Is martial arts for fighting or for evolving to a higher being?

[Happeh]

Martial arts always attract young men. They are who protects the tribe in times of danger. In peaceful times, martial arts also attract people who are violence prone. They may be criminals or people with a mental need to do violence.

These men present a problem for a peaceful society. The society has no need for violence, yet these men have a need for it. What does the society do? The society could cage the men up. That is bad for the men and bad for society. The society can put the men to work so they work off the energy of violence. That can and does happen. There are still those violent men who are intent on being violent. What does society do with them?

How about if these men are changed so that they are no longer violent? In the west that is sometimes done with chemicals or surgery? That is very bad. To force surgery or chemicals on someone is evil.

But what if you can change these men so that they become nicer? With less of a need to do violence? That sounds good, doesn't it? The violent men, if you asked them, probably don't want to be violent. They cannot stop themselves.

What if martial arts is how society changes these violent men? The violent men think they are learning to fight. And they are. They are more dangerous and they are better able to protect the tribe in times of danger. Simultaneously though, the martial art is changing the violent man. The martial art eventually forces the man, he has no choice, into being a more peaceful person.

Would this be a good or bad thing? The man is more peaceful and can coexist with his neighbors now. Before he would scare the neighbors, intimidate them, make them uncomfortable.

The violent men can say that they have been changed without their knowledge. This is true. Society has tricked the men into becoming different. Is it a bad thing? Tricking someone is bad. But the men are nicer men, they fit into society now and that is good. How can a person decide which idea is more right or more wrong?

What if the martial arts are not about teaching people to fight?

What if the martial arts are designed to take an unevolved, probably violent person who is closer to an animal than to a human, and turns him into a highly evolved person?

Would you be angry if you learned that you had spent all your time learning how to fight, only to discover that instead you had moved from being a low thinking animal human up into the ranks of a fully thinking, fully evolved human being? With all the attendent abilities that come with attaining that goal?

Oh yeah. Not all martial arts will do this. Some martial arts are designed to turn people into psychopathic killers. I don't mean fighting ability. I mean mentally, all the time, thinking they want to kill anyone who gets in their way. That is why it is important to understand exactly what you are getting into when you decide to train in a particular style.

[acrawford]

Hey man could you at least share whatever it is that you are smoking.

[Albert]

Well, obviously if you could turn deranged psychopaths into peaceful humans through tricking them, its not a question of tricking being rite or wrong. The wrongfullness of tricking doesnt matter in the slightest. And as far as martial-arts turning people into killers, its an intended mind state for self preservation when being attacked, the thought that if someone tries to hurt you, you have every rite to stop them from doing so, with any means neccesary. :woo:

[Matt_Bernius]

Look class, repeat after me:

Martial arts are for fighting. In particular they are for helping little people succeed in potentially violent confrontations with larger, stronger people.

That's it. It's that simple. They're not about:
- self discovery
- philosophy
- self actualization
- spirituality

These things often happen as a by product of the study. But they are not the core reason for the arts existance. Any attempt to refocus the purpose of the arts to any of these effective changes what you are doing and it no longer is a martial art.

As far as using the arts to improve people, you hope that they do but don't expect it. Just because one is a good martial artist doesn't make them a good person. It's sad, but true.

- Matt

[Adam]

Look class, repeat after me: Martial arts are for whatever the hell you make of them, be it fighting, spiritual enlightenment, fitness, religious worship of your god Royce Gracie or a hardcore way of chopping firewood without an axe.

Personally, I think they're about hard fighting, sweaty workouts and improving your character through said fighting and sweaty workouts, but if somebody believes martial arts are about communing with animal spirits or becoming one with the multiverse, who am I to argue?

I will however argue when people start saying that communing with animal spirits will make them able to defeat a UFC fighter...

[Matt_Bernius]

Look class, repeat after me: Martial arts are for whatever the hell you make of them, be it fighting, spiritual enlightenment, fitness, religious worship of your god Royce Gracie or a hardcore way of chopping firewood without an axe.We'll ave to agree to disagree rather than starting up the old "what exactly are the martial arts." We all know where that one leads.

