Prove me wrong please

[VagabondX]

Ok, I would like to say first, I would like to be proven wrong on this subject

From the Tao Of Jeet Kune Do,

"He did not intend it to be a "how-to" book or a "learn kung-fu in 10 easy lessons" book. He intended it as a record of one man's way of thinking and as a guide, not a set of instructions. If you can read it in this light, there is much to be aware of on these pages. And, you probably will have many questions, the answers to which you must seek within yourself. When you have finished this book, you will know Bruce Lee better, but hopefully you will also know yourself better."

Now what this says to me is that Bruce Lee, a founder of Jeet Kune Do
(not creator), intended these notes in his book to be for his own reference, not anyone elses. Also, Jeet Kune Do, in my understanding, is not mainly, or originally Wing Chun. It only started Bruce on the path to realize Jeet Kune Do.

More qoutes From The Tao Of Jeet Kune Do,

"Some of the material within the volumes was written in a single setting and had the natural progression of a well-outlined conversation. Other areas were sudden inspirations and incomplete ideas that weere quickly scribbled as they entered Bruce's head."

"The Tao of Jeet Kune Do has no real ending. It serves, instead, as a beggining. It has no style; it has no level, though it's most easily read by those who understand their weapons"

Please also try to prove me wrong, but Bruce Lee did bring the concept of Jeet Kune Do to life right? So, that would mean you would have to have been trained by Bruce Lee(mentally, not technique wise) or read his book in order to understand his thinking, not his technique.

From The Tao of Jeet Kune Do

"Inevitably and regrettably, the book may also cause a rash of " Jeet Kune Do" schools, headed by people who know the reputation of the name and very little about the movement. Beware of such schools! If their instructors missed the last, most important line, chances are they failed to understand the book at all."

"Jeet Kune Do, you see, has no definite lines or boundaries- only those you make yourself."


Again, please feel free to argue(politely please,). If you want to agree with me then thank you.

[LS]

you need both. If you want to understand JKD as a WHOLE, you need to train with those who train in Jeet Kune Do. If you train with those that train it the way it should be trained i think you'll see the tao as only a reference and not a gospel bible since it's something he didn't write himself, if you want a clearer (albeit just a little more clearer) picture get the commentaries on the martial way .

[VagabondX]

I agree somewhat, you should train with people who practice JKD, but it should be(to my understanding)your own technique and not someone elses. If you use someone elses, you won't be practicing your own JKD, but some other person's. But I understand what you mean if you are saying that the techniques of others you witness should lead you to question your own methods, and develop your own technique. Also, I realize it's not a bible, and you shouldn't take that way, but you shouldn't be forced to believe what others thoughts on Jeet Kune Do, inspired, but not forced into thinking "This is what is Jeet Kune Do, and you are wrong".

[Yukimushu]

Does it matter if your practising "Your own jkd"? Do you find security in thinkin " i study jkd"? as long as your learning, and improving, thats all that matters.

[VagabondX]

Does it matter if your practising "Your own jkd"? Do you find security in thinkin " i study jkd"? as long as your learning, and improving, thats all that matters.


Yes, as long as you live, learn, and improve, that is all that matters. However, I prefer to follow the basics of JKD. Fight how you are comfortable(the own style of JKD reference), review your technique, and improve. Yes, it does matter if I practice my own JKD, do you know why? Because people feel security in knowing what they practice, for example, if I were to get into a fight, and use some style, and lose the fight, I would remember that I cannot fight like in a movie where you can block every hit(unless you are very experienced, and let's face it, most people on this site are here to learn) and take the guy down in one punch/kick. However, fighting to my liking is fighting, all fighting is the same, people will be hurt in fight, and the object of fighting is to bring the other guy(s) down. Besides, if you aren't conditioned to fight with a specific fighting style, Long Fist for example, you will get hurt very fast. But hey I guess if you guys want to say that Jeet Kune Do is this and that, and you need art to perform with art, then go ahead.

[dustIn credible]

Yes, as long as you live, learn, and improve, that is all that matters.


well said, i agree.

