Help me find a martial art

[Trunk]

Late to this thread, but you clearly have this one wrong:

White doggie is round-house kicking w&b doggie's ribs. Youch!

(Obvious if you know tae kwan do like I do!)

Edited May 9, 2006 by Trunk

[sean]

i like scotts discussion of 'mechanic' as opposed to 'technique'.

a technique is generally a whole series of movements designed to counter one specific attack.

see the problem with this? it's applicable only to a limited range....

 

a mechanic however is how something works. you can explore the mechanics of a punch and then take that to be your own and flow with it.

you can take the mechanics of a joint lock and make that applicable under any situation.

 

but to train a set technique, well you are setting yourself up for failure.

Man, you are just buying CST whole hog ... and before even applying the ideas you are only reading about.

 

I see a lot of semantics but no substantial distinction. Getting a triangle choke submission from guard is a technique. It has mechanics, and it's a technique. It can be broken down into components, step by step. And most importantly it works. If you drill it 1000 times and keep trying to pull it off against a live, fully resisting partner. Perhaps you will figure out a guard to triangle choke by yourself after a million hours of rolling around on the grass doing "flow fighting", just like you might stumble upon and perfect chiaroscuro if you pick up a paintbrush and fling paint on a canvas for a zillion years and are a genius. But we have teachers and techniques for a reason. They embody the wisdom of millions of combined hours of experimentation and insights ... and we then get to apply this right off the bat ... in turn building off their wisdom with our own efforts and spontaneous discoveries.

 

 

Sean

[Cameron]

Late to this thread, but you clearly have this one wrong:White doggie is round-house kicking w&b doggie's ribs. Youch!

(Obvious if you know tae kwan do like I do!)

 

[neimad]

Man, you are just buying CST whole hog ... and before even applying the ideas you are only reading about.

 

I see a lot of semantics but no substantial distinction. Getting a triangle choke submission from guard is a technique. It has mechanics, and it's a technique. It can be broken down into components, step by step. And most importantly it works. If you drill it 1000 times and keep trying to pull it off against a live, fully resisting partner. Perhaps you will figure out a guard to triangle choke by yourself after a million hours of rolling around on the grass doing "flow fighting", just like you might stumble upon and perfect chiaroscuro if you pick up a paintbrush and fling paint on a canvas for a zillion years and are a genius. But we have teachers and techniques for a reason. They embody the wisdom of millions of combined hours of experimentation and insights ... and we then get to apply this right off the bat ... in turn building off their wisdom with our own efforts and spontaneous discoveries.

Sean

 

i trained technique based martial arts for years..... i've trained aikido and i've trained BJJ too.... i know i haven't done any of CST's martial arts, but from what i observe the art i'm training, cheng hsin, is very similar.... so i have similar experience and from my experience, my cheng hsin training is nothing like what i was doing before.... in that it is so much more fun, exciting, creative and worthwhile IMHO.

 

i grew bored, very very bored, with technique driven martial arts.... before i even met CST i felt i was getting nowhere and the lack of sophistication and the rote learning of it was extremely tiresome.

i did rote learning all through high school, i did rote learning at uni, and rote learning in martial arts too.... *yawn* it gets very very old after a while. i like the whole concept of mastering my own style... neimad-fu so to speak, and i always sought to apply that in my aikido anyway, but the whole framework was still too constricting.

 

granted BJJ has more room for creativity and sure it can be effective within the context you are training, i have no argument with any of it.

the only argument i have is with the methodology of training, that's something for you to investigate as you continue with your own training and you, as always, are free to explore that for yourself.

 

intuitively i also feel scott's approach is also worthwhile and for me i want to investigate it. i know you have a problem with the whole CST at the moment and thats cool for you.... for me, i have seen more results in 6 months of training CST principles than i could have ever expected... so i have trust for it and choose to explore further.

i agree that i am discussing ideas i haven't yet learnt to apply, i'm taking them on a faith basis and that's cool, i'll admit to that.... i seek to explore it and make the distinction for myself and i'll get back to you then.

 

and don't talk to me about semantics.... you are the master of them!!!

