External and Internal

Ok, lets get this discussion going

just going to make some distinctions here to start


EXTERNAL (yang/male)

gross motor mechanics

expansion power

double weighted

conceptual


INTERNAL

micro mechanics

compression power

single weighted (freebalance)

actual (current perception)



spectrum of force

'internal' fundamentals and the external arts

is there a difference or not?

My speculation,with limited understanding,is that they are two pieces of the same picture.each appropriate at different times depending on the action/endeavor being taken

the first way this gets kicked around is a semantic game about the meaning of these terms.  the first tact is that it is all external and internal.  you cannot move the body without the 'mind'.  

a distinction is made between the 'hard' and 'soft' arts.   the hard arts being seen as those that rely the most on power and speed, and have a tendency towards striking.  

the soft arts are generally more concerned with yielding to force and tendency towards circular movements that redirect.  

then the quibbling starts because some karate has soft blocks, and aikido has atemi(striking technique), and the argument then descends into point analysis of what really are just a shared body of techniques and tactics.   Notice the overlap in the arts,  that if applied,  cuts the number of available 'arts' drastically.     minutiae does not a new style make.  

take judo for instance.   it means the 'gentle way', inferring that is an internal art.   flow with force, and cast your opponent down with his own momentum.   looks good on paper.   unfortunately most judo matches look a lot like wrestling, in the same manner that most kung fu guys fight like kick boxers.    

if we cut out the stylistic differences, which are pretty much inconsequential, then what you are left with are strategies, tactics, and techniques....at one level.   so for most people,   if I 'block' you, its an external technique, but if I use a 'soft' deflection,  it's considered internal.    another craptastic comparison is that external systems move in a linear fashion, and internals move on angles, and curves.

and of course this doubles back into style comparison as various exceptions to the stated rule are trotted out.

lets not forget the 'philosophical' definitions of internal and external while we're at it.   Externalists are bloodthirsty killers who stride around looking for someone to practice on because all that matters is the fight, while 'internalists' mince like princesses and gaze into their navels while they dance-train.   so your either a brute or a sage.

beyond all this, there is a basic distinction that makes sense of all of the above...well, maybe not all, but the bulk of it anyways.

?

Seems as though it’s more the praxtitioner of the art and their approach as opposed to the strict dogma of the ‘art’ itself

well, the first practical difference is the use of compression, instead of expansion. its should becoming more clear by now that they are distinctly different.

there may seem to a grey area in the middle, and you can play around in there if you want, but if you go back over my initial posting on this, in which i contrasted the two, it pretty clearly laid out.

you just have to consider how contradictory the two approaches are, on every point.

does it eventually all become one? maybe, i don't know. but if you don't separate for the now, you will never find out.

there is much more involved here than how hard you can hit.