Chink in the Armor

[Valkenar]

Something bad is happening to you Dana, you are creating a "duality" within yourself by practicing martial arts and trying to maintain a moral fiber that was not engineered by yourself (e.g. allowing society to impose it's concept of morality on you as opposed to what is in your own heart, rebel! RISE UP AGAINST THE ENSLAVER!), at the same time

Are you seriously suggesting that to practice martial arts neccesitates throwing out morality? If not, what sort of moral fiber would you say is compatible with studying karate? Neitsche?

[Guest]

Neitsche

Why not?

But why must there be a template to be followed? Can't you find whats right in your own heart? Or does there absolutley have to be some head "sheep" to follow?

[Valkenar]

Neitsche

Why not?

I mentioned Neitsche because what you said sounded a bit like his philosophy, but I'm no philosophical scholar..

But why must there be a template to be followed? Can't you find whats right in your own heart? Or does there absolutley have to be some head "sheep" to follow?

There needn't be a template. On the other hand, any time you go start from first principles, there's a very good chance you're just going to be reinventing the wheel. You might come up with something revolutionary, but chances are you'll just be retracing ground someone else has already covered. it'll be something you could've heard about if you hadn't made the decision to throw out all previous human experience. Not that this is what you've done, just that this is the downside to raging against the sheep mentality.

I was just curious about your statement, which seemed to imply that morality and martial arts are mutually exclusive. And I'm curious why you would say that, and which aspects of morality don't fit? What society-imposed morals rendered invalid by martial arts? It seemed to me that the core of what she said is that generally hurting people *****. But maybe I misunderstood.

[MikeK]

You could always flip it around and only teach certain things to individuals based on their morals. Higher the morals the more that is entrusted, no morals don't even bother to set foot in the door.

[JimHawkins]

You could always flip it around and only teach certain things to individuals based on their morals. Higher the morals the more that is entrusted, no morals don't even bother to set foot in the door.

There are precedents for this in CMA.

I have also used this model as well..

[Guest]

I didn't say that at all, what I said was that you must create your own moral fiber. I realize that would be difficult for those who are accustomed to following footsteps of others their whole lives. Anyone who ventures from the beaten path of morality must be "immoral".

You might come up with something revolutionary, but chances are you'll just be retracing ground someone else has already covered. i

But that isn't the point at all, the point is to do what is right for you. You're viewing my philosophy as one who would rise above all others and "lead the people" as if I give a rats ass what the people think (believe me, I am not "the chosen one"). It has nothing to do with that at all, it has to do with a personal relationship with a single individual and his creator, and in that relationship is the where the moral fiber is weaved. The special needs of humanity may, or may not be a consideration in that weave, it just depends upon the individual, but it cannot be influenced by goings on in the external world, because that would make it "impure".

Revolutionary.. hah hah!!! "look at me people! I stand before you the chosen one"!

You're watching way to much TV Valk!

[Valkenar]

You're viewing my philosophy as one who would rise above all others and "lead the people"

No, that's not what I mean. What I'm saying is that there's only two possibilities. Either you're coming up with a totally new moral system or you're (knowingly or not) copying all or portions of someone else's morality. The first seems unbeleivably difficult, and if you think you've done that I'd be fascinated to hear the details.

Ultimately my point is that just because someone's values are shared with the "flock" as you might say, does not mean that they haven't put independant thought and consideration into them. Someone might believe in altruism as an ideal without simply adopting it from society by rote.

I didn't say that at all, what I said was that you must create your own moral fiber.

Well what convinces you that she hasn't? I agree that it is best for each person to think about morality for themselves. But that thinking can take the form of educating oneself as to what others have thought of and adopting a particular set of values (possibly modified) because that's what seems right to you.

Also, I still don't know which moral principles you think are incompatible with the martial arts.

You're watching way to much TV Valk!

Actually TV drives me nuts, and there's very little of it I can stand to watch.

[MikeK]

You could always flip it around and only teach certain things to individuals based on their morals. Higher the morals the more that is entrusted, no morals don't even bother to set foot in the door.

There are precedents for this in CMA.

I have also used this model as well..