 

p.s. back to your previous post.... technique is not 'form'. form (to once again elicit a groan, and quote scott sonnon) is the integration of breathing, movement and structure.

technique, by my understanding, is the application of a specific response within a specific situation. it is limited by it's very nature to a single possible application, in other words... it is context specific.

yes i'm using someone elses words, but i'm only using them because i understand them through my own experience.

Edited May 9, 2006 by neimad

[neimad]

A similar thing with any art really. Some of the worst worst art I ever see is from people who think there are no techniques in art, that no teacher or rules are needed and all you need is a canvas, some paint and to get out of your own way. Yeah.

 

back to this too....

 

some of the best art is from the people who break the rules, who go beyond what the conventional techniques are......

progress only ever occurs when you play outside the rules. to stay within is to eventually stagnate.

 

it's not that there is no technique, it's about realising that technique can't be rehearsed for the moment..... how do musicians come up with a new song?

do they practice an already made song 1000 times?

 

what???

 

they learn the mechanics of music, they learn the notes, they learn how they go together, and then they experiment and jam.... they get out of their own way and they flow.

 

there are definately rules, there is definately a framework to build within and off of, that much is obvious.

however that can only ever take you so far.

 

if all art was trained in the same way traditional martial arts were..... there would never be anything new, just constant variations of the same.

Edited May 9, 2006 by neimad

[Cameron]

All of these ideas are worked out in the DOING of martial art. I couldn't imagine ever being arrogant enough to look at my BJJ teacher who can almost effortlessly do technique from diffrent positions and go "Yeah, you know I can just figure that out on my own".

 

I don't really make too much of a distinction anymore between what is the best art nonsense. I asked the board whether I should do Aikido or BJJ but I had really already decided to stick with BJJ, you all just gave me some good feedback.

 

But I don't think another art is inferior since IMO the most important part of ANY art is the TRAINING. Mind, Body, Spirit..Focus..pushing through personal barriers.

 

And I don't like the narrow "what is your goal" approach so much anymore. It is very limited. Ok..you got a goal..now what..another goal..I only have one goal in MA now..learn the technique then forget the techniqe since it has become second nature.

 

To be honest for BJJ it will probably take atleast 5 years to get there. If I started back at aikido probably another year or 2. So BJJ is definetly more of challenge for me..and that is not a bad thing..

 

It's a process..someone who just takes a few weekend classes can't understand what a real martial artist goes through and faces in himself. You can tell pretty quickly who the real ones are just by there presence..

Edited May 9, 2006 by Cameron

[neimad]

But I don't think another art is inferior since IMO the most important part of ANY art is the TRAINING. Mind, Body, Spirit..Focus..pushing through personal barriers.

 

too true.... it's about how you as an individual approach it, what you feel like you are getting out of it and how much you enjoy it.

 

in that sense there can never be a best style, only a most suitable one.

 

i go with plato on the goals stuff though, had no idea it was fureyism though!

 

i've just found that having an idea of goals, and even having them written.... brings them to fruition.

 

suprisingly some goals i wrote down some time ago, then completely forgot about.... have actually been met! i think the voicing, or the intent of them, was what enabled me to meet them.

 

always new goals, always moving forward, never stagnant.

 

have fun with the BJJ

[sean]

back to this too....

 

some of the best art is from the people who break the rules, who go beyond what the conventional techniques are......

progress only ever occurs when you play outside the rules. to stay within is to eventually stagnate.

 

it's not that there is no technique, it's about realising that technique can't be rehearsed for the moment..... how do musicians come up with a new song?

do they practice an already made song 1000 times?

 

what???

 

they learn the mechanics of music, they learn the notes, they learn how they go together, and then they experiment and jam.... they get out of their own way and they flow.

 

there are definately rules, there is definately a framework to build within and off of, that much is obvious.

however that can only ever take you so far.

 

if all art was trained in the same way traditional martial arts were..... there would never be anything new, just constant variations of the same.

There is an old saying "Learn the rules before you break them".

