly, a laughing emoji is not a rebuttal of substance, and reflects a sagging argument.

Interesting. I don’t believe I’ve taken that kind of tone — but if some feel so, they’re free to point it out.


What I do notice is that there’s rarely objection when others say people here “don’t know what they’re talking about,” while posting long essays of their own.

That’s why I share clips or ask others for clips of their work. Videos let people show what they write about, so others can judge for themselves. Whether I agree with the content or not, at least it demonstrates real work and understanding. Writing alone can’t do that.

I’ve gone out of my way to acknowledge different viewpoints, attributing them to differences in practice and focus — not ignorance. I’d hope for the same courtesy in return.

"Lastly, a laughing emoji is not a rebuttal of substance, and reflects a sagging argument."

It's not meant to be,,,

My meaning is "ok, thats funny" considering....

more so when others suggesting someone doesn't know what they'er writing about while never posting their own work....
it's funny

 

[windwalker099]

Videos of demonstration are worthless as evidence in my opinion. In my experience, these are generally equal to stage performance chicanery. Can they do it while I hit them? Can they use it to prevent me hitting them? Do they have a student that can?

That’s an interesting opinion.

The real question, though, is whether one can actually do what’s being demonstrated. If not, then why not? If yes, then they understand its usefulness — whether or not they choose to apply it in a fighting context.

Videos aren’t proof of “invincibility,” but they are evidence of a practice within a certain training context. Sometimes they’re for students, sometimes for a wider audience, sometimes just to show a principle.

In China, it’s widely accepted that anyone can win or lose a fight. The real question is whether someone possesses the skills they speak of, and whether they can use them in the context that matters to them. Some fight well regardless of refined skill; others have skill but don’t fight — their focus is elsewhere. This is especially common among Taiji practitioners.


Back in the ’70s, this was very visible in CMA competitions. What was practiced often didn’t look like what showed up under pressure.

 

[Xue Sheng]

That’s an interesting opinion.

The real question, though, is whether one can actually do what’s being demonstrated. If not, then why not? If yes, then they understand its usefulness — whether or not they choose to apply it in a fighting context.

Videos aren’t proof of “invincibility,” but they are evidence of a practice within a certain training context. Sometimes they’re for students, sometimes for a wider audience, sometimes just to show a principle.

In China, it’s widely accepted that anyone can win or lose a fight. The real question is whether someone possesses the skills they speak of, and whether they can use them in the context that matters to them. Some fight well regardless of refined skill; others have skill but don’t fight — their focus is elsewhere. This is especially common among Taiji practitioners.


Back in the ’70s, this was very visible in CMA competitions. What was practiced often didn’t look like what showed up under pressure.

In the 70s? ....really..... when exactly

 

[windwalker099]

In the 70s? ....really..... when exactly

In San Francisco in the early 70s

 

[Xue Sheng]

In San Francisco in the early 70s

OK, since your last mention was China with no mention of SF, it looked like you were talking about China

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

I don’t suggest you know or don’t know things, I object to some of your assertions regarding the experiences of others or the lack thereof. As I said, and have said directly to you before, your tone is often non conciliatory and even haughty when someone disagrees with your opinion. It doesn’t hurt my feelings, I often have the same sort of response to things people say. I do it too, that’s why I can recognize it as such. I believe your academic knowledge of Tai Chi is greater than mine. I don’t believe we come at the practice from the same point of view, which is perfectly fine. As I said, I believe you have a lot to contribute to the conversation.

 

[Same Trick]

You do understand the clip was a training video — not a demonstration of how the skill is actually applied?

If you’ve trained this yourself and found it unworkable, or seen others try and it didn’t hold up, that would be useful to hear. The training methods shown are actually quite common among practitioners in China who work with this approach — it’s not something unusual or unique.

I can understand that

 

[Same Trick]

The question itself suggests you — like others here — are coming from different experiences and perspectives.

On this thread, I’ve noticed comments saying that I (and others) don’t really “understand” what internal means. Yet the ones making those claims haven’t demonstrated that they do through actions. Which means even if I tried to outline what those internal aspects are, others here would likely just question or reject it.

but I just asked -
“Same Trick said:
What do you mean with “opponents internal aspects” ?”
Do you mean their mind ?

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

In San Francisco in the early 70s

Post 76 was a response to you.

 

[windwalker099]

Post 76 was a response to you.

Am I missing something here?