Sorry for not knowing how to answer your questions. I am not an expert in this field. I am just a student. This so called "theory of bioelectricism and biomagneticism", is out of my field. I am indeed a board certified Internal Medicine physician with subspecialty in Immunology and Rheumatology. The theories of bioelectrical positive and negative, as the way I see it, is a very ancient way (yin-yang) to explain universal phenomena. It is not science (at least as formal as western-modern science). One of the greatest differences between modern science and pseudo-science, lies not in the complexity of their theoric background... because, for example, the way chinese medicine explanations physiologic derangement with imbalances of the ki, and the circulation of ki, in the body meridians, and symbolic body organs (as the triple burner)... is indeed a very complex theory. But, actually, you can not prove that this complexity, really exists, or that this happens the way it is theoretically described. That contrasts a lot with modern science where we try to find measurable and verifiable principles. It's only a way to explain and to understand phenomena, that ancient eastern people developed through many centuries. Best regards. PS: by the way, mi name is indeed Hyung. And english is my 3rd language. I write and speak fluently in korean and spanish.
I see... My confusion then lies in why you decided to invoked "bio-electricity" when it comes to the KO potential of a strike. It is one thing in my mind to say that striking a soft point with a hard strike can be more damaging, but to introduce this layer of complexity (i.e. bio-electricity) is something I'd like to heard more on. I also am confused by the generality of the +ve/-ve regions as delineated by you, as I believe them to be too gross in scale. As a crude framework to follow, perhaps... In fact, I believe both eastern and western science/medicine do share a common theme, and that is that their theories are based on an accumulation of observable and testable results. Where their difference lies in the "scale" of observation (the equivalent to "micro-" vs. "meso-" vs. "macro-"), and the paradigm they use to explain their observations. In this way, it is usually easier to test out eastern "paradigms" i.e. one should be able to demonstrate to oneself that there is a difference between striking with your heel up or flat for a given +ve or -ve target, don't you think?
Mmmm... even if it's not Hapkido, maybe you should read or see Evan Pantazi's Kyusho Jitsu's Videos. He explaines this polarities, in a very comprehensive way. I am not saying that this aren´t found also in Hapkido... just take a look at Tedeschi's Hapkido book, it is full of pressure accupunture points. Best regards.
I am a bit concerned that the discussion is going to derail into a debate concerning the efficacy of TCM theory versus Western medical theory. In Asian culture it is readily accepted that time of day, geomancy, locations on the body, rotations, and so forth all play a role in technique efficacy. In Western culture, practitioners tend to place more faith in Newtonian Physics and physical culture. Thats just the way that it is and is why such early pioneers as Japan's KANO Jigoro became famous for crossing lines. I am sure that Hyung's comments on synchronous rotation with positive and negative fields must come across as "quaint". However, I would point out that the latest offerings by KSW's SUH In Hyuk and even the manual of the sword tradition I follow use TCM points to identify targets. And such practices as PAL DAN KUM are still followed by many KMA practitioners along with DAN JEON Breathing and TAI CHI CHUAN cum TAE KUK KWON. Getting back to the original question I still hold that it is incumbant on the Hapkido community to actually research the biomechanics of the respective practices to identify the execution which best produces the result desired. Personally, I suggest that one will find that the TKD execution will maximize speed and flexibility while the Hapkido delivery will emphasize power and destructive force. The only way to resolve this would be to identify specific goals and to compare the two delivery systems in attaining those goals. Best Wishes, Bruce
Yes, maybe we should start another topic. For me, they are 2 main differences between eastern and western thinking (philosophy, if you want to call it that way). One is the concept of time... the western concept of linear time, with past-present-future continuum. And according to this principle, the concept of causality and effect. These are not eastern ways. The second difference, is that in western science/philosophy, you need to "define" exactly (and even technically) every concept. Then, the thinking mind can not be without words. Words=thoughts. In eastern conception of phenomena, they do not used definitions for things... they use to understand them by "esence", by "what they are". So many concepts, can not be grabbed out of words, because you can lose in a "game of words". Best regards. PD: I recommend the book: "The web that has no weaver" by Ted J. Kaptchuk. It's not about martial arts, but about chinese medicine.
I am not disputing nor discounting the application of east asian medical concepts here, Bruce. I am however curious about the portrayal of concepts as described by Hyung.
this is all very fascinating to me. i had no idea that you could think about kicks and strikes and take these things into account. thank you for the information.
I don't know how many people actually do, John. As I mentioned earlier its a lot like the Karate people who dwell on "poisoned touch" (C. DIM MAK) with certain techniques used at certain times of the day and to certain parts of the body. Most people don't get that compulsive anymore. All the same, there is some thing to being aware of the vulnerability of one body location over another. Now, whether I want to be concerned with using a "UM" or a "YANG" technique against a "UM" or "YANG" target at a propitious time of day....well thats a whole 'nuther thing. FWIW. Best Wishes, Bruce
