I just earned my black belt!!

[47MartialMan]

You say that your Ki, is different than Chi? Please explain the differences.

 

Michael Jordan has talent in his field. What does him teaching it have any effect on Ki?

 

No in actually, the car does not perform better with nitrous. It is bad for the car. it makes the car go fast, but there is a "price" to pay.

 

What is Aikido's definition of Ki?

 

Please do not get frustrated. I am looking for explanations.

[JEM618]

You say that your Ki, is different than Chi? Please explain the differences.

 

Michael Jordan has talent in his field. What does him teaching it have any effect on Ki?

 

No in actually, the car does not perform better with nitrous. It is bad for the car. it makes the car go fast, but there is a "price" to pay.

 

What is Aikido's definition of Ki?

 

Please do not get frustrated. I am looking for explanations.

 

Why? Really, I have to ask, ‘Why?’

 

Nowhere in this post you replied to do I mention teaching Micael Jordan ‘ki’, or having Micheal Jordan teach ‘ki’, or any principals of ki. Yet in your reply…

 

Michael Jordan has talent in his field. What does him teaching it have any effect on Ki?

 

Does ‘it’ refer to his skill in basketball, or ‘ki’? I wonder…

 

BTW-OT: In language theory, this is called prediction. Experimentation shows that native speakers when participating in randomized cloze practices fill in word based on their assumptions, perceptions, or beliefs on a particular topic and what they think the answer should be. Quite often making a mistake based on what they though they read, or what it ‘should have read’, not actually what they read. Along with fill cloze practices, another interesting test; A group of native and a group of non-native speakers are given a text to read aloud. The text has 25 grammatical errors. When the non-natives read the passage they say all 25 errors, the natives say 15 or less, the mind takes over and automatically predicts correct syntax and smooth out errors.

 

So, I wonder if you are actually reading what I say or are you filtering it with what you believe it says.

 

In any case the analogy, you are shown a skill and asked to reproduce it. In a closed situation, just two people in a gym, you maybe able to. The questions remain the same, can you reproduce it, can you be consistent with it, and can you produce the desired result under extreme pressure.

 

In reference to the four major principals of ‘ki’ development:

 

心身統一の四大原則

 

１．臍下の一点に心をしずめ統一する。

 

２．全身の力を完全に抜く。

 

３．身体の総ての部分の重みを、その最下部におく。

 

４．氣を出す。

 

We practice ‘ki’ exercises, then apply the principles we’ve learned to improve our technique. As in the analogy above, we may be able to practice the principals one by one, through isolated practice, in a controlled environment. Can we produce them consistently, and can we produce them under ‘extreme pressure’; during randori, taigi, a test, on the street? This is where we focus our practice; understanding the principles, and then practicing them under increasingly difficult circumstances until they become completely internalized and natural.

 

Something else, the car analogy, you picked me up on it in one post, I agreed in my reply, and asked if you GOT THE MAIN POINT. And in the very next post, you insist on focusing on the latter half, which we both AGREED on….

 

Still the question remains unanswered, did you get the main point?

 

A car runs faster with nitrous oxide. (YES, it’s bad for the car, do you understand?)

 

The analogy: when I practice aikido mechanically, I can perform the technique.

 

When I apply principals of ‘ki’ they are much better.

 

It’s funny, I practiced for over 9 years now, and have been teaching for almost 4 years now. I have a club at school and the kids are junior / senior high school students. I teach the same way I was taught.

 

We do ‘ki’ exercises.

 

We practice the techniques mechanically to get the proper form.

 

Then we apply the principals of ‘ki’ to the technique.

 

At the end of the class the kids pair up and perform the technique.

 

The other kids critique.

 

The observers are then asked what was good or bad.

 

They can site at each point of the technique: which principal is used, or should be used, and whether it was used or not.

 

Once you figure it out, it’s not magic, it’s child’s play.

 

As far as 'Ki' and 'Chi', as I've said before, I know what 'ki' is, or what I practice anyway. I've been told 'Chi' is something different. You'll have to find an expert on 'Chi' and ask them. (Not implying I'm a 'ki' expert, BTW.)

[47MartialMan]

BTW-OT: In language theory, this is called prediction. Experimentation shows that native speakers when participating in randomized cloze practices fill in word based on their assumptions, perceptions, or beliefs on a particular topic and what they think the answer should be.

 

Experimentaion also shows how people are "lead" to belief and follow.

 

Quite often making a mistake based on what they though they read, or what it ‘should have read’, not actually what they read.

 

But, HOW was it written, is the main fact.

 

Along with fill cloze practices, another interesting test; A group of native and a group of non-native speakers are given a text to read aloud. The text has 25 grammatical errors. When the non-natives read the passage they say all 25 errors, the natives say 15 or less, the mind takes over and automatically predicts correct syntax and smooth out errors.

 

So, this is in the same analogy as the Bible? Depends on how the text is written, by whom it is re-written and conveyed, and whom interprets it?.

 

Ki principals? Like what?

