OK. Now I know who we’re talking about.
I have only scene form application videos with him. Is there anything else out there that may interest me? Any of his students out there? Show promise?
Lol, nice pic, YKW. 
P.S. Nice discussion too, BTW. Thanks Sanjuro, MP, and everyone.
Awesome thread. Sifu Patterson’s philosophies are a hallmark for teachers that still have a fighters perspective. I’ve see the same echoes in what I’ve said to students over the years in one way or another.
His explanation on forms should be dittoed (I’m old) and sent to every CMA school in the country as their new byline.
[QUOTE=Lebaufist;1131096]Awesome thread. Sifu Patterson’s philosophies are a hallmark for teachers that still have a fighters perspective. I’ve see the same echoes in what I’ve said to students over the years in one way or another.
His explanation on forms should be dittoed (I’m old) and sent to every CMA school in the country as their new byline.[/QUOTE]
xeroxed, at least.
[QUOTE=TenTigers;1131098]xeroxed, at least.[/QUOTE]
i was going to say scanned. hehe
patterson’s one of the guys i always wanted to study with, but wrote off the idea because I don’t like the idea of living in cali; though I guess he’s in vegas now. Cartmell’s another one.
my first kung fu school was a tang shr dao affiliate in Okinawa.
I knew all the forms (still remember a few), but there was a language barrier so I didn’t get much else. always kind of kicked around the idea of completing the first style i started. Aside from being my first style, I like hsing yi because the power’s very close to the dempsey drop step. Unfortunately things just never worked out.
those guys really seem to go about it the right way.
same with all the shuai chiao guys I’ve met.
[QUOTE=Hardwork108;1131056]I have question for Sifu Patterson.
Sifu, is Zhan Zhuang training part of the curriculum you teach? If so, how significant a role does this methodology play in your teachings?
.[/QUOTE]
Sorry. Didn’t see this until now. I’ve been gone for the Labor Day weekend.
Standing practice is very important in our methodology. Again, no more OR LESS important than anything else.
Meditation aspects aside, from standing practice we learn to hold a position of “ease” in the body, meaning no antagonism and no tension. Appropriate “linkage” of the soft tissues and proper alignment of the skeletal system allow for cultivation of a relaxed, natural and fluid movement structure over time. This translates then to efficiency of motion via the “non antagonism” learned, which in turn translates to speed.
To us, the philosophy of “walking before running” can be applied to standing practice vs. movement. If you cannot relax during standing, you have little hope of truly relaxing during high speed dynamic movement. Such was the opinion of the people who trained me and now my own as well.
Lets not make this about Strength training people, ok?
Start another thread.
[QUOTE=Mike Patterson;1131471]Sorry. Didn’t see this until now. I’ve been gone for the Labor Day weekend.
Standing practice is very important in our methodology. Again, no more OR LESS important than anything else.
Meditation aspects aside, from standing practice we learn to hold a position of “ease” in the body, meaning no antagonism and no tension. Appropriate “linkage” of the soft tissues and proper alignment of the skeletal system allow for cultivation of a relaxed, natural and fluid movement structure over time. This translates then to efficiency of motion via the “non antagonism” learned, which in turn translates to speed.
To us, the philosophy of “walking before running” can be applied to standing practice vs. movement. If you cannot relax during standing, you have little hope of truly relaxing during high speed dynamic movement. Such was the opinion of the people who trained me and now my own as well.[/QUOTE]
Well-stated, very clearly and without added hokum. It takes the “mystery” out of the practice and makes it more widely accessable.
