Rory Miller has been in town for the past week, and it's always a great pleasure to be able to hang out and interact with him.
I did not have the time to attend everything he was teaching, which was OK as I have been through his workshops on more than one occasion, but I did want to play One Step with some new people and see what had ingrained and what had not. So I jumped in for an afternoon of environmental fighting in a garage/warehouse.
I am personally much more comfortable playing weapons than empty hand, so it's fun to jump into something I kinda dislike but want to understand more, and even more so with opportunities to fight in bathrooms, stairwells, on ramps, and amongst the dumpsters.
So, what did I notice?
I noticed that it's still hard to remember to 'find the emptiness' and not struggle against the force, and that I am not naturally good at seeing locks or pressure points. Also that my internal sense of geometry diminishes when I am grappling with someone who knows what they are doing, and though I can see simple take downs ... reversals are difficult for me, as my brain can't see the set ups, or in other words, the time frame in which I can negate the opportunity, or be ahead of the power to take advantage of the momentum.
Of course it's just a question of doing it more to get the feel for it, but I admit that at my age, I'm not too keen on taking break falls or having the semi skilled apply joint locks onto the 'tools of my trade' - my hands (for painting) - and the rest of my joints to keep those hands employed.
What did seem better than previously, was seeing the opportunities in
the environment to use to my advantage, shearing angles, and the use of
at least 2 'weapons' at once.
We all fight from the limited palette that our body type, personality, and health/age dictate, and these parameters change over time. So on the one hand, it seems totally reasonable to enhance what one has, and learn to negate the opponent's ability to take advantage of the weaknesses .... but still, it seems risky to avoid looking at the weaknesses at all ......
For me, at the most basic level, it is a risk reward scenario .... How great are the risks of injury compared with the potential skills learned? How risky is it to have great yawning gaps in my skills?
Logically, and realistically, I know that I will probably end up training what I enjoy the most, it's just the way it is ..... but there's still the part of me that is bothered when I don't understand something ..... like an itch I can't quite scratch .....
Perhaps it will come down to the opportunities that cross my path and their timing.
In the end, it's all about the timing ......
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Sunday, April 28, 2013
The House is on Fire
The pitfalls on the path to understanding are well known, warnings abound from scientists, philosophers, teachers, in fact from anyone that has ever been wrong and learned from it.
Here are a few:
Here are a few:
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Me, I'm Just a Lawnmower ....
Everyone moves in their own, individual, way - A combination of personality, experience, injury, and training.
We all have a way we walk, run, dance, and if you train a martial art, it's quite easy to see which one, sometimes even who your teacher is, by the way you move when you do something, even if it is in a different art.
Put a sword in someone's hand and all their previous movement patterns will come out. Some will be useful - We already know how to dodge, fade, and run away from playing games when we were kids (though of course freezing when faced with a sword may prevent this, if one are not used to playing with one).
All the rest of the stuff that has been trained in from other martial arts may or may not be as useful, especially if the conscious, trained, stuff overlays the subconscious, 'kid', stuff.
Add to this that you then have to train IN a bunch of overtly counter intuitive stuff ... and it becomes an interesting process.
It seems that the only true motivator to change ingrained habits is from repeated exposure to moments when they fail. If these moments do not occur, these tendencies seem very hard to work with, as the person doing them does not seem to have conscious control of them ..... and with no incentive to change, they repeat.
Even with failure on the table, there often seems to be huge resistance to change these familiar patterns to something smarter, and even those that intellectually might want to change ... find it hard to actually change.
I guess our brains hold on to movement patterns at a pretty deep level, and as they are connected to our self image, our identity in how we present ourselves to the outside world, there has to be a mental shift, and perhaps emotional too, before the physical can also free itself to be new things.
Addendum: After I wrote this piece, I read a study that may point to another reason why:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug01/blindspot.aspx
Here is a quote:
"The problem," says Bjork, "is that if people confuse the current sense of ease with learning, they'll tend to prefer training conditions where things are kept constant and predictable--conditions that act as crutches to prop up performance without fostering learning."
Once again, thanks to Steve Morris for the link, and his eternal quest to find the science behind movement and learning.
We all have a way we walk, run, dance, and if you train a martial art, it's quite easy to see which one, sometimes even who your teacher is, by the way you move when you do something, even if it is in a different art.
