Is a cigar just a cigar?

[Bill Glasheen]

That circle which I practice in Sanchin... What specific thing was I practicing for in Seisan?

I don't really understand the question...

I couldn't have said it better myself, Jim. The minute I get specific - a word you used - you get all no hablo Uechi on me. But in Wing Chun, we... No, Jim. I gave you a very specific example out of Seisan kata where an identical circle means two very different (and opposite) things. Nothing fuzzy about those moves, Jim. There may be differences in how you adapt them to specific situations. But one is clearly receiving/intercepting/grabbing and the other is clearly a take-him-down, lights-out, destroy the cervical spine, battlefield attack.

And both applications come from the same generic Sanchin kata circle.

We invite you to camp. I invite you to my school. It's not for a lack of trying. Mike at least presses the flesh with us. We can agree to disagree, but it's not done out of ignorance.

In application (playing music) they are the very same chords and notes but rearranged in a cogent manner; they are not "fuzzy"; you don't need to squint to see them; there's no confusion that one chord or note is another, an F is not also an F#... Nor is there confusion in how to practice them because there is a 1:1 relationship to what is used later to make music...

You shouldn't be using music as an example, Jim. I teach piano to my son. And you argue best when you argue my point.

An F chord can be expressed many, many ways. It can be expressed with different parts of the chord as the lowest note. It can be done in any octave. It can be played loudly or softly. It can be played all at once, or plucked one note at a time in myriad even or noneven interval notes. Or the chord can be held by an organist. Or the bass can express the lowest note, the guitarist can be plucking individual notes out of the chord, and the lead guitarist can be picking melody notes in a rock-and-roll rift that most musicians know could be done randomly and still sound good. It could be Beethoven or Twisted Sister.

I could go on and on...

More gratuitous sexy women pictures...





- Bill

[MikeK]

We invite you to camp. I invite you to my school. It's not for a lack of trying. Mike at least presses the flesh with us. We can agree to disagree, but it's not done out of ignorance.

Bill,
In Jim's defense it's easy for me to hang with my Uechi friends. I'm local. I've seen you in action so that makes it easier to understand what you're talking about, and I'm sure if Jim were local we'd all be comparing notes over lunch.

To be honest I was thinking along the same way Jim was with the music analogy. You're analogy was also pretty good, but, while a major chord can be expressed many ways it still is made up of a root, the third and the fifth.

Now we can talk about adding embellishments and substituting notes in the chord (7ths, 6ths, 9ths, 11ths 13ths) to get a different sound and even substitute one chord for another but we may end up going into a different discussion altogether.

[Bill Glasheen]

I had forgotten to mention the timbre of the notes, Mike. Shame on me - a person whose dissertation was all about using Fourier transforms - for not mentioning the myriad possible harmonics in just a single note of a chord.

There's that fuzz box (basically clipping the sine wave), wah-wah, phase shifting, frequency band manipulation, etc., etc.

Anyhow...

What I'm talking about isn't that complicated, Mike. It's an approach to any subject matter. If minds would open up a bit, it's possible to see how someone else organizes material.

There are days... It reminds me a bit of undergraduate engineering. To me, undergrad engineering school was a means to an end - getting into graduate biomedical engineering. I had to pay my dues with a crowd of mostly introverted geeks so I could get on to doing research in a very technical field. Nothing wrong with geeks, mind you. I'm a bit of one myself. But introverted geeks are a special breed. And folks like that who score near perfect in the math portion of the SAT and yet couldn't write up a simple lab report or read a book are... well... pretty narrow in their abilities and thinking.

Take for instance my Complex Variables class - a branch of math necessary to understand concepts such as inductance, compliance, phase lead, phase lag, etc. It is the language of electrical engineering. Anyhow at some point in the class the professor would assign some "proof" problems. You should have heard the undergrads whine. "Will I need to do this stuff when I get a real job?" they would ask. Well... Sure you can pull equations out of a book and solve some simple problems in your narrow field. But if you want to break through into a brand new field, well... You're going to need to understand the material at a fundamental level. You're going to need to see the foundations of math theory that tie things together.

A handful of us double and triple majored. I tried to triple major but got delayed by some pinhead professors who didn't understand why I wanted to do that. I finally got an advocate in a professor who was very special. After retiring from UVa, he went on to START an engineering program at Virginia Commonwealth University. That's a special person.

Why would we double or triple major in engineering? I actually knew someone who QUINTUPLE majored (applied math, electrical, mechanical, chemical, and civil). He and I agreed that each additional field of engineering took incrementally less effort to pick up. Why? Because THE EXACT SAME MATH was the foundation of very different fields of engineering. You could talk about flow of electrons, flow of fluid, or movement of mass. You could talk about electrical potential, chemical potential, or mass potential. You could talk about a capacitor, a windkessel, or a spring. And guess what? Squint your eyes (JIM) and you find that THE MATH IS IDENTICAL.