In the ontology of standing –> walking –> running, one learns to harmonize several things, including breath, voluntary skeletal movement and the ground reaction force, as all of these travel through the non-contractile structure (osseous and soft tissue); specifically, the soft connective tissue functions in context of tensegrity principles (continuous tension / discontinuous compression). one may later be able to synchronize various autonomic functions as well, as one increases one’s ability to listen / look into oneself in a way that is more sensitive and discerning; but never does this mean one must take leave of reason and intelligent thought in favor of intuitiveness…both must work together, hand in hand, otherwise one misses the forrest for the trees or the trees for the forrest, depending on where one is in excess…
that said, my belief is this: that there is more than ample capacity on the part of so-called “western” methodology to fully encompass and describe the workings and effects of so-called “internal” practice; it just takes a range of knowledge somewhat outside the main (e.g. - a great deal of information may be gleaned looking at “western” practices such as Rolfing/Structural Integration, Alexander Technique, Feldenkreis, Osteopathy, tensegrity, chaos / complexity theory etc.), but aso if one explores the standard body of anatomical / physiological knowledge, one will find many of the so-called “qi” phenomenon clearly described and articulated, and localized anatomically (simply put - if one has certain “internal” experiences but no training in physiology, one may be prone to interpret these experiences as something outside the normal range of body function - but in fact, these experiences can be defined from a physiological perspective quite readily!)
in other words, whereas for many years, people have, for, in their estimation, a perceived lack of “western” science’s capacity to describe what is happening vis-a-vis 'internal" training, defaulted to using terms such as “qi”, “jing”, “sung”, etc.; in contrast to this, I personally have found that there is more than sufficient extant conceptual apparatus to clearly discern what is going on in this area;
my personal belief is that many people would prefer to keep “internal” couched in terms that the typical “western” mind cannot understand with ease - the effect is to keep these practices necessarily obscure, to lend the teacher thereof a quasi-mystical sheen, and maintain the practices in a state of mystical “otherness”; when u pull away the veil, now u enable people to no longer be hoodwinked by teachers who themselves have a dubious understanding of what is going on, and get away with sounding authoritative by citing things like “qi”, with the caveat that it’s really inexplicable by nature (which is untrue);
I think that in time, the practice of internal will be as well-articulated in a manner that can be clearly understood by all; not only will this increase people’s ability to get the most out of the practice, it will prevent charlatans with incomplete learning to lead other’s astray…
[QUOTE=taai gihk yahn;1131481]Well-stated, very clearly and without added hokum. It takes the “mystery” out of the practice and makes it more widely accessable.
In the ontology of standing –> walking –> running, one learns to harmonize several things, including breath, voluntary skeletal movement and the ground reaction force, as all of these travel through the non-contractile structure (osseous and soft tissue); specifically, the soft connective tissue functions in context of tensegrity principles (continuous tension / discontinuous compression). one may later be able to synchronize various autonomic functions as well, as one increases one’s ability to listen / look into oneself in a way that is more sensitive and discerning; but never does this mean one must take leave of reason and intelligent thought in favor of intuitiveness…both must work together, hand in hand, otherwise one misses the forrest for the trees or the trees for the forrest, depending on where one is in excess…
that said, my belief is this: that there is more than ample capacity on the part of so-called “western” methodology to fully encompass and describe the workings and effects of so-called “internal” practice; it just takes a range of knowledge somewhat outside the main (e.g. - a great deal of information may be gleaned looking at “western” practices such as Rolfing/Structural Integration, Alexander Technique, Feldenkreis, Osteopathy, tensegrity, chaos / complexity theory etc.), but aso if one explores the standard body of anatomical / physiological knowledge, one will find many of the so-called “qi” phenomenon clearly described and articulated, and localized anatomically (simply put - if one has certain “internal” experiences but no training in physiology, one may be prone to interpret these experiences as something outside the normal range of body function - but in fact, these experiences can be defined from a physiological perspective quite readily!)
