Single weightedness?

Postby psalchemist » Tue Jun 17, 2003 5:28 pm

Audi,and all,

"Internal meaning"(classical method) vs. mimicking unity(cohesion)

When you enlisted the term "internal meaning", did you mean: applying the method of the 'classics' to ones movements?
Let me try to explain what it is I am striving to comprehend. From what I think I understand; Rather than trying to shift the whole body, all at once, making all parts work in unison, it is more about attempting to apply the classical approach/process("power is rooted in the feet, generated by the legs, controlled by the waist, and expressed by the hands and fingers."Audi)to the movement to gain a type of 'synchronicity'?(unfamiliar with the proper TCC expression). It is not the whole body moving simutaneously, but rather, the body working its way through the 'classical' process so smoothly and imperceptibly(to the untrained eye) that it just SEEMS to be moving all at once.
Is this correct?

Double-weighted.."one way to think about it is in terms of air pressure and airflow. Air flows from areas of high pressure to areas of low pressure. Where pressure is equalized there is no flow. If you want jin to flow you want to be able to distinguish between full and empty and create"pressure differentials".-Audi.

Question...How would one go about exploring and developping ones barometric potential?

Also, are you defining double-weighted as lack of 'jin' flow?

Taiji in the head...Wu Xing in the legs...Bagua in arms. Very interesting...I'm thinking about it,something important I'm not able to identify. Any thoughts welcome.

Binary code...How does a computer possess such a complex system, based on a simple binary system?

Thanks again,
Psalchemist.
psalchemist
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 6:01 am

Postby Wushuer » Tue Jun 17, 2003 9:20 pm

Psalchemist,
I doubt very much that a description of how a computer processes binary code would be very helpful to our discussion here. I’m not against it, but I don’t see how it could possibly relate. I work in the computing field, so I could probably give you a good idea but it would take a lot of space.
I could be wrong about that, and if anyone’s truly interested by no means let me stop you from exploring the possibilities. It may be my daily interaction with these demon boxes has me a bit set against them.
If I can help with the exploration of binary code as related to TCC theories and principals, let me know.

Audi,
Thank you for your words. I know Ron was a bit over the edge, but he had me wondering there for a while if I’d said something offensive to the group.

That said, I have been extremely pressed for time these last days and continue to be so. I will post as I can. In the meantime, good practice to all.
Wushuer
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 7:01 am

Postby psalchemist » Wed Jun 18, 2003 2:09 pm

LouisSwaim,

I don't think I can thank you enough for that website reference, it contains many, many topics which are of great interest to me. I'll be studying for a long, long time.

DavidJ,
Your reference to hexagram 52 and the binary system was invaluable to my learning experience, I am very glad that you mentionned it.

Thank-you,
Best regards,
Psalchemist

Or maybe I should say:
HEXAGRAMS52
VERY GOOD
YING YANG
PSALCHEMIST
BEST BOTH
THNX GUYS


[This message has been edited by psalchemist (edited 06-18-2003).]

[This message has been edited by psalchemist (edited 06-18-2003).]
psalchemist
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 6:01 am

Postby Michael » Thu Jun 19, 2003 6:50 pm

Hi All,

JUst came on an article that touches on "full and empty", which we were discussing earlier. From the recent Taiji Magazine, page 35. "Zhu (Tian Cai) said differentiation of the weight refers to the liveliness of the steps. 'If you can't differentiate between substantial and insubstantial, you can't be lively. Your structure, will be locked so you can't change. To distinguish between substantial and insubstantial is to cultivate the potential for liveliness in movement.'"
Michael
 
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 7:01 am
Location: Wi. USA

Postby psalchemist » Fri Jun 20, 2003 12:34 am

Wushuer,
Sorry for getting "off-topic" here earlier.
Just thought I'd "let you know" that a presumably protracted and arduous explanation on the intricacies of binary processing will no longer be necessary.
I have been led to a particularly "easy and grand synthesis" on the matter,summed up in one marvelous little "box". I will undoubtedly be exploring the possibilities for many, many years.
Thanks for the generous offer anyway.
Psalchemist.