- Matt

[Princess]

Is martial arts for fighting or for evolving to a higher being?


I believe martial arts is for fighting, defensing, sense of body harmony AND evolving to a higher being.

[Vanir]

Hmm....
Martial arts always attract young men.
I say women attract men, regardless of their age.
They are who protects the tribe in times of danger.
Contemporary civilization does not consist of "tribes." It does however contain "sub-cultures." They do not require protection from predators (for lone individuals, occasionally it can be the other way around).
In peaceful times, martial arts also attract people who are violence prone.
Outside of "war time" or military service individuals whom are prone to experience violence may be understandably attracted to martial arts. This is reasonable, since martial arts contain a premise of defeating a generally overwhelming threat which is presented to one incontravertably.
They may be criminals or people with a mental need to do violence.
To my (marked) experience criminals do not tend to learn martial arts. They do however tend to learn striking and other combative techniques by sheer experience. What they learn by far, the most of is psychological intimidation. They also lie a lot, especially about things like combat capability. Don't underestimate them yes, don't believe them either.
People whom find a need to outlet violence upon others even more rarely accomplish what anyone could describe as martial prowess. They are rarely tolerated in dojos, are often aggressively anti-social (as opposed to passively anti-social, which I myself probably am at times) and act upon selective victimisation, often targeting weaker/vulnerable individuals. They're stupid, annoying and can seem powerful to one who is subject to them without recourse or escape, and often rely upon a warped sense of moralistic interpretation (self justification) for their primary strength. In a word they go down at the first real punch.
These men present a problem for a peaceful society.
Society has quite a variety of issues for successive concern. Welfare and circumstantially facilitative concerns are also among the primary.
The society has no need for violence, yet these men have a need for it. What does the society do? The society could cage the men up. That is bad for the men and bad for society. The society can put the men to work so they work off the energy of violence. That can and does happen. There are still those violent men who are intent on being violent. What does society do with them?
Of those concerns, you appear to be most attuned with those regarding violence. Have you considered security work, policing or law?
How about if these men are changed so that they are no longer violent?
This is a misnomer. You cannot "change" individuals from being violent nor anything else, you can only alter their circumstances so that violence is either retarded, misplaced, entirely unnecessary or no longer presents itself to be expressed. This may be done chemically or authoritariatively, however neither solves the underlying issue which created the problem in the first place, hence either only seeks to "treat the symptoms."
Some of the manners in which to treat the causes of violence are:
Providing alternative living arrangements for abused minors.
Increased welfare support services at an individual and democratic level.
Slowly enlightening social attitudes to the circumstances of individual hardship.
Preserving individual/democratic rights at all levels of income, employment and citizenship as the very premise of an effective governing system.
Logical and intelligent, successively contemporary laws dealing with domestic and encounterable violence, including those regarding self defence and frequent, common perceptions of "self righteous action."
And many others.
But what if you can change these men so that they become nicer? With less of a need to do violence? That sounds good, doesn't it? The violent men, if you asked them, probably don't want to be violent. They cannot stop themselves.
I find the conclusion here usupported by the forerunning (hypo)thesis. You should provide arguments to support an assertion which concludes a forwarding (leading) statement. They cannot stop themselves how? Their synapsis no longer transmit nerve information? How? Why? What is the breadth of the experimentation? What was the size of the control body? What were the falsifiable conclusions of your study? Do you have testable results?
The truth is your intuition is probably right. People do not wish to be violent. One solution: make them happy? Take them out of their homelessness, poverty, social extrication, female deprivation. Problem is some people are apparently made happy by unrealistic establishments. Sex with minors. Experiencing the death of others, etc. I assume these are those to whom you are referring, however they are cause for little of the total breadth of violence, especially generally encounterable violence within society.
Mostly, if you're not complacent and can handle yourself you probably won't fall victim to an uncontrollable mass murderer. Chances are you'll never meet one nor even a person whom could have such tendancy. But you might get bashed by a frustrated tradesman tomorrow, or mugged by the children of a welfare dependant family next week.
What if martial arts is how society changes these violent men? The violent men think they are learning to fight. And they are. They are more dangerous and they are better able to protect the tribe in times of danger. Simultaneously though, the martial art is changing the violent man. The martial art eventually forces the man, he has no choice, into being a more peaceful person.
An interesting hypothesis. It would also however, be a bland statement that martial arts are a series of cults and their interests: religious, their methods: psychological. Also that martial arts are invitations/destinations for violently disposed individuals (for whatever reasons).
The reason why such a thing is illegal is the flipside. Totalitarianism is an undemocratic state, by its very nature it challenges democratic rights and this cannot be established without erasing them from their intended use. In other words, it is wrong to use psychological manipulation even if you justify it to yourself. It is also still illegal to kill or rob even if you justify it to yourself. It is unfortunate that younger people (except in rare cases) cannot hope to have the standing experience to realize just how valid and life altering psychological manipulation can be. Certainly a variety of institutional and community religions do and cases of cultism and fundamentalist predation have found themselves a constant throughout human history to the present day.
It has been stated many times, by several masters that martial arts are not religions. Martial artists however, are religious at their own discretion.
Would this be a good or bad thing?
It would be an illegal thing. Also it is unproductive to the continuing development of democracy.
I believe martial arts is for fighting, defensing, sense of body harmony AND evolving to a higher being.
I suspect Princess here finds EVERYTHING evolves one to a higher being. Come out for a drink with me sometime, evolve me ;) :love:

[Colin Linz]

If you are studying a form of budo then you are studying a way to stop conflict. In this case self development and philosophy are just as important as fighting ability. If you’re studying bujutsu then you are studying a fighting system.

After 16 years of studying a form of budo and training with people from all over the world, I can confidently say that the premise that criminals and violent people are the main customer base for budo is totally incorrect.

There have been studies on martial arts students in America that show that they have in general a low level of intelligence and a lack of self-esteem. This is not reflected in Asia where the general participants are well-educated professional people. I think this reflects the commerciality of martial arts in the west, and the popularity of the McDojo. It is no accident that the vast majority of Shorinji Kempo branches are university branches, and I’m sure that you would find a similar thing with the other traditional forms of budo.

[Matt_Bernius]

There have been studies on martial arts students in America that show that they have in general a low level of intelligence and a lack of self-esteem....
Whoa there buckaroo, can you point us to one of those surveys/studies?

If not, please retract that. Because it's one of the more absurd and offensive things I've read around here in a while (especially with the connotation of the rest of the paragraph). While I'm not a member of Joe's Karate down the street, I've meet very intellegent people who study in schools that many might classify as "Mc Dojos." Further I know a LOT of professional schools and students that are amoung the best and brightest people I've ever encountered. And I've personally been involved with one university program (and observed another) that I count amoung the worst instruction that I've experenced.

- Matt

[Colin Linz]

Sorry, I mean no offence. I will try to find the article and post a link to it. I read it about two years ago, and I think it may have been on the Furyu budo jorurnal, or a Dave Lowry article.

The article didn’t reflect my experiences with the arts I have studied; however I have only studied in Australia and Japan, and then only in a few systems.

[aikiMac]

In peaceful times, martial arts also attract people who are violence prone. They may be criminals or people with a mental need to do violence.
Huh? That's so not true. Martial arts do not attract people who are violence prone.


But what if you can change these men so that they become nicer? With less of a need to do violence? That sounds good, doesn't it? The violent men, if you asked them, probably don't want to be violent. They cannot stop themselves. What if martial arts is how society changes these violent men?
Religion is how you change violent men. There is, at times, a religious component in martial arts, but more often there's not.


What if the martial arts are not about teaching people to fight?
Martial arts is and always was about teaching people to fight. For some of the arts, it's about fighting someone else (i.e., me against you). For some of the arts, it's about fighting yourself (i.e., me against me, trying to cut away my evil tendencies). Either way it's about fighting.


Some martial arts are designed to turn people into psychopathic killers. I don't mean fighting ability. I mean mentally, all the time, thinking they want to kill anyone who gets in their way.
That's so not true!

[Albert]

Religion changes violent men? yah, into more violent men. what a joke..