in other words, whereas for many years, people have, for, in their estimation, a perceived lack of “western” science’s capacity to describe what is happening vis-a-vis 'internal" training, defaulted to using terms such as “qi”, “jing”, “sung”, etc.; in contrast to this, I personally have found that there is more than sufficient extant conceptual apparatus to clearly discern what is going on in this area;
my personal belief is that many people would prefer to keep “internal” couched in terms that the typical “western” mind cannot understand with ease - the effect is to keep these practices necessarily obscure, to lend the teacher thereof a quasi-mystical sheen, and maintain the practices in a state of mystical “otherness”; when u pull away the veil, now u enable people to no longer be hoodwinked by teachers who themselves have a dubious understanding of what is going on, and get away with sounding authoritative by citing things like “qi”, with the caveat that it’s really inexplicable by nature (which is untrue);
I think that in time, the practice of internal will be as well-articulated in a manner that can be clearly understood by all; not only will this increase people’s ability to get the most out of the practice, it will prevent charlatans with incomplete learning to lead other’s astray…[/QUOTE]
Agreed in virtually every respect.
I have time and again through my own exploration of many of the western methodolgies you mentioned above (and other constructs as well) seen the same principles espoused. I do not believe this negates the methods passed down through hsingi (xingyi), pakua (bagua) or taichi (taji). Quite the opposite, I believe this validates them. The Western world is constantly “re-discovering” things that the Eastern world has known about for centuries. Such is our (western) need to know “why”. The Eastern people have often taken the perspective of “empirical observation” and just accepted that something “is” or “is not” based on experience. I don’t find this wrong, simply different. I personally actually take a certain “comfort” in the fact that western science has validated many things I have practiced for decades in their own way.
And I could not agree with you more on your final two paragraphs. I have spent the better part of my life “lifting the veil” on such people. That veil is far too easy a place to hide. 
[QUOTE=Mike Patterson;1131489]Agreed in virtually every respect.
I have time and again through my own exploration of many of the western methodolgies you mentioned above (and other constructs as well) seen the same principles espoused.[/QUOTE]
sure: for example, taiji principle: “empty the collar, suspend the top” v. Alexander Technique: “the head floats free and away”; and if u look at the biomechanics of things like osteopathy and chiropractic, u can in fact identify specifically the structures that are involved in the various internal art principles, giving one a way to communicate to students / patients that encompasses both approaches;
[QUOTE=Mike Patterson;1131489] I do not believe this negates the methods passed down through hsingi (xingyi), pakua (bagua) or taichi (taji). Quite the opposite, I believe this validates them. [/QUOTE]
Yes! I have been saying this here for years - if you have a given approach that leads you to certain “truths”, and then if u have another approach that is, for all intents and purposes, completely different, and yet you arrive at essentially the same conclusion, this is about as powerful relatively-objective “proof” that one can get at! the best “proof” of one’s own paradigm is someone from another paradigm with no interest in or even knowledge of your own, coming to the same conclusions;
[QUOTE=Mike Patterson;1131489]The Western world is constantly “re-discovering” things that the Eastern world has known about for centuries. [/QUOTE]
well, yes, although admittedly there r things that “the west” discovered that “the east” never dreamed of - in my mind, one of the most pivotal things being the discovery of the cell, which fundamentally altered the understanding of human physiology / medicine (prior to this, in a way, “western” medicine was more similar to “eastern” than not, to wit, the classification of humors);
[QUOTE=Mike Patterson;1131489]Such is our (western) need to know “why”. The Eastern people have often taken the perspective of “empirical observation” and just accepted that something “is” or “is not” based on experience. I don’t find this wrong, simply different. I personally actually take a certain “comfort” in the fact that western science has validated many things I have practiced for decades in their own way.[/QUOTE]
yes, it’s a matter of approach - so-called “eastern” thought (which was greatly influenced by relatively “western” regions such as Persia) is generally synthetic, top-down pattern recognition, that is very much an either/or sort of construct (one can argue that yin/yang is a “primative” form of binary processing, lol); “western” approach is more “bottom up”, although, of course, each contains elements of the other;
