Monday, March 25, 2013

How to have Fighting Skill

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Klaus Heinrich Peters
Hamburg, Germany
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Peter,
I'm struggling with matters around the basic question "What is a principle." To be more specific, let's start with leading. Isn't leading inherent in any interaction anyway? Every kind of communication involves offering and leading, since I am presenting myself and do something with my offer in some way-- though usually not consciously. So leading seems to be a distinction which can be made in every interaction whatsoever. I cannot not lead, so to speak. Is this one of the aspects of leading being a principle? At least this distinguishes leading from being a trick, which can be done or not. The same seems to be true for following. I always follow something, maybe not appropriately, but it's always there,
as long as there is some kind of interaction. And the same again with the Body-Being. I am aligned with gravity and centered and grounded anyway, there is no way to avoid it as long as gravity works. What I can do about it is only do it better, more effective and consciously. On the other hand, it doesn't seem to be true for yielding. Yielding is something which can be simply absent.
So the question is: Has this "being there somehow anyway" something to do with being a principle or not? Is this a good direction to look or a completely wrong track?
Thanks,
Klaus

Klaus,
We need to make a distinction between offering and leading. Offering is simply what you present, it doesn't suggest anything else is done. Leading includes offering and making available, but it also demands action, you need to move in relation to your partner so as to influence their actions. In both cases, you need to be conscious of doing these things otherwise they are not occurring. Without this consciousness they are not occurring! It is a particular kind of relationship which only occurs through conscious interaction. As I said with leading, you must influence their actions, it doesn't matter whether this happens anyway, if you aren't doing it consciously for the purpose of leading you are not leading. It really isn't occurring. You may look back and say such and such happened and it looks like leading, but this you are doing consciously after the fact; at the time no leading took place. If that relationship isn't actively created by you it isn't there, there is no operating principle "just because." Your actions need to be directed by this principle of relationship otherwise it isn't active.
Don't confuse "conscious" with having to "think" about things. You can do things consciously without much thought at all. But that's another story.
Leading is not an objective principle, or a principle of "being," it is a principle of interaction, an operational principle. The same it true of following. But with Body-Being it is not an interactive principle between people, but between you and the environment, or the "objective" principles. You will be in relation with these objective or existing principles no matter what you do, but your Cheng Hsin Body-Being only occurs when you align to certain principles, otherwise there is no CHBB, just what you get by default. Yielding is also an operational principle, in other words, it is determined by how you interact with another.
So, that should answer your question. A principle is what it is. There are different domains and kinds of principles. Hope this helps.
Peter

Attend a Seminar
More Info


Saturday, March 23, 2013

How do I Become REALLY Good?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chris Higgins
London, England
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter,
I have a question. How do I become very good? What is the process that you followed? Because it seems to me that there is a difference between the process you followed and the process we may
follow. And because of that, sometimes only the form and not the essence gets transferred. People don't always get the same insight. I guess it is related to confusing personal belief with insight/experience. You have said that a lot, but maybe it needs to be so much more emphasized, because most people do not take it seriously and just believe what you say. Which is OK, as long as we do not then somehow forget that it is just belief.
Take care,
Chris

Chris,
We shouldn't confuse any process that I followed with what you need to do. We are very different people and our goals are different, so your process will be different from mine. That said, however, I think if one wants to become very good he needs to become obsessed, at least for 10 years or so. The reason I say this is because without being obsessed the only thing you have is discipline, and that takes a lot of . . . well, discipline. What I mean by obsessed is being swept away by really wanting to learn, to really want to know and be able to do it, making this the primary goal of life for now, so that it occupies most of your thoughts and actions. You immerse yourself in the study and practice. In this way, you will be naturally disciplined since every chance you get you will be studying, not just in the many hours a day you will put into your practice and contemplation, but also every time you are standing around or walking down the street you will practice some body-being material, or any time you see an opportunity to work on your skills no matter what the forum, you'll use it. When you are just sitting around, say waiting to see the dentists, you will be thinking about how something works, or training a movement in your mind, or contemplating some question. These things will naturally occur. Why? Because you are "obsessed" you really WANT to know, and you are committed to getting it. You need to "use" me a lot, but you can't stop there, it needs to become yours and in your life. I'm just here to help.
Peter