Try telling that to the geek introvert beside you who just wants to graduate and get his job. He wants someone else to tell him what book to get his equations from so he can do his job and go home.

No fun - for me. I see patterns. And when I see patterns, I see the potential for parsimony. And when the brain sees the principles that drive so many different things, then you don't need to have someone else tell you "It needs to be done this way!!!" You get it. No guru or expert required.

Rant = off.

More gratuitously sexy women pictures...





- Bill

[chef]

Deleted

[JimHawkins]

Funny how Mike gets it..

I really don't get what you are taking about Bill... You're all over the place and back again on a very simple subject..

The mechanics/tools are what they are.... Either the same in reality (motion/mechanics) as in the form (to the extent forms are reality) or not... Not one way in the form and another in reality...

I couldn't have said it better myself, Jim. The minute I get specific - a word you used - you get all no hablo Uechi on me. But in Wing Chun, we... No, Jim. I gave you a very specific example out of Seisan kata where an identical circle means two very different (and opposite) things.

I'm not allowed to not understand your point?

I could care less what you think it means..

Is it the same bloody mechanic or not? The same movement or not? The same tool or not?

Some movements can get off with being more symbolic/instructive in meaning perhaps but then may not have any particular app at all...

I thought I was helping by sharing my own experience, apparently not.

One offensive another defensive (according to you) it matters not a lick to me...

I can be very clear about what I do without vague (look it up) references or symbolic chatter..

What's the move, where did it come from, what are the applications and is it the same thing or not? I have no trouble explaining any of this stuff from our forms in print ...

Forms are the encyclopedia of the system, no squinting required....

Pretty simple stuff...

All this other convoluted stuff is just that...

Making things more complicated never helps you make your point Bill...

My Mom teaches 6 different instruments and I doubt she'd get what your on about either..

And you're welcome to stop by here anytime as well...

--------------------------

No nasty cigars required...

[Bill Glasheen]

Funny how Mike gets it..

Not surprising at all, Jim. He takes the time to investigate before talking about the subject matter at hand.

I really don't get what you are taking about Bill...

We've established that.

No nasty cigars required...

I've never had any complaints...



- Bill

[Kresge'slastBB]

it may simply be that motion is motion.

Teaching a student a motion, correcting their form until they get it right, developing the muscle memory to both strengthen and turn the motion into second nature go a long way.

Maybe it would introduce confusion if that motion is described as anything more than a block too early in training?

Maybe later, that motion, when it has become part of the student, is freed from being confined to anything specific at all.

Maybe the circle "block" is all about correct elbow position or wrist snap or forearm tension or dynamic tensioning or redirection or... It may not be about the arm at all, the circular gyroscopic motion may actually be all about the hips... Or maybe it is about all of those things.

[MikeK]

I had forgotten to mention the timbre of the notes, Mike. Shame on me - a person whose dissertation was all about using Fourier transforms - for not mentioning the myriad possible harmonics in just a single note of a chord.

There's that fuzz box (basically clipping the sine wave), wah-wah, phase shifting, frequency band manipulation, etc., etc.

All things that are attributes or colorization of music but shouldn't be mistaken for the song itself. Unless of course we're talking industrial.

Anyhow...

What I'm talking about isn't that complicated, Mike. It's an approach to any subject matter. If minds would open up a bit, it's possible to see how someone else organizes material.

I agree it really isn't complicated, but it's easy to make the simple complex if we try to explain it in a complicated way or with way too much detail. Remember the idea is to simplify.

No fun - for me. I see patterns. And when I see patterns, I see the potential for parsimony.

I'm that way too Bill as it's part of what I do for a living, but, once again, if we are trying to be parsimonious then the explanation should also be short, concise and clear. If the explanation can't be made simple then we have to rethink how it's being explained, or look into the possibility that the pattern and simplicity may not really be there to the level we thought.

Let's see if any of that made sense to anyone.

[MikeK]

Teaching a student a motion, correcting their form until they get it right, developing the muscle memory to both strengthen and turn the motion into second nature go a long way.

Maybe it would introduce confusion if that motion is described as anything more than a block too early in training?

Maybe later, that motion, when it has become part of the student, is freed from being confined to anything specific at all.

I think this is a problem with karate. We are corrected and in turn correct movements until they are "right" but it's in the abstract. After years of training someone to do it "right" they then have to be taught to do it "wrong". I have to wonder if there would be less confusion if we stopped naming things and just showed people the application and worked it over and over. This is how we average folks learn to do movement that we use each and everyday.

[JimHawkins]

Funny how Mike gets it..

Not surprising at all, Jim. He takes the time to investigate before talking about the subject matter at hand.

That's because there's nothing to investigate when it's clear and simple... What Mike 'got' is *my* simple music example: a clear and simple connection between form and function... KISS..

So it has to be wrong then right then wrong again...Blah blah blah....

If the details in the kata have to be just right then it shouldn't need further squinting later on...