 

I basically agree with everything you are saying. But there is a really common sense sequence. Something like ... you 1) learn a structure, typically one that has been passed down by people older and smarter then you, and then you 2) try it out, drill it, practice it (often the hard boring part that everyone yawns about and wants to figure out how to skip) and then you 3) use it, apply it, tweak it, integrate it, make it personal ... then, if you are really good, you 4) completely break the rule in an innovate way, effectively transcending it. It doesn't have to be quite this linear, but it's a decent, practical map. IMO way way way way way too many people try to skip 1-3 and break all the rules right away. Especially hippies. We have to work within form, especially at first. Imagine if you someone tried to learn math by just "jamming out with numbers dude", it's a ridiculous idea. Unless we are a natural Einstein, most of us have to memorize boring rules before we can improvise and not just make asses of ourselves.

 

The technique vs. flow distinction just isn't valid. Both should be a part of any training and both can be judged in terms of their effectiveness for what is trying to be accomplished.

 

Sean

[Cameron]

too true.... it's about how you as an individual approach it, what you feel like you are getting out of it and how much you enjoy it.

 

in that sense there can never be a best style, only a most suitable one.

 

i go with plato on the goals stuff though, had no idea it was fureyism though!

 

i've just found that having an idea of goals, and even having them written.... brings them to fruition.

 

suprisingly some goals i wrote down some time ago, then completely forgot about.... have actually been met! i think the voicing, or the intent of them, was what enabled me to meet them.

 

always new goals, always moving forward, never stagnant.

 

have fun with the BJJ

 

 

I have nothing against goals I even got Plato into Fureyism he is just talking shit as he is prone to do every few months(Being a human/alien hybrid from midtown) I am just in allow everything to be as it is..resting in your being mode at the moment..

 

I could easily switch to a top 10 goals list mentality(doubtful though) and I don't judge any of it. It's all good man!

[neimad]

Especially hippies.

 

you calling me a hippy???

hahaha

 

Unless we are a natural Einstein, most of us have to memorize boring rules before we can improvise and not just make asses of ourselves.

 

i think every human being is a 'natural einstein'. we all have that infinite potential.... yet are conditioned out of it.

 

I am just in allow everything to be as it is..resting in your being mode at the moment..

 

i'm in "allow everything to be while actively pursuing it all" mode. i allow my feelings to just be, i allow coincidences to just happen, i allow situations and circumstances to dictate my direction.... yet i also have goals that i actively pursue, just for something to do!

i love the paradox!

 

p.s. your quote, cam, i like it..... thats how i feel now. i was watching a show the other week on happiness and at the end they went around asking people on the panel if they were "happy". i thought about this and realised.... no, i'm not happy... cos happiness goes hand in hand with sadness and i got none of that. i really feel like i am in that good place beyond happy and sad.... i'm not sure what has happened to me, or how and i'm actually really baffled because i have none of the other 'symptoms' i would consider to go with this kind of thing (like super powers, extreme ability to do amazing things, multidimensional consciousness, psychic abilities, etc) yet there is something so very different about who i am and how i feel now that is uncomparable to how i was previously.

[sean]

i think every human being is a 'natural einstein'. we all have that infinite potential.... yet are conditioned out of it.

You can't just "get out of your own way" and spontaneously design a new type of nuclear-powered jet engine. You were not "conditioned out of" any inherent knowledge of how jet engines work that is preventing you from doing this if only you could just "unbind your fear" you'd be bangin' out blueprints without reading any of those annoying books full of restrictive formulas or listening to stuffy old teachers with all their oppressive rules. You have to study *gasp* OMG techniques from, get this, lineaged sifus of mathematics and jet propulsion theory before you can even hope to unleash your intrinsic genius within the structure of this form. This is so obvious I don't know why anyone thinks there are magically different rules with martial arts, or meditation or painting.

 

Sean

[Cameron]

This reminds me of the shu ha ri form of studying a martial art from an Aikido master .Well, not from him but he talks about it.

 

The first stage is shu which he classifies as self negation stage .It is a negation of the self since it is a period where you learn/absorb the art from your teacher .It's not about your personality and special contribution to the art it's about shutting up and following your teacher.

 

The second stage, Ha, is about self affirmation. After a period of study(Let's say 5 years minimum) you learned all the techniques of the art pretty much and learned your teachers system. Now you can explore .You break away from following your teacher to becoming more of a martiala rtist yourself .You develop your own style of the art or unique expressions.