[LS]

JKD is concerned with the expression, not the modes of expression. Take the lead punch, it is performed in a certain way, more so a proper way to execute it. But it's up to you HOW you use that lead punch.

[VagabondX]

That is exactly what I am trying to say, I just couldnt' you know...hard to come up with words. http://www.colba.net/~xtlee/jkd-di.html
Check this site, it says what I am saying right now...It is a more clear understanding of what I am trying to say

[vt guy]

Absorb what is useful, discard what is useless, add in what is essentially your own.
Jkd is only a name and only intended to be used to describe a single man's expression of the human body. There is no way of doing "his technique" the way he did it. Each person who does "his technique" will be doing it their own way. Maximize your strenths and minimize your weaknesses

[VagabondX]

That is what I am saying...thank you vt guy

[Yukimushu]

This is like the twilight zone... stop preaching directly from books and articles. Learn to think for yourselves people.

I completely agree with you VagabondX that people find security in styles, but I personally dont feel that they find security in the style, more in the lack of application of the style. Alot of people aren't pressure tested or put under any kind of condition which causes them to feel any kind of emotions such as fear, stress and pressure.

Sometimes I think that the worst thing to happen to JKD is Bruce Lee...

[aml01_ph]

Sometimes I think that the worst thing to happen to JKD is Bruce Lee...

That can also go the other way around. I think JKD has fallen into the mire of "purity" that most TMA have sunk into. Most JKDists believe in the "discard what is useless" dogma so intensely that they do not take the time to reason out why it something is "useless" in the first place.

A good example is the pervading misconception that karate as a style prefers punches over kicks while TKD as a style prefers it the other way around. This is untrue because a style is limited largely because of one's preference. Originally, karate and TKD are much the same, they began to differ only because the practitioners have varying opinions on what technique to use in a type of situation.

This also happens when people practice the same MA. In those old Hong Kong flicks where one guy says "My kung fu is better than yours," he is simply stating the fact that his preference on techniques and how he employs them is more effective than the other guy.

As for the book, I don't think it is just a "how-to-do", but also a "what-to-do." The fact that it espouses a "free" attitude towards fighting while detailing a specific method of it is terribly confusing (prefered stances, prefered techniques, etc.).

[VagabondX]

In my understanding(note, this means opinion), there are no prefered stances or techniques, just the ones that bruce used himself

[Yukimushu]

That can also go the other way around. I think JKD has fallen into the mire of "purity" that most TMA have sunk into. Most JKDists believe in the "discard what is useless" dogma so intensely that they do not take the time to reason out why it something is "useless" in the first place.

A good example is the pervading misconception that karate as a style prefers punches over kicks while TKD as a style prefers it the other way around. This is untrue because a style is limited largely because of one's preference. Originally, karate and TKD are much the same, they began to differ only because the practitioners have varying opinions on what technique to use in a type of situation.

This also happens when people practice the same MA. In those old Hong Kong flicks where one guy says "My kung fu is better than yours," he is simply stating the fact that his preference on techniques and how he employs them is more effective than the other guy.

As for the book, I don't think it is just a "how-to-do", but also a "what-to-do." The fact that it espouses a "free" attitude towards fighting while detailing a specific method of it is terribly confusing (prefered stances, prefered techniques, etc.).

Excellent point.

[aml01_ph]

In my understanding(note, this means opinion), there are no prefered stances or techniques, just the ones that bruce used himself

Prefers:

1. The dominant hand to always be the lead hand.
2. Most leg techniques to be executed by the lead leg. The only technique available for the rear leg is the spin kick (which is also preferrably a thrusting type of blow).
3. The preferred orientation of the fist is the vertical fist (although in "Bruce Lee's Fighting Method" you can see photos of him using the horizontal type when delivering body blows).
4. Prefers low kicks (although you can see him detailing high kicks in other books).
5. The preferred stance is the one employed by most boxers: high and at an angle.

My point here is that although Bruce espoused a "free" style, he himself is attempting to teach a person how to fight based on his own bias.