And I think it's a good one Jim. I know some sensei that do this today and as long as you're not trying to get rich it's not a bad one. But I do know for some that they are depending on karate to instill some positive things in the student. We live in a society where many parents don't feel that they must instill their kids with values but that it's the job of some hired help like a school teacher, coach or karate instructor.

[Guest]

No, that's not what I mean. What I'm saying is that there's only two possibilities. Either you're coming up with a totally new moral system or you're (knowingly or not) copying all or portions of someone else's morality.

Neither one of those is correct. The morality that my philosophy of life is based upon, is undoubtably ancient when you consider it's source, but it is unique (not new) in that it comes from within me. The key, that fits me (the lock) is largely based on my experiences in life, which with respect to yours, may seem quite vast. You seem almost envious that I am so bold as to "call it as I see it" without making a reference to some authority. Is this because you have an under-developed sense of self? You also find it mind-boggling that an ordinary guy can even have a philosophy of his own and your fishing to find out what book i've read or what movie i've watched to base my world view on. Fact is, there ain't one. This is all me baby! Everything I say, do, it all comes from within me, I have my own source of inspiration and it's tucked away where no one can get too it. It's true.

You must also understand that what I write here is only the tip of the ice burg because what I have come to understand about this world, humanity, life, death, etc is so profound that it transcends language altogether and there simply is NO WAY that I could articulate it, because there are no words to describe it.

But even if I could, why.. oh why should I share that with you or anyone else? I'm not one to hang out in the park so as to toss morsels to the pigeons.

More Jesus stuff from his sermon on the mount:

“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”

In other words, I won't be answering anymore of your questions. You'll have to sit there and wonder.

[Valkenar]

Neither one of those is correct. The morality that my philosophy of life is based upon, is undoubtably ancient when you consider it's source, but it is unique (not new) in that it comes from within me.

I understand that. My point is that much as you would cite Exodus or Mathew as somehow related (at the very least) to your beliefs another person might cite something else, and it would be unique to them in the same sense that yours is unique to you. Namely that the inspiration to follow a certain path comes from within yet acknowledging that the ideas originated elsewhere.

The key, that fits me (the lock) is largely based on my experiences in life, which with respect to yours, may seem quite vast.

All of life is experience. You've experience much that I haven't and I've experienced much that you haven't. Certainly, you've experienced somewhere around twice as much as I have, by virtue of age.

You seem almost envious that I am so bold as to "call it as I see it" without making a reference to some authority. Is this because you have an under-developed sense of self? ... You also find it mind-boggling that an ordinary guy can even have a philosophy of his own

Actually quite the contrary. I'm not in any way suggesting that a person should not seek their own sense of moral virtue. As far as whether your beliefs are unique to you or not, I was explaining an approach to that seeking rather than saying than asserting that such a search is somehow wrong. If you were to search the archives here, you would find a discussion I had with Panther where I defended the principle of choosing one's own moral system.

I have my own source of inspiration and it's tucked away where no one can get too it.

I’ve built walls,
A fortress deep and mighty,
That none may penetrate.
...
I am a rock,
I am an island.

life, death, etc is so profound that it transcends language altogether and there simply is NO WAY that I could articulate it, because there are no words

Perfectly understandable. It's a very common experience to be unable to articulate certain feelings and understandings. The first Taoist tenet includes the concept, for example. Some people try to explain things anyway, but if you're not up to the task that's entirely reasonable.

In other words, I won't be answering anymore of your questions. You'll have to sit there and wonder.

I was curious what manner of moral principles you believe are in conflict with the practice of martial arts, but I understand completely if this is too personal an issue for you to discuss openly. No problem, I won't worry about it, and have avoided asking questions in this post.

[Guest]

I understand that. My point is that much as you would cite Exodus or Mathew as somehow related (at the very least) to your beliefs

I do that for the readers benefit as Christianity is King in our culture when it comes to philosophy. I don't practice the stuff myself. Gives them something to relate too, other then someone standing out in left field.

[Rick Wilson]

Martial Arts is the in-depth study of human violence in some form or other. IMNSHO

Martial arts run the spectrum (as all things in life do) when looking at this area.

