Formosa Neijia

40 responses so far ↓

• 1 B_Wutang // Apr 7, 2008 at 11:09 pm

  But why does it have to be - “EITHER” left or right? How about being able to experience life both? I see the spinning lady spin counter-clockwise and then spin clockwise - though I think even that visual game is too simplistic to cover the impact of something like tai chi on your brain.

  When I first started learning Chen, there were a few things that were mind blowing to me about the exercise. Some of the preparatory exercise that we have to do is symmetrical. Some of it was easier to do with one part of the body than the other. I realized then that tai chi was re-wiring my brain. In my experience, it is the interplay of right and left and being aware of one’s own perception filter that matters. So you can see the big picture then hammer out the details. You can feel empathy and connectedness but you can still be assertive when you need to be.

  I’ve just started learning Yang tai chi. Since I’ve done Chen practically every day for the last year, Yang has bee challenging to say the least. With Chen, my body became accustomed to pushing forward first and the pulling back. With Yan, I found it unnatural to pull back and the move forward while making sure that my muscles were relaxed. A friend mentioned to me that is sounds like a mild form of Yin Anxiety :). I told her it just seems more natural for a man to emphasize pushing forward instead of pulling back. In any case, with Yang now it feels like another re-wiring of my brain to make it natural for my body to retreat, turn palms up, etc. Again, I think the key is the interplay of left and right and comfort with emphasizing of one over the other within split seconds that matters here.

  Thank you for the forum.

• 2 DaveK // Apr 8, 2008 at 12:06 am

  First of all, thank you, Dave, for the link to Jill Bolte Taylor’s talk. It was tremendously moving, and it hits close to home for me these days. The dichotomy between the two perspectives/hemispheres can be extremely perplexing. It is hard to reconcile these two very different viewpoints. It seems that people lean heavily to one side or the other, and there is very little common ground for understanding.

  But I equate Dr. Taylor’s message with spirituality, not martial arts. Surely, the awareness practices of IMA have opened many perceptual doors that help me to fulfill my true potential as a human being. But I have to think that you don’t need to know a single thing about fighting to achieve the clarity to know that you the “choice” that Dr. Taylor speaks of.

  I’ve had some major life changing experiences in the past 7 months or so, and I am fully convinced that you can trust the right brain to guide you. But it’s the left brain that helps me to pay the bills…

• 3 FOBAR // Apr 8, 2008 at 1:26 am

  Hate to break it to ya…

  Left/right brain stuff is a myth.

  http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1892/

  http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.com/2007/06/left-brain-right-brain-myth.html

  http://www.rense.com/general2/rb.htm

• 4 J. // Apr 8, 2008 at 2:04 am

  I really have to agree with B_Wutang; it can’t be either or. If you’ll remember, Dr. Taylor relates that although the right brain is full of these wonderful experiences of connectedness, it’s not too good at getting you through your day. And it’s more than just paying the bills or getting to work on time. It’s interacting with your physical enviroment, it’s manuevering through your living room and so on. The right brain tells you how awesome this dinner feels; the left brain told you that you needed to eat.
  Which is why, I feel at least, to apply this whole concept to IMA, it needs balance, and both sides need to be excercised.

• 5 Dave Chesser // Apr 8, 2008 at 9:17 am

  Of course it’s a myth. And as we all think we know, myths can’t hold any truth because they can’t be viewed under a microscope.

• 6 Joseph T. Oliva Arriola // Apr 8, 2008 at 9:28 am

  It’s called brain mapping. It’s using an MRI and noting how the brain reacts when people create physical reactions.

  Perhaps, Fobar should start with the split brain experiments conducted by Roger Sperry.

• 7 John Kavanagh // Apr 8, 2008 at 9:36 pm

  There is a well established body of knowledge on the functional differences between left and right hemispheres of the brain eg

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_callosum

  Interestingly, musicians- pianists I recall- have a more greatly developed Corpus callosum than most of the population.