[jaymdubbs]

excellent post aml, but u forgot about the "oblique" kick with the rear leg. that is used WAY more than the spin kick. :D

[aml01_ph]

excellent post aml, but u forgot about the "oblique" kick with the rear leg. that is used WAY more than the spin kick. :D

What does it look like?

[LS]

well aml, it's tough because the JKD presence in PI is not a JKD presence AT ALL. The key is to train with a QUALIFIED, well reputed instructor. Not just certified but someone that can be attested to not just through his own skill and ability in getting points across but probably more important the skill and ability of his students.

[aml01_ph]

well aml, it's tough because the JKD presence in PI is not a JKD presence AT ALL. The key is to train with a QUALIFIED, well reputed instructor. Not just certified but someone that can be attested to not just through his own skill and ability in getting points across but probably more important the skill and ability of his students.

If you are refering to the Philippines as PI then you are dead right (I would prefer Phils. though, if we aren't talking about the same thing ignore what I said). The JKD presence here is at best doubtful. But that is not my point.

What I am saying is that this happens even if the instructor is "qualified" and "well-reputed." This is because even the founder of the style (or philosophy for those nitpickers) espoused a "free" attitude while contradicting himself.

The tactics he outlined in his books as used in JKD did not even have the desired results when used in the earlier UFC's and the URCC. It also gets worse when the people who employed these tactics where up against strikers themselves (the guy in the UFC was actually a JKD stylist, the one in URCC I think just looked like a Bruce Lee fan with what I judge to be the most minimum of training).

But it is funny that Lee had a brilliant excuse for this:

"My truth is not your truth."

[BryanX]

This is like the twilight zone... stop preaching directly from books and articles. Learn to think for yourselves people.

True.

Anyone can read books ON or BY Bruce Lee, you can read his philosophies, or you can even read and learn as many of Bruce's quotes there is. But thing thing is, after learning from the words of Bruce Lee, from then on, everything else is up to you. Don't try to be exactly like Bruce Lee. Don't fight or spar with your opponents in the same manner as Bruce, as you might have seen him doing in his movies, old footages, etc, etc... Afterall, there are some things Bruce is able to do that you might not be able to do.

"My truth is not your truth." - Bruce Lee

Thanks to aml_01_ph for bringing up that quote. :D

[aml01_ph]

BrianX, you have a very interesting sig, and is one of the reasons why I take anything Bruce Lee with a grain of salt.

Truth (or more importantly knowledge) can be organized. The way it has to be organized is to follow a pattern that reflects how much "truth" a person is willing to accept.

Fact is, is truth is generally subjective and because of this is extremely relative. That is why his saying "My truth is not yours" makes perfect sense.

[BryanX]

Truth (or more importantly knowledge) can be organized. The way it has to be organized is to follow a pattern that reflects how much "truth" a person is willing to accept.

Thanks.

On your first line on that paragraph, I think you mean CAN'T, not CAN. :D

[ap Oweyn]

I completely agree with you VagabondX that people find security in styles, but I personally dont feel that they find security in the style, more in the lack of application of the style. Alot of people aren't pressure tested or put under any kind of condition which causes them to feel any kind of emotions such as fear, stress and pressure.

Sometimes I think that the worst thing to happen to JKD is Bruce Lee...

Well said.

I think the importance of JKD theory tends to get buried under a pile of rhetoric about "expressing yourself", "finding yourself in combat", etc. Personally, I think that's partly attributable to the time. The late 60s and 70s. If JKD had been developed in the 80s or 90s, I suspect that language would be very different.

But I got sidetracked. I think your point about pressure testing is good. I don't think JKD has much to do with learning how to throw "your" jab (whatever that would mean). Instead, students are encouraged to pressure test everything, so that they know when and how to apply a jab (which is going to look essentially the same performed by many different people). You take ownership of a technique by successfully learning to apply it in a freeform environment. That's how it becomes "your" jab. Because by doing that, you know you can apply it. You know when you can't apply it. And the technique becomes something you own.


