The Martial Philosophy Q&A
Original Poster: Tease T Tickle
Forum: Jeet Kune Do Jun Fan Bruce Lee Forums
Posted On: 16-09-2006, 05:37
Orginal Post: Tease T Tickle: Although the topic header is quite vague (and purposefully so), this thread is meant for people to post any questions for intelligent discussion of the really strange things, like the ethics of practicing the martial arts, the paradigms that govern how we approach combat, or right down to the principles that goven technique execution and selection.
Although I started the thread, feel free to answer questions if you have another perspective or if a question has gone unanswered. All that is required is that you be respectful and approach all of this with an empty mind.
Also note that many of the positions I take may be technical true to some tradition or other, but not all. Do not mistake my individual stance for that of some other person, organization or ideology. Thank you.
P.S: somebody make this a sticky, I must be defective in my old age.
Post: Wilhelm von Wänkensteïn:
Stickied. Want to know how I did it? :mrgreen:
Thing is, Des, aren't you a mod?>
Post: bamboo:
A somewhat vague question of which I have my own opinion, but I would love to hear your opinion as a (student of psychology? psychologist?)?
Practitioners that follow a particular religion often use that system of beliefs to justify the use of violence in thier minds as either the "right" thing to do or in some cases of monism, that in the absense of a "true opponent", there is no right or wrong in terms of physical damage and /or use of violence (whew, that was a long sentence :wink: ).
Can you explain or discuss the differences of mindset during an actual fight between someone like those mentioned above and the combatant that suffers from ethical questions?
Thanks for your time. :)
-bamboo>
Post: Tease T Tickle:
[quote=Wilhelm von Wänkensteïn Stickied. Want to know how I did it? :mrgreen: Thing is, Des, aren't you a mod?[/quote
No.
[quote=bamboo Practitioners that follow a particular religion often use that system of beliefs to justify the use of violence in thier minds as either the "right" thing to do or in some cases of monism, that in the absense of a "true opponent", there is no right or wrong in terms of physical damage and /or use of violence.
Can you explain or discuss the differences of mindset during an actual fight between someone like those mentioned above and the combatant that suffers from ethical questions?[/quote
Well, their mindsets are different in that one has ethical questions and the other doesn't. Of course, I dodged the question there, but it illustrates a point, just about anything can be a difference of mindset.
If somebody is committed to physical violence - whether it be for religious conviction, sadism or simple amorality - they won't really think about the action, per se. Especially if you assume that both persons we're discussing here are trained martial artists, the one committed to violence will act instinctually in combat and therefore can be quite a ferocious opponent. The one who is ethically inclined to see violence as wrong, on the other hand, will be committed instead to avoiding pain, escaping the situation, or perhaps restraining his opponent so that he won't harm bystanders. Given that avoiding pain and escaping a hostile situation are both parts of the survival instinct, that should come fairly naturally and it should "work," within that sense. However, attempting to restrain somebody else who is violent and aggressive is not within our nature, does not fit within our schema for instinctual action and so requires much thought, and thus effort. It can be very difficult to do, even before you take into account the technical requirements.
So, basically, the mindsets of an ethical combatant and somebody who believes violence is all right are like the differences between a human and a tiger. The ethical fighter (human) is marked by higher thought processes, the other (tiger) is marked by a natural ferocity. The instrinsic problem is that thinking during a fight is bad, it causes hesitation, restraint in one's own techniques, etc.
What is the difference in mindset? One is committed to violence the other is committed to stopping violence, one acts naturally with the backing of billions of years worth of evolved instinct the other acts thoughtfully and with the backing of his own frontal lobe, one is ready to act and ferocious the other is hesitant and meek.>
Post: bamboo:
Interesting.
Do you think that its possible to overcome this hesitation due to ethical considerations through training or will the "moral" (for lack of a better word) person always be doomed when meeting an opponent of equal skill and physical attributes yet no mental hesitation.
This leads me to another question: Would you consider the person with intention to cause violence different than that of someone simply defending themselves but with no moral convictions whatsoever in terms of capacity to triumph in a physical altercation?
Thank you for your time on these questions, I have never had the opportunity to pick the brain of a psychologist.
cheers,
bamboo>
Post: setsu nin to:
DeStRuCtIkOn
P.S: somebody make this a sticky
Do it for yourself, you mod. :mrgreen:
Nice to see you as mod again!>
Post: Tease T Tickle:
[quote=bamboo Interesting.
Do you think that its possible to overcome this hesitation due to ethical considerations through training or will the "moral" (for lack of a better word) person always be doomed when meeting an opponent of equal skill and physical attributes yet no mental hesitation.[/quote
Yes, by training diligently and essentially rerouting the neural networks so that the instincts are different.
Quote: This leads me to another question: Would you consider the person with intention to cause violence different than that of someone simply defending themselves but with no moral convictions whatsoever in terms of capacity to triumph in a physical altercation?
If two warriors meet on the field of battle, there are three outcomes: one dies, the other dies, they both die. Generally speaking, the one with greater committment and less hesitation will kill the opponent, but he may still be killed by an opponent if said opponent was equally committed. So, those without some sort of conviction run a greater risk of failure, regardless of whether they are the aggressor or not. As you no doubt sense, I read into a lot of bushido.
Quote: Thank you for your time on these questions, I have never had the opportunity to pick the brain of a psychologist.
no problem. shrinks are usually very forthcoming if you approach them. unfortunately, they might charge you ;-)>
Post: zefff:
Oh so this is where all the mods hang out! :)
When re-routing the neural networks should we take into account and adapt our responses to the social norms of right and wrong?
Can we still develop a certain conviction in our responses or is it possible that this limiting of response not only denies us of total flexibility but also cuts us off from the root of our combative nature? Basically, does fighting with limits and a mind full of regard keep us from understanding our true nature?
Is fighting in defence with a sense of justice a delusion?>
Post: bamboo:
Wow, Des, I didn't think I'd have so many questions but......
My next one is much more general: Which philosophical influences do you think helped shape and continue to shape the martial arts today?
cheers :)
bamboo>
Post: Tease T Tickle:
[quote=zefff Oh so this is where all the mods hang out! :)
When re-routing the neural networks should we take into account and adapt our responses to the social norms of right and wrong?
Can we still develop a certain conviction in our responses or is it possible that this limiting of response not only denies us of total flexibility but also cuts us off from the root of our combative nature? Basically, does fighting with limits and a mind full of regard keep us from understanding our true nature?[/quote
I think that first I should clarify what exactly conviction or instinct is in terms of brain functions. You walk to the fridge, open it up and reach in to grab the bottle of orange juice or beer or what have you. Simple enough, right? Now, try doing that wearing goggles that use mirrors to invert your visual field. A British psychologist did just that, to try to simulate how infants develop motor skills and hand-eye coordination. In a nutshell, when you grab for that bottle, your sensory input goes directly to the motor control, you don't have to think about acting. However, if your senses were drastically changes, or simply unformed like that of a baby's, you would have to think about it and thus the sensory impulses go to your frontal lobe and then to your motor areas. So, even if you were very bright and could think things out in short order, it would take longer simply due to the time it requires for the synapses to fire along the pathway through your frontal lobe.
So, with a complete and utter commitment to a certain direction of action, less thought is involved, and actions are initiated more quickly. That being said, it is still possibly to bypass the frontal lobe altogether by training the action so much that it becomes a natural reaction, you see the bottle of OJ you grab it, you see the face of an enemy you punch it, etc.
So, if one was inclined to be ethical and upright in all things, one could and should train that action diligently so that the action overrides more natural instincts. The British psychologist got used to the goggles after about a week and could catch a thrown ball as well as throw it with typical accuracy, he could ride a bike down a path, etc. But he wore the goggles constantly for that period of time. We're not always fighting, so of course it will take much longer to properly train oneself to not be brutish in combat.
We are slaves to nothing because the mind is malleable.
Quote: Is fighting in defence with a sense of justice a delusion?
Well, that's a bit stickier. First, in who's defense are we fighting? If the answer is our own defense, the only way that is just is if we are currently being treated with injustice, i.e. a mugger is trying to rob us. If somebody attacks us as retaliation, then we have enacted injustice, are receiving justice and therefore defending ourselves from this attack is not just because we should accept our punishment. The same theory applies if we fight on behalf of others. BUT, and notice the capitals, justice is an abstract idea conjoured by humans who are upset that the stronger, faster, smarter, etc. receive more benefit than they do. Justice is itself a delusion, based on man's need to feel that the world is fair, balanced and individual differences don't matter. In the words of Nietzsche, it is slave morality because the weak or unfortunate will use the concept of justice to advance their own causes which take what the strong have gained through their own superior abilities. So, first justice is a delusion because we made it up and secondly it is a lie because it was made up to assault the naturally greater humans and take what they earned.>
Post: Tease T Tickle:
[quote=bamboo My next one is much more general: Which philosophical influences do you think helped shape and continue to shape the martial arts today?[/quote
When somebody mentions philosophy, it is common for the idea of an entire ideology to be conjoured in the mind. For instance, I instantly ran a check to see if any schools of thought like Stoicism were applied to martial arts in a systematic way. But then it occured to me that in a very real sense, every martial art is an entire ideology, made up of smaller concepts (like, say, gyroscopic motion to maintain equilibrium in 'drunken boxing') that are sometimes shared.
By far, the most common such concept in Asian styles would be animal emulation, either by motion or by mentality. However,in typical Western styles, the prime common component is to keep it as simple as possible. Since we live in a global community these days, above and beyond styles is the directive to crosstrain and blend styles, initiated by Bruce Lee and maintained by virtually everyone except the staunchest traditionalists.
It's difficult to look at a style and find its philosophy, in truth, because there is what the school says is at its philosophy, there is the manner in which the students act, and there is a vast body of might be considered common sense which is insanely difficult to quantify, especially when examining style after style.
At its heart though, the quintessential concept of martial arts - the idea that shaped the first arts and continues to color our modern world - is that combat is not something we love. That may be expressed, as it is today, as an imperative to not cause undue harm in Aikido. It may be found in sporting styles like boxing, in that we don't wish to see, suffer or cause undue harm hence the implementation of rules and equipment dedicated to the safety of fighters. Lastly, it can be seen in the hard-nosed battle ready systems that military organizations utilize, in that we want to end combat as quickly as possible. At our hearts, we want to live happy, lazy lives: that is the nature of man. When combat happens, we want the event done and over with, and we'd prefer it if everyone could go home afterwards.>
Post: bamboo:
Quote: the idea that shaped the first arts and continues to color our modern world - is that combat is not something we love
Nicely put. Keeping this in mind, why do you believe that so many people participate in a martial art?
cheers,
bamboo>
Post: Tease T Tickle:
[quote=bamboo Nicely put. Keeping this in mind, why do you believe that so many people participate in a martial art?[/quote
Why don't they study is more like it, there's some many reasons that people get into the martial arts, if you just ask a crowd of them you'll know what I mean.
But avoiding the explicit reasoning that most people give and examining the implicit thought processes that actually made them begin study is very interesting.
-Many people are creatures of habit, if as a small child they were hurried off to a TKD or Karate dojo by their parents who believed they needed the discipline (not at all an uncommon event) they will very likely try to take it up again as an adult simply because it's part of their routine.
-The structure and discipline itself is often times a draw as people naturally prefer controlled environments to chaotic ones. This is actually part of the survival instinct: even if you're not the one in control, an area that is controlled is safer from predators than out in the brush, we know this and seek controlled environments.
-For the vast majority of life - even human life - social status is determined by who can kick more ass. For us, existing in a social system where this isn't true is relatively knew, so our natural tendencies to try to beat people up to assert out superior social standing seems anti-social but is hard to avoid. Many people want to look like billy badass when they train in the martial arts, and this is the reason why. They feel that being a better fighter will elevate them above the rest of the world, let them eat better food, live in greater comfort and have sex with tons of women. Less instinct and more role models: look at James Bond, you get the same idea.
Humans hate combat, in that we aren't really very inclined to causing serious harm, we direly want to avoid harm to ourselves and it causes all sorts of stress that is not conducive to laying in the grass eating fruit and having sex with beautiful women. However, learning to fight seems like a very good idea in that we want to be able to kill the predator before it kills us and we want to be able to acheive the highest status in our community and get the best foods and women. Furthermore, the martial arts gives us this great sense of safety and control, which we love, and training becomes habit so that not doing it seems unnatural.>
Post: bamboo:
Thank you Des. That was really interesting.
Concerning the pattern forming in children, do you think that by bringing a small child to the dojo to watch mom or dad practice they may want to themselves to just emulate the parents?
cheers,
bamboo>
Post: Tease T Tickle:
That is possible, many children adopt their parents activities (within reason) because whether they know it or not, they look to parents for information on how to behave.
But then they hit the teen years, feel rebellious and such, and at that point they might yell at the parents for being so improper as to make them sit and watch fight after fight in the dojo. And then they go and pierce their nipples and make all their friends call them Double Deuce or some other ridiculous nickname. I digress for comedy's sake.
Showing children that practicing the martial arts is accepted behavior has its risks though in that children can't differentiate between training in a dojo and bullying kids on the playground. If you aren't careful, you could instead by teaching your child that violence is acceptable. So, if you wish to model for your child that training in the martial arts is okay, make sure to teach them the difference between what you do and what thugs do and let them know that only the first is acceptable.>
Post: bamboo:
Quote: Showing children that practicing the martial arts is accepted behavior has its risks though in that children can't differentiate between training in a dojo and bullying kids on the playground. If you aren't careful, you could instead by teaching your child that violence is acceptable. So, if you wish to model for your child that training in the martial arts is okay, make sure to teach them the difference between what you do and what thugs do and let them know that only the first is acceptable
This should be included in any childrens MA literature. Well put.
-bamboo>
Post: Hengest:
Des, if I recall correctly, I seem to remember from our discussions many moons ago that you have some knowledge of Kabbalistic philosophy. If I'm correct in that, do you think there are any principles of Kabbalah, or related systems, that can be applied to combat in a similar manner to the way in which Taoism and Zen have been applied to some styles?
Cheers and keep up the good work! :D>
Post: Tease T Tickle:
Hengest:
The Kabbalah that we all know and love is actually a quasi-modern variant made primarily by and for untraditional Jews and non-Jews. The orthodox, traditional Kabbalah is simply the oral tradition that accompanied the Torah and supposedly unlocks the divine meanings of the words so one can approach God.
The modernized, Hermetic variation developed in 1400's Italy by people simply trying to reach God without necessarily following the traditional Torah and accompanying oral tradition.
This Hermetic Kabbalah is the one I am familiar with, the one that I have referenced in the past and probably the Kabbalah more people on this forum will recognize. So, why mention that it isn't the "real" Kabbalah? Because you asked Kris, and Kris is long winded. But really because in orthodox Jewish faith, God is a mighty Being and is well accustomed to destruction and war. So, the Orthodox view on the martial arts could very well be interesting and I'd like to point you in that direction if you fancy research (and I know everyone does!).
But, to answer your question and not just ramble: In the Hermetic view, everything relates to "The Great Work" of healing the whole of creation by improving the self. All of creation is an emanation of God, and as portions of that creation, we are very much like God ("made in his image" might ring a bell here), SO if we are imperfect beings, all of creation is imperfect, God himself is damaged, and we can cause a 'resoration' of the universe, God and ourselves. In a way, it's fairly similar to Hinayana Buddhism, we are implored to perfect ourselves with the ultimate goal of the entire world becoming enlightened.
The methods itself of self-perfection in Kabbalistic terms is generally condensed into following the Sepheroth, or Archangels, which represent some quality of life, the world, whatever. The final approach (and you'll see another Buddhist parallel) is to reach beyond our reality into the Ain Soph Aur, or limitless light of semi-divinity. We further transcend this station into Ain Soph, or Infinity, where we are almost complete as beings but still lacking in certain respects until we finally reach Ain, or Oblivion, where everything is perfect in a blissful state of emptiness. In many ways, I see Ain as a form of Nirvana, specifically in reference to the concept of mushin. If one lived constantly in mushin, one would live in nothingness because the mind does not work, but everything would be perfect because there is no delusion or attachment to cause suffering. But I digress.
In terms of martial style, I'm not aware of any specific art being formed off of Kabbalistic theory, but I could easily see a form of internal martial art, pehaps similar to Xingyi, with a focus on self perfection rather than kicking ass. Also, in the Hermetic form, as opposed to the God of Wrath orthodox form, the Kabbalah is decidedly passive. Violence is a huge no-no and just a further sign of our imperfection, so the martial arts as a vehicle for Kabbalistic selfenhancement is a good thing, but as a combat ready tool, not so much.>
Post: Ninja Kl0wn:
How did I miss this thread?>
Post: Hengest:
Excellent stuff Des. Thanks for that. :D>
Post: Tease T Tickle:
[quote=Ninja Kl0wn How did I miss this thread?[/quote
You were too busy looking at Vida's backyard. I know that's the case with me, at least. :shock:
Hengest: No worries, I always aim to please.>
Post: Ninja Kl0wn:
Quote: At its heart though, the quintessential concept of martial arts - the idea that shaped the first arts and continues to color our modern world - is that combat is not something we love. That may be expressed, as it is today, as an imperative to not cause undue harm in Aikido. It may be found in sporting styles like boxing, in that we don't wish to see, suffer or cause undue harm hence the implementation of rules and equipment dedicated to the safety of fighters. Lastly, it can be seen in the hard-nosed battle ready systems that military organizations utilize, in that we want to end combat as quickly as possible. At our hearts, we want to live happy, lazy lives: that is the nature of man. When combat happens, we want the event done and over with, and we'd prefer it if everyone could go home afterwards.
[quote=DeStRuCtIkOn Humans hate combat, in that we aren't really very inclined to causing serious harm, we direly want to avoid harm to ourselves and it causes all sorts of stress that is not conducive to laying in the grass eating fruit and having sex with beautiful women. However, learning to fight seems like a very good idea in that we want to be able to kill the predator before it kills us and we want to be able to acheive the highest status in our community and get the best foods and women. [/quote
Just spouting out thoughts here to keep the conversation running. Rereading my own post, I can't tell if it's an arguement or an agreement here, or if it's even relevant to anythign that's been said so far lol.
At our core, humans are predatory pack animals. I'll draw my parallels here to wolves since they are the animal I'm most familiar with, though it applies to pretty much all pack predators.
That said, I would assume that violence would be something that we are very much inclined to. In the end, we all want to be the alpha male. That means ascending through the ranks by mental and physical superiority, displayed via acts of violence against your fellows. I do somewhat agree with your statement that we don't want cause serious harm, however I believe that applies specifically to one's own pack. Outside your pack is fair game. That's why the average soldier hesitates before shooting his own man under any circumstance, but doesn't even think twice about unloading a full clip into the enemy.
Your above mentioned safety regulations in sports echo this. We see our opponents in the ring as our fellows, our pack mates if you will. I don't think the hard-nosed military system is so much for not wishing to cause undo suffering, but for self-preservation. It's an entirely selfish reason. It's a go for the throat attitude because we don't want them to have time to injure us.>
Post: Tease T Tickle:
[quote=Ninja Kl0wn Just spouting out thoughts here to keep the conversation running. Rereading my own post, I can't tell if it's an arguement or an agreement here, or if it's even relevant to anythign that's been said so far lol.
At our core, humans are predatory pack animals. I'll draw my parallels here to wolves since they are the animal I'm most familiar with, though it applies to pretty much all pack predators.
That said, I would assume that violence would be something that we are very much inclined to. In the end, we all want to be the alpha male. That means ascending through the ranks by mental and physical superiority, displayed via acts of violence against your fellows. I do somewhat agree with your statement that we don't want cause serious harm, however I believe that applies specifically to one's own pack. Outside your pack is fair game. That's why the average soldier hesitates before shooting his own man under any circumstance, but doesn't even think twice about unloading a full clip into the enemy.
Your above mentioned safety regulations in sports echo this. We see our opponents in the ring as our fellows, our pack mates if you will. I don't think the hard-nosed military system is so much for not wishing to cause undo suffering, but for self-preservation. It's an entirely selfish reason. It's a go for the throat attitude because we don't want them to have time to injure us.[/quote
This gets sticky. I am of the belief that an extent of our behavior that is greater than we would want to admit is dictated by evolved, instinctual drives. For instance, we all like sex, not because it is a novel thing and we intellectually declared that sex was keen, but because liking sex was once upon a time beneficial to the survival of our genes. That being said, we are much more complex than we think. Humans don't see a dog and think, "Hunting partner," especially because modern domestic dogs typically suck for hunting. Nor do we immediately look at every person outside of our 'pack' or family as an opponent. This is generalized of course, I'm sure some do think that way.
What is really striking, especially when one examines human evolution is that we weren't primarily predators. For the majority of human history, hunting has been secondary to other practices. Prehistoric humans were more likely to forage for fruits, nuts and berries and scavange meat left after some other critter's kill. Hunting only really came to the forefront with the Ice Age when foraging and scavenging weren't getting the results we needed. Of course, after the last Ice Age ended, we started seeing the first steps towards agricultural societies forming, so examining human life as a whole, predation is not really that popular.
But, we do also have the will to power, we all do want to be the alpha male. However, this applies ONLY to our own pack. As people in our day to day lives, we don't care who the king of Brunei is, just so long as he doesn't try to dick with us. The dominance we seek is over our family and friends, in fact, because these are the people that impact our lives. We want the choice of food, the choice of breeding stock, the ability to enjoy leisure, etc. Thus, we have conflicts: brothers fighting over toys, friends fighting over a girl, internet trolls whipping their dicks out to try to prove who is the better human being by asserting their own intelligence, fighting ability, penis size, whatever. That being said, though, there is much evidence that man hates serious harm befalling other men. In studies involving World War Two and Vietnam veterans, more people developed Shell Shock or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder because they had to kill another person than from being wounded or seeing people they cared for die. In fact, being forced to do harm to another person even a person you don't know, is a really good way to fuck yourself up for the rest of your life. We can punch and kick all we like and call it sport, but we all know that if the UFC involved pikes and dismemberment, we'd vomit our lunch watching it, if we brought ourselves to watching it at all.>
Post: zefff:
To an extent I agree with both accounts. But Im unsure about the pack predator thing.
We naturally fear death but I dont think we are afraid of all combat. Im sure most people feel comfortable with combat when they know they can easily dominate the opponent. All things that fight naturally seek out weaker opponents, even heavy weight boxers. :)
It may be our culture that gives us a regard for human life. Its definately the case that there is a lower regard for life and a tolerance for violence in cultures as opposed to others. It may be the customs and laws in our society that have instilled a fear of combat over time. Im not sure. Why do people still physically attack others?
Do we actually have a true, ingrained dislike of combat or is it a result of conditioning due to the fact that we all live within societies that promote other means of settling disputes? ....actually thinking about it as I type, we probably do fear physical combat but only because we fear harm (or ultimately death). Its interesting though because we combat each other through none physical means constantly - at work, in the street, in our cars and on the internet.
But when people do violently attack one another how do they do it? Meaning, do we always use the most violent methods we are master of, or are we afraid to use the most extreme methods because of fear or reprisal from the society that nurtures us?
I understand that members of a society all have different levels of inhibitions, tolerances and experiences of violence but what do you think about the mismatches in expression of violence? Before an attack we cant guess the level of violence thats coming at us so should Martial artists train to apply maximum effect techinque with immediacy or minimum requirement techniques that follow the course of the attack?>
Post: Tease T Tickle:
[quote=zefff It may be our culture that gives us a regard for human life. Its definately the case that there is a lower regard for life and a tolerance for violence in cultures as opposed to others. It may be the customs and laws in our society that have instilled a fear of combat over time. Im not sure. Why do people still physically attack others?[/quote
I'm not aware of any single society that ever celebrated death and destruction. The closest I can think of is Rome with the gladiatorial combat, but until the era of Christian persecution, the level of blood was actually lower than most people think. Also, in regards to other forms of aggression, such as internet arguments and the like, we can enjoy those exercises of anger because no one suffers. Imagine small children in a shoving match, they display power and try to intimidate one another into submission but they aren't even causing pain let alone damage.>
Post: zefff:
I didnt mean to say certain cultures celebrated death and destruction. I meant that for example, in England it may be that there is a higher regard for life than in Honduras.
The bit about the internet is funny because it seems we were thinking alike. I was actually typing my response as you were typing yours so please dont take my post as a jibe at you in anyway....maybe Im paranoid?
So why do we fight so much if we dont like it? (we meaning all human beings)>
Post: Wilhelm von Wänkensteïn:
[quote=DeStRuCtIkOn I'm not aware of any single society that ever celebrated death and destruction. The closest I can think of is Rome with the gladiatorial combat, but until the era of Christian persecution, the level of blood was actually lower than most people think. Also, in regards to other forms of aggression, such as internet arguments and the like, we can enjoy those exercises of anger because no one suffers. Imagine small children in a shoving match, they display power and try to intimidate one another into submission but they aren't even causing pain let alone damage.[/quote
Actually, that's a good point, Des, because, if one were to observe contests between parties seeking dominance in other species, one would observe the same phenomenon of (relatively) harmless shows of force, even among the carnivores and other species carrying pointy bits capable of doing a fair bit of harm. Wolves will tussle and wrestle until one party or the other submits, deer lock horns and wrestle until the loser backs down. Fights to the death are aberrant and uncommon during contests of dominance in nature.
My two cents way too late into the night :lol:>
Post: Tease T Tickle:
[quote=zefff I didnt mean to say certain cultures celebrated death and destruction. I meant that for example, in England it may be that there is a higher regard for life than in Honduras.
The bit about the internet is funny because it seems we were thinking alike. I was actually typing my response as you were typing yours so please dont take my post as a jibe at you in anyway....maybe Im paranoid?
So why do we fight so much if we dont like it? (we meaning all human beings)[/quote
Why do we like the scent of roses and not the scent of skunk? Asking why we like something is, at best, a matter of opinion, at worst, futile.>
Post: zefff:
yeah, you are right. I guess we should just do it if we have to and be ready to do it well.
One more question about MA practice. I have been thinking for a longtime that its a selfish thing and/or that the intent behind practice is selfish. What do you think? Is it even a bad thing and is there a way one can practice in an unselfish manner if it is?
thanks.>
Post: Tease T Tickle:
[quote=zefff One more question about MA practice. I have been thinking for a longtime that its a selfish thing and/or that the intent behind practice is selfish. What do you think? Is it even a bad thing and is there a way one can practice in an unselfish manner if it is?[/quote
Wow. Determining whether or not something is genuinely not selfish is actually a VERY difficult thing to do. For example, do people donate to charity because they are truly altruistic, OR do they do it because it fulfills some spiritual or ethical sense of morality, because they get tax cuts, because they emotionally feel better about it, etc.? Just about any action or motivation for action can be 'reduced' in a sense to some sort of selfishness and altruism seems either nonexistent or rare.
That being said, I believe in altruism. I believe that people can and will act with others' interests at heart before their own, and for reasons that aren't selfish when you boil them down. Of course, all of this has been about actions in general and not specifically about the martial arts, so I haven't REALLY answered your question.
What does one do with martial arts? You fight people. How can fighting somebody be altruistic? If you do so for the benefit of others and if you do not harm the person(s) you fight. If you harm them, how can you say you took others' interests to heart, how can you say you fought for the benefit for others'? Generosity is only genorosity if you give to everyone, not if only give to a certain group of people and the same is true of altruism. If you fight so that you, your loved ones, your property or anything else connected to you is not harmed, you not altruistic because you have a vested interested in what you fight for. So, just like you cannot harm anyone, you must fight for everyone.
Altrusistic martial arts is obviously quite difficult to follow, and like any other system of ethics you might read, no one is really expected to follow it. All that matters is that the system is acknowledged as true and the logic that produced it as flawless. That's what philosophy is about. So, are you selfish if you practice the martial arts, not necessarily, but pragmatically speaking you probably are. Does being selfish with the martial arts matter? That depends on you, personally, to decide, and in a twist of irony, if you begin to practice altruistic martial arts BECAUSE you believe you should not be selfish in any actions you do, then you are being selfish because you are only being altruistic to satisfy an internal need for altruism. :lol: Ethics is quite possibly the strangest form of philosophy, wouldn't you agree?>
Post: lakan_sampu:
wow....................
I'll prepare for this one......>
Post: zefff:
thanks Des, I missed the reply but it was a good one. I will have to read it back again later when Im not at work. Cheers.
zefff>
Post: Tease T Tickle:
Zeff: No worries.
Li siao lung: What are you preparing for?>
Post: 8LimbsScientist:
[quote=DeStRuCtIkOn What does one do with martial arts? You fight people. How can fighting somebody be altruistic? If you do so for the benefit of others and if you do not harm the person(s) you fight. If you harm them, how can you say you took others' interests to heart, how can you say you fought for the benefit for others'? Generosity is only genorosity if you give to everyone, not if only give to a certain group of people and the same is true of altruism. If you fight so that you, your loved ones, your property or anything else connected to you is not harmed, you not altruistic because you have a vested interested in what you fight for. So, just like you cannot harm anyone, you must fight for everyone.[/quote
What about fighting to defend those that cannot defend themselves? What if you train so that, if the situation should arise, you can be a champion for the weak, or the abused?
I believe this is a case where one can find true altruism in MA. As a martial artist, most of the time you wouldn't consider yourself a member of the "weaker" group you strive to protect and serve.>
Post: zefff:
Quote: As a martial artist, most of the time you wouldn't consider yourself a member of the "weaker" group you strive to protect and serve.
So do you strive to make yourself better than the weak ones?
Also it may be that the attackers are weak and abused too. What good does hurting them do?
Do you see what Im getting at? It is an odd question.
I do believe in 'the life giving sword' though... or whatever the phrase was. The death of a few for the good of the many.>
Post: Tease T Tickle:
[quote=8LimbsScientist What about fighting to defend those that cannot defend themselves? What if you train so that, if the situation should arise, you can be a champion for the weak, or the abused?
I believe this is a case where one can find true altruism in MA. As a martial artist, most of the time you wouldn't consider yourself a member of the "weaker" group you strive to protect and serve.[/quote
I guess that the simplest way to put it is to ask why you are fighting for the weak. This is the sort of over-abstraction that makes many people NOT like philosophy, and depending on one's individual exposure to philosophical speaking and thinking it may be difficult to follow. For instance, under Utilitarianism, if you can prove that the consequences of your actions will provide unquestionable benefit to a great number of people, it is okay to enslaves another number of people. At the superficial level, that seems frightening to us, that slavery might be moral in any instance. But, if you really dig into what Utilitarianism is about and follow the logic behind an argument like that, it almost seems intuitive.
I'm not going to tell you that you're immoral for fighting for the weak. I'm not going to say that you're selfish for fighting for the weak. However, if you, at the root of the matter, are really fighting for some benefit to yourself, then you are actually selfish. This is the idea behind a person donating to charity because he wants others to have what he did not; yes, it's still charity and applaudable, but you're really donating to alleviate some sense of inner pain over not having what you believe you should have had. It's convoluted and I don't expect you to buy into it, all I ask is that you see the logic used here. I'm not making any value judgments of anyone here, I'm just recited fairly standard stances among academic philosophers.>
Post: lakan_sampu:
hmmmmmm.............
I believe one usually cannot/do not know what his/her reason for taking up MA at the beginning. As one trains further, that individual gradually discovers the meaning why he/she has entered MA.
In any sense, one benefits from doing something...however "selfless" it is. Although he/she has no intention of being selfish, an individual inevitably benefits a good deed whatsoever it may be, directly or not. any viewpoints?
O....Is there any MA out there that has no concrete philosophy of itself? I mean, an MA that doesn't have any idea behind it but fighting?>
Post: lakan_sampu:
most of the time you would not consider yourself being with the "weaker group". Yet, eventually as you reach that state of "enlightenment" in MA, humility enters and you realize that you are just like everybody else. You are not sure 100% of what you know,,,you have found the core of your ignorance. This is what my Shihan used to tell us.>
Post: zefff:
"O....Is there any MA out there that has no concrete philosophy of itself? I mean, an MA that doesn't have any idea behind it but fighting?"
yeah loads. Boxing is probably the most well known.>
Post: Tease T Tickle:
[quote=li_siao_lung I believe one usually cannot/do not know what his/her reason for taking up MA at the beginning. As one trains further, that individual gradually discovers the meaning why he/she has entered MA.[/quote
Even if you do not consciously decide to act in a certain manner, even if you are not aware fully of your motivations, you are acting and you have motivations. If those actions and motivations are not entirely altruistic, you're buggered. I will iterate what I've stated a hundred times already, this only matters to somebody for whom selfishness is an issue. The VAST majority of people simply don't care. So, why do people get hung up on philosophers telling them they're selfish and didn't know it? Beats the hell out of me.
Quote: In any sense, one benefits from doing something...however "selfless" it is. Although he/she has no intention of being selfish, an individual inevitably benefits a good deed whatsoever it may be, directly or not. any viewpoints?
There is no evidence, as far as I know, that there is no situation in which one does not benefit. That is, I believe whole-heartedly that one will find circumstances when you behave altruisticly, purposefully or not. Most often, actually, not purposefully.
Quote: O....Is there any MA out there that has no concrete philosophy of itself? I mean, an MA that doesn't have any idea behind it but fighting?
That is a matter of perspective. Technically the answer is no, because as a human designed martial art it has to contain a concept of humanity as well as a concept of fighting. But, many people would consider things like that not really philosophical concepts within the framework of the art. So, for me, it's a toss up. Personally, I would agree with Zeff, there are many arts that care nothing about philosophical concepts and merely examine the act of fighting itself.>
Post: Tease T Tickle:
[quote=li_siao_lung most of the time you would not consider yourself being with the "weaker group". Yet, eventually as you reach that state of "enlightenment" in MA, humility enters and you realize that you are just like everybody else. You are not sure 100% of what you know,,,you have found the core of your ignorance. This is what my Shihan used to tell us.[/quote
I find quite the opposite true, but maybe that is the difference in our cultures. Many Americans (I might extend this to all Westerners) identify greatly with the victim. People place more stress on the hardships they live through than the accomplishments they have acheived, and everyone searches for their own flaws. Beautiful women think of themselves as ugly, athletic men think that they're too weak or too slow, scholars believe they know nothing at all. The martial arts has the tendency to bolster one's confidence and restore a sense of accomplishment. I don't think many black belts over here would be generally characterized with the term 'humility' but again, that may be our culture. Lastly, the philosophical self examination you hint at when you say that advanced students are no longer sure of what they know is simply not present in many modernized, westernized systems. In fact, I would be surprised to hear sentiments like that from anyone who didn't train in a very traditional art.>
Post: lakan_sampu:
Humility,IMO, and not honesty, is the best policy. IMHO, after years and years of studying something, you realize that you yourself cannot be so sure about them. You cannot verify them exactly yourself because it is simply impossible to do so in a lifetime. Ergo, you return to what I refer as "ignorance" which is a state that you accept the reality that you know nothing 100% sure for you cannot verify it yourself. So, one becomes humble enough to accept them. You return to a sort of "beginner's mind" where there is more room for improvement. That's my thought.>
Post: Tease T Tickle:
[quote=li_siao_lung blah blah blah saying the same stuff I said before. That's my thought.[/quote
I understand, and to a certain extent, agree with what you say. My post was simply illustrating that the things you are stating are your experience, and that many other people do not experience the same thing.
Unfortunately, most people will never gain a sense of humility, regardless of how many years they study in any given martial art.>
Post: Tease T Tickle:
This was taken from Hengest's Q&A, I moved it here just to keep his thread on the topic of history and not become loaded down with psychology.