[Albert]

lol. there you go again vanir.. your insane dude. :D

[Matt_Bernius]

Sorry, I mean no offence. I will try to find the article and post a link to it. I read it about two years ago, and I think it may have been on the Furyu budo jorurnal, or a Dave Lowry article.

The article didn’t reflect my experiences with the arts I have studied; however I have only studied in Australia and Japan, and then only in a few systems.

It's no problem Colin. It's just that was a rather inflamitory statement and I always want to see where data like that is coming from.

- Matt

[Koryo]

Martial arts were designed for fighting. When they originally evolved in whatever culture at whatever time they did so as a means of either protection or aggression. Some of them helped with character building, some had a spiritual/philosophical side but these were only by-products of the original purpose...combat.

[Nrv4evr]

miyagi: "no such thing as bad student. only bad teacher."

if you want to blame psychopathic killers, or any criminal for that matter, put partial blame on their parents or role models. if people are just born bad, then there's probably a hormone inbalance or something. but normal, everyday people don't choose to be bad; they are taught.

[Happeh]

Look class, repeat after me:

Martial arts are for fighting. In particular they are for helping little people succeed in potentially violent confrontations with larger, stronger people.

That's it. It's that simple. They're not about:
- self discovery
- philosophy
- self actualization
- spirituality

These things often happen as a by product of the study. But they are not the core reason for the arts existance. Any attempt to refocus the purpose of the arts to any of these effective changes what you are doing and it no longer is a martial art.

As far as using the arts to improve people, you hope that they do but don't expect it. Just because one is a good martial artist doesn't make them a good person. It's sad, but true.

- Matt

You seem very certain of your position. Is that from being a New Yorker? ;)

I disagree with you. I would guess that you do not really know what martial arts are about. Yes they are for fighting. I agree.

They can also be a trick to make people evolve.

As for martial arts not improving people except by accident, again I must disagree with you. Your statement tells me you do not truly understand kung fu.

[Happeh]

"Contemporary civilization does not consist of "tribes." It does however contain "sub-cultures." They do not require protection from predators (for lone individuals, occasionally it can be the other way around)."

I like this. A person who thinks. I disagree with your statement about contemporary civilization. People like to believe that technology has changed human beings. That is not true. Human beings have been and always will be animals. When there is a big disaster, then you see civilized human beings instantly revert to tribal ways. I would also argue that the gang behavior of black and hispanic peoples is an example of tribal behavior.

[Happeh]

To my (marked) experience criminals do not tend to learn martial arts.

People whom find a need to outlet violence upon others even more rarely accomplish what anyone could describe as martial prowess. They are rarely tolerated in dojos, are often aggressively anti-social (as opposed to passively anti-social, which I myself probably am at times) and act upon selective victimisation, often targeting weaker/vulnerable individuals. They're stupid, annoying and can seem powerful to one who is subject to them without recourse or escape, and often rely upon a warped sense of moralistic interpretation (self justification) for their primary strength. In a word they go down at the first real punch."


This is all very interesting. To me it shows that I do have something to offer people here.

What you describe is what I view as "play" martial arts. Lots of people, the majority actually, learn "play" martial arts. They go to the school for a confidence boost or an egotistical reason. The instructor takes their money and pats them on the head and assures them they can kick booty.

Most can't

I am not basing my opinion on conjecture or experience in "play" martial arts. I know for a fact that criminals train martial arts. I know for a fact that psychopaths can and do train martial arts. As for them not being tolerated in most dojos, I think you have not completely thought thru the idea.

What if the dojo is a dojo full of psycopaths? They are all alike so why would they throw out a fellow psychopath?

[Happeh]

This is a misnomer. You cannot "change" individuals from being violent nor anything else, "

I never understand how people can be so certain of something that is wrong. You are wrong. Martial arts can change a person from being violent or into being violent.


I didn't address the rest of your post. I think you got lost and started thinking out loud.

Thanks for all the interesting questions and thoughts.

[Happeh]

After 16 years of studying a form of budo and training with people from all over the world, I can confidently say that the premise that criminals and violent people are the main customer base for budo is totally incorrect."