  The general arguments go along the lines that ‘Western’ world post- Newton etc has become Left Brain dominant with the attendant blessings and curses on the world that that has brought…Since Sperry’s and other works, the move now is to balance hemispherical function and usage for a more balanced view of the world and our being in it…Quite a challenge for most of us…Fascinating question though about IMA- Surely the answer is that IMA provide the potentially missing element and may lead to full spectrum usage…Also, if you flip the Ying/ Yang diagram ‘on it’s side’ and look ‘down’ on it- it should give you a perfect little picture of Left/Brain right braing dialectic in action…

  - John Kavanagh

• 8 FOBAR // Apr 8, 2008 at 11:34 pm

  Maybe people should think about reading the most recent research and actually talk to nuerologist rather than holding to pop culture simplistic ideas of the workings of very complex organs. there may be a difference in the sides of the brain, but its not as distinct as the media wants us to believe.

  And Joseph, Try reading the research by Gereon Fink of the University of Düsseldorf in Germany and John Marshall from the Radcliffe Infirmary in Oxford. Sperry’s research was done in the 60’s well before brain imaging tech.

  This simplistic stuff is repeated like an urban legend until people become sort of chained to it.
  Like the stupid tounge map of taste buds-BS
  And that we only use 10% of our brains-total BS.

  And Dave, the crack about the microscope is a bit childish, dont you think? Or do you really think that is the bench mark for science?

• 9 Joseph T. Oliva Arriola // Apr 9, 2008 at 12:13 am

  FOBAR

  Ok…I will do that. Now, can you tell me a bit about your background. Perhaps, that would shed light on your opinions.

• 10 Joseph T. Oliva Arriola // Apr 9, 2008 at 12:23 am

  Hmmmm…all in German. FOBAR, can you summarize what Fink is saying…that is so different from the studies the rest of us have read regarding neuroscience.

• 11 Chad // Apr 9, 2008 at 2:42 am

  I don’t know what fobar’s background is, but they’re right. Did any one follow the links fobar posted? I think you’ll find a good summary there Joseph.

  Neuroscience has long stopped veiwing the whole right/left brain as 2 distinct lobe of function. As soon as imaging came on to the scene, we saw that Sperry’s hypothesis was not wholly correct and that brain function was pretty even distributed between both hemispheres. It is really impossible to be right or left brain dominant, in the sense most people understand , without a traumatic brain injury.

  Add to this the discovery of neuroplastisity (sp???) of the neocortex, and you have an organ that not only doesn’t respect the line of function Sperry initially ascribed to it, but also one that has the ability and propensity to re-wire it’s self if need be.

  A lot of people would have liked Sperry to be right, and his experiments did illuminate some big mysteries in the cases of aphasia and TBI. But his was one of the first experiments in this realm of neurology and one would expect the initial hypothesis to be limited and in need of amendment. The asymetry does exist, but it is not nearly as pronounced or severe as most think. It’s actually very subtle.

• 12 B_Wutang // Apr 9, 2008 at 2:54 am

  fyi - I think a more appropriate talk for us regarding the brain and IMA is this talk on neuroplastiicty research and meditation - “Habbits of Happiness” by Matthieu Ricard

  http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/191

• 13 Chad // Apr 9, 2008 at 2:59 am

  B_Wutang: that would be a great topic! I actually know a couple of people in that type of research. Very cool stuff and yes, far more relevant.

  I did however find a very good explanation of the issue here:
  http://williamcalvin.com/bk2/bk2ch10.htm

• 14 Joseph T. Oliva Arriola // Apr 9, 2008 at 3:01 am

  Ahhh…mis-communication. I agree, Sperry thought they were two separate brains and he was wrong. I agree there is an asymetry.

  I am not a neuro-scientist. But, I have read many studies and books. Perhaps, we should get a Phd who studies the subject every day. I would trust him/her a bit more. Though, I would still question every study and every theory.

  Perhaps, instead of making a blanket statement that we are all pop-psychologists. Perhaps, Fobar should have been a little less violent in his statements toward those of us who believe in things that go “poof in the night”. He sounded very right and wrong.,.very “left brain”…no?