Attend a Seminar
More Info


Fighting and Relational Skill

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chris Hein
Long Beach, CA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hello Mr. Ralston,
My name is Chris Hein, I have been a long time admirer of your writing, and think that your approach to the martial arts is in a fresh and more complete manner. I have many friends who have
studied with you and all have many comments about your ability.
My question is about relationship. Can someone's relationship skills in general get so good that they are better than someone else's specific relationship skills? For example: Guy "A" is a magnificent boxer, has good techniques and good relationship skills in the art of boxing. Guy "B" is a great ground grappler with significant ability on the ground. If guy A (the boxer) has made greater leaps in his understanding of relationship as a whole, will he be more than a match for the ground grappler, or will this lack of understanding on ground fighting outweigh his superior relationship ability? This is a strange question I know, but I am really curious as to the limits of superior relationship ability.
Thanks for your time.
Chris Hein


Chris,
In general someone with greater relational skill will win regardless of the art he does. This has all sorts of qualifications to it, however. Being skillful in a certain kind of relationship doesn't always mean the person can transfer his understanding to other relationships. If he is grounded in more "universal" distinctions then he will be able to relate more effectively to unknown methods. If his skill is based on very specific techniques, rules, and methods, however, he will not. For example in the arena of fighting, if he is skilled in such things as force, distance, perception, use of power, percieving the opponent's mind activity, and such, these things will apply regardless of method. This doesn't mean he won't have challenges, but that he should be able to meet them. Having greater relational skill than an opponent often translates to an advantage regardless of inexperience in the opponent's method.

 Shissai quote: When one has mastered a weapon, even a cudgel becomes a sword in his hands.

Roughly, fighting is fighting, the more skilled fighter usually wins. But I make a distinction between fighting and martial arts. Most martial artists aren't very skilled in fighting, primarily because they don't train it. Instead they play games and do exercises related to fighting arts, but frequently they don't learn the relational skills necessary for actual fighting. Boxers, Judoka, Muay Thai, fencers--these people do  fighting arts; but Karate, Aikido, T'ai Chi, various Kung Fus, etc. generally don't practice any real fighting.
In a match, the fighter will always beat the non-fighter. You can't learn fighting without doing it. But don't  get me wrong, I'm not saying one needs to be in street brawls to learn to fight. They simply must enter an art that has real fighting activities taking place. Most Karateka and Kung Fu practictioners would think they have this, but kumite and its Kung Fu equivalents are games of sparring, not matches in fighting. A judoka may be restricted to throws and pins and such, but in a match he really throws (against his partner's will) or pins, he doesn't fake it or pretend he could as in Karate kumite. When a boxer hits or a Muay Thai kicks, they really hit and kick, and so when they dodge they really dodge. Learning relationship in this domain is different than in the "pretend" domain. It is true that in T'ai Chi push hands, for example, one really pushes, and this does develop certain skills, but the arena is so restricted that it can't properly be called fighting. There are too many unnecessary rules and limitations, therefore it should be called a game or exercise.

Someone playing a race car video game will learn to make many visual distinctions regarding racing, and he'll be able to move his virtual car around the track quite effectively, but he will not learn many of the distinctions necessary for being effective in a real race. For instance, he'll be unprepared for the forces that will act upon his body and his car when hitting a turn at great speed. Obviously someone with experience driving an actual race car would beat him hands down.

Certainly many skills are learned in arts that don't work on real fighting (and by real I don't mean one has to be knocked out or some such, but that the play or match is relating to the skill of fighting, not the idea of fighting). Aikidoists do learn to throw, they simply don't learn to fight. Obviously this is a long story-perhaps we could go into it more thoroughly in a workshop. From what I've already said, I think many misunderstandings can occur. So I say again, in general the more truly skillful fighter will win regardless of art or methods employed.
Peter

Attend a Seminar
More Info