 

Ri is the 3rd stage .He called this a stage of transcedence. You basically go beyond the teacher/student duality. Leaving behind thoughts of negation and affirmation. Basically your a master of the art at this point .You could probably teach your teacher something and probably be a teacher yourself.

 

Rough translation but it's an interesting breakdown of the process studying MA seriously.

 

Cam

Edited May 9, 2006 by Cameron

[neimad]

You can't just "get out of your own way" and spontaneously design a new type of nuclear-powered jet engine. You were not "conditioned out of" any inherent knowledge of how jet engines work that is preventing you from doing this if only you could just "unbind your fear" you'd be bangin' out blueprints without reading any of those annoying books full of restrictive formulas or listening to stuffy old teachers with all their oppressive rules. You have to study *gasp* OMG techniques from, get this, lineaged sifus of mathematics and jet propulsion theory before you can even hope to unleash your intrinsic genius within the structure of this form. This is so obvious I don't know why anyone thinks there are magically different rules with martial arts, or meditation or painting.

 

Sean

 

 

look, i'm not arguing that there isn't an alphabet to be learnt before you can create your own words.... my problem is with the methodology of learning it.

 

this is where we have a misunderstanding between technique and mechanic.

 

i'll try and use an example to illustrate my point:

 

in aikido there is a technique called "kotegaeshi" which is a type of wrist lock/throw.

the way it is trained is we train it repeatedly from the same attack (which may vary) i.e. we train it from a straight punch to the chest, or an overhead strike.

thus we have a 'technique' we have a "when aggressor does this, you do this" scenario.

 

the problem is that an aggressor never acts within the contexts of how we train, and we always train with compliant partners. what we end up training is someone elses definition of a reaction to an attack.... we are training how to be someone else, the particular teachers interpretation of the person who created the art. we are training to be them.

 

the alternative is still involving the same wrist throw. but this time we dissect it and we investigate how the throw works. the throw works when the wrist is turned a certain way which essentially causes a chain of tension along the joints to lock up the elbow, shoulder and hip. we create drills to explore this mechanic and to explore how to displace an opponent by locking up the joints. we then explore this with increasing levels of stress and sophistication. there is no "if aggressor does this, we do this" scenario.... there is only an awareness of how someone can be displaced and neutralised through locking up of joints. we have within this a myriad of oppurtunities and learn to respond to each situation appropriately within the unique and ever changing event it is.

 

what happens is that we are creatively exploring this for ourselves. we come to own this particular set of mechanics for ourselves by learning to express it in our individual way. we get the ability to create our own techniques based upon those mechanics inherent to human movement.

 

 

it sounds and seems so similar, and it is. the only difference is the methodology of approaching the training.

 

it's the difference between learning by rote, and by learning by questioning and forming opinions, hypotheses and theories and getting to test them for yourselves. learning through exploration.

 

learning by rote you can pass an exam that requires memorisation, easily (as many of my uni exams did... i don't learn by rote though, so i never did well in these) but try and write your own opinion formed essay after you have been learning by rote for so long.... good luck to you!

life (and combat) happens in the form of essays, not in the form of exams that we can walk into with a head full of facts devoid of any real understanding.

 

in art class in high school do they ask you to paint the same picture 1000 times so you truly get the mechanics of brush stroke, texture, colouring, shading, etc?

no.... we analyse the mechanics as seperate entities and then go ahead and explore them in our own creative way.

 

if its going to be called martial arts then it needs to be treated as art. it needs to be a creative exploration of individual expression..... for that is what art is.

 

it's not science, it's not mathematics.... it's art.

 

why go to battle with a bunch of techniques in your hand, when you could go there equipped with the ability to create your own at will?

 

if you are content with fitting into someone elses mould, that is your choice and i would never dream of trying to dissuade you from that.

for myself i don't like being forced into a mould, i'm a funny shape and i don't fit.... no matter how hard you press!

 

and lastly, was there any need to resort to sarcasm? i already think you are intelligent so there is no call to try to belittle me just because my opinion differs from yours.

take the high and mighty ground if you like, but i'm not an opponent to be cut down... i'm an oppurtunity to learn and investigate, thats all. thats all anything ever is.