In most of those forms they were probably changed so many times it's no wonder folks need to squint, make them right, wrong and back again...

We keep the forms simple: They contain the tools and mechanics we actually use.. And as such that's only the baseline for exploration later with dynamic application, when energy, change and adaptation is then added in for true meaning and clarity...

So Mike, care to elaborate on the squinting fuzzies?

So it's not how it's really done, you have to quint to see it and we need an oscilloscope to monitor it's output and ensure it's just right?

I think I already covered in depth what Bill means... Further I think he just likes to complicate things adinfinitum to make these things as elitist and mysterious as possible...

That way what is unreasonable is also incomprehensible, which makes it hard to argue with....

It's such a simple thing: Form follows function or NOT... (albeit just an initial sketch) It's the not part that offers the real challenge here, or so it seems....

[JimHawkins]

I think this is a problem with karate. We are corrected and in turn correct movements until they are "right" but it's in the abstract.

Mike,

You had told me after I shared some videos with you, that you thought what I do is also abstract... Yet to me the tools and mechanics are consistent.. To my knowledge we don't have any 'metaphor forms'..

It seems strange that Bill can't simply state how exactly a circle is done in a form, then break down how it's done differently in different applications and why.. Assuming there are real differences in the kata circle and in the application circle....not just one is offensive and one is defensive.. I can explain any little tool, shape or mechanic in what I do--or am I asking for too much here..?

Mike, can you explain what you mean here and perhaps site a simple example of what you mean?

To me if you have to show someone how to undo what you taught them in the first place there is a real problem with what you did the first time around...

[chef]

Deleted

[Bill Glasheen]

It seems strange that Bill can't simply state...

Bill simply stated a basic movement in Sanchin, and two specific manifestations of that movement in Seisan. Do you do practice the forms in question, Jim? If not, would it be that hard for you to investigate the specific sequences I stated? And if neither of the above are true, what is the basis of your persistent parsing with commentary in this thread?

After all these posts, you won't bother to comment on the specific examples I gave you. You're rejecting a hypothesis before considering any evidence. Worse yet, you're asking others to do your work for you.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

Stay focused!

See the title of the thread, Vicki; that is the dominant metaphor in the thread. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Sometimes a circle is just a circle.

The cigar saying is attributed to Sigmund Freud. It's origins are in Freud's theory of psychosexual development. For those who haven't taken courses in the history of psychological theory, I included an article from Psychology Today which touches on the concept. Every picture I posted has a cigar, and makes allusions to the Freudian reference. Many of the pictures (e.g. of Monica Lewinsky or the Tiparillo advertisement campaign) are rich in history and detail. For more information, see the Clinton impeachment scandal or literature allusions in marketing campaigns.

Other pictures of women - posted by someone else - have made their way into the thread. They are not in keeping with the theme.

The one black-and-white photo I posted is extremely good. So is this one color photo. Not all these pictures are psychosexual allusions, and that was/is my intention. Sometimes the cigar is indeed just a cigar. And sometimes it's meant to mean something else.

And sometimes it's neither fish nor fowl. The beauty or the lewdness then originates in the mind of the beholder - much like a Rorschach test.

- Bill

[JimHawkins]

Bill simply stated a basic movement in Sanchin, and two specific manifestations of that movement in Seisan.

Not at all Bill..

The normal way to address this kind of thing is to clearly state a thesis... From where I am sitting you have not done so... I would not need you to go review our sets to make a point about how we use shapes and mechanics.. In fact I could make a comparable clear thesis in a concise paragraph...

If I want to ask Mike to clarify his position as stated then that's my business..

In this field of discussion, forms, there are only a couple of elements: shapes and motion mechanics... That said, this thread IMO obfuscates this most basic and understandable nature of what are (forms)...

My position is that these constituent elements should be the same elements used in performance..

That should be enough said right there...

It seems you disagree with this.. If so the rest of it doesn't matter because then I disagree.

Nevertheless let's look again at your 'example'..

What specific thing was I practicing for in Seisan?

You tell me Bill... Then make your point..

This isn't 20 questions...

Are these identical circles (in red above) doing identical things?

Again, this isn't 20 questions... You tell me because this is your point... (thesis)

I could describe a bunch of moves from our forms and then ask you what we are doing there, but what would be the point?

Now...

It doesn't matter to my thesis what they are "doing"..

I don't want to get into your interpretation.. It has nothing to do with my point...

Is your big point that one tool, action or mechanic can be either offensive or defensive..?

That a circle can clear or hit?

If so then again it has nothing to do with my thesis.. My point has to do with the shape and mechanics... THAT's what should be addressed..

What matters is:

Are they the same thing..

Do they share the same root mechanics and shape?

I would address energy constituent but at the form level this is slightly out of scope..

If they have the same mechanics and shape in the form that they later have in performance then you have continuity, if not, NOT..

Mike mentioned having to unlearn things.. If that's part of this stuff then I disagree with it..

I am confident my point is clear...