What is the purposeful result of all human endeavor?
Kevin Kuhns
mathematics, architecture, racquetball, painting, calligraphy, prayer,
humour, relationships ... self-transformation.
Why do we put forth effort to develop a skill? What is the outcome?
What is the motivation?
andrew G
"Kevin Kuhns" <kevin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cddbe379.02071...@posting.google.com...
Graeme
andrew G wrote:
the motivation is vietnamese take-away food.
:-)
G
Raan
If you can pinpoint the agent of this motivation, the one with the will and
control who decides and is the first cause then ask this question.
Meanwhile you might wonder what made you ask the question in the first place
:)
--
*·.¸_¸.·'¨¨)
(_¸.·' Raan
Tortilla
> martial arts, physics, philosophy, Zen, Toaism, Christianity, yoga,
> mathematics, architecture, racquetball, painting, calligraphy, prayer,
> humour, relationships ... self-transformation.
>
> Why do we put forth effort to develop a skill?
Because we hurt.
> What is the outcome?
Not hurting anymore.
> What is the motivation?
Never hurting again.
- Tortilla
Alan
to maximise our utility, my friend, to maximise our utility.
rgds
alan
smcelvanney
Or is it...
"Kevin Kuhns" <kevin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cddbe379.02071...@posting.google.com...
smcelvanney
"Tortilla" <Yeshu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:13891152.02071...@posting.google.com...
Deep man, deep.
I is feeling you me brother.
Michael Burnem
Happiness ? or atleast the search for happiness.
--
Winning gives birth to hostility.
Losing, one lies down in pain.
The calmed lie down with ease, having set winning & losing aside.
Michael
Michael Burnem
> life is real boring without it.
Are you sure you've ever sat quite long enough to even notice what life is
REALLY like without it.
May you dwell in perfect tranquillity =)
VaKo
Probally sex in a lot of cases...
But other than that a mixture of wanting to see what happens if... and
thinking that there is probally an easyer way of doing this, combined with a
need to be more than you are on some level/s.
VaKo
Jacob Andersen
news:1026677552.12373....@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Kevin Kuhns" <kevin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cddbe379.02071...@posting.google.com...
> > martial arts, physics, philosophy, Zen, Toaism, Christianity, yoga,
> > mathematics, architecture, racquetball, painting, calligraphy, prayer,
> > humour, relationships ... self-transformation.
> >
> > Why do we put forth effort to develop a skill? What is the outcome?
> > What is the motivation?
>
> Probally sex in a lot of cases...
You're probably right. Ironically my girlfriend thinks I'm a fool for
spending time working out (and even more time reading about it, which is
what really makes me the fool I guess). If only I could get her at it too...
/Jacob
hcannon18
Curiosity. Satisfaction. Curiosity
Shuurai
> mathematics, architecture, racquetball, painting, calligraphy, prayer,
> humour, relationships ... self-transformation.
>
> Why do we put forth effort to develop a skill?
To address some want or need.
> What is the outcome?
Depends on whether or not you are successful.
> What is the motivation?
Wants and needs.
JMGCC
develop gifts, qualities that make you an asset to others, service to
others and compassion for others are the honorable things to strive
for..Many paths same destination.
--
..."It's mind over muscle, mind over matter, and the mind that matters"
-Dr. Dennis Waitley
Ąade
wrote:
Not everyone does these things, some do drugs all day, others do
nothing at all.
The people who think about thinking and thinking about thinking and
testing what they think what they are thinking and on and on..... They
seem to be the ones who need it.
Luke
Ughh, what utter drivel "Never hurting again"? My gawd people that is
just awful. You have been listening to too many Michael Stipe solo
albums. Pull it together, that is fucking sad sack.
hal
We instinctively seek three things (in this order):
1. food
2. shelter
3. sex
Assuming that if someone is pursuing the things you mentioned that
they must have adequate amounts of 1 and 2, then it is all about
getting laid.
Nothing more, nothing less. Any thing else is just bullshit designed
to sound intellectual so they can attract women so they can get laid.
Hal
Raan
<hal> wrote in message news:3d33114a...@news.blackfoot.net...
Assuming of course they are not already getting laid regularly. (let alone
assuming also that they are male or that they are heterosexual and so forth)
One could always just masturbate and so be free to pursue the more subtle
things in life. I see here that you seem to have developed some insight
yourself... hmm?
--
*·.¸_¸.·'¨¨)
(_¸.·' Raan lol
Bob
kevin...@hotmail.com (Kevin Kuhns) wrote in message news:<cddbe379.02071...@posting.google.com>...
Raan
Hal and you could begin a support group.
--
*·.¸_¸.·'¨¨)
(_¸.·' Raan
"Bob" <bob4g...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:da3b20ab.02071...@posting.google.com...
Guru George
wrote:
>martial arts, physics, philosophy, Zen, Toaism, Christianity, yoga,
>mathematics, architecture, racquetball, painting, calligraphy, prayer,
>humour, relationships ... self-transformation.
>
>Why do we put forth effort to develop a skill?
Either because it's fun, or because it's useful, or both.
>What is the outcome?
Gongfu :-)
>What is the motivation?
Either because it's fun, or because it's useful, or both.
- Guru George
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
The Dao produces the law. Law is what draws the line
between gain and loss, and makes clear the curved and
the straight. He who grasps the Dao, therefore,
produces law and does not venture to transgress it,
establishes law and does not venture to oppose it.
If he is able to align himself, then he will not be
confused when he sees and knows the world.
- The Dao and the Law (from Jing Fa - "The Canon:Law")
ca. 250 BCE
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
Mark Gerard Miller
Um, isn't it Toeism sted Toaism?
Marque
JWMeritt
Kevin Kuhns
>
> Gongfu :-)
I like the way you think. :)
Kevin Kuhns
> Kevin Kuhns wrote:
>
> > martial arts, physics, philosophy, Zen, Toaism, Christianity, yoga,
> > mathematics, architecture, racquetball, painting, calligraphy, prayer,
> > humour, relationships ... self-transformation.
> >
> > Why do we put forth effort to develop a skill? What is the outcome?
> > What is the motivation?
> >
>
> develop gifts, qualities that make you an asset to others, service to
> others and compassion for others are the honorable things to strive
> for..Many paths same destination.
How do we clearly identify our our gifts? What is it that we are cultivating?
Kevin Kuhns
????? I don't get it.
art-va...@nospamshaw.ca
remove NOSPAM for quicker email response
On 14 Jul 2002 03:05:25 -0700, kevin...@hotmail.com (Kevin Kuhns)
wrote:
>martial arts, physics, philosophy, Zen, Toaism, Christianity, yoga,
Roger Taylor
>martial arts, physics, philosophy, Zen, Toaism, Christianity, yoga,
>mathematics, architecture, racquetball, painting, calligraphy, prayer,
>humour, relationships ... self-transformation.
>
>Why do we put forth effort to develop a skill? What is the outcome?
>What is the motivation?
We're just the Universe's way of figuring itself out. See you at the
Big Crunch - enjoy :-)
Cheers
Roger Taylor
www.hawklan.demon.co.uk/ki.htm
http://www.2asisters.org/english/
www.atlanticleisure.co.uk
Nauseating Hypocrite Warning - Please add to any of Tony Blair's
statements about terrorism, 'except the IRA'
Kevin Kuhns
> Evolution in consiousness within the human condition.
>
Ahhhh ... somebody gets what I'm trying to open a discussion about.
Tell me more, please. I understand it may be difficult, but it is
RIGHT HERE.
Kevin Kuhns
> Why MUST there be a purposeful result?
For the same reason that you ask the question.
Richard Lancashire
Ahh, the joy of Usenet - ask a question, wait for the scattergun
responses and pick one that agrees most closely with what you already
thought...
;P
Rich
Don Wagner
I agree! You are a true enlightened warrior!