Put a sword in someone's hand and all their previous movement patterns will come out. Some will be useful - We already know how to dodge, fade, and run away from playing games when we were kids (though of course freezing when faced with a sword may prevent this, if one are not used to playing with one).
All the rest of the stuff that has been trained in from other martial arts may or may not be as useful, especially if the conscious, trained, stuff overlays the subconscious, 'kid', stuff.
Add to this that you then have to train IN a bunch of overtly counter intuitive stuff ... and it becomes an interesting process.
It seems that the only true motivator to change ingrained habits is from repeated exposure to moments when they fail. If these moments do not occur, these tendencies seem very hard to work with, as the person doing them does not seem to have conscious control of them ..... and with no incentive to change, they repeat.
Even with failure on the table, there often seems to be huge resistance to change these familiar patterns to something smarter, and even those that intellectually might want to change ... find it hard to actually change.
I guess our brains hold on to movement patterns at a pretty deep level, and as they are connected to our self image, our identity in how we present ourselves to the outside world, there has to be a mental shift, and perhaps emotional too, before the physical can also free itself to be new things.
Addendum: After I wrote this piece, I read a study that may point to another reason why:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug01/blindspot.aspx
Here is a quote:
"The problem," says Bjork, "is that if people confuse the current sense of ease with learning, they'll tend to prefer training conditions where things are kept constant and predictable--conditions that act as crutches to prop up performance without fostering learning."
Once again, thanks to Steve Morris for the link, and his eternal quest to find the science behind movement and learning.
Friday, April 12, 2013
The Primordial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1wiTILJAPWE
This clip was on the Ross Training website.
One of Marcelo Garcia's points, that got picked up on Ross's site, is that if you want to get good at wrestling, then spend time wrestling ... In other words, pretty much everything that needs to be trained can be found within the sport itself - including strength training and conditioning .... not that you can't do other things ... but perhaps the main focus should stay on the thing itself. No argument there.
Interestingly, I saw something else in the video, something that struck me as even more useful ...
I saw 2 guys practicing the part of the fight that happens the most - the part where both are vying for position but no one has succeeded in finishing. No one has won yet .. or even gotten the opportunity to do so, but both are working on finding it.
Their random flow drill is simplified into one guy trying to get the sweep, the other the pass.
MG demonstrates it 2 ways - One low risk way, playing it safe and giving nothing away, and the other more active way, where he is taking greater risks (because he is putting more energy into the system that can be used by his opponent) but seeing where he succeeds and where he does not.
This is a fabulous pairing of drills in my opinion, spent exploring a place where many spend the least time. The tendency is to practice what works, the win, the score ... and not spend enough time here, in the 'soup', practicing having things not quite work, and finding a save, or the recycle, into the next try.
The fact that he separates the two tactically different mindsets is fabulous ... See what 'playing' safe gets you ... and then check what not playing safe does ....
The two parts could also be thought of as conserving energy using only what the other guy gives you (closing doors), or creating movement by putting energy into the system yourself (opening doors).
The physical experience of this training, like any random flow, gets the information drilled into the body until the parameters of possibility, and the risks worth taking, become understood.
It is easy to see how these drills are possible from contact, in a grappling format for instance, and Sonny's Eskrima has variations on this also, empty hand, and with weapons ... But it is also possible BEFORE contact. Perhaps this is harder to see, but it is exactly the same stuff - It is testing how to set the opponent up, and to make openings that one can take advantage of without putting oneself into a losing position ... all my favorite stuff, the 'chess' of the game - faking, baiting, freezing etc
I reckon the lack of time spent in the soup is one of the greatest failings of many traditional systems. I have seen enough clips on Youtube of sport fighters wiping the ground with traditionally trained guys, to know that this is the piece that is missing from the training. This has led to mistaking the material and techniques for being at fault, but I reckon it's more likely the lack of soup in the training itself.
Bagua, for instance, has great fighting strategies, and ways it understands timing, power generation, traps, locks and throws .... but a tiny minority of folks that can pull it off against a trained kick boxer or similar .... Not because the ideas are bad, but because the practitioners have never learned how to insert the cool things they know into chaos .... especially from pre contact distance. They don't understand why or when things work ... or do not, having always been GIVEN the opportunities to 'win' in training. Real opponents are just not that generous.