[This message has been edited by psalchemist (edited 06-19-2003).]
psalchemist
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 6:01 am

Postby DavidJ » Fri Jun 20, 2003 1:32 am

Greeting Louis and psalchemist,

Hexagram 52 Keeping Still, Mountain

In the hexagram, from the bottom the lines are: broken, broken, solid, broken, broken, solid:
______
__ __
__ __
______
__ __
__ __
The Wilhelm/Baynes translation reads:

THE JUDGEMENT
KEEPING STILL. Keeping his back still
So that he no longer feels his body.
He goes into his courtyard
And does not see his people.
No blame.


In the lines we see the lowest line associated with the toes, the second line associated with the calves, the third line associated with the hips, the fourth with the trunk, the fifth with the mouth, the sixth with one's consciousness, spirit or heart.

I see the hexagram as a picture of someone standing with two legs slightly apart, energy at rest atop them (in the dantien) then the spine at rest, one is not expressing anything, and the mind is on top - awake, alert, and alive. Hence a standing meditation.

In the 1970's we would say that this is a right brain state. You simple are. You are there aware, but not picking out any piece to be examined, described, or expressed. You can let go of things. Thoughts go by you don't fight them; you watch them come and go and pretty soon the churning waters are stilled (distilled?) Any pressure to do this or that which comes from outside you is put aside. In such a state one is able to rest, and to once again recognize oneself.

Some of this is suggested by the expression, "keeping his stopping still" which I take to mean don't try to be calm, just let it happen.

From many cultures we hear expressions of "to thine ownself be true," but rarely have I run across techniques that aid in doing so.

Regards,

David J

[This message has been edited by DavidJ (edited 06-20-2003).]

[This message has been edited by DavidJ (edited 06-20-2003).]
DavidJ
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 7:01 am

Postby psalchemist » Fri Jun 20, 2003 3:25 am

DavidJ,

001001.Hmmmm...So that is what horseback riding energy would look like in binary terms...I never would have figured that bit out on my own.

Thanks again,
Psalchemist
psalchemist
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 6:01 am

Postby psalchemist » Fri Jun 20, 2003 12:10 pm

Michael,
The quotation you supplied above, concerning differentiating between "substantial and insubstantial" has shed a whole new 'light' on the matter of empty and full, for me. A new context, a new consciousness(thxD).

Apt, Concise and Enlightening.

Best regards,
Psalchemist.
psalchemist
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 6:01 am

Postby Wushuer » Fri Jun 20, 2003 6:11 pm

Psalchemist:
Thank goodness! I was some worried about that.

Substantial/insubstantial. Can anyone define these, seperately, for me?
Let's please keep this in a YCF frame of mind for simplicities sake (not to mention this is YCF styles website), but I am wondering what the definition of substantial is, and conversely the definition of insubstantial.
If we have a commonly agreed on, YCF style, definition of each of these things, then I believe we can move this discussion forward in leaps and bounds.
Louis:
Would you be kind enough to ask Yang Jun what the "official" Yang family definition of these things are? Or if you have allready, would you be kind enough to supply us with those definitions? If you've done that allready, then could you steer us to the proper place to look it up?
I feel we've hit on a highlight of this discussion, "substantial vs. insubstantial" seems to be the crux of this matter.
I started with a question of "single weighted" and that got me to recognise the differences in between the styles on that matter. So I'd rather not assume that I know the YCF versions of what substantial and insubstantial mean and how they are applied.

This is an open question to anyone, though. I'd like to hear as many opinions on the subject as possible. Definitely want to hear what Yang Jun has to say, but also what others think these are.
Wushuer
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 7:01 am

Postby DavidJ » Fri Jun 20, 2003 6:11 pm

Hi Psalchemist,

Horseback riding energy? How did you derive horseback riding energy from what I wrote?

Regards,

David J
DavidJ
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 7:01 am

Postby psalchemist » Fri Jun 20, 2003 8:17 pm

Wushuer,and All
I would like to clarify something immediateley. I DO NOT SPEAK FOR THE YANG FAMILY, I DO NOT SPEAK FOR MY SCHOOL, I SIMPLY SPEAK FOR MYSELF.These are my opinions only. I come here to learn.
Psalchemist.
psalchemist
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 6:01 am