;-)
Coming to Ottawa for the Big Steel Seminar?
Kevin says we can host a rave at his house.
--Don--
Let me show you how the guards used to do it...
Tomas Drgon
> mathematics, architecture, racquetball, painting, calligraphy, prayer,
> humour, relationships ... self-transformation.
>
> Why do we put forth effort to develop a skill?
To accumulate knowledge.
>What is the outcome?
Knowledge.
>What is the motivation?
The purely esotheric reward from passing it on.
Tomas Drgon
Kevin
> Kevin says we can host a rave at his house.
Hmm. Trance music, Daahn sucking on an ecstasy laced
soother and wanting to feel the love.
<shudder>
Nah, okay, fuck that, I'm thinking beer and barbeque.
:o)
Kevin
Bellman
"Kevin" <thepen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GHIZ8.8370$QY4.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Great. Beer and barbie. We're all coming over as well. That's all
us alt.philosophy.zen crew. We're really looking forward to it.
Yo, it's gonna be a night to remember.
Hope all those martial arts people don't drink all the beer
first. And then turn into drunken offensive louts lurching about
the garden.
Tha'sh my job.
Matthew Weigel
>Hope all those martial arts people don't drink all the beer
>first. And then turn into drunken offensive louts lurching about
>the garden.
>
>Tha'sh my job.
Thing is... do you really want to be the person to *make us* let you
get drunk?
I mean, alt.philosophy.zen vs. rec.martial-arts is an even more uneven
line-up than *normal* here on RMA.
:-)
--
Matthew Weigel
Research Systems Programmer
mcwe...@cs.cmu.edu
Kevin Kuhns
well... YEAH!
Chas
> I mean, alt.philosophy.zen vs. rec.martial-arts is an even more uneven
> line-up than *normal* here on RMA.
"SMACK!
Where is your wa NOW, Monk!!"
--
Chas Clements
casemaker 303-364-0403
ch...@kuntaosilat.net
http://www.kuntaosilat.com/
http://chasclements.tripod.com/index.htm
Guru George
wrote:
>> >What is the outcome?
>>
>> Gongfu :-)
>
>I like the way you think. :)
Cheers!
Kirk Lawson
>
> Matthew Weigel wrote:
> > I mean, alt.philosophy.zen vs. rec.martial-arts is an even more uneven
> > line-up than *normal* here on RMA.
>
> "SMACK!
> Where is your wa NOW, Monk!!"
Strangely enough, I've read that certain Zen masters *would* smack their
students with a stick to "dislodge" an epiphany (or something like
that).
Peace favor your sword (IH)
--
"In these modern times, many men are wounded for not having weapons or
knowledge of their use."
-Achille Marozzo, 1536
--
"...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of martial
artists gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise."
-Chas Speaking of rec.martial-arts
Badger Jones
<NO_lklaw...@heapy.com> wrote:
>Chas wrote:
>>
>> Matthew Weigel wrote:
>> > I mean, alt.philosophy.zen vs. rec.martial-arts is an even more uneven
>> > line-up than *normal* here on RMA.
>>
>> "SMACK!
>> Where is your wa NOW, Monk!!"
>
>Strangely enough, I've read that certain Zen masters *would* smack their
>students with a stick to "dislodge" an epiphany (or something like
>that).
Nah, they just liked hitting people with sticks. Much more fun when
they don't hit back.
Badger Jones
www.cyberus.ca/~badger
"I've come the conclusion that no story cannot be improved upon with a good
cratering." - Ted MacKinnon
Bellman
"Badger Jones" <young_...@hotmail.REEEMOVEcom> wrote in
message news:3d3814ca....@news.storm.ca...
Ha! You martial arts ladies trying to work up some fightin' talk
are you?
The honour of the newsgroup demands we sort this out. So right -
we all go to Don's. We drink all his beer. And then us monks
teach you girls how to behave proper. OK?
Bellman - tolling for you
Chas
> ........
> > > I mean, alt.philosophy.zen vs. rec.martial-arts is an even more uneven
> > > line-up than *normal* here on RMA.
> >
> > "SMACK!
> > Where is your wa NOW, Monk!!"
>
> Strangely enough, I've read that certain Zen masters *would* smack their
> students with a stick to "dislodge" an epiphany (or something like
> that).
That comes from an old story about a martial arts practitioner and a
zen monk. They're talking about practice and how it cultivates the
'wa'. The monk is getting all chesty about his practice and the
martial arts guy wants to see it. The zen monk composes himself and
seats for meditation, and as he's sitting, the practitioner knocks him
over.
One of the Japanese type practitioners will remember the story a
little closer, I'm sure.
Badger Jones
<Bel...@nospam.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Ha! You martial arts ladies trying to work up some fightin' talk
>are you?
Yeah, we've finally recovered from the ass-whuppin' we got from the
denizens of alt.fan.britney.spears, and we're looking for trouble
again.
>The honour of the newsgroup demands we sort this out. So right -
>we all go to Don's. We drink all his beer. And then us monks
>teach you girls how to behave proper. OK?
Deal. We drink all of Don's beer, then we call on his neighbor and
drink *his* beer, then we go door-to-door and drink all of *their*
beer, and then we... what again?
"Alcohol is no elixer of immortality, but who can bear to stay sober
in a drunken world?" - Li Po
Robert Epstein
Bellman wrote:
ha ha! keep dreamin', Derek.
as if you could handle them.....
Robert
Robert Epstein
Badger Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jul 2002 08:45:00 -0400, Kirk Lawson
> <NO_lklaw...@heapy.com> wrote:
>
> >Chas wrote:
> >>
> >> Matthew Weigel wrote:
> >> > I mean, alt.philosophy.zen vs. rec.martial-arts is an even more uneven
> >> > line-up than *normal* here on RMA.
> >>
> >> "SMACK!
> >> Where is your wa NOW, Monk!!"
> >
> >Strangely enough, I've read that certain Zen masters *would* smack their
> >students with a stick to "dislodge" an epiphany (or something like
> >that).
>
> Nah, they just liked hitting people with sticks. Much more fun when
> they don't hit back.
very insightful.
robert
Robert Epstein
Kirk Lawson wrote:
> "...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of martial
> artists gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise."
> -Chas Speaking of rec.martial-arts
actually if they were decent martial artists they wouldn't fight.
but again: quelle surprise.
robert
Coldblood
andrew
"Robert Epstein" <r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3D383410...@verizon.net...
Robert Epstein
Matthew Weigel wrote:
> Bellman <Bel...@nospam.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Hope all those martial arts people don't drink all the beer
> >first. And then turn into drunken offensive louts lurching about
> >the garden.
> >
> >Tha'sh my job.
>
> Thing is... do you really want to be the person to *make us* let you
> get drunk?
you're not really going to bother to stop him are you?
I mean, conserving energy and all that.........
robert
Chas
>
> why wouldnt they? martial arts are about fighting.
Even if one is approaching it from a standpoint of 'personal
growth/enlightenment' or whatever, one chooses the path of martial art
because one has a propensity for that particular aspect of human
endeavor.
At one time, martial artists who actually got old used to enter the
contemplative life after being well into middle age.
Badger Jones
<r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> "...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of martial
>> artists gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise."
>> -Chas Speaking of rec.martial-arts
>
>actually if they were decent martial artists they wouldn't fight.
Yep, so when Choki Motobu, Yip Man, Morihei Uyeshiba, and other such
worthies accepted challenge matches and (fluttering of hankies)
fought, obviously they weren't "decent martial artists."
Kirk Lawson
>
> Kirk Lawson wrote:
>
> > "...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of martial
> > artists gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise."
> > -Chas Speaking of rec.martial-arts
>
> actually if they were decent martial artists they wouldn't fight.
Sez who?
What are you calling "decent quality"? People who have learned method
of fighting or people who have learned that "fighting is bad, let's
contemplate our navels"?