[QUOTE=Mike Patterson;1131489]And I could not agree with you more on your final two paragraphs. I have spent the better part of my life “lifting the veil” on such people. That veil is far too easy a place to hide. ;)[/QUOTE]
it’s just allowed for so much deception - deception of other and of the self - it’s like, when u hit the wall on ur ability to talk about biomechanics, all of a sudden it becomes “qi”; what’s more, I believe that the vast majority of people who use this term fail to understand it! Personally, I find the definition used by Ted Kaptchuk in “Web that Has no Weaver” to be the most coherent and comprehensive I’ve read to date (if u’ve read him, u understand; if u have not, I enthusiastically recommend it, and can say without hesitation that u will enjoy his take on TCM immensely, as it will probably dovetail w a lot of ur own perspective);
I think that the bottom line is that, if one looks at it honestly, with an inquisitive, non-presupposing mind, then one can see clearly; of course, it may not be as romantic and esoteric as one would like either, lol…
anyway, all of this agreement is making me dizzy…
[QUOTE=taai gihk yahn;1131501]sure: for example, taiji principle: “empty the collar, suspend the top” v. Alexander Technique: “the head floats free and away”; and if u look at the biomechanics of things like osteopathy and chiropractic, u can in fact identify specifically the structures that are involved in the various internal art principles, giving one a way to communicate to students / patients that encompasses both approaches;
Yes! I have been saying this here for years - if you have a given approach that leads you to certain “truths”, and then if u have another approach that is, for all intents and purposes, completely different, and yet you arrive at essentially the same conclusion, this is about as powerful relatively-objective “proof” that one can get at! the best “proof” of one’s own paradigm is someone from another paradigm with no interest in or even knowledge of your own, coming to the same conclusions;
well, yes, although admittedly there r things that “the west” discovered that “the east” never dreamed of - in my mind, one of the most pivotal things being the discovery of the cell, which fundamentally altered the understanding of human physiology / medicine (prior to this, in a way, “western” medicine was more similar to “eastern” than not, to wit, the classification of humors);
yes, it’s a matter of approach - so-called “eastern” thought (which was greatly influenced by relatively “western” regions such as Persia) is generally synthetic, top-down pattern recognition, that is very much an either/or sort of construct (one can argue that yin/yang is a “primative” form of binary processing, lol); “western” approach is more “bottom up”, although, of course, each contains elements of the other;
it’s just allowed for so much deception - deception of other and of the self - it’s like, when u hit the wall on ur ability to talk about biomechanics, all of a sudden it becomes “qi”; what’s more, I believe that the vast majority of people who use this term fail to understand it! Personally, I find the definition used by Ted Kaptchuk in “Web that Has no Weaver” to be the most coherent and comprehensive I’ve read to date (if u’ve read him, u understand; if u have not, I enthusiastically recommend it, and can say without hesitation that u will enjoy his take on TCM immensely, as it will probably dovetail w a lot of ur own perspective);
I think that the bottom line is that, if one looks at it honestly, with an inquisitive, non-presupposing mind, then one can see clearly; of course, it may not be as romantic and esoteric as one would like either, lol…
anyway, all of this agreement is making me dizzy…[/QUOTE]
I have read, attended lectures by, and spoken to, Mr. Kaptchuk.
I agree.. too much deception. Too much ignorance. And interestingly, one of my students spent a great deal of time talking to me over the years about the “binary progression” he believes is contained within the patterns of the I Ching. It has made for many a night of spirited conversation within our school walls.
Oftentimes, western people tend to receive a very narrow perspective of what a specific character like “chi” means in Mandarin. I once had a very long "disagreement with a fellow over what he thought he was talking about as “jin” energy vs. “jing” essence, only to find out that he had made one of the classic mistakes when not reading, writing or speaking the language of origin.
But I, like you, now feel dizzied by all this agreement from another mind other than my own. I think I need now retire and meditate on all this as I find it quite unsettling.
[QUOTE=Mike Patterson;1131471]Sorry. Didn’t see this until now. I’ve been gone for the Labor Day weekend.[/QUOTE]
No problem. I appreciate the time you took to answer my question Sifu Patterson.