Kick boxers and others who practice ring sports do that kind of training all the time. They know how to avoid telegraphing their strikes, how to test and harass the opponent, how to break their timing and to jam their techniques. They also know how to avoid giving opportunities away, so the person who has spent all their time practicing against GIVEN opportunities can never find them or make them happen.
Of course there is context ... many trad systems were not meant for sport fighting ... but still .... it is obvious that there is a hole in the method, at least in my opinion, and chaotic and random drills, like in the video, can work to bring the 'when' and the 'how' in alignment with the 'what'.
Time to create some soup recipes ....
This clip was on the Ross Training website.
One of Marcelo Garcia's points, that got picked up on Ross's site, is that if you want to get good at wrestling, then spend time wrestling ... In other words, pretty much everything that needs to be trained can be found within the sport itself - including strength training and conditioning .... not that you can't do other things ... but perhaps the main focus should stay on the thing itself. No argument there.
Interestingly, I saw something else in the video, something that struck me as even more useful ...
I saw 2 guys practicing the part of the fight that happens the most - the part where both are vying for position but no one has succeeded in finishing. No one has won yet .. or even gotten the opportunity to do so, but both are working on finding it.
Their random flow drill is simplified into one guy trying to get the sweep, the other the pass.
MG demonstrates it 2 ways - One low risk way, playing it safe and giving nothing away, and the other more active way, where he is taking greater risks (because he is putting more energy into the system that can be used by his opponent) but seeing where he succeeds and where he does not.
This is a fabulous pairing of drills in my opinion, spent exploring a place where many spend the least time. The tendency is to practice what works, the win, the score ... and not spend enough time here, in the 'soup', practicing having things not quite work, and finding a save, or the recycle, into the next try.
The fact that he separates the two tactically different mindsets is fabulous ... See what 'playing' safe gets you ... and then check what not playing safe does ....
The two parts could also be thought of as conserving energy using only what the other guy gives you (closing doors), or creating movement by putting energy into the system yourself (opening doors).
The physical experience of this training, like any random flow, gets the information drilled into the body until the parameters of possibility, and the risks worth taking, become understood.
It is easy to see how these drills are possible from contact, in a grappling format for instance, and Sonny's Eskrima has variations on this also, empty hand, and with weapons ... But it is also possible BEFORE contact. Perhaps this is harder to see, but it is exactly the same stuff - It is testing how to set the opponent up, and to make openings that one can take advantage of without putting oneself into a losing position ... all my favorite stuff, the 'chess' of the game - faking, baiting, freezing etc
I reckon the lack of time spent in the soup is one of the greatest failings of many traditional systems. I have seen enough clips on Youtube of sport fighters wiping the ground with traditionally trained guys, to know that this is the piece that is missing from the training. This has led to mistaking the material and techniques for being at fault, but I reckon it's more likely the lack of soup in the training itself.
Bagua, for instance, has great fighting strategies, and ways it understands timing, power generation, traps, locks and throws .... but a tiny minority of folks that can pull it off against a trained kick boxer or similar .... Not because the ideas are bad, but because the practitioners have never learned how to insert the cool things they know into chaos .... especially from pre contact distance. They don't understand why or when things work ... or do not, having always been GIVEN the opportunities to 'win' in training. Real opponents are just not that generous.
Kick boxers and others who practice ring sports do that kind of training all the time. They know how to avoid telegraphing their strikes, how to test and harass the opponent, how to break their timing and to jam their techniques. They also know how to avoid giving opportunities away, so the person who has spent all their time practicing against GIVEN opportunities can never find them or make them happen.
Of course there is context ... many trad systems were not meant for sport fighting ... but still .... it is obvious that there is a hole in the method, at least in my opinion, and chaotic and random drills, like in the video, can work to bring the 'when' and the 'how' in alignment with the 'what'.
Time to create some soup recipes ....
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Move
Constant motion holds the beginning, middle
and the end of all fencing according to this art and
teaching… Motion,
this beautiful word, is the heart of swordsmanship and the crown of the
whole
matter... – the teachings of Master Liechtenauer, c1389
(http://www.thearma.org/essays/StandingStill.html)
So over 600 years ago they knew this, wrote about it, and tried to impress upon students of swordsmanship how important it is ... In fact I'm sure there are even older texts saying exactly the same thing, yet, why is it, SO many hundreds of years later, that this still seems to hard to ingrain?