> but again: quelle surprise.
>
> robert
Indeed.
Peace favor your sword (IH)
--
"In these modern times, many men are wounded for not having weapons or
knowledge of their use."
-Achille Marozzo, 1536
--
Don Wagner
>Nah, okay, fuck that, I'm thinking beer and barbeque.
>:o)
>Kevin
Can we build spud guns at the BBQ?
Don Wagner
>Deal. We drink all of Don's beer, then we call on his neighbor and
>drink *his* beer, then we go door-to-door and drink all of *their*
>beer, and then we... what again?
I'm putting up another 5gal. of Summer Lager this month.
Still have to get a batch of mead going.
Don Wagner
>actually if they were decent martial artists they wouldn't fight.
>but again: quelle surprise.
>
>robert
Go pet a dolphin, hippy!
Bellman
"Don Wagner" <dawa...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3d3856b7....@news.qwest.net...
Go nuzzle a nazi, squarehead!
bellman
Don Wagner
They do have the best uniforms, don't they?
Irving Epstein
you enjoy setting up phoney straw men so you can knock 'em down.
I never said a martial artist shouldn't accept a challenge match.
You were talking about 'starting fights' when 'crowds of martial artists'
get together,
and 'fighting is inevitable'.
what does that have to do with 'accepting a challenge match'?
by the way, would have loved to see Uyeshiba fight.
and if he did, I'll bet you there was very little contact.
<swish.....>
<sound of Uyeshiba slipping away.....>
robert
=========================
Bellman
"Badger Jones" <young_...@hotmail.REEEMOVEcom> wrote in
> On Fri, 19 Jul 2002 15:38:58 +0100, "Bellman"
> <Bel...@nospam.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Ha! You martial arts ladies trying to work up some fightin'
talk
> >are you?
>
> Yeah, we've finally recovered from the ass-whuppin' we got from
the
> denizens of alt.fan.britney.spears, and we're looking for
trouble
> again.
>
We heard those Britney fans had a lot of cruel moves. We're
nowhere near taking them on either. But we got hopes - we're
working on defenses against their silicon implant in the face
techniques. It's tough for if you let them past your guard it
makes you look such a boob.
Derek
Kirk Lawson
What it boils down to Mr. Bellman is that Mr. Epstien made what is
considered a, err... somewhat trite observation about Martial Artist.
i.e., that "decent" (read "real") Martial Artists wouldn't get into a
fight in the first place. This is a common misunderstanding that is
fostered by the Western consciousness in general and fed by media,
Hollywood, and Martial Arts Instructors looking to cash in on the
"mysticism" angle; the 'Bunnies and Light' people. Martial Arts are
about managing violent encounters, either through physically controlling
the opponent or physically *damaging* him. People who mistakenly
believe otherwise are buying into what is commonly thought of as the
"hippy" Peace and Love, Inc. B.S.
Make no mistake about it: Martial Arts are about *violence* in one way
or another.
If you, Mr. Epstien, or anyone else has any doubt, there are numerous
historical documents that will attest to Martial Arts (both Oriental and
Occidental) bloody history. If that fails to convince, then all are
invited to stop by the training centers of any of the RMA participants
where a pleasant and polite conversation, along with some demonstrations
may help shed light on the nature of Martial Arts.
Peace favor your sword (IH)
--
"In these modern times, many men are wounded for not having weapons or
knowledge of their use."
-Achille Marozzo, 1536
--
Bellman
"Kirk Lawson" <NO_lklaw...@heapy.com> wrote in message
news:3D387253...@heapy.com...
Oh, I believe you, Mr Lawson. In fact I am sure that there are
many upon many experienced martial arts practitioners who are
more than keen for any bit of violence that may come their way.
If people have a violent and aggressive nature I see no reason
why martial arts should change them. Indeed, I can see how
martial arts would attract them in the first place.
And as long as their anti-social tendencies are properly
controlled by the police or other appointed authorities I would
foresee no undue difficulty about the matter.
Bellman
Don Wagner
>So, do you get many 'opportunities' to display your fighting talents in the
>real world?
>
>Tara
Sure. Every class you train in should be testing your skills in some
way. ...or do you mean fighting strangers?
Yes, I have on several occasions.
Why not take dance lessons if you just want to move around and not hit
anyone? Why not just meditate if you want to contemplate your navel?
;-)
Hey, anyone can pretend that they do a martial art if they refuse to
demonstrate their skill. Doesn't mean they have any fuzz on their
peach though.
Dave Mullett
> Kirk Lawson wrote
> > Make no mistake about it: Martial Arts are about *violence* in one way
> > or another.
> So, do you get many 'opportunities' to display your fighting talents in
the
> real world?
Back in the bad old days, it was customary for kung fu or kenpo
practitioners to go out and "make" opportunities. Saturday nights in places
like Shanghai or even Honolulu up to WWII were apparently filled with
brawls. Kung fu has historically been associated with Chinese Triads at
least as much as with the Shaolin Temples. Ed Parker brought kenpo over
from Hawaii after a misspent youth as a street thug, and still went broke
several times because he couldn't get out of the street gang mindset and
just had to pound anyone who wasn't properly respectful, even after he lost
everything to a lawsuit the first time.
Nowadays, of course, we live in a more affluent culture and the costs of
brawling are comparatively higher... most of us aren't willing to risk
getting an eye poked out or a finger bitten off, not to mention a trip to
the great hereafter. But that is where a lot of these arts came from.
And, anyway, few martial artists have ever gotten a LOT of chances to
display their skills. The old masters became legends because they survived
in a form intact enough to keep fighting later. A lot of their opponents
did not. I remember reading that a Japanese samurai statistically had about
a 1/3 chance of coming out of a duel alive, since mutual kills were fairly
common. So the "average" samurai who fought at all got in only one fight.
Presumably, the "unarmed" fighters did better, though most of the
(admittedly few) stories I've read about Shanghai brawling involved weapons
like sticks or butterfly knives. Anyway, it doesn't take many "real" fights
before the average guy is not good for fighting anymore, had I been born in
an earlier age I would have been effectively maimed by an ACL tear just from
sparring.
So anyway, I don't think "frequency of use" is a very useful indicator to
apply to the martial arts. To shamelessly twist a great quote to my own
ends: "Most people do not need the martial arts. But those that do need
them very badly."
andrew G
there were zero antagonistic fights.
"Irving Epstein" <irving....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3D386D1B...@verizon.net...
andrew G
and i hope not.
my experience (only seven years of karate) has been that marial arts foster
a peacful attitude
but maybe you are practicing something else?
my real life experience is that if you fight .... you lose.
Matthew Weigel
>> >Hope all those martial arts people don't drink all the beer
>> >first. And then turn into drunken offensive louts lurching about
>> >the garden.
>> Thing is... do you really want to be the person to *make us* let you
>> get drunk?
>
>you're not really going to bother to stop him are you?
>I mean, conserving energy and all that.........
Actually, Bellman captured the problem quite neatly. If we don't stop
him, what do we drink?
...I mean, he'll probably die before his blood gets to an interesting
%abv...
Matthew Weigel
>And as long as their anti-social tendencies are properly
>controlled by the police or other appointed authorities I would
>foresee no undue difficulty about the matter.
"When Cultures Collide," Part II!
Matthew Weigel
>no worries mr lawson, remind me to carry a gun if ever i meet you
>and i hope not.
I'm sure that'll tickle Kirk just fine.
>my experience (only seven years of karate) has been that marial arts
>foster a peacful attitude but maybe you are practicing something else?
Kirk does aikido.
(answering because Kirk doesn't play on the Usenet on weekends)
>my real life experience is that if you fight .... you lose.
Oh man, if you weren't from alt.philosophy.zen, that could be nothing
but a troll.
"I do karate, and I lose a lot."