 

Isn't Aikido, AikiJutsu transformed from "art" to "way"? Also, given the translation of Aikido, doesn't it sound "far out"?

[JEM618]

BTW-OT: In language theory, this is called prediction. Experimentation shows that native speakers when participating in randomized cloze practices fill in word based on their assumptions, perceptions, or beliefs on a particular topic and what they think the answer should be.

 

Experimentaion also shows how people are "lead" to belief and follow.

 

Experimentaion = Experimentation (sp) / belief (noun) = believe (verb) after the passive voice ‘are lead’, this sentence contains an infinitive clause, after the ‘to’ a verb must follow, belief is a noun. What were you saying about HOW it was written…

Quite often making a mistake based on what they though they read, or what it ‘should have read’, not actually what they read.

 

But, HOW was it written, is the main fact.

 

No, that’s not the main fact, or do you mean point. A fact is something believed to be true or real, a point is a major idea or essential part. Did you mean point?

 

What exactly don’t you understand; I asked you that before….

Along with fill cloze practices, another interesting test; A group of native and a group of non-native speakers are given a text to read aloud. The text has 25 grammatical errors. When the non-natives read the passage they say all 25 errors, the natives say 15 or less, the mind takes over and automatically predicts correct syntax and smooth out errors.

 

So, this is in the same analogy as the Bible? Depends on how the text is written, by whom it is re-written and conveyed, and whom interprets it?

 

Where does the Bible come into this?? The fact is that they don’t read errors on the page, even though they are to read verbatim, the point is that what people read and what they comprehend are quite often different. (There is a correlation between both studies, so both share relevance.)

 

 

Ki principals? Like what?

 

BIG EXAMPLE HERE: In this very thread, the principals of ‘ki’ are written in both ENGLISH & JAPANESE – There is a watered down translation, the one most English speakers read. There is also a ‘direct’ literal translation, sans grammar, what the Japanese actually says. Ken had a hard time with it, too. GO BACK and read them…

 

See , you don’t read, or remember reading something just a few posts back, you keep asking me to tell you the same stuff.

[isn't Aikido, AikiJutsu transformed from "art" to "way"? Also, given the translation of Aikido, doesn't it sound "far out".

 

No, it doesn’t sound strange if it’s interpreted properly. After 30 years research, I find it hard to believe you don’t know the difference between ‘do’ and ‘jutsu’; ‘do’ way, or path, literal, the road, ‘jutsu’ means technique or skill. In some isolated cases, it can mean art, but in reference to MAs, justu can only mean technique or skill.

 

kenjutsu = sword technique or skill for fighting

 

aikibujutsu > aikijutsu = martial technique of harmony / technique of harmony

 

jujutsu = gentle technique

 

(these are really literal and are not meant to sound pretty)

 

kendo = the way / path of the sword

 

aikido = the way or path of harmony

 

judo = the gentle way

 

You can simply visit your local book store, go to the language section, and look up the kanji yourself.

 

See, the top three involve a skill, the bottom involve beliefs or a commitment to a certain discipline.

[Drunken Monkey]

good luck getting a straight answer in legible english.

[thaiboxerken]

I think the confusion, JEM, comes from your circular logic. You are trying to define ki as.. ki. It's not really helping. You also are claim that ki is real because you practice with ki. Essentially, a restatement of your belief about ki.

 

It's very hard for a skeptic to get past that kind of circular reasoning.

 

Your definition of Ki is confusing because it contains Ki as the definition.

[47MartialMan]

BTW-OT:

 

Experimentaion = Experimentation (sp) / belief (noun) = believe (verb) after the passive voice ‘are lead’, this sentence contains an infinitive clause, after the ‘to’ a verb must follow, belief is a noun. What were you saying about HOW it was written…Yes, but I am not talking about mispellings. I am talking about arrangemnet

Quite often making a mistake based on what they though they read, or what it ‘should have read’, not actually what they read.

 

Hmmnnn

 

No, that’s not the main fact, or do you mean point. A fact is something believed to be true or real, a point is a major idea or essential part. Did you mean point?

 

Da

 

What exactly don’t you understand; I asked you that before….

 

You keep stating "principal"

 

So, this is in the same analogy as the Bible? Depends on how the text is written, by whom it is re-written and conveyed, and whom interprets it?

 

Where does the Bible come into this?? The fact is that they don’t read errors on the page, even though they are to read verbatim, the point is that what people read and what they comprehend are quite often different. (There is a correlation between both studies, so both share relevance.)

 

I thought we were talking about comprehension? Interpretation/Mis-interpretation

 

 

Ki principals? Like what?

 

BIG EXAMPLE HERE: In this very thread, the principals of ‘ki’ are written in both ENGLISH & JAPANESE – There is a watered down translation, the one most English speakers read. There is also a ‘direct’ literal translation, sans grammar, what the Japanese actually says. Ken had a hard time with it, too. GO BACK and read them…

 

See , you don’t read, or remember reading something just a few posts back, you keep asking me to tell you the same stuff.

