Tai chi is defined by itself. When it is free from definition, it is wu chi. this is why wu chi is said to be the mother of yin and yang/tai chi. It is just a concept as is anything else that is said to "exist". Concepts don't require proof because they are evidenced through being defined.
Marian, thank you for sharing. It is irrelevant what people think about the art you practice, even when they think it isn't. The main thing is that it rings your bell, you see the value in it for your personal reasons and you have decided to share it. I find the end result is interesting! With regard to the different opinions, that is part and parcel of posting on the internet, which I'm sure you're well aware by now. Anyway, the world runs on different paradigms. Quite a few society's do not fit with the intractability of pure western world view (e.g. of the supplying of acceptable proofs ... among other things). Science has it's place, but so has family legend and mythology's (fyi I carry my family's non-profit silat and practice CMC taichi as well; it seems to fit well with my silat). Welcome!
Good post. Except I would liked to add, it isn't that anything per science, legend (family) and mythology having their place. It is more towards someone knowing the distinctions of each. Knowing when to separate these. Knowing how to use these without becoming extremely narcissistic. Anyone studying a martial art has their individualized reasons and desires. However, the reasons and/or beliefs should never become complacent.
I gave you a couple of "thanks" upon some of your posts. I really like it when someone stands up to their convictions in a logical manner >Salute Bow<
Thank-you 47MartialMan. In my opinion science quite often falls foul of narcissism too. As to becoming complacent with reasons and beliefs, that is an individual judgement.
Indeed, science is not excluded. I don't think it is always a individual judgement. Some people do things not out of necessity, yet desire to believe or give reason beyond logical comprehension. I can think of "peer pressure" as one of many examples. This all said, like any subject, there will be those who belittle, find faults, or wave their own banners in order to justify what they have or do. I am not saying this to degrade the individual's choice or the "individual judgement"
Generally, We give logic far too much clout and credibility; much more than it deserves. Logic is rooted in science, one of many methods used in obtaining knowledge. But just because logic supports a certain fact and is unable to expose a facts flaw, does not grant it certain. The logical practice of deduction and induction is man-made and should not have the power to decide truths.
Understood. However, logic could represent more than one theory. Empirical logic can itself, be a conundrum.
This seems to be so. the whole search for objective truths of 100% certainty seems to be a conundrum. So, paradoxically, are we really justified in debating whats true?
I'd opine that fantastical histories and claims could be construed as a wee bit narcisstic. As an individual w/an inclination towards history I've always been glad that the likes of Tang,Hao,Gu,Liu-hsin,and Adam Hsu have evidently subscribed to the "the intractability of pure western world view (e.g. of the supplying of acceptable proofs ... among other things)." As my interest in history was actually an offshoot of my interest in mythology I will state that myth,legend,and folklore are quite helpful in understanding a subject.I therefore agree that mythology and legend have their place. But the type of fantasy histories so common in CMAs,most of these histories being manufactured in the 1800s, do nothing but cloud the water and serve no useful purpose other than justification for the existence of the system based on it being so old,so secret,so fill-in-the-religion-ist,etc. I think marian's system sounds cool. I'd be interested in the real history,and could care less if it was made in the 1870s or 1920s. He's presented the history including the system's claim in regards to ancestry of T'ai Chi -(and from his wording it seems it claims a Pa Kua system as pre-existing prior to Tung's visit)- as it's been told to him. Assuming no error on his part in imparting this to us I must conclude at this time that it is highly questionable.Very highly. It would be interesting to find out that TC is descended from the Wu Chi system,lost its name,and then later regained it. Don't you think? 'Cause it didn't used to even be called T'ai Chi. Rebo,I knew you did TC but was unaware it was Professor's. If you don't mind revealing such info,and have no objection to indulging my "intractability of pure western world view", could you PM me your teacher(s) and which line(s) your practice derives from? When did you start? I'll reciprocate,if you wish. This is purely for my historical archive purposes-I'm not involved in politics!
I feel it's an objective truth of 100% certainty that if someone points a vintage 50 caliber buffalo gun 1 inch from my nose and pulls the trigger causing the charge to ignite that a large part of my head ain't gonna be there no more. Where's the conundrum? Am I incorrect? Anyone doubting this truth of 100% certainty? Well,we're always talking about the need for "alive" training here! However,I don't advocate trying to disprove this truth. Oh yeah, my name is actually Yang. Yang,Lu-ch'an.Yep,it's me.I'm still alive. I guess the truth of this isn't justifiably open to debate? Tho' I admit such a ridiculous claim isn't really even a matter of debate.