Intellectually, I'm pretty sure that it makes total sense that avoiding getting cut by a lethal edged weapon is a good idea, but put one in someone's hand ... and immediately they seem rooted still, and if not that, then compelled to only bounce up and down on a line, going forward and back.
We all know about getting out of the way of things, about stepping out of the path of something hurtling towards you, so why is it that we forget it when facing another human being?
Rory Miller had the idea that it is related to the Monkey Dance paradigm. As a game of dominance, it assumes that the challenger must be absolutely sure who the person is that they are trying to beat in the status game .... and they can only know that if they are standing face to face.
Also, status fighting generally involves someone giving up, losing, running away or saying 'stop, enough', so these fights are technically not won, but lost. I think on some level we are constantly looking for the other to give up, not at ways of taking them out, and this has the side effect of tying our feet to the ground. Gotta 'show them who's boss' - literally.
However ... as teachers of De Fence have known for hundreds of years .... swords are unfortunately lethal ... which means that fighting with one in hand has far more serious consequences than a brief bumping of chests or trading of fist blows. Technically it is much harder to choose to lose in a non lethal manner when death is so close, and you certainly can't be blase about trading a few blows as the price of your own victory.
History is littered with the corpses of duelists, despite the best advice of their sword masters. The subconscious tribal behavior runs deep and, more often than not, trumps the training unless a mental shift is realized.
Gotta stop trying to be the strongest Zebra and start thinking like a Tiger.
Rory Miller had the idea that it is related to the Monkey Dance paradigm. As a game of dominance, it assumes that the challenger must be absolutely sure who the person is that they are trying to beat in the status game .... and they can only know that if they are standing face to face.
Also, status fighting generally involves someone giving up, losing, running away or saying 'stop, enough', so these fights are technically not won, but lost. I think on some level we are constantly looking for the other to give up, not at ways of taking them out, and this has the side effect of tying our feet to the ground. Gotta 'show them who's boss' - literally.
However ... as teachers of De Fence have known for hundreds of years .... swords are unfortunately lethal ... which means that fighting with one in hand has far more serious consequences than a brief bumping of chests or trading of fist blows. Technically it is much harder to choose to lose in a non lethal manner when death is so close, and you certainly can't be blase about trading a few blows as the price of your own victory.
History is littered with the corpses of duelists, despite the best advice of their sword masters. The subconscious tribal behavior runs deep and, more often than not, trumps the training unless a mental shift is realized.
Gotta stop trying to be the strongest Zebra and start thinking like a Tiger.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
The Maze
Humans are extremely adaptable - that's what they DO, and have done for millennia, in the constant quest to stay alive and keep ahead of the competition.
Our senses are constantly on the look out for changes in our environment that require our adapting to them, and in fact can become blind if there is nothing going on.
For instance the eyes have a built in mechanism that make them naturally flicker away from staring at an object. They have to move away from it for microseconds at a time and back again just so they can KEEP seeing it.
So what does this mean for learning? Could this natural, physical ability, that links our senses to our nervous system, put information and smart reactions into our bodies more efficiently than routing those reactions through the conscious mind?
Do a prearranged technique with a partner and one of two things will happen if you repeat it a over and over .... Your opponent will either keep letting you do it with no resistance, kinda playing dead, or they will start to make it more difficult, sometimes on purpose, but most often without any thought whatsoever - They will start to resist a little more, make themselves harder to move, move their center slightly, block your strike, grab you tighter, shift off line etc. All the things they probably should do in fact (but to a greater extent) to negate your technique.
Humans are tricky, it is what comes naturally.
Though this is irritating in a traditional class where you are expected to behave in the same way over and over again to perfect the technique you are working on, it indicates a truth that I believe can be used to improve how we learn.
If we accept that human beings will react to stimuli through their senses, and they will adapt these reactions over time to their own advantage, perhaps this is the best 'gate' through which to ingrain skills?
We seem to learn deepest, and perhaps fastest, in my opinion, by having things either work or not, and will find the best ideas through trial and error, by not knowing, trying, failing and succeeding. ESPECIALLY in the physical world of dueling where success and failure are pretty easy to distinguish (unless of course you are delusional/lying to yourself, but that's another thing ...).
And those solutions will live in a completely different place in your brain than those learned by rote.