• 15 B_Wutang // Apr 9, 2008 at 3:13 am

  In my understanding - both sides of the brain are used for a given task… but they pay attention to different things… local versus global, function versus visual appearance, foreground versus background… There may be a preference as to how a brain will do a task - which side is dominant- but this can be re-learned… See this synopsis from Yahoo Answers about Fink’s research: http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071201112259AAVWO2A

  From my experience - it is the re-wiring of the brain - the magical flux of connections between right and left - with the attendant ability to pay attention to both sides of the body at once - due to synapses - that is key to IMA training.

• 16 Chad // Apr 9, 2008 at 3:26 am

  BW: you are right about the types of processing (global/local) but one would caution that in a certain percentage of the population they seem to be reversed. Not to mention that most of the data is comming from Neuro-linguistics and injury rebailitation (stroke et. al). Also our ability to observe what the brain does is significantly higher than before, but still wanting. It will be interesting to see what we find out in the next decade.

  i am not aware that anyone really showed that neuro-plasticity was possible in the Corpus Callosum. I thought that it was an ability that was lost by adolescence. I could be wrong though. I know that research was being conducted into the use of movment discaplines like martial art and dance to affect NP rates in patients with TBI.

  I would agree that a more total body awareness one could cultivate would be one of the keys to mastery of the art.

• 17 wayne hansen // Apr 9, 2008 at 5:48 am

  you dont have to know the composition of asphalt to drive a truck.
  if you understand everything about the brain would that take the place of having a good teacher and employing his methods.
  two of my students a doctor and a scientist were discussing a teacher one of their university pals was training with.
  the scientist said ‘yeah but this teacher has a phd’
  the doctor looked at him and said ’so do you and i’
  implying that the phd was not helping them to master ima.
  the effect of r/l brain was built into the training it does not have to be disected just honed.
  having said that i find this as interesting as the next person.
  see my post from the other day on languege and r/l brain.

• 18 Chad // Apr 9, 2008 at 6:54 am

  Wayne,
  “you dont have to know the composition of asphalt to drive a truck.”

  But you do if you want to build another road to go somewhere new.

  “if you understand everything about the brain would that take the place of having a good teacher and employing his methods.”

  No, but who exactly has said that it would?

• 19 Chad // Apr 9, 2008 at 6:57 am

  If anyone wants to discuss this stuff in great detail email me:
  thecubeisyou “at” hotmail.com

• 20 Dave Chesser // Apr 9, 2008 at 8:25 am

  FOBAR,
  What I think is childish is to refuse to see that there’s any other type of knowledge other than scientific. That belief itself is philosophic, not scientific.

  Analyzing a holistic paradigm with a reductionist mindset as you’re doing will obviously allow you to see that paradigm as invalid.

  Learn to embrace other modes of knowing and you’ll see the results that Jill Bolte Taylor saw. If not…

• 21 Dave Chesser // Apr 9, 2008 at 8:29 am

  Everyone,
  All this talk of research this and research that ignores the fundamental issue of different modes of thinking. Many of you are still trying to prove it from a scientific rather than a mythic POV. THAT in itself is the problem — scientific research doesn’t tell us everything we need to know. Not even close.

  Switching from the scientific to the holistic is the key to this path of knowledge.

• 22 Chad // Apr 9, 2008 at 9:55 pm

  Dave,

  It would appear that the right/left brain idea is the simplistic and reducrionist POV. You simply do not have 2 brains and the idea that one can be dominent is out by default. This is probally the quintescential false dichotomy, the very thing you seem to blame science for. The brain is far more complicated that this idea proposes, and it hasnt been used in nthe study of the brain for a long while.

  Research and science is part and parsel to a holistic veiw. You cannot have an accuate and effective holistic POV if you do not posess the correct information. The left right brain idea is like the flat earth idea. Shall we give credence to that as well. Manner of thinking is different than evidence.

  No one has ever said scientific research will tell us everything. Only the ignorant believe that. I know many research scientists and NONE of them would ever advance such an idea. Data needs interpretation, that must be holistic by nature. But the interpretation cannot be correct if it is based on faulty data. That’s what this is about. 2 brains is like the flat earth it is just simply not true.

  Research is reductionist (left brain???) application is holistic (right brain???) both are scientific. If you don’t understand this you don’t really understand science.

