Clive: As you suggest, the only disagreement is a fairly subtle - though extremely important - one, involving intent and feeling rather than observable results.
The best analogy that I can come up with is chess: observers will see patterns; the players will have learned them as patterns; the patterns will have names; etc: But, neither player can afford to view them as patterns, even while, apparently, predictably, using them exactly as stated in their manuals - the one who does is the inferior player, who will lose.
If art is largely about exploring and 'capturing' essences, then the essence of TA-as-art fills that seemingly-nit-picking distinction (for those attracted to such 'deep' things).
[I read a thread started by Dave Bailey asking for advice about how to teach ochos... the problem being avoiding the students thinking of them as complete things-in-themselves, that once put into motion follow a linear path to completion, rather than the led-pivot-then (if both partners agree to do so, there and then, at precisely that point) led-step-then... that it actually is: that's the spirit!]
Again though, it's not disastrous (for most people, though certainly is for some!) either way - if you get in the habit early on of agreeing with a practice-partner that now and then you will randomly lead something unexpected (mid-sequence), and she will randomly refuse to follow something that is the next bit of a sequence (though will follow something else that can flow from her current state) - then you can avoid the most perilous traps.
So you get all the benefits of learning sequences plus heightened communication and awareness of each other and other possible options and permutations, all the way through.
Ramble, ramble....
The best analogy that I can come up with is chess: observers will see patterns; the players will have learned them as patterns; the patterns will have names; etc: But, neither player can afford to view them as patterns, even while, apparently, predictably, using them exactly as stated in their manuals - the one who does is the inferior player, who will lose.
If art is largely about exploring and 'capturing' essences, then the essence of TA-as-art fills that seemingly-nit-picking distinction (for those attracted to such 'deep' things).
[I read a thread started by Dave Bailey asking for advice about how to teach ochos... the problem being avoiding the students thinking of them as complete things-in-themselves, that once put into motion follow a linear path to completion, rather than the led-pivot-then (if both partners agree to do so, there and then, at precisely that point) led-step-then... that it actually is: that's the spirit!]
Again though, it's not disastrous (for most people, though certainly is for some!) either way - if you get in the habit early on of agreeing with a practice-partner that now and then you will randomly lead something unexpected (mid-sequence), and she will randomly refuse to follow something that is the next bit of a sequence (though will follow something else that can flow from her current state) - then you can avoid the most perilous traps.
So you get all the benefits of learning sequences plus heightened communication and awareness of each other and other possible options and permutations, all the way through.
Ramble, ramble....