[QUOTE=Mike Patterson;1131471]Standing practice is very important in our methodology. Again, no more OR LESS important than anything else.
Meditation aspects aside, from standing practice we learn to hold a position of “ease” in the body, meaning no antagonism and no tension. Appropriate “linkage” of the soft tissues and proper alignment of the skeletal system allow for cultivation of a relaxed, natural and fluid movement structure over time. This translates then to efficiency of motion via the “non antagonism” learned, which in turn translates to speed.[/quote]
My Chow Gar Mantis sifu, who spoke highly of Hsing I made parallels between the Zhan Zhuang practice of Hsing I and that of “similar end” methodologies in Chow Gar.
So basically, as I understand it, on one level these exercises help in creating a type of “internal linking” of the body, that contributes to this given style’s body unity faculties which also contributes to relaxation, speed and power, as well.
I am curious as how long, generally speaking do you require your beginner to intermediate level students to keep the postures, at each go?
[QUOTE=Mike Patterson;1131471]To us, the philosophy of “walking before running” can be applied to standing practice vs. movement. If you cannot relax during standing, you have little hope of truly relaxing during high speed dynamic movement. Such was the opinion of the people who trained me and now my own as well.[/QUOTE]
That opinion is a wise one. It is nowadays my experience that many people regard such training as “fantasy-fu” or for “relaxation”, but I hope that your words will enlighten such people.
Thank you again, sifu.
[QUOTE=Mike Patterson;1131514]I have read, attended lectures by, and spoken to, Mr. Kaptchuk. :)[/QUOTE]
awesome! Kaptchuk’s a hoot, isn’t he? I met him some years ago when he gave a lecture at Columbia in NY while I was a PT student, they had him come in via their dept of alternative /complimentary whatsits; he gave a very interesting account of the history of “alternative” medicine in the US, not just TCM, but all kinds of vitalist / electromagnetic medicine movements in the 19th and 20th cen.(at one point he said “bullsh1t” during the lecture - he stops and ask, to no one in particular, “am I allowed to say ‘bullsh1t’ at Columbia?”); we chatted a bit after, he’s one guy w his head screwed on right;
I met Ted years ago as well and just had him for a class at New England School of Acupuncture called Experience, Experiments, and the Soul in Chinese Medcine.
I have to say it was one of the better classes I have ever attended.
Ted also swore, and then looked out at the class and asked if it was okay to swear.
We agreed that it was.
A very long time ago a friend of mine who does both Hsing Yi and Taiji said that to him “internal” meant understanding the “hydraulics” of the human body… it seems a reasonable approach, regardless of the metaphors to seek to figure out how exactly the body works most efficiently
It might shock a few here, but even “MMA kickboxing knuckleheads” practice slowly at times to examine how their techniques work and to work on the fine points.
The consensus seems to be that, YES, western systems do have the very same “internals” as eastern ones, that one will indeed find the same attributes and techniques and practices, the difference simply being the “jargon” that is used.
Truly, if one sees a high level athlete perform their sport one sees all that is “internal”: structure, relaxation, alignment, full body union, etc, etc.
It does truly seem to be a case of Tomato/tomahtoe.
Having been exposed to high level IMA and high level EMA and perhaps more importantly, high level physical performances, I have seen this too.
[QUOTE=Hardwork108;1131546]
I am curious as how long, generally speaking do you require your beginner to intermediate level students to keep the postures, at each go?
[/QUOTE]
Meditation “class” is scheduled for one hour. Beginners learn five shapes initially and are encouraged to stay in them until fatigued and then taught how to try and alleviate that fatigue before giving up on the shape and resting. This process is helpful in trying to learn the principle I spoke of prior regarding “non-antagonism” within their bodies.
The intermediate students generally stand for the entire hour (unless newly graduated), moving from shape to shape without rest. However, it should be duly noted that some shapes are more physically demanding than are others and so by practicing accordingly, one can sort of “rest” at leas a portion of the body while continuing to practice.