 

for me i am very grateful for this whole discussion, it has enabled me to clarify a whole line of thought that was just waiting to click into place.

so thank you for that, and blessings sean.

 

p.s. this whole dialogue was in relation to the study of aikido... in BJJ there is a little more freedom of expression, however there are still restraints... from my point of view.

Edited May 9, 2006 by neimad

[Cameron]

The way I see it your not in a position to be talking about "freedom of expression" in MA until you have "done your time" studying with an expert/master whatever for a considerable amount of time.

 

I don't know how long you studied aikido..I did on and off 7 years..and I would still call myself a beginner of aikido. It's not about mimicking someones technique .When I would train in class with O'sensei's students who had near flawless technique at no point do I think "Ok, what is my expression of that?" my thinking was "These guys trained with O'sensei, lived with him at his dojo, for like 10 years..they probably know a little more about this than I do..I should just shut up and try to get something because if I can get just a little of what they had that would a success in my mind."

 

It about learning the proper way to use your body. Maybe you can get this with rmax stuff faster..I don't take away the possibility..but the subtle movements of doing technique through the hips rather than using brute force or muscle, which is actually a trait of both BJJ and Aikido masters, the intricate and subtle timing involved that your only going to see with an advanced teacher and through hard training with other students, all that simply involves learning from eachother through repetitive execution of techniqe(kote gaesh or whatever) and then free execution, rolling..randori..going out on the street and challenging a dude to a fight

Edited May 9, 2006 by Cameron

[thaddeus]

 

why go to battle with a bunch of techniques in your hand, when you could go there equipped with the ability to create your own at will?

 

 

ok..just to be a pain in the butt devil's advocate..i was friends with a russian wrestling champ and heard this same advice from my judo instructors..they said you pick one or two techniques that suit your body and you learn to do them in any situation. Judo guys will usually ask each other what's the favorite technique. So yeah, I do think serious battle fighters go in with one or two techniques designed to kill their opponents...no time to listen, just go in and do damage..which btw, is the philosophy of many martial likes like Baji.

T

[sean]

Neimad, I'm sorry if I'm coming off sarcastic or harsh. I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just being blunt and also trying to be a little funny but it's probably coming off wrong. I have to admit, I do think it's a little annoying when it looks like you are basically reading ad copy for CST products and then regurgitating it here before you've even had real experience with it. But I think you're cool man, and I care more about you than trying to prove a point, so if I'm hurting your feelings I apologize. Also ... am not trying to bag on CST really, I just don't agree with it to 155% cult-watch level ... which is apparently a prerequisite for being part of that club. But I do have a pass to go to one of these CST cert seminars and so I will be going to one within the next year or so and training with Scott ... I have learned a lot from his work, he seems like a unique dude.

 

in aikido there is a technique called "kotegaeshi" which is a type of wrist lock/throw.

the way it is trained is we train it repeatedly from the same attack (which may vary) i.e. we train it from a straight punch to the chest, or an overhead strike.

thus we have a 'technique' we have a "when aggressor does this, you do this" scenario.

 

the problem is that an aggressor never acts within the contexts of how we train, and we always train with compliant partners. what we end up training is someone elses definition of a reaction to an attack.... we are training how to be someone else, the particular teachers interpretation of the person who created the art. we are training to be them.

So, if live, fully resistant sparring were present as the last hour of every Akido training, then you would try this move out and after it didn't work at all 150 times, you would go to your teacher and ask him to show you what you are doing wrong. Then you try it out again in live, fully resistant sparring and it still doesn't work so you either trust your teacher if he tells you that you need to practice it for 5 years before it will work (and you could watch if this was true in his live sparring. does he ever pull off this move?) ... or you just scrap it. Bad technique. Doesn't really work live.

 

It's simple. There are bad techniques, there are good techniques and there are everything in between. It's not, resistant "flow" sparring = good, all techniques = bad because I had bad experiences with Akido techniques being lame and I read an ad for a Sonnon DVD.