I expect that participation in APZ, and karate, have led some of your
opinions on this topic to be Japanese-centric - try taking a look at
the rec.martial-arts FAQ (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~mcweigel/rmafaq ,
assuming the web server has recovered from the power outage) and take a
look at the wide world of martial arts!
Robert Epstein
Matthew Weigel wrote:
> Robert Epstein <epste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >Hope all those martial arts people don't drink all the beer
> >> >first. And then turn into drunken offensive louts lurching about
> >> >the garden.
>
> >> Thing is... do you really want to be the person to *make us* let you
> >> get drunk?
> >
> >you're not really going to bother to stop him are you?
> >I mean, conserving energy and all that.........
>
> Actually, Bellman captured the problem quite neatly. If we don't stop
> him, what do we drink?
aw, c'mon, can't you guys learn to *share*???????
robert
Robert Epstein
I think the problem in this conversation is not really a misunderstanding,
but that there is more than one martial arts philosophy.
In general, the 'internal' arts foster an attitude of non-violence
and practitioners take pride in avoiding a fight.
It is a point of pride when an 'internal' martial artist
can show his skill by defeating an opponent without harming him,
or, in Aikido, without even being touched.
Of course, in all the martial arts, it is a great humiliation
to be defeated without being hit.
This shows that the other fighter was so superior that he was able to defeat
you
without resorting to violence.
One of my teachers, who I cannot name in this context because of the story,
was attacked by a Kung Fu adept on the streets of New York,
who had claimed to his students that he could defeat my teacher.
He attacked him in front of a movie theatre in Chinatown
and my teacher fended him off without hitting him for a while,
then as he put it: "I broke his jaw to keep him from being humiliated in front
of his students".
But my original point, which was misinterpreted as ignorance
was that an advanced martial artist is generally not into violence
and only uses his art defensively.
Martial arts *is* about managing violence,
but the violence that the advanced adept manages is first and foremost his own.
Then he has no distracting emotions to deal with when attacked.
He can merely deal with the situation and move on.
The teacher I mentioned above was married, and his wife had a hobby.
She used to chase muggers, catch them and hold them until the police got there.
Ha ha, let the violent beware of the true martial artist.
Robert
=========================
Matthew Weigel
>well mmm gee... I dunno.
>
>How did you guys get over here anyway? Not that I don't like it.
>But.....why would you stay?
The original post (or a follow-up, I didn't follow it closely at first)
was cross-posted. As far as I can tell alt.consciousness.mysticism
hasn't jumped in.
A lot of people hate cross-posting discussions, but I see it as a way
to spread Truth(tm) about martial arts to people who have a less
encompassing fascination, and to pick up new stuff; I've found that if
you can pick out the group people are from, to listen to their comments
about their topic... they may be trolls or idiots but their
topic-specific knowledge is probably a lot better than anyone from your
group.
There was a recent cross-posting thread between RMA and
misc.fitness.weights, and it actually influenced my training quite a
bit, for example.
Robert Epstein
Kirk Lawson wrote:
> Bellman wrote:
> >
> > "Don Wagner" <dawa...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:3d3856b7....@news.qwest.net...
> > > Robert Epstein <r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > >actually if they were decent martial artists they wouldn't
> > fight.
> > > >but again: quelle surprise.
> > > >
> > > >robert
> > >
> > > Go pet a dolphin, hippy!
> > > --Don--
> > > Let me show you how the guards used to do it...
> >
> > Go nuzzle a nazi, squarehead!
> > bellman
>
> What it boils down to Mr. Bellman is that Mr. Epstien made what is
> considered a, err... somewhat trite observation about Martial Artist.
> i.e., that "decent" (read "real") Martial Artists wouldn't get into a
> fight in the first place. This is a common misunderstanding that is
> fostered by the Western consciousness in general and fed by media,
> Hollywood, and Martial Arts Instructors looking to cash in on the
> "mysticism" angle;
what you're ignoring Kirk, is that the mysticism angle is very real
in the 'internal' martial arts. There are even a number of 'internal'
martial artists
in t'ai chi and aikido, chi kung, etc., who are excellent fighters put up
against
anyone from the more aggressive arts, and yet have mastered the energetic
and meditative aspects of the art.
You may refer to my other post in which I talked about my cousin's friend
who gained the strength of four ordinary martial artists through
concentrated
internal work. The internal arts have enormous benefits for fighting as
well as spirituality.
The arts in question in that other post were I Ch'uan and Shing I.
They are probably the least well known and most powerful of the ch'i
cultivation arts.
Although i don't consider myself a competent martial artist,
since I gave up working on the fighting aspect many many years ago,
I have been around a number of amazingly good pracititioners from a variety
of traditions,
and have a good understanding of the range of intentions and techniques
that are out there.
My own years studying t'ai chi were more for meditative and energy
cultivation purposes,
but I found that in a few tough spots that it did give me an instinct for
blocking
a very serious attack on one occasion.
Robert
==========================
Kevin
> Kevin wrote:
> >Nah, okay, fuck that, I'm thinking beer and barbeque.
> Can we build spud guns at the BBQ?
Yes! Definately!
:o)
Kevin
Kevin
> what you're ignoring Kirk, is that the mysticism angle is very real
> in the 'internal' martial arts. There are even a number of 'internal'
> martial artists
> in t'ai chi and aikido, chi kung, etc., who are excellent fighters put up
> against
> anyone from the more aggressive arts, and yet have mastered the energetic
> and meditative aspects of the art.
> You may refer to my other post in which I talked about my cousin's friend
> who gained the strength of four ordinary martial artists through
> concentrated
> internal work. The internal arts have enormous benefits for fighting as
> well as spirituality.
Yeah yeah. My Sisters husband has a cousin who told me that his dad
can fly to mars by flapping his arms. I've got stories of pictures. Four
ordinary martial artists? Wow, such a scientific, well established measure
you've chosen. Did you know that a school of pirhana can devour a
cow in under a minute? Yes, the cow is the standard of measure for
that.
Face it, you have no idea what you are talking about. I won't discuss
(gladly) mysticism with you, if you promise not to demonstrate your
ignorance to me.
> The arts in question in that other post were I Ch'uan and Shing I.
> They are probably the least well known and most powerful of the ch'i
> cultivation arts.
Yeah? And I suppose, my fine feathered philosophical friend, you
think you know what ch'i is? No, please, don't explain. I might be
drinking something, and you may catch me off guard, and I may
choke to death, laughing. Which, I suppose, may not be a bad way
to go, in the end.
> Although i don't consider myself a competent martial artist,
> since I gave up working on the fighting aspect many many years ago,
> I have been around a number of amazingly good pracititioners from a
variety
> of traditions,
> and have a good understanding of the range of intentions and techniques
> that are out there.
> My own years studying t'ai chi were more for meditative and energy
> cultivation purposes,
I bet. Let me guess; you can't do any of the neat things, but if you
study and train hard for...and let me pull a number out of a hat here,
just for arguments sake...TEN years, you'll begin to see the light
shining out of *your* ass too? You don't say? Fortunately, you aren't
in it for the fighting, so that saves some time.
Somebody stop me if you've heard any of this before...
:o)
Kevin
Kevin
> How did you guys get over here anyway? Not that I don't like it.
> But.....why would you stay?
We followed the penguins. You'll notice that real estate prices around
you may drop. This is normal. And we would stay because, well, with
a few throw cushions and a lavalamp I think we could make this
mounted antler thing work over the door, don't you think?
Kirk! Help me with this wagon wheel coffee table and the painting
of the dogs playing poker. No, ma'am, we aren't dangerous, Chas
just looks that way. Pay us no mind.
:o)
Kevin
Raan
"Kevin" <thepen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fF2_8.3978$1t.18...@news20.bellglobal.com...
STOP! ROTFLMAO.