Did I say that? I hope not. I am presenting one idea that can apply to the reason for Martial Arts. That they can be used to change people with violent and criminal tendencies. Not that they are the main consumers of martial arts.

[Happeh]

[QUOTE=aikiMac]Huh? That's so not true. Martial arts do not attract people who are violence prone. "

Please think carefully before you jump up and express your thoughts. Let me ask you a question. How many martial arts schools have you been in? Logically, I would guess you have not been to every school in the world. Logically, that means that you do not know for a fact that martial arts do not attract people who are violent prone.

On the other hand, I only have to show one school with one violent prone person to prove my point. Martial Arts is about thinking carefully. Thinking sloppy usually means the person throws sloppy punches.

"Religion is how you change violent men. There is, at times, a religious component in martial arts, but more often there's not."

That is true. Martial arts can also be used to change violent men.



"Martial arts is and always was about teaching people to fight. For some of the arts, it's about fighting someone else (i.e., me against you). For some of the arts, it's about fighting yourself (i.e., me against me, trying to cut away my evil tendencies). Either way it's about fighting. "

I suppose if you want to think this way you can. It is my position that the purpose of martial arts is to make a human being evolve into a higher person. That is the original intent waaaay back when it was invented.

I want you to think about something. You say that martial arts is about fighting. Do you know that the way you think and the vocabulary you use to express your thoughts affect your daily physical life?

For instance. You say martial arts is about fighting. So when you go to martial arts class, how do you feel? For most people, when they think about the word "fight", they get tense, they sweat, they get butterflies in the stomach.

None of that sounds good does it? How can you fight or train effectively if you are nervous or tense or your belly hurts?

On the other hand, let's choose another word. Let's use the word "Play".

Instead of martial arts fighting, we are playing martial arts. How does the word "play" make you feel? When I play I have fun, I feel good, I am Happeh! If I want to practice with a person, I am relaxed and having a good time. I can watch them and react to them because I can still think.

On the other hand, if I was thinking fighting, I would be nervous, I would be tense. My eyes might go squinty so I had a hard time watching the opponent. My legs might get tense and I would have a hard time dodging. My belly might hurt so I couldn't move fast.

Interesting concept isn't it?

Would you rather fight or play? Me? I like to play ;)

[snake_vs_crane]

Martial arts are for fighting, certainly they can be other things too but does that effect their nature as a martial art? no. The sole prerequisite to classify something as a martial art is that it is an art of combat, this can be further narrowed down to hand to hand combat as a popular defenition, but not nessicarily, consequently the one thing any and every martial art has in common is the combative aspect.

[Vanir]