 

There is an art and a science to everything IMO. You are contradicting yourself strangely by explaining this detailed scientific methodology for exploring the mechanics of the body, joint rotations, chains of tension, etc. ... but then somehow labelling and teaching a commonly successful mechanical sequence a technique oppresses all the creativity out of this purely improvisational art you are exploring. EVERYBODY knows that the lame reaction based techniques Scott is dissing where it's like "here comes a punch coming straight for me, what's step 2?" are lame. The BJJ community has been making fun of this shit online for 10 years. But this doesn't justify calling all techniques oppressive to flow. Unless you are trying to position yourself in a market uniquely that is.

 

To run with your lingistic analogy, I think these detailed mechanics you are describing are more akin to grammar, whereas techniques are like words and sentences. The irony is that children don't learn a language by studying grammar and alphabets and then trying to improvise words and sentences. Children learn a language by being exposed to full, complete, functional sentences from which an internal grammar is derived in practice. Then later, after they have been practicing successfully for 10 years, they learn a grammar which then informs and further evolves their use of language.

 

Sean

[neimad]

don't worry sean, you aren't hurting my feelings or offending me.... honestly, i don't know if it's possible to hurt my feelings anymore as i don't seem to have feelings in the same way i used to. i'm interested to find out though and really test the extent of my current stability.

*looks for the next woman to break my heart*

i was just expressing that i didn't think it was necessary to lower yourself to the level of sarcasm for the purposes of the discussion.

 

 

i also understand that i am like a walking advert for CST, but thats just cos it's my current passion. it happens when people are really into something, and especially so with me. i dig the training and it encompasses pretty much everything i was looking for (except the meditation aspect which i already had, and the sexual aspect which i am still working out for myself).

prior to CST i was doing some chi kung (5 animals frolics) for daily health & mobility, but got real bored with it real quick.

i was doing self-resistance and isometric training for strength, but also got bored with it and didn't find it satisfying.

and i was going to yoga for the flow and flexibility aspect, and i enjoyed this but i also felt there was something missing from it (the creativity factor).

 

then, thanks to you (sean) actually, i found CST.

intu-flow (originally warrior wellness) replaced the chi kung, and i find it more fun and enjoy the levels of sophistication and the incremental progression that is occurring.

clubbells replaced resistance training, wow so so so so much more fun! and way more applicable (plus no more DOMS!!)

body-flow replaced yoga and i truly dig the creativity and ability to go ahead and create my own flows.

 

i wouldn't consider myself a cult follower, and i don't agree with everything said... but i give it the benefit of the doubt and explore it to either validate or invalidate it for myself.

i have read heaps and heaps of the articles, and in this particular case - martial arts - what scott says resonate positively with me.

 

i have had experience with technique driven, reaction based, context specific martial arts and it was unsatisfying so i gave up.

i have also had a chance to explore, even though my experience is still new, the opposite.... response, mechanics and non-context martial arts and i enjoy it way more. i'm getting benefits out of it that go far beyond martial arts (into emotional and psychological) in a more profound way than ever occurred with my previous studies.

 

so for me, this is the way i want to train..... whether it makes sense or not.

if i am doomed to failure, well i get to learn that through experience but i make a choice to enjoy it.

 

take it easy brother, and no offense taken.... hopefully none given either.

 

p.s. oh yeah i intend to get to a cert seminar next year hopefully... maybe i'll catch you there?

how'd you get the pass?

[sean]

take it easy brother, and no offense taken.... hopefully none given either.

 

p.s. oh yeah i intend to get to a cert seminar next year hopefully... maybe i'll catch you there?

how'd you get the pass?

*Hugs* Neimad (no patting this time). Yeah, that'd be cool to hang out. Not sure when I'm going yet, I have an open pass valid for two years ... I got the pass for doing some design work for RMAX.

 

Sean

[neimad]

hahaha yeah man, *hugs* to you too.

 

thats sweet to get the pass, i'd love it that oppurtunity, lucky man.

 

getting there to do the cert seminar will be a HUGE investment for a work-shirking bum like me.

however worthwhile, as should i find myself living in a city, or any place that you still need regular income to exist, i will fall on my hopefully instructor ability and combine that with a diploma in nutrition and perhaps counselling and make a business for myself.

[neimad]

thanks T,

 

yeah you got it, i think.

the learning becomes exploratory and emphasises more creative aspects... like in the example of the child exploring the words for itself and how they combine.