Stuart

[aml01_ph]

On your first line on that paragraph, I think you mean CAN'T, not CAN. :D

I meant "can" and I stand by what I said. That's why we have a mass school system and universities. Bruce Lee earned a degree (in Philosophy I think), and still managed to remark on how truth cannot be organized.

That's just one of the funny contradictions I find on the man.

[dustIn credible]

Just thought i'd throw this in. Everyone has condridictions, everyones a hypocritic. Weither or not they admit it or not is the difference between honesty(truth) and deception(untruth) of ones self. Honestly expressing yourself is the key. Weither the expression is hypocriticaly of what your originally speaking on or not doesnt matter. Controdictions(hypocriticism) is apart of the growth of a human as truth is reviled the falsehoods left behind will be what we call controdictions, i call growth from puberity to maturity in MA. Ive found truth in religion and mylife im finding it in the martial arts. Hope this makes sense.

"unless human being have 3 arms and 4 legs we will have a different style of fighting."-Bruce Lee


remember "le style, c'est l'homme" (the style is the man)

[BryanX]

Just thought i'd throw this in. Everyone has condridictions, everyones a hypocritic. Weither or not they admit it or not is the difference between honesty(truth) and deception(untruth) of ones self. Honestly expressing yourself is the key. Weither the expression is hypocriticaly of what your originally speaking on or not doesnt matter. Controdictions(hypocriticism) is apart of the growth of a human as truth is reviled the falsehoods left behind will be what we call controdictions, i call growth from puberity to maturity in MA. Ive found truth in religion and mylife im finding it in the martial arts. Hope this makes sense.

"unless human being have 3 arms and 4 legs we will have a different style of fighting."-Bruce Lee


remember "le style, c'est l'homme" (the style is the man)

Interesting concept. :cool:

[aml01_ph]

Just thought i'd throw this in. Everyone has condridictions, everyones a hypocritic. Weither or not they admit it or not is the difference between honesty(truth) and deception(untruth) of ones self. Honestly expressing yourself is the key. Weither the expression is hypocriticaly of what your originally speaking on or not doesnt matter. Controdictions(hypocriticism) is apart of the growth of a human as truth is reviled the falsehoods left behind will be what we call controdictions, i call growth from puberity to maturity in MA. Ive found truth in religion and mylife im finding it in the martial arts. Hope this makes sense.


Yes. But the problem, however (based on what he wrote), is that he is expressing his thoughts on martial arts in "should be done" manner. He does not even touch the subject of grappling on the ground.

Then he goes around and says "My truth is not yours." Pretty slick!

[ap Oweyn]

Yes. But the problem, however (based on what he wrote), is that he is expressing his thoughts on martial arts in "should be done" manner. He does not even touch the subject of grappling on the ground.

Then he goes around and says "My truth is not yours." Pretty slick!

Would it really be better if he added disclaimers to absolutely everything he wrote?

"I could be mistaken though." "Your mileage may vary." "That's just my opinion."

That's what most of us are required to do in order to avoid being flamed all the time. But I'm not convinced that it makes for very effective writing.

Everyone who goes on record as saying something has to face the fact that their views might change later. And that they might be flat-out wrong. But they take that risk. Otherwise, nobody would ever commit to any view at all.

I'll agree with you that Bruce Lee was brazen and in-your-face. And that, from a personality standpoint, I wouldn't have liked him very much. But that is a personality conflict. Not a judgment of his worth as a teacher or writer.


Stuart

[aml01_ph]

Would it really be better if he added disclaimers to absolutely everything he wrote?

"I could be mistaken though." "Your mileage may vary." "That's just my opinion."

That's what most of us are required to do in order to avoid being flamed all the time. But I'm not convinced that it makes for very effective writing.

Everyone who goes on record as saying something has to face the fact that their views might change later. And that they might be flat-out wrong. But they take that risk. Otherwise, nobody would ever commit to any view at all.

I'll agree with you that Bruce Lee was brazen and in-your-face. And that, from a personality standpoint, I wouldn't have liked him very much. But that is a personality conflict. Not a judgment of his worth as a teacher or writer.

I see your point. However, his "disclaimer" was made even back when his first book was published. Even in interviews, he would say something about his beliefs on MA and then say that it is juist his opinion.

The problem is that he taught his very own approach to MA to his students, taught this as ideal while at the evry same time saying that he is just "a finger pointing to the moon." He himself has fallen into the trap many TMA's have fallen.

[BryanX]

The last few posts has been very good. I love Katsu Jin for bringing up the "contradiction" thing. It goes well with religion too.

[YODA]

Yes. But the problem, however (based on what he wrote), is that he is expressing his thoughts on martial arts in "should be done" manner. He does not even touch the subject of grappling on the ground.

Then he goes around and says "My truth is not yours." Pretty slick!

The problem is that many of the things he is quoted as "saying" he never actually "said." They are just things that interested him enough that he wrote them down in his personal notes. These were then combined after his death into a "Book on JKD" - The Tao of Jeet Kune Do, which some mistakenly now take as some sort of "JKD Gospel according to Bruce."

[ap Oweyn]

I see your point. However, his "disclaimer" was made even back when his first book was published. Even in interviews, he would say something about his beliefs on MA and then say that it is juist his opinion.

I hear ya. But what's the alternative? Would you rather he posited it as doctrine? Or just not said anything at all? Because those are really the only two alternatives.

The problem is that he taught his very own approach to MA to his students, taught this as ideal while at the evry same time saying that he is just "a finger pointing to the moon." He himself has fallen into the trap many TMA's have fallen.

I don't see that. The trap that many TMAs fall into (according to JKD theory) is that they don't suggest that it's a question of opinion. And that they do emphasize the finger (style) over the moon (the reality of physical confrontation).


Stuart

[aml01_ph]

I hear ya. But what's the alternative? Would you rather he posited it as doctrine? Or just not said anything at all? Because those are really the only two alternatives.

The better alternative would be to be critical. Think for yourself and make sense of what he said. He actually taught quite a few tactics useful in the tournamnet scene.

I don't see that. The trap that many TMAs fall into (according to JKD theory) is that they don't suggest that it's a question of opinion. And that they do emphasize the finger (style) over the moon (the reality of physical confrontation).

The trap that I mentioned refers to the fact that TMA's are usually too rigid in their views concerning fighting methods. What is refered to as "the finger pointing to the moon" is that a teacher should just be a guide to the final form a novice will eventually take (something which makes perfect sense). There are actually some JKD schools in the States that market themeselves somewhat like as "how Bruce originally taught it."

[ap Oweyn]

The better alternative would be to be critical. Think for yourself and make sense of what he said. He actually taught quite a few tactics useful in the tournamnet scene.

Right. But that's something that we, as observers, need to do. Not something that he, as the speaker, could have done differently. And I think he'd agree with you whole heartedly that people should think critically about his views. And anyone elses. I certain agree with you.

The trap that I mentioned refers to the fact that TMA's are usually too rigid in their views concerning fighting methods. What is refered to as "the finger pointing to the moon" is that a teacher should just be a guide to the final form a novice will eventually take (something which makes perfect sense). There are actually some JKD schools in the States that market themeselves somewhat like as "how Bruce originally taught it."

I'm aware of such schools. And while I hadn't looked at the analogy that way specifically, it is after all just an analogy.

Yes, some schools are too rigid in their views on fighting methods. But all a person can do, if they're to say anything at all, is "here are my thoughts on the subject; yours may vary." And that's precisely what he said.


Stuart

[aml01_ph]

The problem is that many of the things he is quoted as "saying" he never actually "said." They are just things that interested him enough that he wrote them down in his personal notes.

If you wrote something in a diary or in a personal log, would that not count as something you said?

These were then combined after his death into a "Book on JKD" - The Tao of Jeet Kune Do, which some mistakenly now take as some sort of "JKD Gospel according to Bruce."

Well, we can't help it if some people diefy the man. I myself view the book as "JKD as what Bruce thought about it."

[ap Oweyn]

If you wrote something in a diary or in a personal log, would that not count as something you said?

Yes. But it wasn't written for public consumption. Who knows. Maybe he'd have reworded it. Maybe he wouldn't have published it at all.

[aml01_ph]

Yes. But it wasn't written for public consumption. Who knows. Maybe he'd have reworded it. Maybe he wouldn't have published it at all.

Perhaps. But the point here is that he wrote it. Which is also the equivalent of saying it (even if it's just to himself).

[Ad McG]

Then again, he could have changed his mind, or it could easily be misinterpreted, like any literature, especially when it is put together without the authors consent for whatever reason.

Whoever said he did no grappling needs to read more about JKD, maybe look at some stuff by larry hartsell or eric paulson.

[YODA]

Perhaps. But the point here is that he wrote it. Which is also the equivalent of saying it (even if it's just to himself).
Yesterday I sat and watched a video tape by Edgar Sulite on Lameco Eskrima. I took notes as I watched it - totalling about 8 pages.

If I died tomorrow and in 20 years someone published my notes as my guide to Eskrima, well - I hope you see what I'm getting at.

[aml01_ph]

This is the reason why we have to be critical:

Then again, he could have changed his mind, or it could easily be misinterpreted, like any literature, especially when it is put together without the authors consent for whatever reason.

If I died tomorrow and in 20 years someone published my notes as my guide to Eskrima, - well I hope you see what I am getting at.

I do actually. Unfortunately, your notes can still be counted as something from your own thoughts precisely because they are your notes.

Let's just hope somebody finds your better notes. :D

[ryangruhn]

I think one important thing to remember is that discarding what is useless has been happening through out the years and JKD was meant to evolve. When people read Lee's book and all of the sudden decide they study Jeet Kun Do, they are starting back from scratch and taking out all that has been added or taken away by Guru Inosanto and his instructors. In that case I feel that to study it you need to study under someone who has been awarded certified instructorship from Inosanto and/or one of his instructors.

Gruhn

[ap Oweyn]

Perhaps. But the point here is that he wrote it. Which is also the equivalent of saying it (even if it's just to himself).

I don't believe that is the point. I believe the point is that he's held accountable for notes he took while trying to work something out. And then he died. No more chances to revise that idea. And a high profile, meaning that people want to know your every thought. It's us, the fans, that decided to take that as some sort of doctrine. That fault lies with us. Not him.

I mean, what would you have done differently in his shoes? Not taken personal notes, for fear that a well-meaning friend or loved one might publish them when you died and an obsessed fanbase might take it as truth?

Think about everything you've written down over the years. Would you really want to be held accountable for all of it?

Things evolve. Something written is permanent in some sense. But it marks a point on an evolution. An evolution that regrettably ends when you die. That's not the fault of the guy who died. It's the fault of the reader who fails to recognize this fairly obvious truth.


Stuart

[aml01_ph]

I don't believe that is the point. I believe the point is that he's held accountable for notes he took while trying to work something out.

You got a bit sidetracked. The point is that he wrote something, which means the same thing as saying it. This is why he is responsible for his published ideas (even if they may have been doen withgout his consent).

And then he died. No more chances to revise that idea. And a high profile, meaning that people want to know your every thought.
Yes, it is unfortunate that he died. But that does not mean he is not responsible. Marx is dead, but look at how his ideas changed the world posthumously.

It's us, the fans, that decided to take that as some sort of doctrine. That fault lies with us. Not him.

This is why I have said that we have to be critical.

I mean, what would you have done differently in his shoes? Not taken personal notes, for fear that a well-meaning friend or loved one might publish them when you died and an obsessed fanbase might take it as truth?

Maybe just go along as he did. I'm no psychic so I cannot predict the long reaching effects of whatever I write. But I bear a responsibility on whatever I write and get credited for. If someone should prove me wrong about it, then I am wrong about it.

Think about everything you've written down over the years. Would you really want to be held accountable for all of it?

Actually no. But since I wrote them and they were my ideas, I am responsible for them. Of course, if I am proven wrong then I cannot in good conscience stand by an idea that has been proven to be erroneous. That is why I made this remark to Yoda:

Let's just hope that somebody finds your better notes. :D

Things evolve. Something written is permanent in some sense. But it marks a point on an evolution. An evolution that regrettably ends when you die.

Ideas do not necessarily die when the person who formulated them does. This is why ideas can be very dangerous. Marx and Engels are both responsible for the communist idealogy just as Hiltler is responsible for the existence of neo-nazis. It is just very well that in the MA world, critical people still exist that really think about the merits of a particular idea.

[Andy Murray]

Yesterday I sat and watched a video tape by Edgar Sulite on Lameco Eskrima. I took notes as I watched it - totalling about 8 pages.

If I died tomorrow and in 20 years someone published my notes as my guide to Eskrima, well - I hope you see what I'm getting at.

*Memo to self....

Pinch Yoda's notebook as soon as possible.

The royalties could keep me going for a long time once his clogs have popped! :p

[aml01_ph]

*Memo to self....

Pinch Yoda's notebook as soon as possible.

The royalties could keep me going for a long time once his clogs have popped! :p

That could be a long time. Sure you're up for the distance?

[ap Oweyn]

You got a bit sidetracked. The point is that he wrote something, which means the same thing as saying it. This is why he is responsible for his published ideas (even if they may have been doen withgout his consent).

We'll have to agree to disagree. Yes he said those things. But he said them, essentially, to himself. Wouldn't it make more sense to hold the publishers accountable? The people who made the decision to put those personal thoughts into the public domain?

Regardless, I don't really see the utility in placing the responsibility on a dead guy. How, precisely, does that rectify the problem of people taking his words as doctrine? He can't take them back. He can't revise his thoughts for the public. He's dead.

Yes, it is unfortunate that he died. But that does not mean he is not responsible. Marx is dead, but look at how his ideas changed the world posthumously.

The question isn't whether those words have an effect. It's clear in both cases that they do. The question is whether there's any practical point in holding Bruce Lee accountable. Again, he's dead. So there's nothing he can do about it. Does it really make sense to put the onus on him instead of us?

This is why I have said that we have to be critical.

And I agree. But that's our responsibility.

Maybe just go along as he did. I'm no psychic so I cannot predict the long reaching effects of whatever I write. But I bear a responsibility on whatever I write and get credited for. If someone should prove me wrong about it, then I am wrong about it.

Actually no. But since I wrote them and they were my ideas, I am responsible for them. Of course, if I am proven wrong then I cannot in good conscience stand by an idea that has been proven to be erroneous.

I guess I'm unclear on the practical application of your problem. Do you want it held on the public record that he was wrong about things?

Ideas do not necessarily die when the person who formulated them does. This is why ideas can be very dangerous. Marx and Engels are both responsible for the communist idealogy just as Hiltler is responsible for the existence of neo-nazis. It is just very well that in the MA world, critical people still exist that really think about the merits of a particular idea.

I'd like to think I'm one of those people. But the thing about critical thinking is that you test ideas. Any hypothesis you make along the way might be wrong. But that's how you learn.

To hold a dead man accountable for his hypotheses when he lost the opportunity to further work on them doesn't seem to serve the cause of critical thinking. To my mind, it discourages critical thinking. Lest we all be held accountable for every misstep we take while we're learning.

They were personal notes. Simple as that. I wrote papers in college espousing views that I no longer hold. I don't particularly want to be viewed as still believing those things. Because my ideas changed. As I'm still breathing, I get the opportunity to revise those ideas. Because he didn't, he somehow gets trapped in amber.

I agree with you that public statements hold more accountability. He knew that he was being viewed by the public. He knew they were listening to him. But when he's scribbling furiously in a notebook in his own living room, he's got no reason to presume that the public's going to be buying his words off the shelf thirty years later.


Stuart

[BryanX]

But the thing about critical thinking is that you test ideas. Any hypothesis you make along the way might be wrong. But that's how you learn.

BULLSEYE!

I agree 100%! :cool:

[jaymdubbs]

man this is getting confusing........


i thought a jkd man kept things simple........


words of wisdom for everyone- dont lie to yourself

[ap Oweyn]

Simplicity is a great ideal. But like all ideals, people struggle with it.