Ki & Aikido

[jzs]

MartialMan, perhaps you can try to test out his one-touch KO's as well.

 

I think a 'law' that one-touch KO's violate is a dose-response curve. We know from physics that a little tap produces little movement, while a big push produces large movement. Some people who claim to use qi seem to say that a little tap will cause large movement, and that this movement is not due to suggestable students, but actually to the 'dose' of qi.

[JEM618]

The "laws" of phisic and KI. Careful some point out that it is different form Chi/Qi. Or is it?

 

Quoted from JL somwhere around the beginning of this thread.

 

To begin with, I'd suggest looking at the original Chinese, not Japanese. Qi [breath] is different from Yi [mental intent] is different from emotional intent (forget the word), etc.

 

Maybe you can further your research by asking one of the forum members who practices Chinese MAs to define 'chi' or 'qi'. Or you could take a trip to the local library or bookstore.

 

BTW:

 

Is phisic a new branch of science or did you mean physics?

 

Hmmmm….

 

Careful some point out that it is different form Chi/Qi

 

Perhaps:

 

Careful some point out that it is a different form of Chi/Qi.

 

Careful some point out that it is different from Chi/Qi.

 

Don’t get frustrated, I’m just trying to understand. Please explain.

 

[47MartialMan]

The "laws" of phisic and KI. Careful some point out that it is different form Chi/Qi. Or is it?

Quoted from JL somwhere around the beginning of this thread.

 

To begin with, I'd suggest looking at the original Chinese, not Japanese. Qi [breath] is different from Yi [mental intent] is different from emotional intent (forget the word), etc.

 

Maybe you can further your research by asking one of the forum members who practices Chinese MAs to define 'chi' or 'qi'. Or you could take a trip to the local library or bookstore.

 

BTW

 

Is phisic a new branch of science or did you mean physics?

 

What do you think I mean?

 

Careful some point out that it is different form Chi/Qi

 

Perhaps:

 

Careful some point out that it is a different form of Chi/Qi.

 

Careful some point out that it is different from Chi/Qi.

 

Don’t get frustrated, I’m just trying to understand. Please explain.

 

Careful, some believe that it is all the same. Forget the "breath"

 

Careful, how can one say that they are different, when they had just suggested for another to research it when they may only know ONE of the other.

 

Careful, some think that the Japs are a culture of copy cats that taken Chi/Qi, among other things, and used it in their own fashion.

 

Careful, that Aikidoists believe in Ki, because it is in the very name and practice, thus "brainwashing" practitioners.

 

Careful, maybe one should research the many other aspects of Chi/Qi that one should take their own suggestion.

 

Careful, my posts are not neccessarily my view or opinions.

 

Carfeul, I don't kair about grammatical errors.

 

[JerryLove]

I think a 'law' that one-touch KO's violate is a dose-response curve. We know from physics that a little tap produces little movement, while a big push produces large movement. Some people who claim to use qi seem to say that a little tap will cause large movement, and that this movement is not due to suggestable students, but actually to the 'dose' of qi.

If you want a discussion of one-touch and one-strike knockouts, fel free to start a thread. Since many of them have nothing to do with chi and are quite external, you might choose a different area than "Internal Arts". Let me know where and I'm happy to discuss it (I'm trying to let this thread get back to Akido or die).

 

I will quickly point out one or two things about your posts.

 

1. In regards to the OTKO material, no one has claimed "that a little tap will cause large movement" (though one could argue that falling down is a large movement I suppose). You are arguing a straw man.

 

2. If you wish to disavow the concept of light-strike knockouts, I'd suggest starting will Dillman. I believe he's tested and accepted. Wheather his pressure-point knock-outs work in fighting, I'll not comment on... but they do finction.

 

If you wish, however, to disavow the entire concept that someone can be knocked out in one hit, you are facing off against some pretty heady opposition who will talk about many instances of doing just that (Geoff Thompson comes to mind), as well as many instances of that occuring... even in front of a camera (it's not unheard of at martial-arts competitions... and I know at least one Tyson fight that's damn close).

[JerryLove]

Japanese Symbol for Kihttp://members.aol.com/rc13/Aikido/ki-red.gif

 

Chinese symbol for qihttp://www.jadeacupuncture.com/Qi.jpg

 

They are the exact same symbol. It is the same word pronunced differently.

[thaiboxerken]

If you wish to disavow the concept of light-strike knockouts, I'd suggest starting will Dillman.

 

How about a person certified to teach such nonsense under Dillman?

 

http://tkdtutor.com/07Defense/Targets/PressurePoints.htm

 

Look for the Dim Mak interview link for the Fox News article.

[jzs]

Jerry,

 

If the knockouts only work in a seminar demonstration, they don't truly work, but are dangerous party tricks, where the person being knocked out literally lets the other person walk up there and hit them on the back of the neck, or wherever.

 

Dim mak people, for example, go on and on about qi.

[thaiboxerken]

Dillman's KO's are about sending ki into a person. His student "the human stun gun" claims to be able to do this without even touching his victims.

 

However, his tricks didn't work on the chubby reporter lady that interviewed him.. or the judo club down the street..

[JerryLove]

If the knockouts only work in a seminar demonstration, they don't truly work, but are dangerous party tricks, where the person being knocked out literally lets the other person walk up there and hit them on the back of the neck, or wherever.

I agree, I was establishing the principle, not the application... but this is the wrong thread.

[47MartialMan]

Sorrry for cross threading, this is for those whom may have just "dropped in"-

 

Lets just say, for arguement's sake:

 

Some people are not going to believe something unless they make up their "own" minds to do so.

 

Thus, is the "power" of opinion.

 

Now, one should understand, that there cannot be a "wrong" or "right" opinion. The definition of "opinion" states this.

 

Opinions are personal "beliefs", therefore some people are noy ready to "change" their "beliefs" .

 

So, back/forth discussions and detailed "nick picking", is not going to accomplish anything for the opposing opnionated per vernatim.

 

It becomes a "dead horse"-sorry Pat