The philosophy of the founder of Aikido is that you should do everything possible to do no harm. The people attacking you are merely misguided or troubled. To some this may seem like a very ideal approach, as it does not acknowledge “evil” if you will. However, the philosophy is not a pacifist one where you allow yourself or others to be hurt while not doing harm to others (not saying being a pacifist is wrong – although for me personally it is.)

The philosophy of San Soo is the predator mentality. People attacking you are just pieces of meat to be devoured. Some may not like the very violent implications of this aggressive approach; however, it recognizes “evil” exists and suggests you deal with it very directly.

So we could see these approaches as being very different because THEY ARE.

One approaches MAs from the view all people are basically good although at times misguided and we should do our best not to harm them.

The other comes from the approach that there are bad people out there who should be taken out when they try to do bad things to you and yours.

So the view of life has determined the approach to MAs for each of these styles and we could look at the reasons for the differences and get caught up in a great discussion of good and evil but that is for another thread on another forum.

I think a review of the commonalities may of more benefit.

What is accepted by both arts is that at some time or another someone may attempt to do violence to you.

This is important.

Regardless of the view of the world both ends of the martial arts spectrum understand that there is violence out there and violent people out there and you should be prepared to deal with them.

So this leads into the fact that any martial art should entail an in-depth study of human violence, how to deal with it and how to protect yourself from it.

An in-depth study means far more than: twisting here snaps the neck.

An in-depth study requires that you understand violence in its true nature (even if you disagree with the basic nature of violence.)

So to me this is very different from a group of bored criminals trying to figure out how to hurt people more. THAT is indeed a form of study of violence but it is a study without virtue. (Stealing from Dana's quote now. )

To look at violence is to look at the darker side of human nature. It is not a pretty thing this side of being human. This side of being human has driven the darkest periods in our lives from the Inquisition, to the Holocaust to Cambodia to Bosnia to Somalia to Rwanda and so many examples I cannot possibly list them all.

It is the sad fact that human beings have perpetuated violence on other humans both on mass and individually.

Facing that dark side of our nature is not something most people would like to do. We would prefer to believe that we would never be capable of such things. And yet history and daily news shows us that it continues to happen.

From my point of view I do not believe human beings should do violence upon one another. It is just not right by any standards. But I don’t rule the world or the people in it so what I want is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is reality. And reality says people will continue to do violence to one another as long as they gain something from it.

So I accept that it has happened and it will happen again unless we understand it and are prepared to stop it.

To truly deal with something then you must understand it completely. This is my opinion. To truly be able to not do evil then I must not only understand but also completely accept that side of my human nature. If I deny that it exists then I am in danger of being surprised that it has taken over. This is the same thought process I apply to the predator nature of human beings.

When it comes to the basic nature of human beings and do I believe they are good (Aikido) or evil (San Soo) I do not fall into either category.

I believe human beings are not at heart either but rather have the basic potential for either.

I say this because there have been very evil people born to and raised by good people who are baffled totally by what they spawned.

I say this because there have been very good people born to and raised by evil people and are they in no way reflect the parents.

Human beings are at heart both good and evil. Capable of great good and capable of great evil. Yin and yang.

And this is why I believe the study of violence through the martial path is a means by which people can accept the dark side within them and express the light side. This is the whole of being human.

And in self protection it is the whole reacting.

When we MUST defend ourselves with lethal force then we NEED the side within us capable of taking a human life (and regardless of how threatening or evil that life is to you, it is not supposed to be easy to take a life.)

And when it is inappropriate to respond with lethal force then we need the light side to hold back the actions that would wrongly kill.

I commented on the other thread about the “death giving sword” and the life giving sword”. These are concepts I found in the writings of Yagyu Minoenori.

The death giving sword only takes life and does so indiscriminately.

But what if killing this one evil person would save the lives of 10,000?

That is the action of killing that one evil individual and saving 10,000 live is the giving of life, therefore this is the “life giving sword.” The actions are not solely to take a life and the actions are never indiscriminate.

We could say that the life giving sword is used with virtue.

But how do we judge when to use it and how to we use it successfully?

Those are the issues that should be found within a dojo (kwon, dojang etc.)