El Medico, no secrecy necessary from me, although I have no hesitation of PMing you either! Anyone may PM me if they wish . I have a good friend, surname Lo who comes from Taiwan. We have a friendship and mutual respect for over 10 years now, as we were both homesick for food and culture (and we have common acquaintance in Malaysia. Indonesian very much like Malay, and we both come from farming community). He teach me the Zhengji form, but I admit my interpretation of the body-mind dynamics comes mostly from my silat. I have chatted once with Nigel Sutton on the MAP silat forum (who has done both) and to my recollection he agreed that (some) silat and taichi are very similar with body principle. My interest in taichi was started about 20 years ago as a mature age uni student, I met and persuaded Prof. Li Pei Dong (exchange teaching from Shanghai Teachers University) to teach me for 2 semesters before he left (certainly not enough to learn properly). But I am mostly silat (mainly from my family).
Wujiquan is also caled 长寿拳 (longevity style), I don't know what was taijiquan called before, but I don't think it realy matters. Taijiquan is based on the princilples of taiji, Bagua on the princiles of bagua. I think that is why they're called how thye're called. I think Xingyi could also be called wuxing. I think what matters are the principles.
What a load of namby-pamby tree hugger bull crap. Everything that is worth knowing was discovered through the use of science and logic. The entire foundation of usable human knowledge and practices is built on the foundation of basic logic and science. We are out there moving mountains with the tools we built on the shoulders of logic and science. Truths are inarguable facts and every one is supported by logic. If it wasn't logical, it wouldn't be a truth.
No no no no no. This has nothing to do with what people think about the art that they practice. I have no problem with Wuji. They practice it in tandem with Wuzuquan, an art that is near and dear to my heart. I have an issue with people who mislead others by posting unsubstantiated facts on the internet. That is why I'm breaking out the flame thrower here. This person has claimed that Wujiquan was the precursor Taijiquan. When asked for evidence, they waffled. First stating that the truth of the statement was somehow up to other people. Now this person is deferring to some vague authority figure, and some "ancient texts" as sufficient proof for the validity of the statement made earlier. This doesn't cut the mustard. Not even one iota. Where are these "original texts?" What are the titles, who wrote them, how old are they? Who are these masters of Wuji who are making this claim? If you really respected your art you wouldn't be on the internet making false claims about it. Think about it this way. Now the 7th result on google when someone looks up your art is this thread, where you lied about the history of your art, got caught in the lie and got called out on the carpet. Keep on repping your art like this.
Please read my posts again, you will find there answers where are the original texts. As to who wrote them I don't know, they where past down in my great masters family for 6 generations. The wuji master who makes this claim is my masters master Wu Zhenshi.
Principles of systems are irrelevant as regards the historical discussion in this instance. But do you see the credibility gap in TCC being descended from WCC when using the logic of the names as part of the presentation?TC being from WC in the Taoist scheme of things to add weight to a claim of TCC coming from WCC fails when it's known that TCC wasn't originally named that. To everyone- OK, marian has behaved quite well in this discussion.Unlike many who get angrily defensive when contradicted on what their teachers have told him he has not reacted in that fashion here. Let us refrain from treating this new member harshly. It's certainly not uncommon for people's only knowledge of their system's claims and histories being what their teachers imparted.If an individual is not familiar with the particular historical field of CMAs that's all they're going to have to go on. It should be expected that they will believe and defend their instructor's views over those of strangers-how many have we seen on MAP who have continually attempted even to defend what has been shown to be an indefensible position? There are members here on MAP who are not newcomers who practice/teach southern CMAs who truly believe they have a Shaolin lineage,which is unlikely. He's new here. He doesn't know if any of us know what we're talking about. If he sticks around he'll discover who's who,and if he chooses he can find out what's what on certain matters in CMA history,as far as what is known about them at this time.
I agree. It isn't that I look to bash or belittle. it is that many people seem to think that what they do has background or lineage, as this may prove some worth or credibility. No matter what a martial that someone is practycing, if they are satisfied with it, it is up to them what they hope to gain or gather study from it.