[quote=Hengest
Quote: why on earth.....do people bother to immitate animals?in your oppinion..........
Why? To be honest with you mate, I'm not too sure about the why. I could possibly help you out with the where, how and when but the why is probably more of a psychology issue.
It is a good question though. Animal styles aren't just limited to the Chinese styles; they can also be found in Indonesian, Vietnamese, Burmese, Indian and African styles, among others, so it's obviously a fairly international practice. Perhaps our resident psychologist/philosophist can come up with some ideas. Des, any thoughts?[/quote
So, you're a human. One day you decide that you want to learn to fight. You try to learn from masters, you try to learn through trial and error, and after years of study you decide that you simply aren't good enough. One of the greatest talents of human beings is that we can learn through observation alone, and obviously we don't only observe other humans. So, you, the disillusioned warrior, take a walk and happen upon a mantis fight. You watch the way they use their forelimbs to capture, control and attack and you become inspired. You watch more, take mental notes, practice the forms and methods and you find that you can make it work.
Then somebody else, somewhere else, did all of this all over again with any number of other creatures, like tigers, serpents, birds of prey, etc. Of course, I'm ignoring the history of all of this, but it doesn't particularly matter which animal was emulated first, the same idea stands.
Logically speaking, humans are ill suited to combat. We don't have thick skin or tough bones, we don't have claws or fangs, we don't have natural camo or keen perception when compared to other animals. So, our 'natural' means of combat are lacking as all we can do is slap and tickle. If we see an animal using a particularly effective method of combat that doesn't necesitate a natural adaptation, we should emulate it to increase our own abilities. This is why fencers make their swords flit and flutter like butterflies, this is why certain fighters will change the shape of their fist to match the paw of a panther, this is why unarmed combatants the world over have adopted totem animals.>
Post: lakan_sampu:
O I see your point....whew! that was a good explanation...thanks Des.>
Post: Tease T Tickle:
Part of philosophy is making people think. So, here's an offensive "Golden Rules" set for football that I stole from Coach Hutchison on eTeamz. What I want if for you guys to dissect these and turn them into Martial Arts "Golden Rules." It's fairly easy, I think, but should still cause the gears to turn. Enjoy.
1. Force the defense to defend the entire field. NEVER allow a defense to crowd the line of scrimmage, stacking eight or ten men "in the box" because you are predictable in calling the run. NEVER allow the defense to flood the zones with extra defenders because you pass eight downs out of ten. The offense should attack ALL areas of the field and force the defenders to "stay at home" thus allowing the offensive coaches to create the basic two-on-one mismatches that lead to success for the offense.
2. Establish the Running Game: Force the defense to respect the running game, taking the teeth out of the pass rush, and you open up the passing attack.
3. Create a Mismatch at the point of attack: Design and run plays to outnumber the defense at the point of attack. Traps, Power Plays, Isolations, Leads, Options, Pick Passes, and a host of other plays can be used to create a situation where numerical or size mismatches can be exploited.
4. Minimize Mistakes: Turnovers and penalties are avoidable through sound practices and preparation. Few things in the game of football are as demoralizing as giving up a score while your offense is on the field. This momentum shift often changes the course of a game.
5. Physically Dominate the Defense: Being strong and physical on offense is not as important as it is on defense - it is MORE important. A dominant offense can break the other team down physically and mentally and control the ball AND the game.
6. Script the opening plays. The number of plays predetermined is not important, only that there is a set offensive game plan in place. These plays are usually a combination of the plays a particular offense has had success with and ones that are expected to produce results against a specific opponent. Using a script can also keep a team from getting "rattled" if the opening moments do not go as planned.
7. Improve the Offensive Line: The Offensive line is the heart of a good offense. Without a sound offensive line all other aspects of the offense collapse. An offensive lineman needs a combination of size, speed, strength, and, most importantly, intelligence. Regardless of how good the line play is, there is always room for improvement, and strengthening the offensive line play during the course of the season is key for post season success.
8. Take Chances: No guts, no glory! All teams find themselves behind at times, and in need of a quick score. It is necessary to practice the quick strike if a team wants to be capable of scoring quickly when the need is present. Throwing the Play Action Pass on first down 30-40% of the time is a good start (at least during the running of the script).
9. Be Disciplined. Know what it takes to be successful and prepare beforehand. Know specific responsibilities and duties and be sure to carry them out--especially when things are not going well, as this is when it is most important. Very rarely does an undisciplined, unconfident team have what it takes to overcome adverse conditions in an hostile environment. Players learn the necessary traits to overcome adversity in practice. Disciple can be rehearsed through substitution drills and special teams drills. Confidence can be gained through rigorous scrimmages and positive reinforcement.
10. Be Prepared. Staff and players should prepare for a specific opponent with a specific game plan. The coaching staff needs to scout the next opponent via proxy, video tape, or in person. Preparation for the next game begins at the final whistle of the previous one. There is no such animal as "game preparation." Game preparation is merely a reflection of the week's practice preparation.>
Post: Tatsukage:
Interesting. You got one of those for more of a defensive outlook?>
Post: Tease T Tickle:
Not right now. I haven't even looked at this thread in almost two years.
If you stay tuned, I can come up with something nice.>
| < Prev |
|---|