• 23 B_Wutang // Apr 10, 2008 at 1:18 am

  This discussion has led me to consider the importance of “art” in “martial art”. My current experience and process of learning tai chi, hsingi-i, pa-kua feels more like the creative process. I have a background in music, poetry, and fiction and the left-brain, right brain discussion has also been brought up in terms of the creative process. The creative process is really a cycle of inspiration/vision, raw material/materiel, art object prototype and a re-cycle of the process all over again. It requires the left and right brain - yes - but the trick in becoming proficient as a composer, poet, or fiction writer is becoming comfortable in dealing with the idea, the memory/artifact/materiel, the art object, and going from one to the other in a spiral, randomly, serendipitously, sometimes methodically. There is an overlap between the creative process and the learning process (deming cyle - plan-do-check-act) as well. In art, most of the process is internal to the artist. We only see the end result. The learning and creative processes are useful as metaphors for the experience of a student of martial arts. Hence - the moniker I use on here - Becoming Wutang.

• 24 FOBAR // Apr 10, 2008 at 7:31 am

  Dave,

  You are misunderstanding me.
  The whole “science looks at everything through a microscope”, or “Science has no use for because it doesn’t agree…blah blah blah.” is childish. Scientific research is far more complicated. And I never said there was no other type of knowledge other than scientific. That is dirty pool, putting words in my mouth there.

  What I AM saying is that the left/right brain idea as it you are talking about it is not true. Thinking “mythically” or not. Maybe you mean metaphorically? No amount of culture or “different” veiw point is going to change that. Sorry.

  And where do you get the idea that “holistic” and “reductionist” cancell eachother out? Chad posted a very good example of how they are complimentary, yes?

  He is right too: spliting the brain into to halves and have them vie for dominence is the reductionist version of the brain. You reduce things to black or white, creative or logical, Scientific or “holistic”.

  Science IS holistic.

  Learn to embrace other modes of knowing and you’ll see the results that Jill Bolte Taylor saw. If not…

• 25 Chad // Apr 10, 2008 at 7:57 am

  Fobar,

  Science is neither holistic or reductionist. It is a method of observation and testing. It is set up to attempt to eliminate as much bias as humanly possible, but it is up to that human to be honest and interpret the data corectly. This is why there is peer reveiw.

  Science is always enabling us to change the amount and perfection of our knowledge. Good science opens more questions than answers which should spur on futher research.

  Science, or better the knowledge it provides should broaden our experience of the natural world, not create new dogmas. My mind can easily be change on anything.

  Just show me the evidence. Everything else is hearsay

• 26 Flagon // Apr 10, 2008 at 9:09 am

  Unfortunately “evidence” is sometimes hard to come by, as in the case of research into antidepressant meds (SSRI’s). It took the enactment of freedome of information legislation to uncover the unpublished research which showed them (meds) to be no better than placebo for mild depression.

• 27 Dave Chesser // Apr 10, 2008 at 10:09 am

  FOBAR and Chad,
  I appreciate your input on this but I don’t feel a compulsion to talk about this stuff in the terms and ways of science. Nor am I concerned that the concepts that I use don’t concur with modern research.

  You have to understand that from one POV having a holistic view of science may seem to be more open-minded. But from another POV it’s simply an attempt to make the holistic play by scientific rules. I hold the later opinion so I only rarely care what science has to say on these matters.

  Chad, I’m going to change your email address slightly so you don’t get a ton of spam if you haven’t already.

• 28 Ed // Apr 10, 2008 at 1:21 pm

  Speaking of science, many papers have been published by scientists in China regarding qigong, acupuncture, etc., but I guess that they simply aren’t trusted by Western scientists? Is this another example of refusing to accept new information, or are there valid reasons to reject China’s scientists?

• 29 Ji Liang // Apr 10, 2008 at 2:00 pm

  There is another issue here that has been bugging me. Let’s put aside for a moment the argument about whether or not there is in actuality a left/right brain functional split. I want to put it aside because I think there is a good chance that the whole issue is a red herring.