Postby psalchemist » Fri Jun 20, 2003 8:41 pm

DavidJ,
I do have an answer, but I am sure it will be difficult to express on paper. I am trying to combine many new elements...I will post a reply on the subject as soon as I can accomplish the task, but be sure I will be enjoying the work. Mostly I will be waiting to see what your opinions are on the matter since you were one of the people who has helped me so tremendously, with your leads.
I have flipped through the pages of various YICHING books 'feeling' as though it were important, but every IChing book I picked up focused on the divinations only. I looked up another website after I read some of Louis link and again, no binary code. Although I certainly am no mathematician, or physicist, I may have found a clue I was looking for.
Thinking,
Psalchemist.
psalchemist
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 6:01 am

Postby Michael » Fri Jun 20, 2003 8:58 pm

Wushuer,

"Substantial/insubstantial"---my understanding is that these terms are the same as "weighted/unweighted", "empty/full". The quote I posed is from a Chen stylist but I do not think this principle varies. "Respond" or the ability to "change" are the keys here--in Movement. Nothing stands still. If we were considering static forms--then it might be a whole different thing. I think that mixing the concepts of movement with the stationary postures is what gets confusing.

[This message has been edited by Michael (edited 06-20-2003).]
Michael
 
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 7:01 am
Location: Wi. USA

Postby Wushuer » Fri Jun 20, 2003 10:19 pm

Found a posting of Louis's on a different thread that goes to the heart of what we're discussing here. For the life of me I'm drawing a blank on which thread it was, but it was an older one in which he had translated from Yang Zhenji's book.
Here is how he translated one of YZJ's passages:
"Front-Empty Rear-Solid Stances: This kind of stance method is divided into left and right empty stances. The way of doing the left empty stance is that the right foot plants solidly, the left foot lifts upward toward the left front direction, extending out a half-step, using the ball of the foot to touch (dian) the ground, as in the stance of the White Crane Displays Wings posture, [or] by using the heel of the foot to touch the ground, as in the Fist Under Elbow posture. The left and right feet change positions when forming right empty stances. This kind of stance method requires that the rear foot sit solidly. The front foot is not entirely empty; it also possesses some sustaining force (zhicheng de liliang). In the left and right empty stances of Yang Style taijiquan, the front foot is never entirely empty (kong: void, hollow), but must always share responsibility for the weight of the body. The solid foot's share of the weight is a bit more, the empty foot's share of the weight is a bit less. The 'more' and 'less' depend upon the height of the frame, and take the upright alignment of one's weilu (coccyx) and the naturalness of one's turning movements as the measure of appropriateness.
In the stance methods of Yang Style taijiquan, there is no formulation of the kind where 'the solid foot's share of the body's weight is seventy percent, the empty foot's share is thirty percent'.
There is still another kind of front-empty rear-solid stance in which the rear foot is solid, and in which the entire sole of the front empty foot contacts (zhuo) the ground, for instance, Step Back Dispatch Monkey."


This fascinated me, as until I started studying YCF style TCC I had never heard of it. So, being the inquisitive kind of guy I am, I copied and pasted this into an e-mail (hope you don't mind Louis) and sent it to my Wu disciple friends.
Here is what one Wu disciple had to say on the subject:
"Never heard of using the yin leg for balance. You should always be weighted on one leg, except in transition when moving from one leg to the other. That is a given during the form, with very, very few instances when you are completely double weighted. You should not rely on the empty, yin, leg, it should be completely empty with no weight or support for your body in it at all. This allows you the freedom to move or step in any direction at any time."

Talk about a difference in theory! At least they confirmed for me, again, that I am not delusional in my rememberance of Wu family movement theory.
It does, however, point out what appears to be a profound difference of opinion between these two family styles.
I wonder how the styles got seperated so completely in such a short amount of time?
Now, YZJ DOES make reference to "frame" in his quote, which bears out, to some small extent, my personal theory that "frame" is very important in weight distribution between the styles.
Apparently, in small frame, like the Wu style I studied, a clean 100/0 split is correct while in the larger frames the split will be different depending on what frame you are using.

Nothing really earthshakingly new here, but at least some confirmation for me in my pet theory.

Psalchemist:
I think we all knew that, but I also know that it does need to be said as I have done so myself, many times.
Wushuer
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 7:01 am

Postby psalchemist » Fri Jun 20, 2003 10:42 pm

Wushuer,
Have I offended you in some way?
Psalchemist.
psalchemist
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 6:01 am

PreviousNext

Return to Tai Chi Theory and Principles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests