grasp…

Monday, October 3rd, 2011

grasping hold

T’ai Chi taught me many things but perhaps nothing quite as useful as the unlearning of the reflex to grasp. This reflex – to grab hold of something, most often with the dominant hand – becomes a liability in any kind of fight. One problem is that it focuses the mind on the grasping hand: thus focused, the mind loses the ability to see ‘the bigger picture’. Another is that an attempt to grab some part of an opponent is a necessarily difficult procedure: he is most likely to be in motion, and the desire to coordinate the grasping hand with the moving target absorbs altogether too much of your attention. Further, even if you succeed in grasping your target you will become attached to the other person by your own grasp in a way that can be used against you. While all this is going on, much of what your opponent is up to will most likely elude you, and, because of your focus, you are open to essentially ‘surprise attacks’ from those parts of your opponent that you are not monitoring. All in all this is not a brilliant tactic.

Thus T’ai Chi seeks to disarm the ‘grasp reflex’, instead training you to remain in a state of overall awareness, and using, for example, the back of the hand, the wrist and the forearm, to make contact with your opponent. This is not done randomly, but with an interest in the areas above or below joints, elbows and knees, the hips etc. Once contact is achieved it is allowed to slide across your body as you roll into your opponent, sensing the movement of his body in space, the dynamics of his weight shifting, until you feel one of his joints nearing a position of disadvantage, his weight passing near a fulcrum where he is close to losing his balance. Only at this point is focus narrowed and your force deployed against him.

The aim is to remain uncommitted until the last moment. Thus the practice of the ‘forms’ that, to an outsider, appear to be a gentle dance, but that is the attempt to keep muscles and joints relaxed while in constant motion and, with paired work (‘pushing hands’), maintaining this while impacting and being in contact with the other.

I believe this principle is related to the balance of the hemispheres of the brain. What concerns me here, however, is how ‘grasp’ is metaphorically extended to the mental attempt to understand something. It seems to me that everything I have described above can also be applied to this. That when we attempt to understand an issue of any complexity – as the movement of a human opponent in space is complex – any attempt to directly ‘grasp’ that issue will lead only to a clumsy, partial understanding, if not indeed to confusion as it defeats you. When faced with such complexity I have found that it is better to engage it using the ‘edges’ of my mind, to forgo coming to quick conclusions, to keep my mind gently out of focus: understanding naturally emerges from this process, hardening to clarity in its own time.

I applied this recently to my travel plans: delaying the purchase of tickets, allowing other possibilities of routes and timings to emerge. This made it possible for me to change my plans dramatically; returning to Edinburgh to attend the Achaemenid conference and making better use of my time. Some may point out that not everyone has the freedom of action I had here – however I would counter that all situations have their limitations and that, within these, it is always possible to apply this brand of ‘fuzzy planning’…

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
5 Comments »

yoga bear…

Thursday, February 17th, 2011

bear demonstrating yoga posture "dancing bear"

bear doing yoga © Meta Penca


Upavishta Konasana

© Beryl Bender Birch doing merudandasana

This picture is one of several taken by Meta Penca, a 29 year old web programmer from Slovenia, of Santra the bear doing her exercises at the Ahtari Zoo in Finland. Strangely, or not so strangely, this is exactly the same as the yoga posture Merudasana, Balancing Bear Posture (rather more prosaically also known as Upavishta Konasana, Seated Angle Posture.) Taking this name into account and comparing the two photographs, it seems obvious to me where the idea came from – it seems unlikely the bear is copying some human.

In the past humans learned a lot from animals. Yoga is filled with examples, then so is T’ai Chi (a part of one form is called White Crane Flaps Wings). Now you might say that the reason for this is because our forebears (*grin* no pun intended) were much closer to nature. However, I imagine that bears were no easier to watch then than they are now in our zoos, books or TV. I would suggest the real difference is that our forebears actually considered animals worth learning from. For them, the gap between us and animals was much smaller. Clearly by the time our civilizations began industrializing this gap had grown almost unbridgeable (some of this is down to religion, but that’s another issue).

If it had not it is hardly to be supposed that Darwin’s revelations about our origins would have caused quite so much consternation. In spite of now knowing that we are directly descended from apes (and they from other creatures all the way back to the first organism), we still have an ‘us and them’ attitude to our fellow animals. That we no longer feel we have anything to learn from them is an example of our hubris, and is not just our loss, but also theirs…

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
10 Comments »

Calabi-Yau manifolds…

Tuesday, December 14th, 2010

cover of Shing Tung Yau's book...

Having emerged in recent years from gestalt therapy, the Stone Dance (my own copyrighted version of auto-therapy *grin*) and a general focus on the internal world of the psyche (thus much interest in Jung) – all pursuits that favour subconscious over conscious, intuition over cognition, I have found myself becoming increasingly interested in looking outwards (as far indeed as the Universe) towards science and mathematics. No doubt this is part of some process of achieving balance between the outer world of light and logic and the inner world that is hidden in mythic shadow. The book I am going to talk about here might be seen by some as a rather extreme swing ‘the other way’ – but if so it seems to me the application of the T’ai Chi precept that if you want to move right, first move left; if left, first move right.

Now a book about string theory might appear at first to be only of interest to those of a rather esoteric turn of mind. That Shing-Tung Yau’s book seeks to explain this theory through mathematics might have you on the verge of surfing off to a more reasonable webpage, beginning a scream or simply fainting away with the sheer terror of such a thought. Please do none of these things, but give me a chance to explain.

The Shape of Inner Space is a truly remarkable book. It seeks to explain perhaps one of the most subtle and complex adventures that the human mind has ever attempted. It explains the way in which mathematicians, exploring abstract worlds of many dimensions, have seduced physicists with a vision of a solution to the rather thorny problem of how to reconcile two theories, both deliriously successful: Einstein’s General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Each of these theories beautifully describe, respectively, what we observe of the very large (planets, galaxies), and the very small (atoms and sub-atomic particles)… The bizarre thing, the thorny problem, is that there seems to be no way to reconcile the two. And yet, there must be some way… because these two worlds: the very large and the very small, clearly must form a single continuous world…

Some twenty years ago, Yau discovered a geometry, a ‘shape’ (really a family of very closely related shapes) that is called a Calabi-Yau Manifold. This shape exists in 6 dimensions. Mathematicians regularly explore geometries of any number of dimensions – what makes this one different is that it is claimed that it ‘actually’ exists. In an argument that for me recalls the maddest and most eccentric theological discussions of the ‘how many angels can dance on the head of a pin’ variety, Yau and his maths confederates came up with a solution to the ‘thorny problem’ that requires 10 dimensions: the 3 of space and 1 of time we live in and another 6. Where, may you ask, are these mysterious 6? Well, of course, since we can’t see them, they must be somehow hidden. In fact they must be so small, so tightly bound, that they are actually VASTLY smaller than the radius of an electron. These extra 6 dimensions, ladies and gentlemen, form an exquisite convolution of the most infinitesimal size that is some flavour of Calabi-Yau manifold.

So far, so crazy. It gets crazier. It is inconceivable that we could ever find a way of actually directly perceiving these tiny hidden realms. And yet, as you read this book, and you glimpse (for only delving directly into the fiendishly complex mathematics could you hope to ‘see’) the strange and bizarre landscapes described, you begin to see how one theorem is strung together with another, when you begin to get some understanding of the interplay of maths and physics, of the interactions between the practitioners of one and the high priests of the other – an astounding picture begins to form in your mind of this most breathtaking of ventures. Nothing less than an understanding of the universe.

What also comes across is how desperately ambitious this venture is. Even if at every point in our spacetime a Calabi-Yau is attached – and it may not be this kind of manifold – it could be something more ‘complex’ – there are, apparently, 10 120 (that is 10 followed by 120 zeroes) possible Calabi-Yau – each incredibly complex – so how do we find out which one describes our universe uniquely?

Ok, enough rabid enthusiasm. I can’t hope to explain here what I’ve gleaned by reading this book. What remains to do is to encourage you to read it. I won’t pretend to you that I fully understood what was going on all the time. However, Yau is aided by Steve Nadis, a brilliant science writer. Together they make great efforts to explain what is going on in ways that a reasonably intelligent person can cope with. Throughout there are many excellent diagrams and examples are given that really help clarify things. What is perhaps most important is that Yau comes at this from the point of view of a geometer. That means that he is constantly focusing on ‘visualizing’ the maths. Focusing on this topological approach certainly worked for me.

Most importantly, I read this book with my mind slightly out of focus – that is, not ‘clinging’ to the text too hard – if there is something you don’t grasp – reread it – if it still doesn’t ‘go in’ – just move on. I don’t think it’s the details that matter here, but the general drift of the argument.

Perhaps I’ve lost my marbles in trying to encourage you to read this book. Of course it’s a difficult thing to attempt. On the other hand it is trying to give you an insight into perhaps one of the most complex and bizarre ventures humanity has thus far attempted. Ultimately, I found it simply the most exhilarating trip imaginable.

Tags: , , , , , ,
3 Comments »

Chinese martial arts…

Thursday, October 29th, 2009

Zhang Ziyi...

Zhang Ziyi...

I was watching the ravishing “House of Flying Daggers” for the second time the other day, and was again struck by how utterly beautiful Chinese martial arts can be. I find them far more compelling as ‘dance’ than I have ever found ballet, for example – and it does seem to me that martial arts plays the same role in China (perhaps less so in Japan) as ballet does in Europe… I studied T’ai Chi (that is the yin, or ‘soft’, side of Kung Fu) for years and so am aware of how profoundly aesthetics informs that martial practice. In T’ai Chi, aesthetics and function are inextricably intertwined… I know this relationship is there in many aspects of Chinese culture. I suspect all of this says something significant about how Chinese culture differs from that of Europe.

On a lighter note, it amuses me to consider how the Chinese have managed to turn ‘dancing’ into a form of warfare *grin*

Tags: , ,
6 Comments »

hand holding halberd…

Sunday, March 15th, 2009
wo<span>̌</span>

wǒ, shǒu, gē

Continuing my, possibly reckless, exploration into Chinese, I want to discuss the character for the singular pronoun (I, me) wǒ which is the first character shown. Now this is composed of two elements: the one on the left, the 2nd shown, is a pictograph for ‘hand’; the one on the right is a pictograph for ‘halberd’ or ‘lance’. So wǒ is written as a hand holding a halberd…

This seems to me to pose two interesting questions. The first: in what kind of time did this character originate that when anyone, male or female or child, should represent themselves in any text, that they must do so as being armed? The second: what does this indicate about how a modern, literate Chinese person might see himself/herself. Of course, most likely, they just use the character and don’t think about it at all.

I hasten to add that I’m not trying to imply anything here about some kind of inherent agressiveness, but perhaps that there may be some kind of tendency for a person to feel that he or she is a ‘warrior’. Having studied T’ai Chi for several years, I have some understanding of the spiritual values that may underlie this…

Finally, can it be entirely unrelated that  one of the core ways that China seems to perceive herself, and thus projects herself to the outside world, is through martial arts…?

Tags: , , ,
1 Comment »