 

This is numbered, so I assume its principle.

 

心身統一の四大原則

 

１．臍下の一点に心をしずめ統一する。

 

２．全身の力を完全に抜く。

 

３．身体の総ての部分の重みを、その最下部におく。

 

４．氣を出す。

 

The rest os the stuff is not (numbered-if you want to get "technical"), so I cannot distinguish. To read is different, as you HAVE stated, as is to interpretet what is written.

 

No, it doesn’t sound strange if it’s interpreted properly. After 30 years research, I find it hard to believe you don’t know the difference between ‘do’ and ‘jutsu’; ‘do’ way, or path, literal, the road, ‘jutsu’ means technique or skill. In some isolated cases, it can mean art, but in reference to MAs, justu can only mean technique or skill.

 

Don't I? Or was i (oops, another grammatical error-heck who's counting-does it matter on a forum) just asking to see what you would post?

 

See, the top three involve a skill, the bottom involve beliefs or a commitment to a certain discipline.

 

Da

 

I know what 'ki' is, or what I practice anyway. I've been told 'Chi' is something different. You'll have to find an expert on 'Chi' and ask them. Isn't Ki a derrivtive of Chi/Qi? or do I have that mixed up with Ch'en/Zen?

[47MartialMan]

good luck getting a straight answer in legible english.

 

Ye Hi

[JEM618]

good luck getting a straight answer in legible english.

 

Ye Hi

 

legible: possible to read or decipher: legible handwriting.

 

Certainly, what you are reading is legible. i.e., the leters on the computer screen, but is comprehensible?

 

Now I see where the confusion lies, simply understanding a foreign language requires a firm grasp on your native tongue.

 

Let alone trying to discuss ideas or concepts in it that don’t exist in your native tongue.

 

To that I’ll add ‘ki’ is in intrinsic part of the Japanese language.

 

Snipped from another thread….

 

The word or concept of 'ki'(気) is used extensively in the Japanese language.

 

Just of the top of my head, these are used in daily conversation, you're sure to hear half of them on a daily basis.

 

元気 in good spirits, healthy

 

やる気 willing to try

 

気が強い strong willed

 

気が小さい timid

 

気が短い short tempered

 

病気 sick

 

気が重い depressed

 

~ に気がつく become aware of

 

気をつける be careful of

 

気にする be concerned about

 

気がしない don’t fee like doing

 

In one of my older posts I defined 'ki' as the power that can't be seen; you can take a look and see how the kanji is broken down.

 

In English, when we say we are sick, or we are fine, we are talking about our condition.

 

In Japanese, they are talking about the condition of their ‘ki’. 元気 = my ‘ki’ is full, 病気 = my ‘ki’ is sick.

 

Even if you ask a Japanese to define ‘ki’ they are hard pressed to do so. Ask them to explain it in English, it becomes more literal, and the nuance is lost. Ask an English speaker to define of understand the concept and it becomes much more difficult; like trying to stick a round peg in a square hole.

[47MartialMan]

legible: possible to read or decipher: legible handwriting.

 

Certainly, what you are reading is legible. i.e., the leters on the computer screen, but is comprehensible?

 

Hmmn, depends on the reader's interpretation.

 

 

Now I see where the confusion lies, simply understanding a foreign language requires a firm grasp on your native tongue.

 

Native tongue, per it in the area or the way it is interpreted anywhere else?

 

Let alone trying to discuss ideas or concepts in it that don’t exist in your native tongue.

 

What if they do, but in a different interpretation?

 

To that I’ll add ‘ki’ is in intrinsic part of the Japanese language.

 

Snipped from another thread….

 

The word or concept of 'ki'(気) is used extensively in the Japanese language.

 

Just of the top of my head, these are used in daily conversation, you're sure to hear half of them on a daily basis.

 

元気 in good spirits, healthy

 

やる気 willing to try

 

気が強い strong willed

 

気が小さい timid

 

気が短い short tempered

 

病気 sick

 

気が重い depressed

 

~ に気がつく become aware of

 

気をつける be careful of

 

気にする be concerned about

 

気がしない don’t fee like doing

 

(On the above, it doesn't seem to "appear" to be the same thing)

 

In one of my older posts I defined 'ki' as the power that can't be seen; you can take a look and see how the kanji is broken down.

 

In English, when we say we are sick, or we are fine, we are talking about our condition. In Japanese, they are talking about the condition of their ‘ki’. 元気 = my ‘ki’ is full, 病気 = my ‘ki’ is sick.

 

So why don't you just say YOU are feeling sick or well? And hows does this lie into making it better your technique?

 

Even if you ask a Japanese to define ‘ki’ they are hard pressed to do so. Ask them to explain it in English, it becomes more literal, and the nuance is lost. Ask an English speaker to define of understand the concept and it becomes much more difficult; like trying to stick a round peg in a square hole.

 

So, if you are "non-Japanese", you have made it to the understanding where as no one else can?