  Comparing her story to the stories of other people I’ve either read about or known personally who have had similar experiences, there is a common element that has nothing to do with having a stroke. Jill Bolte Taylor says that at one point she “surrendered to her own death”. The fact of facing your own immanent death and accepting it completely, and then continuing to live, is a very common element in cases of people whose lives have changed after an experience like this.

  So the question that interests me is not “Is there actually a difference between the left and right brain”, but “Is the fact that she had a stroke and subsequent change in her brain function what did it, or is the fact that she completely accepted and surrendered to her own death what did it?”

  In other words, if she had had the hemorrhage but hadn’t gone through the “giving up”, would she still have experienced what she did? Or if she had, say, been trapped under a rock for three days and thought she was going to die and then surrendered to her own death, without the brain event, would that have had a similar effect? I think this is more than just an academic or hypothetical question.

• 30 Chad // Apr 11, 2008 at 8:12 pm

  Flagon,

  it’s all about how much evidence yo can gather to refine your application. SSRI’s are effective for some things not for others. Just like anything else. Application will get better with MORE knowledge. You cannot just stop the search for the truth of the matter simply because evidence is “hard to come by.”

  Dave,

  Thanks for the thought about the email. that is my “spam safe email” which is why I put it up. hehe. so no worries, but thanks.

  If you don’t want to talk about science related issue, you should refrain from bringing them up. The right left brain idea you profess is not a matter of POV but of simple facts. It is just as true as the idea that the Sun moves around the Earth. You cannot simply say something is a matter of opinion when it is not just because it doesn’t jive with your outlook.

  Ed,

  Studies are not thrown out simply because they come from places or are dealing with subjects that are unconventional. Planck’s first discoveries were very unpopular and resited. But, it turns out, he was right. this is how scientific research works.

  As far as many studies from China and other Asian universities. There are several reason why they may be called into question. First there is a fair amount of political interference from the PRC in China. Many of the studies are repeated in other countries, only to be found out as a case of data corruption.
  Second, I know many researchers that have to deal with Chinese labs. The stories I hear from them are that the issues of face are so strong, that some will falsify data in order not to disrespect the head researcher.

  Third, experiments are repeated regardless of he country of origin. it’s called “peer review”.
  The best thing about science is that when you publish, your methods are displayed for your peers. they can then do your experiment and see if it really does work. this is done with almost all research experiments and satistical studies.

  Ji Liang,

  Very astute observation. I would be inclined to agree with you about the experience of the researcher and others who have had such a brush.

  I think a more interesting and telling dynamic is the scores cases that do not find enlightenment at the end of the TBI tunnel. Be it a stroke, hemmorage or what have you, most people do not have the same experience. It is very subjective and dependent on the individual. My Grandmother had a very similar thing happen to her with her stoke, but she did not experience the same thing as Jill Bolt Taylor.

• 31 Dave Chesser // Apr 12, 2008 at 1:07 pm

  But I’m not discussing scientific theories. The left/right split is a metaphor that is useful within the mytho-poetic paradigm that I operate. It can explain many things from that POV.

• 32 Flagon // Apr 12, 2008 at 1:22 pm

  Chad you seem to be saying that evidence provided by a randomised contrlled trial is some sort of objective reality when in fact it is rare that everyone in the science community agrees on the evidence or the validity of the methodology. As in the SSRI case, medical clinician were out in the media after the published research citing their “experience” to the contrary.
  In other words the “evidence” (systematic review of trial data) didn’t suit them. They trusted their “experience”.

• 33 meow // Apr 13, 2008 at 11:56 am

  i dont care about chi because muscles make movement / force, and force is what damages my opponent (dont get me wrong, using the body and mind in harmony, correct breathing etc is necessary, but its nothing mystical)

• 34 Anthony Walmsley // Apr 13, 2008 at 3:03 pm

  It seems to me that the origin question, “Are the IMAs a right brain activity?” hasn’t been fully addressed.
  For years I have been teaching a series of simple exercises that may be used to experience the difference between left and right hemisphere application within the context of the IMA. Activating the right hemisphere using Wide Angle Peripheral Perception, opens up a totally new world for practitioners of these or any other Martial Art.
  In this ‘state’, reactions are spontaneous, reflex and simply ‘happen’. This, “No Mind”, is always mentioned in M. Arts literature and I’m surprised that little information on training methods is available.