It seems once you name solutions, and teach from the name forwards, the process starts to go through the conscious mind, not through the body, and that kind of knowledge is not as immediate, or retrievable in the same way as reactive 'body' knowledge'.
Of course we might not have the imagination to find some reactions, and many more are counter intuitive, so need to be pointed out by someone else.
It is important, however, that even those counter intuitive reactions that come from outside, are best ingrained by having them accessed in context - from a feeling of being cornered, and experimenting until the way out is found. This way they will feel worthy of retaining.
The end product should be immediate, thoughtless, adaptive, reactions.
Train the 'immediacy' through the adaptive, and these skills might have a far greater chance of actually manifesting in other situations that require immediacy and adaption on the fly - like dueling.
Nothing like previous success to prompt using a given idea ... or failure to pass it up for another one ....
This kind of training implies having no script, no map. It implies training amongst problems that require solutions, and chaining these together in the way to create a path through an ever changing maze that has only a few ways out.
The maze itself needs to be a close representation of the real thing, or else the reactions that are trained could be inappropriate. So it requires a teacher that knows the maze, and knows how to create dead ends, how to shift the walls, and show the possible exits as they appear and disappear.
It also requires a student that is willing to try, to explore, to fail, and to use their imagination outside their experience.
One that trusts that they possess an innate natural ability to adapt, and that this ability can be cultivated until it too can see the maze ..... not to describe it or name it, but to CREATE it for whoever they wish to play with next - adversary, or student.
Our senses are constantly on the look out for changes in our environment that require our adapting to them, and in fact can become blind if there is nothing going on.
For instance the eyes have a built in mechanism that make them naturally flicker away from staring at an object. They have to move away from it for microseconds at a time and back again just so they can KEEP seeing it.
So what does this mean for learning? Could this natural, physical ability, that links our senses to our nervous system, put information and smart reactions into our bodies more efficiently than routing those reactions through the conscious mind?
Do a prearranged technique with a partner and one of two things will happen if you repeat it a over and over .... Your opponent will either keep letting you do it with no resistance, kinda playing dead, or they will start to make it more difficult, sometimes on purpose, but most often without any thought whatsoever - They will start to resist a little more, make themselves harder to move, move their center slightly, block your strike, grab you tighter, shift off line etc. All the things they probably should do in fact (but to a greater extent) to negate your technique.
Humans are tricky, it is what comes naturally.
Though this is irritating in a traditional class where you are expected to behave in the same way over and over again to perfect the technique you are working on, it indicates a truth that I believe can be used to improve how we learn.
If we accept that human beings will react to stimuli through their senses, and they will adapt these reactions over time to their own advantage, perhaps this is the best 'gate' through which to ingrain skills?
We seem to learn deepest, and perhaps fastest, in my opinion, by having things either work or not, and will find the best ideas through trial and error, by not knowing, trying, failing and succeeding. ESPECIALLY in the physical world of dueling where success and failure are pretty easy to distinguish (unless of course you are delusional/lying to yourself, but that's another thing ...).
And those solutions will live in a completely different place in your brain than those learned by rote.
It seems once you name solutions, and teach from the name forwards, the process starts to go through the conscious mind, not through the body, and that kind of knowledge is not as immediate, or retrievable in the same way as reactive 'body' knowledge'.
Of course we might not have the imagination to find some reactions, and many more are counter intuitive, so need to be pointed out by someone else.
It is important, however, that even those counter intuitive reactions that come from outside, are best ingrained by having them accessed in context - from a feeling of being cornered, and experimenting until the way out is found. This way they will feel worthy of retaining.
The end product should be immediate, thoughtless, adaptive, reactions.
Train the 'immediacy' through the adaptive, and these skills might have a far greater chance of actually manifesting in other situations that require immediacy and adaption on the fly - like dueling.
Nothing like previous success to prompt using a given idea ... or failure to pass it up for another one ....
This kind of training implies having no script, no map. It implies training amongst problems that require solutions, and chaining these together in the way to create a path through an ever changing maze that has only a few ways out.
The maze itself needs to be a close representation of the real thing, or else the reactions that are trained could be inappropriate. So it requires a teacher that knows the maze, and knows how to create dead ends, how to shift the walls, and show the possible exits as they appear and disappear.