--
*·.¸_¸.·'¨¨)
(_¸.·' Raan :-)
Kevin
> In general, the 'internal' arts foster an attitude of non-violence
> and practitioners take pride in avoiding a fight.
> It is a point of pride when an 'internal' martial artist
> can show his skill by defeating an opponent without harming him,
> or, in Aikido, without even being touched.
What a crock of donkey caca. Spoken like somebody who
knows somebody who heard something about a martial art
with a really cool name.
In fact, top bagua and hsing-i practitioners, the name players,
seemed to have delighted historically in causing massive damage
to challengers. They didn't get famous by throwing love-ins.
Even O'Sensei, who *did* have a reputation for having a
philosophical and gentle approach, enjoyed melding opponents
with the planet. I'm sure it was gentle from the planets point
of view, but your mileage may vary.
> But my original point, which was misinterpreted as ignorance
> was that an advanced martial artist is generally not into violence
> and only uses his art defensively.
I believe Don's point, in the immortal words of Wharfie, was
"Oh, Horseshit."
Which advanced martial artist are you speaking of? There are
at least a couple of 'Advanced martial artists' in the Whole World,
you may have heard, and some of them are real pricks.
It has no bearing whatsoever on their effectiveness as a martial
artist.
> The teacher I mentioned above was married, and his wife had a hobby.
> She used to chase muggers, catch them and hold them until the police got
there.
Bullshit.
:o)
Kevin
Kevin
> i have been around martial artists for many years
> there were zero antagonistic fights.
Well there are martial arts and there are martial arts. The Silat crowd,
from whence Chas comes, likes to have a regular squabble, kill, and
long pig roast. When no unlucky outsider happens by, they seem to
rather arbitrarily toast one of their own. Chas is just happy you guys
happened along; fresh meat.
:o)
Kevin
Kevin
> Badger Jones wrote:
> >Deal. We drink all of Don's beer, then we call on his neighbor and
> >drink *his* beer, then we go door-to-door and drink all of *their*
> >beer, and then we... what again?
> I'm putting up another 5gal. of Summer Lager this month.
So...Back to Don's house, and we drink his beer *again*!
Then over to Otter's to drink his beer.
Yay! Road trip.
:o)
Kevin
Kevin
> Hope all those martial arts people don't drink all the beer
> first. And then turn into drunken offensive louts lurching about
> the garden.
You got a couple of things wrong, here.
First of all, we don't 'turn into drunken offensive louts'. We
show up that way. We don't lurch - we move through carefully
trained stances. We don't drink all the beer first; we protect
it vigerously whilst we down the harder stuff, then we turn to
the beer and drink it all.
Finally, you are more than welcome to come. The more
untrained people there are about, the less likely *I* am to
get hurt.
:o)
Kevin
The Snore
"Raan" <ra...@one.org> wrote in message
news:dR2_8.9947$QY4.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Get this guy signed. I want him in an apz uniform, toot suite.
Robert Epstein
Kevin wrote:
> Robert Epstein wrote:
>
> > In general, the 'internal' arts foster an attitude of non-violence
> > and practitioners take pride in avoiding a fight.
> > It is a point of pride when an 'internal' martial artist
> > can show his skill by defeating an opponent without harming him,
> > or, in Aikido, without even being touched.
>
> What a crock of donkey caca. Spoken like somebody who
> knows somebody who heard something about a martial art
> with a really cool name.
>
> In fact, top bagua and hsing-i practitioners, the name players,
> seemed to have delighted historically in causing massive damage
> to challengers. They didn't get famous by throwing love-ins.
>
> Even O'Sensei, who *did* have a reputation for having a
> philosophical and gentle approach, enjoyed melding opponents
> with the planet. I'm sure it was gentle from the planets point
> of view, but your mileage may vary.
>
> > But my original point, which was misinterpreted as ignorance
> > was that an advanced martial artist is generally not into violence
> > and only uses his art defensively.
>
> I believe Don's point, in the immortal words of Wharfie, was
> "Oh, Horseshit."
>
> Which advanced martial artist are you speaking of?
the ones I'm talking about.
> There are
> at least a couple of 'Advanced martial artists' in the Whole World,
> you may have heard, and some of them are real pricks.
that's true. well I'm not talking about them.
If someone's a 'real prick' you could sort of surmise
that they have not developed the spiritual side of their art very well,
or is that too logical for you?
> It has no bearing whatsoever on their effectiveness as a martial
> artist.
not my point.
I don't give a fuck how effective they are as pile-drivers.
I'm talking about what's available on the other side of the art,
and that those who cultivate chi and understand spiritual principles
can also be some of the best fighters.
you don't have to agree with my point,
but itit would be nice to at least understand what it is.
yes, I agree, there are a lot of very competent violent people running
around,
some with martial arts training, some with guns or knives, but that has
nothing
to do with what we were talking about.
This conversation started with you[?] asserting that when you got a bunch of
martial artists together
it was inevitable that a fight would break out.
My answer suggested that this meant that they were not very developed as
martial artists.
I'll still stand by that statement, even if they're stone cold super-killers.
> > The teacher I mentioned above was married, and his wife had a hobby.
> > She used to chase muggers, catch them and hold them until the police got
> there.
>
> Bullshit.
was ya dere, Charley?
and was ya dere when my little skinny teacher took a big burly violent dude
caught his fist in mid-air and put him on the ground so fast that no one knew
where he went
until they looked down and saw him equally befuddled and winded on the floor.
yes, I know those are all just 'tricks' and they can be accounted for by
skill,
not necessarily by ch'i, but the Yang t'ai chi masters, none of whom has the
physical strength to break a walnut,
explain their superior ability by the cultivation of ch'i, and I personally
can't find a suitable alternative explanation.
robert
Robert Epstein
Since you know it all,
and everything I say is bullshit,
I'll back off and let you revel in your feelings of superiority.
take care!
robert
=======================
Robert Epstein
Kirk Lawson wrote:
> Robert Epstein wrote:
> >
> > Kirk Lawson wrote:
> >
> > > "...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of martial
> > > artists gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise."
> > > -Chas Speaking of rec.martial-arts
> >
> > actually if they were decent martial artists they wouldn't fight.
>
> Sez who?
>
> What are you calling "decent quality"? People who have learned method
> of fighting or people who have learned that "fighting is bad, let's
> contemplate our navels"?
people who are so damned good that they don't have to prove anything
and not only have martial skill but a philosophy of life.
I've been lucky enought to meet a couple,
and they can damn well fight,
but they don't have to.
robert
>
>
> > but again: quelle surprise.
> >
> > robert
>
> Indeed.
Kevin Kuhns
> or another.
So is Zen, but most folks miss that, too.
Kevin Kuhns
> anyone? Why not just meditate if you want to contemplate your navel?
> ;-)
>
'cuz then you're sure to miss it.
Kevin
> Kevin wrote:
> > Which advanced martial artist are you speaking of?
> the ones I'm talking about.
It's a big world. You are drawing up a set of rules for a plethora
of martial artists based on some people you know, and pretending
that your rules will now apply. Forgive me if I am less than
impressed.
> that's true. well I'm not talking about them.
Ah, there you go. :o)
> If someone's a 'real prick' you could sort of surmise
> that they have not developed the spiritual side of their art very well,
> or is that too logical for you?
Oh yes. Much too logical. For example, perhaps you can
explain to me how these spiritual gurus of yours got to be so
specially non violent by training, day in and day out, for years,
in the application and use of violence?
Perhaps you can outline for me how the spiritual side of the
martial arts as commonly taught teaches non-violence?
> not my point.
> I don't give a fuck how effective they are as pile-drivers.
> I'm talking about what's available on the other side of the art,
> and that those who cultivate chi and understand spiritual principles
> can also be some of the best fighters.
Apples and oranges. Some people can 'cultivate chi' and simply
become really cool pile drivers. Some people can study worms
and become really non violent spiritualists. The two are neither
mutually exclusive nor inclusive, you see.
