Interview with Adam Mizner

[northern_mantis]

That was enjoyable, thanks for sharing. My only critical thought was maybe rather than using the word chi but choosing not to define it, maybe it would be better to use a more descriptive English word.

Anyhoo aside from that it raised some interesting thoughts, particularly around not doing external training. I've opted to focus mainly on climbing as my external training because it is largely quite relaxed use of strength whilst fighting off too much waistline expansion! Would be interested to hear other peoples approach.

[origami_itto]

I think the Chinese is the best choice overall for complete understanding. When you translate you're relating the word to a different concept and that starts to get wonky fast. Just look at Peng, lu, ji, an and how poorly those translate to ward off, roll back, press, and push.

It complicates things. Instead of getting an understanding of what something is, you get an understanding of something else first and then have to learn what the difference is between that other thing and the thing you're actually trying to understand.

Then you've got different people thinking their word is a superior translation and you wind up with two texts describing identical methods and processes that are unrecognizable.

Chi is simpler, and you grow to understand what he means by it specifically through the material. If that means people can't understand what you're talking about without spending some time and effort learning the art, then boo to the hoo, here's a tissue, nomesayin?

[charles]

I think the Chinese is the best choice overall for complete understanding. When you translate you're relating the word to a different concept and that starts to get wonky fast.

I think that direct experience is the best choice overall for complete understanding. What one then labels or names that experience is then largely irrelevant to those that have experienced it. "A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet." Applying a name or label to that experience is then a time-saving convenience for those who have experienced it and want to discuss it. Trying to describe the color blue, for example, to someone who has never experienced it is largely fruitless. However, when two people standing in front of a blue object point to it and say "blue", based on their first-hand experience of it, each knows exactly what the other is referring to. The word "qi", for example, has been ascribed to all manner of experiences, to the point that it has no meaning and every meaning.

In my opinion, a good teacher's job is to lead the student to that experience, not spend all day lecturing academically about the experience and a description thereof. As they say, "The map is not the terrain".

My comments are not directed at the OP's video, just general comments regarding language and these arts.

[origami_itto]

I think the Chinese is the best choice overall for complete understanding. When you translate you're relating the word to a different concept and that starts to get wonky fast.

I think that direct experience is the best choice overall for complete understanding. What one then labels or names that experience is then largely irrelevant to those that have experienced it. "A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet."

In my opinion, a good teacher's job is to lead the student to that experience, not spend all day lecturing academically about the experience and a description thereof. As they say, "The map is not the terrain".

Exactly, feel this, this is Peng, feel this, this is ji, that thing you're feeling is chi.

Making up new words when there is a rich and effective vocabulary is counter productive. Only really effective if you're rebranding the SOS and trying to pass it over as something new and different.

[charles]

Exactly, feel this, this is Peng, feel this, this is ji, that thing you're feeling is chi.

And when two different people do entirely different things and both say, "feel this, this is Peng...", realize that the same term, label or word is being assigned to two very different things. This is where discussion breaks down in the absence of common experience. This is especially true of the word "qi", which now means all manner of things to all manner of people, making the term of little practical value: anything that anyone feels is labeled as "qi". Teaching/communicating at its least effective.

[origami_itto]

Exactly, feel this, this is Peng, feel this, this is ji, that thing you're feeling is chi.

And when two different people do entirely different things and both say, "feel this, this is Peng...", realize that the same term, label or word is being assigned to two very different things. This is where discussion breaks down in the absence of common experience. This is especially true of the word "qi", which now means all manner of things to all manner of people, making the term of little practical value: anything that anyone feels is labeled as "qi". Teaching/communicating at its least effective.

I suppose that depends on the quality of the received transmission. These things have definite meanings. You can call whatever you like whatever you like but that doesn't mean it's accurate.

Of course it's also possible to build a consistent and effective system using completely different terms, you just lose the connection to the vast body of accumulated wisdom on the subject.

Adam's description of these concepts fits the classical writing and his methods produce repeatable and verifiable results, his words seem very accurate.

[charles]

I suppose that depends on the quality of the received transmission.

Everyone of us has received the one, true transmission. Just ask us. And we all agree on what the skills are and what the terms mean, right?

These things have definite meanings. You can call whatever you like whatever you like but that doesn't mean it's accurate.

"Words mean what I want them to mean." - Humpty Dumpty, Through the Looking Glass

[origami_itto]

Yes that is what I said. Thank you for repeating it.

[willie]

Of course it's also possible to build a consistent and effective system using completely different terms, you just lose the connection to the vast body of accumulated wisdom on the subject.

2 things.
1. most people are building their own system and calling it taiji or internal.
2. how do you know for sure what percentage of that vast knowledge is accurate?

Please keep in mind that a very large percentage of the material was never even disclosed to the immigrants who came out here
and set themselves up as masters.

[origami_itto]

get what you can get and judge it on its own merits

[willie]

O.K. But why is there such of a large opinion on taiji and not on other arts like bjj, judo or Mauy Thai?
Ya see, everyone agree's on the effectiveness of them, but very few even think for a second that taiji lives up to the legends.
So, What happened?
Is it possible that there was a whole different format?

[origami_itto]

Probably because there aren't that many people training it properly.

I'd have you dig up the source but one of the early yang masters said the problem was that it takes faith to use taiji properly. You have to, as Adam says here, completely abandon the use of force.

So, he said, it's so counter to the natural way of moving and fighting they can't get it, and start attaching techniques from other systems to patch the gaps they can't obtain. The result is that they pass these errors as secret teachings.

The path is an inch wide and a mile deep. People are impatient and have no discernment or discipline. Teachers want money.

[windwalker]

This was written in 1936

In all things, we each notice that at first we do not know what is superior or inferior, nor understand what is genuine or fake. But once we gather several similar examples before our eyes in order to compare which is superior or inferior, which is genuine or fake, differentiation will naturally be achieved by the way they contrast with each other.

Nowadays, practitioners of Taiji Boxing are numerous and publications are constantly on the increase. The common enthusiasm for it has led to all sorts of wrong paths and uncertainties. Therefore this book gathers together works by various experts who have made systematic studies [Part Two]. I also present distinctions between them by putting them into a comparative list so that you may understand at a glance where they have had slightly different ideas [Part One, Chapter One, Section

"太極正宗
AUTHENTIC TAIJI
吳志青
by Wu Zhiqing
[published by 大東書局 Great East Bookstore, Sep, 1936]

[translation by Paul Brennan, Oct, 2016]"
https://brennantranslation.wordpress.co ... u-zhiqing/


–

[willie]

Thanks for the link, windwalker.
and that was only 1936. imagine how far off coarse taiji is now.

Let's see, it says something like. doing only one posture at a time, review how it is used, link to form later.
Hey that's great and correct, But how come almost everyone is using push hands and not the forms?

[origami_itto]

Well seeing as how everyone that does taijiquan is working from standardized material with absolutely no variance between methods and interpretations I don't see how it could possibly be off.

So many folks seem so invested in discrediting other work I don't see how they have time to perfect their own. I guess they're already perfect.