And the only way to make the distinction required is to be intimately aware of that dark side.

We need to discuss what we train and do and why.

We need to be trained in a spectrum of responses that lead from non-engagement to lethal force.

We cannot shy away from the fact that violence is ugly, brutal, cruel, crude, fast, decisive, and effective for its purposes.

We cannot shy away from the fact that as predatory creatures human beings have the ability to kill.

We cannot shy away from knowing and accepting our dark side and the ferocity it can bring to our survival without allowing it to take us over into the brutal crimes humanity has committed in the past.

There is grace and danger in the training of the martial path.

You must always look at the whole to be complete.


Okay rambling on now so I will stop.

[Stryke]

Ok i`m an amatuer philosopher as many may suspect

and I agree with Tony .

but if you're not up to the task that's entirely reasonable.

this is not a matter of up to it , some things have to be felt to be understood , any religions would call it a leap of faith .....

the basic nature of the universe and reality are undeniable .

to decide on your beleifs according to your experiences , well its not only logical , it`s unavoidable .

the same way a true philosopher would avoid others teachings so he had the chance to have an originol thought perhaps ....



But back to Dana and the case f all violence being bad ... I disagree .. the fact she studys Martial arts because it may be usefull is the exact truth that it`s not so .

Violence is but a tool , no different to a stick or a gun , or a knife , or a chocolate cake ....(ok I`m hungry)

it`s not the violence that is bad but the intent and motivation that an be .

this does not mean it`s the first tool on my list .

It just means it`s on my list .

next time I stop a drunk beating his girlfriend , a serial killer from killing your family , or a rapist ... well ..... I`d be interested to see if you thought my necessary violence to be evil .

It`s a two dimensional world to think in absolutes , I study violence , I can destroy people and things .

does this make me bad ?

does this make me carry out these things needlessly ?

No it`s unrelated , its a tool , a knife a gun a chocolate cake .....

and in my study i find my limitations , my soul , my questions , and I have original thoughts on myself .

and the battle within is addressed .

and I slowly find peace within .

and I learn to deal with the without ...... violently or otherwise .

[Guest]

You know, we do not live in a "peaceful" universe. If you knew how scientists explain how our moon got where it is, or how our solar system was created, or even what lies in store for us out in the Oort cloud, or the unbelievable things that happen with the sun everyday, you would definatley poop your pants!

Our entire existance is based upon the crossing of paths, confrontation and conflict, from the microcosm, to the macrocosm, and everything inbetween. The illusion of peace and tranquility comes from social order, but lest not forget, it is nothing more than an illusion. One look at the news can tell you that. I suppose as long as the vast majority of folks in society adhere to the word of the law, the peaceful ones can bask in their dillusions, it makes no difference to me... but don't come crying to me when the veil gets lifted and you suddenly become prey to a predator that you denied even existed!

[Guest]

Karate vs. Boxer

Winkie Wright and Lacy from St. Petersburg, Florida, ranking world class boxers, will spar with Ric Martin only if he follows boxing rules, wears boxing gear and, of course, does not kick them.

Kiyohide Shinjo and Ric Martin in the early 1990's were two of the fastest, most powerful karate kickers in the world. Their exploits in tournement competition are of record and on video tape. They literally kick competitors out of the ring, and you can see these very well trained opponents fall to a heap. Each man is a human gyroscope who has honed his kicking skills to near perfection. Each is so fast that it's difficult to defend against their kicks.

I wouldn't say than no boxer would contest them, but I would say no sane boxer would.

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about Muay Thai kickers:

Two Muay Thai techniques were adopted by fighters from other martial arts: The Thai low kick and the Thai roundhouse kick. They are actually variations of the same kick, but hit at different heights. The low kick uses a rotational movement of the entire body to hit the opponent's outer thigh or side of knee with the shin. When not properly defended against, this technique often leads to the end of the fight, as the opponent has great difficulty standing after a few powerful low-kicks.

The same can be said for Shinjo and Martin. I assert that the best karate fighters will kick a boxer, will either knock him down, break his leg, or hurt him to the extent that he loses his will to fight.

It's not that the line to test Shinjo's and Martin's kicks was short. It's that there was no line.