• 35 Dave Chesser // Apr 13, 2008 at 4:29 pm

  Anthony,
  Sounds fascinating. I think some of us eventually come around to this from different angles. I would love to hear about your training methods either on the blog or in email if you’re willing to discuss them a bit.

• 36 Chad // Apr 15, 2008 at 1:48 am

  Flagon,

  First of all, re-read my posts. You have completely missed the point. We must go by evidence, the best and most objective possible. To what extent evidence is Objective is another debate.

  Second of all, you point is flawed. Wether or not evidence is acfepted by the commnity at large, or if anyone agrees on it, is completely and utterly a seperate issue than trying to obtain objectivity. Physicians will often site their experience if it doesn’t suit their paradigm or experience. That doesn’t mean that they are not wrong. Docs are often wrong. If what the study says is true, it does not matter if they accept it or not, it will be true.

  Then again, you missed my point about research providing data and the person interpreting it.

  Dave, could you point out to me where you made it clear you were speaking metaphorically? If you were, simply saying “Im only speaking metaphorically” would have stopped all of this science stuff that you seem so offended by. If you say stuff like

  “As a scientist, she was given the great opportunity to view the process of one of her brain hemispheres shutting down and she analyzed it as it happened.”

  that seems to put forth the idea that it is an objective reality you are describing. If it’s a metaphor, fine, metaphor are very useful. I also use qi and asian concepts as metaphor. But you have taken issue with that before.

• 37 Dave Chesser // Apr 15, 2008 at 10:50 am

  “Dave, could you point out to me where you made it clear you were speaking metaphorically?”

  I didn’t. I just see it as truth, not a metaphor. There isn’t the need to label it, or at least there shouldn’t be.

  I finally told you that it was a metaphor because that’s the language I need to communicate with you.

  “…that seems to put forth the idea that it is an objective reality you are describing.”

  There are some realities that are real but won’t be shared.

• 38 Barbara // Jun 2, 2008 at 4:16 pm

  I read “My Stroke of Insight” in one sitting - I couldn’t put it down. I laughed. I cried. It was a fantastic book (I heard it’s a NYTimes Bestseller and I can see why!), but I also think it will be the start of a new, transformative Movement! No one wants to have a stroke as Jill Bolte Taylor did, but her experience can teach us all how to live better lives. Her TED.com speech was one of the most incredibly moving, stimulating, wonderful videos I’ve ever seen. Her Oprah Soul Series interviews were fascinating. They should make a movie of her life so everyone sees it. This is the Real Deal and gives me hope for humanity.

• 39 Candace // Jun 3, 2008 at 4:33 pm

  Thank you for that. Jill Bolte Taylor’s My Stroke of Insight is one of the most incredible stories I’ve heard in a long time. Her TEDTalk video blew my mind wide open to new possibilities. On the one hand, there’s what she went through and how she emerged from it. On the other hand, there’s what she can teach all of us.
  I saw the 4 part Oprah interview on Oprah dot com Soul Series and I did learn a lot from that, but I’d like to find our more of how to do what Dr. Taylor did, without having a stroke of course!
  Thin how many of us are living too much in the head, and not the heart. And of course, you can’t get more left brain than a Harvard Brain Scientist. Isn’t it ironic that she should be the one to have the stroke and transform from the quintessential left brainer into this “”seen the light”" disciple of finding inner peace?
  I hope this movement keeps going. Maybe there will be My Stroke of Insight classes where we can practice what Jill Bolte Taylor is preaching.

• 40 neijia // Jun 3, 2008 at 8:52 pm

  Barbara, Candace, you’ve stumbled onto a site with a lot of left-brained thoughts and analysis about “internal martial arts”. The overlap is that there are various practices related to these arts such as meditation that can help people tap into the right brain or whole brain or mind/body unity, so to speak. One technique, briefly, is to sit quietly and observe your left-brained chatter going by, not “attach” to it but simply observe the thoughts and “let them go”. To much to go into now, but also check out qigong - “energy work”.

Leave a Comment