Most importantly, 'martial arts' doesn't imply spirituality, the way
you'd like to think it does.
> you don't have to agree with my point,
> but itit would be nice to at least understand what it is.
I understand it. I just think you are wrong.
> yes, I agree, there are a lot of very competent violent people running
> around,
> some with martial arts training, some with guns or knives, but that has
> nothing
> to do with what we were talking about.
... because you've redefined the words 'martial art' to mean what you'd
like them to mean? Nice. I've redefined a few other words, I'll sprinkle
them liberally from now on. Hell, I'll never be wrong again, not since
I coopted the english language.
> This conversation started with you[?] asserting that when you got a bunch
of
> martial artists together
> it was inevitable that a fight would break out.
Ah yes. 'Quelle surprise'. An excellent point.
> My answer suggested that this meant that they were not very developed as
> martial artists.
> I'll still stand by that statement, even if they're stone cold
super-killers.
Nonsense. Find me a martial artists who doesn't enjoy a good fight, and
I'll find you someone whose been lying to you for years. Can you find an
exception to prove that rule? Maybe, but so what? The point is that
non-violent dispute solvers don't take up the martial arts, they do any
number of other activities that don't pit them into violent conflict on a
regular basis. Thinking anything else is just plain silly.
> was ya dere, Charley?
Nope. But I'm calling bullshit anyway.
> and was ya dere when my little skinny teacher took a big burly violent
dude
> caught his fist in mid-air and put him on the ground so fast that no one
knew
> where he went
> until they looked down and saw him equally befuddled and winded on the
floor.
> yes, I know those are all just 'tricks' and they can be accounted for by
> skill,
> not necessarily by ch'i, but the Yang t'ai chi masters, none of whom has
the
> physical strength to break a walnut,
> explain their superior ability by the cultivation of ch'i, and I
personally
> can't find a suitable alternative explanation.
Yeah yeah. Straw man. I call bullshit on the wife/mugger story. I know
bullshit when I read it.
:o)
Kevin
Matthew Weigel
Y'know, much as it feels great to crosspost to a Zen newsgroup from
somewhere else, spouting on about zen...
I'll bet they grind their teeth as much at it as we do when they say
something about Real Martial Artists(tm).
Matthew Weigel
>If someone's a 'real prick' you could sort of surmise
>that they have not developed the spiritual side of their art very well,
>or is that too logical for you?
What 'spiritual' side?
Martial arts are about *fighting*. No matter what you believe, what
arts you have experience with, there is no 'spiritual side' to 'martial
arts.' There is not even a 'spiritual side' to all 'internal martial
arts.' Some martial arts play with spirituality, and some don't.
And that's just it. There's something broader to martial arts than
just those that are 'spiritual.'
Claiming that a martial art that doesn't bother - and lemme tell ya, as
a spiritual guy I don't think most martial artists know horse-pucky
about spirituality - can't be a Real Martial Art, or that a martial
artist that doesn't bother can't be an 'advanced martial artist' is, at
best, unsupportable.
>This conversation started with you[?] asserting that when you got a
>bunch of martial artists together it was inevitable that a fight would
>break out.
Chas, as quoted by Kirk. Kirk uses the quote in his sig because it is
so inline with his experiences.
And I note that you claim to be a martial artist, a few other zen'ers
claim to be martial artists, and still there's a *whole lot* of what I
would not quantify as 'defusing' or 'not fighting' going on.
Would it be different if we were all at a bar? Yeah, some of us would
get our asses kicked.
Kevin
> hey what can I say Kevin?
> Since you know it all,
> and everything I say is bullshit,
> I'll back off and let you revel in your feelings of superiority.
You are no fun at all.
:o)
Kevin
Robert Epstein
Kevin wrote:
> Robert Epstein wrote:
> > Kevin wrote:
>
> > > Which advanced martial artist are you speaking of?
> > the ones I'm talking about.
>
> It's a big world. You are drawing up a set of rules for a plethora
> of martial artists based on some people you know, and pretending
> that your rules will now apply. Forgive me if I am less than
> impressed.
>
> > that's true. well I'm not talking about them.
>
> Ah, there you go. :o)
>
> > If someone's a 'real prick' you could sort of surmise
> > that they have not developed the spiritual side of their art very well,
> > or is that too logical for you?
>
> Oh yes. Much too logical. For example, perhaps you can
> explain to me how these spiritual gurus of yours got to be so
> specially non violent by training, day in and day out, for years,
> in the application and use of violence?
look, the internal arts are done pretty dispassionately,
not as expressions of violence.
T'ai chi has a perfectly good training in combinations, kicks
and the classic moves from the forms sped up,
but they are learned through an attention to rooting, energy,
the feeling of force from the other person and how to work with it.
it's not a high-violence art.
so you learn a different way of approaching combat,
one that is effective but is not emotionally intense.
hey, it was developed by Chinese monks, what do you expect?
it happens that with the right set of skills,
dispassionate fighting is more effective than angry or hot-blooded fighting.
you can't see as clearly when those emotions come into play,
and in an equal match, the one who is not invested in winning and afraid of
losing
will be more balanced.
but i agree that this is only true at a very high level of skill.
at a lower level of skill, wanting really badly to smash someone in the head
may be more effective.
well, I think you have a point, but I do think there are two ways of
approaching the martial arts.
and I do think there is a level at which the skill and awareness of being
powerful and alive in the world
and attuned to its energy is more satisfying than crunching people to prove
how tough you are.
I'm not trying to redefine the term. If you're a martial artist, you should
be able to skillfully
engage in combat, and even enjoy it. That doesn't mean that a spiritually
based martial artist
can't enjoy the feeling of knowing that he has that power and also enjoy
refraining from misusing it.
that doesn't mean he won't spar, or that he won't defend himself,
but he's not going to run around beating people up, or use his art to create
more negativitiy.
> > was ya dere, Charley?
>
> Nope. But I'm calling bullshit anyway.
>
> > and was ya dere when my little skinny teacher took a big burly violent
> dude
> > caught his fist in mid-air and put him on the ground so fast that no one
> knew
> > where he went
> > until they looked down and saw him equally befuddled and winded on the
> floor.
> > yes, I know those are all just 'tricks' and they can be accounted for by
> > skill,
> > not necessarily by ch'i, but the Yang t'ai chi masters, none of whom has
> the
> > physical strength to break a walnut,
> > explain their superior ability by the cultivation of ch'i, and I
> personally
> > can't find a suitable alternative explanation.
>
> Yeah yeah. Straw man.
why is that a straw man? you mean you don't like that story?
> I call bullshit on the wife/mugger story. I know
> bullshit when I read it.
>
> :o)
> Kevin
don't say that to her!
: )
robert
Robert Epstein
Matthew Weigel wrote:
> Robert Epstein <epste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >If someone's a 'real prick' you could sort of surmise
> >that they have not developed the spiritual side of their art very well,
> >or is that too logical for you?
>
> What 'spiritual' side?
>
> Martial arts are about *fighting*. No matter what you believe, what
> arts you have experience with, there is no 'spiritual side' to 'martial
> arts.' There is not even a 'spiritual side' to all 'internal martial
> arts.' Some martial arts play with spirituality, and some don't.
>
> And that's just it. There's something broader to martial arts than
> just those that are 'spiritual.'
>
> Claiming that a martial art that doesn't bother - and lemme tell ya, as
> a spiritual guy I don't think most martial artists know horse-pucky
> about spirituality - can't be a Real Martial Art, or that a martial
> artist that doesn't bother can't be an 'advanced martial artist' is, at
> best, unsupportable.
yeah, my view is too extreme. what I was trying to point to was a part of
martial arts that has to do with being in energetic balance and not about
meeting force with force,
and I know that this is there in the internal arts.
t'ai chi makes a big deal out of rooting and grounding energy rather than
resisting it,
just as aikido does.