It also requires a student that is willing to try, to explore, to fail, and to use their imagination outside their experience.
One that trusts that they possess an innate natural ability to adapt, and that this ability can be cultivated until it too can see the maze ..... not to describe it or name it, but to CREATE it for whoever they wish to play with next - adversary, or student.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Brain Keys
Names are just memory devices, keys if you like, to access a picture of the whole in your brain.
Back in the day, Chinese martial artists came up with all kinds of animal imagery to cement flavors of movement and patterns in the mind. They used cultural stuff like the Yi-Ching and 5 Element theory for 'keys' also.
Nowadays we live in cultures and environments far removed from knowledge of wild animals, and most of us have no connection to the cultural identifiers, the famous poems, or the idioms, from the place, or time, when they were attached to the movements they were meant to describe.
These do have a romantic allure, especially when voiced in their original languages of course, and are of historic value, which, I'm sure, is why they endure.
Many would, I'm also sure, consider it complete sacrilege to change these terms in any way ... but if their original intent was to convey a feeling, and to help remember a sequence of moves, are these original names really the best way to do so?
Being a pragmatist, I like the idea of efficiency, and I'll use any imagery I can to explain an idea ..... which is just a nice way of saying that I am often guilty of taking the poetic imagery and turned it into a Far Side cartoon.
Right now I am teaching a Xing-Yi form. Some systems call it the Phoenix form, my teacher likes to think of it as Vulture, but also refers to it just as 'Tai Bird'.
Seeing as Tai means 'big' .... I decided to invoke Big Bird .... which caused some mirth for those that have seen the kid's TV show Sesame Street. Nothing to do with the quality of the movement ... but perhaps out of place enough to jog the memory bank into action when reviewing.
One of the hand positions also totally looks like "Hold out the Handbag (That would be 'purse' to my American friends)".
Some of my others are - Throw the Chicken, Put the Mayo on the Shelf, Fling the Bedsheet, Start the Chainsaw, Spin the Pizza, Vogue, Vomit, Velociraptor, and of course the famous Over the Shoulder Nose Throw. Points for any Internal practitioners that can recognize what these might be ....
There is also a great deal of reaching for things off the edge of cliffs, squishing bugs (cigarettes are passe) and pulling oneself around on imaginary ropes, and though I have little experience with most of these, there is bowling, speed skating, slalom skiing, and punting occasionally too .....
Back in the day, Chinese martial artists came up with all kinds of animal imagery to cement flavors of movement and patterns in the mind. They used cultural stuff like the Yi-Ching and 5 Element theory for 'keys' also.
Nowadays we live in cultures and environments far removed from knowledge of wild animals, and most of us have no connection to the cultural identifiers, the famous poems, or the idioms, from the place, or time, when they were attached to the movements they were meant to describe.
These do have a romantic allure, especially when voiced in their original languages of course, and are of historic value, which, I'm sure, is why they endure.
Many would, I'm also sure, consider it complete sacrilege to change these terms in any way ... but if their original intent was to convey a feeling, and to help remember a sequence of moves, are these original names really the best way to do so?
Being a pragmatist, I like the idea of efficiency, and I'll use any imagery I can to explain an idea ..... which is just a nice way of saying that I am often guilty of taking the poetic imagery and turned it into a Far Side cartoon.
Right now I am teaching a Xing-Yi form. Some systems call it the Phoenix form, my teacher likes to think of it as Vulture, but also refers to it just as 'Tai Bird'.
Seeing as Tai means 'big' .... I decided to invoke Big Bird .... which caused some mirth for those that have seen the kid's TV show Sesame Street. Nothing to do with the quality of the movement ... but perhaps out of place enough to jog the memory bank into action when reviewing.
One of the hand positions also totally looks like "Hold out the Handbag (That would be 'purse' to my American friends)".
Some of my others are - Throw the Chicken, Put the Mayo on the Shelf, Fling the Bedsheet, Start the Chainsaw, Spin the Pizza, Vogue, Vomit, Velociraptor, and of course the famous Over the Shoulder Nose Throw. Points for any Internal practitioners that can recognize what these might be ....
There is also a great deal of reaching for things off the edge of cliffs, squishing bugs (cigarettes are passe) and pulling oneself around on imaginary ropes, and though I have little experience with most of these, there is bowling, speed skating, slalom skiing, and punting occasionally too .....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)