 

i was inspired by this convo so i made a post over at cst forum about it:

 

http://www.circularstrengthmag.com/34/sonnon12.html

 

yet another article that really resonates with me.

 

i have been in discussions a lot lately about the inadequacy of preperation and ability for transcendance that rote learning gives to us.

 

i was educated in a montessori school for the first 6 years of my education (my mother is a montessori pre-school teacher) and when i think back upon those years i remember very little teaching that was given to me and i remember a lot of free time i had to pursue what it was i loved at the time (reading books and writing stories).

without knowing myself it would seem that my time spent there would have been a waste, however what was happening was that i set up conditions within myself to enable self-learning.

in high school, as soon as my ummm 'cognitive faculties' (for want of a better expression, i am talking about the stage that happens when we stop rumbling through the planet with childlike abandon and begin thinking critically about everything) kicked in i had some realisation that the way i was being taught was flawed. i paid very little attention in class (often sleeping or spent mucking around with friends) but the learning happened at home on my own and despite having little love for school and the silly memorisation i was being taught i still managed to get decent results in some subjects, primarily those that enabled some creative imput, some oppurtunity to explore for myself.

suprisingly one of those subjects was maths. the reason i felt i did so well in maths was quite simply because i explored it on my own. i would go home with the text book and i would look at the question, think about it for a while and if i got nowhere i would flick to the end of the book... look at the answer and figure out how to get from question to answer.

sometimes one question would take me as long as an hour to figure out, but once i got it that was it, it was repeatable for every variation on the same format and i breezed through the rest of the section.

 

then came university, and MORE rote learning. i studied environmental biology and i just couldn't comprehend how an exploratory field such as science could possibly be taught without the ability for creative flow. everything we did had to be done in a particular manner that was always done that way, we were not allowed to offer thoughts on results from experiments that were not backed up by evidence... there was no push for us to think on our own (except for 3 subjects, all of which i immensley enjoyed and did very well at).

 

again we see the whole "rote learning to transcend it" theory in that we learn in education to memorise a particular way of doing things and then only come phd time can we think about exploring it on our own.

 

how much more could children learn if allowed to explore creatively? how many more geniuses would be brought into this world if our children were allowed to pursue what they wanted to learn and in a creative and exploratory manner, rather than force-fed meaningless details and facts? how many more people would go on to begin to achieve their true potential?

 

i can only wonder and hope that in the new paradigm that seems to be emerging more of this exploratory learning is embraced and encouraged.

[hajii]

 

1) learn a structure, typically one that has been passed down by people older and smarter then you, and then you 2) try it out, drill it, practice it (often the hard boring part that everyone yawns about and wants to figure out how to skip) and then you 3) use it, apply it, tweak it, integrate it, make it personal ... then, if you are really good, you 4) completely break the rule in an innovate way, effectively transcending it. It doesn't have to be quite this linear, but it's a decent, practical map. IMO way way way way way too many people try to skip 1-3 and break all the rules right away. Especially hippies.

 

Sean

I have learned this lesson the hard way and have found it to be SO true. Skipping ahead did not work at all!

[el_tortugo]

 

TURTLE BOXING

About an hour, See Main VCD page for prices, CHINESE ONLY

 

A Bie is actually a "soft shelled turtle." This form starts right from the get go with the image of the turtle swimming and breaking the surface of the waters. Flipper techniques no less, some unusual ground fighting, some actions of the turtle on its back. Turtle boxing is indeed a traditional technique but has never been common. A charming and definitely different performance.

[Christoph]

 

TURTLE BOXING

About an hour, See Main VCD page for prices, CHINESE ONLY

 

A Bie is actually a "soft shelled turtle." This form starts right from the get go with the image of the turtle swimming and breaking the surface of the waters. Flipper techniques no less, some unusual ground fighting, some actions of the turtle on its back. Turtle boxing is indeed a traditional technique but has never been common. A charming and definitely different performance.

 

 

His turtle style is no match for my butterfly guard!!

[DustWalker]

I would difinitely go for I Liq Chuan if I had the opportunity.. www.iliqchuan.com

 

This dude Sammy Chin is really amazing.

[Buddy]

BTW Bjj is NOT taiji. CST seems ok but I'll stick to baguazhang.