I was there when my friend passed one of his advanced aikido tests
and literally avoided being touched by four assailants
in a small space
who were anxious to knock him down.
> >This conversation started with you[?] asserting that when you got a
> >bunch of martial artists together it was inevitable that a fight would
> >break out.
>
> Chas, as quoted by Kirk. Kirk uses the quote in his sig because it is
> so inline with his experiences.
>
> And I note that you claim to be a martial artist,
uh....no I don't. I claim to have studied t'ai chi,
but I am not a skilled martial artist.
I do know something about chi however.
And I understand that this is not the same thing as being able to fight.
> a few other zen'ers
> claim to be martial artists, and still there's a *whole lot* of what I
> would not quantify as 'defusing' or 'not fighting' going on.
true. I guess we're not advanced enough to 'not fight'. good point!
> Would it be different if we were all at a bar? Yeah, some of us would
> get our asses kicked.
> --
and sadly, I'd be one of them!
robert
Kevin
> Kevin wrote:
> > Oh yes. Much too logical. For example, perhaps you can
> > explain to me how these spiritual gurus of yours got to be so
> > specially non violent by training, day in and day out, for years,
> > in the application and use of violence?
> look, the internal arts are done pretty dispassionately,
> not as expressions of violence.
In general, the internal arts are done not only dispassionately,
but just plain badly. So what. The fact is most people train
in something they call tai chi, which is something other, at this
point, than an internal martial art. That 'train for ten years and
it will all come to you' crap is so common it's pathetic.
But if you are at a martial arts school, even one that teaches
one of these internal arts, then consider this; no matter how
calm and dispassionate they are, they are learning to deflect
incoming energy, and punch and kick the hell out of the person
attacking. If you can't see that in the taiji forms you are looking
at, go and find a hsing-i person - it's more obvious. So
if you don't define that as violent, then you really are missing
the point. A non violent response to an attack would be
an entire class on 'how to talk down an attacker and just,
like, get along'. Something that I've *never* seen at a
taiji school. Again, you may know the exception that
proves the rule.
> T'ai chi has a perfectly good training in combinations, kicks
> and the classic moves from the forms sped up,
Did you find me unwilling to accept the usefulness of taiji?
Interesting. :o)
> but they are learned through an attention to rooting, energy,
> the feeling of force from the other person and how to work with it.
> it's not a high-violence art.
Yeah? So after you connect all the dots mechanically, and
learn the trick of visualization and movement that allows you
to, as you say, break boards and shit, what do you think
happens next? I hate to connect dots you aren't willing
to look at, but this isn't a recipe for non violent resolution
of conflict. You are, choke, actually, gasp, supposed to
calmly and dispassionately detect and redirect/nullify incoming
energy, find a root, and then use your visualization and
mechanics to put a fucking hole in your opponent.
And then, usually, you want to throw them down.
Anything less really makes mockery of what you spend
so long learning to do. Might as well have taken up a
nicer hobby, eh? Like fishing, or running.
> so you learn a different way of approaching combat,
> one that is effective but is not emotionally intense.
> hey, it was developed by Chinese monks, what do you expect?
Chinese monks who didn't seem to have your morals, really.
They didn't use it unless they had to. And then, when they had
to, they fucked up their opponents. Because, in the real world,
it doesn't work like the movies, where you can be all nice and
the bad guys are useless and fall down a lot. If you are nice,
and the bad guys get you, they don't care that you were nice.
> it happens that with the right set of skills,
> dispassionate fighting is more effective than angry or hot-blooded
fighting.
Pffft. Spoken like someone who has seen too many movies. Angry
can be really useful, when used right. Specially if you cultivate the
ability to stay relaxed and use the anger where you need it.
> you can't see as clearly when those emotions come into play,
> and in an equal match, the one who is not invested in winning and afraid
of
> losing
> will be more balanced.
Their, like, chakras, you mean? Dude.
> but i agree that this is only true at a very high level of skill.
> at a lower level of skill, wanting really badly to smash someone in the
head
> may be more effective.
Yeah, pretty much. And pretty much many of those same people
who like to bash in heads stick with the martial arts and learn lots
of things, until they are really really good at bashing heads. And the
love of it never really goes away, you just get older and it's less
acceptable for you to do it. But you still want to, every now and
then. ha ha.
> > Nonsense. Find me a martial artists who doesn't enjoy a good fight, and
> > I'll find you someone whose been lying to you for years. Can you find
an
> > exception to prove that rule? Maybe, but so what? The point is that
> > non-violent dispute solvers don't take up the martial arts, they do any
> > number of other activities that don't pit them into violent conflict on
a
> > regular basis. Thinking anything else is just plain silly.
>
> well, I think you have a point, but I do think there are two ways of
> approaching the martial arts.
> and I do think there is a level at which the skill and awareness of being
> powerful and alive in the world
> and attuned to its energy is more satisfying than crunching people to
prove
> how tough you are.
Speaking of meaningless, the sentence "there is a level at which the skill
and awareness of being powerful and alive in the world and attuned to
its energy" is pretty meaningless. Attuned to the energy of the world,
through training in internal arts? Please.
> I'm not trying to redefine the term. If you're a martial artist, you
should
> be able to skillfully
> engage in combat, and even enjoy it. That doesn't mean that a spiritually
> based martial artist
> can't enjoy the feeling of knowing that he has that power and also enjoy
> refraining from misusing it.
Now, you see, you are taking what I said and going places with it
I didn't go. I said that they weren't mutually exclusive or inclusive.
Meaning:
You can have a martial artist who likes violence.
You can have a martial artist who enjoys refraining from violence.
You can have a spiritualist who learns a martial art. Usually for exercise.
You can have a spiritualist who knows nothing about fighting.
This means that you were wrong when you said that all higher level
martial artists where moral and spiritual.
> that doesn't mean he won't spar, or that he won't defend himself,
> but he's not going to run around beating people up, or use his art to
create
> more negativitiy.
I dunno. Beating people up doesn't have to be negative. I can think
of a lot of people whose beatings would result in net positives for the
planet. Can't you?
> > Yeah yeah. Straw man.
> why is that a straw man? you mean you don't like that story?
I have no opinion about that story; it wasn't the story upon which I had
commented. So bringing it up to refute my comment is a straw man.
> > I call bullshit on the wife/mugger story. I know
> > bullshit when I read it.
> don't say that to her!
Pffft. Why not?
:o)
Kevin
Chas
> people who are so damned good that they don't have to prove anything
> and not only have martial skill but a philosophy of life.
That's interesting.
The best people I know will come and pick a fight with you if the
notion crosses their minds. There are cultures that don't value
humility particularly, and the really really really bad guys are
pretty forward with it.
--
Chas Clements
casemaker 303-364-0403
ch...@kuntaosilat.net
http://www.kuntaosilat.com/
http://chasclements.tripod.com/index.htm
Robert Epstein
who will enjoy having a good fight
but I doubt it's just because they 'get the notion'.
I'm sure they're trying to prove their worth
through winning
like most people on the planet are doing
in one way or another.
robert
========================
Robert Epstein
Kevin wrote:
no, that sentence was just a setup for what I said after it,
not directed towards you.
> > but they are learned through an attention to rooting, energy,
> > the feeling of force from the other person and how to work with it.
> > it's not a high-violence art.
>
> Yeah? So after you connect all the dots mechanically, and
> learn the trick of visualization and movement that allows you
> to, as you say, break boards and shit, what do you think
> happens next? I hate to connect dots you aren't willing
> to look at, but this isn't a recipe for non violent resolution
> of conflict. You are, choke, actually, gasp, supposed to
> calmly and dispassionately detect and redirect/nullify incoming
> energy, find a root, and then use your visualization and
> mechanics to put a fucking hole in your opponent.
>
> And then, usually, you want to throw them down.
In my short time of training with William Chen in combinations, push hands,
etc.,
there were two points of emphasis. One was obviously what you are talking
about,
striking, deflecting etc. which of course you need to keep from being dead in
an encounter.
the other though is this principle: whenever possible, let the attacker's
energy direct them past you,
give them a little help and get out of their way.
So there are a variety of practices in letting the other person come at you,
moving a bit out of the way and pushing them down or out with their own force.
Even when you throw a person across the room, which i was able to do,
and also got thrown across the room a number of times,
you allow the other person's force to register in your root
and then like a spring their own force catapults them out of your body.
There's very litle feeling of effort, and the other person usually doesn't even
get hurt
although they may be winded.
I got slammed against walls, but because I was relaxed I just bounced off 'em.
It's quite a lot of fun.
A lot more fun than getting kicked in the face.
I know that if you had an aggressive foe, you would follow up a technique like
this
with something that would incapacitate them,
but the principle of letting the other person's force work against them or come
back to them,
getting out of the way, allowing things to happen rather than making them
happen,
is an interesting one to me.
it seems more relaxed and open, less forceful and aggressive, than some other
approaches to fighting.
> Anything less really makes mockery of what you spend
> so long learning to do. Might as well have taken up a
> nicer hobby, eh? Like fishing, or running.
well, tell me what you think of the above.
does one have to be internally violent to fight efficiently?
that's the question.
> > so you learn a different way of approaching combat,
> > one that is effective but is not emotionally intense.
> > hey, it was developed by Chinese monks, what do you expect?
>
> Chinese monks who didn't seem to have your morals, really.
> They didn't use it unless they had to. And then, when they had
> to, they fucked up their opponents.
well I would too if I had to. it's just not my first choice.
shit, let someone attack my family and you'll see me get very aggressive very
quickly.
> Because, in the real world,
> it doesn't work like the movies, where you can be all nice and
> the bad guys are useless and fall down a lot. If you are nice,
> and the bad guys get you, they don't care that you were nice.
right, you have to be effective.
the question is how do you want to live during, before and after.
i want to be relaxed and at peace, and still kill someone if i have to.
but it's not my goal.
> > it happens that with the right set of skills,
> > dispassionate fighting is more effective than angry or hot-blooded
> fighting.
>
> Pffft. Spoken like someone who has seen too many movies. Angry
> can be really useful, when used right. Specially if you cultivate the
> ability to stay relaxed and use the anger where you need it.
well you have to have energy and motivation. does it have to come from anger?
i dont' think so. And i have been angry before [a lot]
and have fought in anger too. I don't think it's the most effective
from my point of view.
If I am angry when I kill a cockroach, am I more or less effective?
more likely to make a mess.
> > you can't see as clearly when those emotions come into play,
> > and in an equal match, the one who is not invested in winning and afraid
> of
> > losing
> > will be more balanced.
>
> Their, like, chakras, you mean? Dude.
Chen Man Ching had a saying: "Invest in loss". He never lost a fight as far
as I know.
These are t'ai chi principles, I didn't make them up. They're from ancient
China, Taoist
philosophy, which is 'quietist'; don't use force, accord with forces and use
them to your benefit.
This is basic Taoism, which is the philosophy underlying T'ai Chi. it's not
New Age,.....'dude'........
> > but i agree that this is only true at a very high level of skill.
> > at a lower level of skill, wanting really badly to smash someone in the
> head
> > may be more effective.
>
> Yeah, pretty much. And pretty much many of those same people
> who like to bash in heads stick with the martial arts and learn lots
> of things, until they are really really good at bashing heads. And the
> love of it never really goes away, you just get older and it's less
> acceptable for you to do it. But you still want to, every now and
> then. ha ha.
so kill a roach........
> > > Nonsense. Find me a martial artists who doesn't enjoy a good fight, and
> > > I'll find you someone whose been lying to you for years. Can you find
> an
> > > exception to prove that rule? Maybe, but so what? The point is that
> > > non-violent dispute solvers don't take up the martial arts, they do any
> > > number of other activities that don't pit them into violent conflict on
> a
> > > regular basis. Thinking anything else is just plain silly.
> >
> > well, I think you have a point, but I do think there are two ways of
> > approaching the martial arts.
> > and I do think there is a level at which the skill and awareness of being
> > powerful and alive in the world
> > and attuned to its energy is more satisfying than crunching people to
> prove
> > how tough you are.
>
> Speaking of meaningless, the sentence "there is a level at which the skill
> and awareness of being powerful and alive in the world and attuned to
> its energy" is pretty meaningless. Attuned to the energy of the world,
> through training in internal arts? Please.
well, you may have your areas of ignorance too, even though I don't doubt your
skill........
> > I'm not trying to redefine the term. If you're a martial artist, you
> should
> > be able to skillfully
> > engage in combat, and even enjoy it. That doesn't mean that a spiritually
> > based martial artist
> > can't enjoy the feeling of knowing that he has that power and also enjoy
> > refraining from misusing it.
>
> Now, you see, you are taking what I said and going places with it
> I didn't go. I said that they weren't mutually exclusive or inclusive.
my own statement, not trying to construe it as yours.
> Meaning:
> You can have a martial artist who likes violence.
> You can have a martial artist who enjoys refraining from violence.
> You can have a spiritualist who learns a martial art. Usually for exercise.
> You can have a spiritualist who knows nothing about fighting.
>
> This means that you were wrong when you said that all higher level
> martial artists where moral and spiritual.
did I say that originally? I didn't mean higher level of skill,
I meant higher level in understanding the essence of the whole system.
Sorry if I confused my terms. yes, you can be highly skilled and not
have a spiritual component. Let me clearly acknowledge that.
> > that doesn't mean he won't spar, or that he won't defend himself,
> > but he's not going to run around beating people up, or use his art to
> create
> > more negativitiy.
>
> I dunno. Beating people up doesn't have to be negative. I can think
> of a lot of people whose beatings would result in net positives for the
> planet. Can't you?
depends I guess on what you think of the consequences of actions.
more spiritual principles that you may or may not believe in.
like.....[new age warning]..........karma!
but remember, you're talking to alt. philosophy. ZEN, so you have to expect
a little buddhist rhetoric.
> > > Yeah yeah. Straw man.
> > why is that a straw man? you mean you don't like that story?
>
> I have no opinion about that story; it wasn't the story upon which I had
> commented. So bringing it up to refute my comment is a straw man.
wow, a straw man to refute a straw man. I must be pretty tricky.
> > > I call bullshit on the wife/mugger story. I know
> > > bullshit when I read it.
> > don't say that to her!
>
> Pffft. Why not?
cuz she'll beat you up, dude!
I met the lady and she's pretty tough!!
: )
Robert
Robert Epstein
answering your other posts.
I guess I didn't mean it!!!!
: )
robert
==========================
Bellman
"Matthew Weigel" <mcwe...@cs.cmu.edu> wrote in message
news:ahakvp$bdb$1...@sheepberry.srv.cs.cmu.edu...
No not at all. Say anything about Zen you want to. Let only basic
human decency restrain your excesses.
And can I ask - why do you grind you teeth? Is it important that
people have to agree with you about martial arts?
Bellman
Matthew Weigel
>No not at all. Say anything about Zen you want to. Let only basic
>human decency restrain your excesses.
Wuzzat? "Human decency"?
>And can I ask - why do you grind you teeth? Is it important that
>people have to agree with you about martial arts?
Not at all. If we all agreed, where's the fight?
No, it's just that at some level, there is majority consensus on a few
topics; or even if there isn't, we're all too tuckered out to argue
these same old things year in, year out.
I mean, it's why we have four FAQs (currently: there are a few other
old ones) - one gentle and pseudo open minded, one oriented towards
newbies, one focused around around all the myths teachers tell
students, and one centered around all the fruitless challenge matches
we see.