I like this. A person who thinks. I disagree with your statement about contemporary civilization. People like to believe that technology has changed human beings. That is not true. Human beings have been and always will be animals. When there is a big disaster, then you see civilized human beings instantly revert to tribal ways. I would also argue that the gang behavior of black and hispanic peoples is an example of tribal behavior.
No, tribal behavior is the contemporary name we gave Neolithic and Prehistoric anthropological social organization, retrospectively. This is a very important distinction, it was retrospective. Go back there, you will find it was simply subcultural. We did not evolve within the development of technologies and civilization, you are quite right. But this is the key: tribal cultures were/are not de-evolved from where or whom we are. Tribal organization as an institution of government is a political reversion, not an anthropological one.
People do not "revert to tribal ways" in times of great stress, they react psychoactively, like they always did, often out of typical character. Subcultural tendancies are a constant and hardly require times of great stress, but it is a mistake to call "gangland behavior" tribal in any more than colourful context (ie. representation not designed to be technically correct).
My statement was accurate.
What you describe is what I view as "play" martial arts.
Apparently that is what you pictured. It is not at all what I had in mind. I assure you I do not "play" where something like the application of martial arts is concerned.
I know for a fact that criminals train martial arts. I know for a fact that psychopaths can and do train martial arts.
Never seen it myself, and I started on the streets as a teen. I live in a rooming house twenty years later. I've had crims and psychos comin' out my arse for decades. After decades I learned: the whole time, they were full of $hit.
I did train heavily in martial arts, going to the most combat orientated I could find presented, successively. My interests were both necessitated and palaeoanthropological. But I was never a crim nor a psychopath. Never saw any of those in any of these dojos either. One would have to use the term pretty loosely to describe where I did see them as "martial arts dojos."
It is true that one would be surprised to discover the familiarity "crims and psychos" have with standard and even impressive kicks and striking techniques (hardly what I'd call the body of martial arts).
As an aside, I have had habitual criminals refer to me as a psychopath. And psychopaths tell me I looked to them like a crim. Their claims are unsupported by factual evidence however.
But I can appreciate, as a school-leaver/youth most crims and psychopaths seem like martial arts gods. They seemed of overwhelming combat prowess to me then too. They're not at all, but you shouldn't mess with them either way, because of their hardship.
I never understand how people can be so certain of something that is wrong. You are wrong. Martial arts can change a person from being violent or into being violent.
You haven't heard the joke about the light-bulb wanting to change, have you?
There is no evidence whatsoever to support a claim that human behavior is anything other than completely elective. That particular environments or given circumstances can make certain behaviors unrealistic is elementary. It is where some majority of violent acts/demeanors are to be found.
That particular individuals are prone to violence is an incomplete scientific statement. Prone under what circumstances? What was the methodology of the experimentation, size of the control group, testable results, falsifiable conclusions of the experimentation,etc.?
People may be certain of something you decide is wrong because that is the initial standing of the situation and you have failed to provide corroberative evidence to your claims (or those similar of anyone in the martial arts community) to the contrary.
Is a reputable martial arts dojo in a violent area a good idea? Probably. Is this an effective strategy aiming at the roots of violence within communities? No more than a $2 pack of cough drops for a bad case of the flu.
I didn't address the rest of your post. I think you got lost and started thinking out loud.
Everybody thinks out loud when communicating. It's known as communication. Your position in this seems untrusting. You have reason to feel you should conceal what you may "actually" think and so assume that others do also? Curious.

[chapskins]

Look class, repeat after me:

Martial arts are for fighting. In particular they are for helping little people succeed in potentially violent confrontations with larger, stronger people.

That's it. It's that simple. They're not about:
- self discovery
- philosophy
- self actualization
- spirituality

These things often happen as a by product of the study. But they are not the core reason for the arts existance. Any attempt to refocus the purpose of the arts to any of these effective changes what you are doing and it no longer is a martial art.

As far as using the arts to improve people, you hope that they do but don't expect it. Just because one is a good martial artist doesn't make them a good person. It's sad, but true.

- Matt



u can veiw M A'S on many many levels, sure on the basic level just fighting, movements shapes, an outline, but the deeper you look, the more u penetrate, the more u will realise with a still, inquireing mind, the self desolves, take tai chi for an instance, their is outward movement but inside, stillness, when the mind is still where is the fighter?????


u see, using a very bad term, the ultimate of M A'S is to STOP FIGHTING, it's only the u that is fighting, self, desolve the self and their is no fighting, then like the guy who posted this thread is trying to put across, their would'nt be any fighting, u see????


saying that M A's have nothing to do with anything else other than simply fighting is a rather limited veiw, it's only ourselves that cause this limitation but that on the flipside end the limitaion, not trying to browe beat you, just showing u a different veiw than what many have........


but relativly speaking their are right veiws and their are wrong veiws but if we look more deeply with a quitetning mind we see that all veiws are wrong veiws, no veiw can ever be the truth, it's just from one point, thats why we call it a point of veiw,if we go to another point we will see things in a different way,thats why we call it a point of view, like the fighter who fight's, again with a quiet mind their is no fighter, cease the fighting stop the wheel from turning

[Nimrook]

I understand that some people see martial arts as a way of "discovering one's self" or something along those lines.

Personally, I think that is a nice dream, but still a dream. To me MA's are about fighting, pure, simple, realistic. They are about self discipline, and learning to inflict pain upon someone else, incase the need arises. Thats it, no "chi", no "ki", no philosophy, no games. Just the fist and the target.

[cxw]

MA allows people to release their aggresion in a relatively safe way. I really enjoyed the movie Fight Club, to me it made the following valid points:
- At the end of the day, we're animals. Ok, we're smarter than average, but we still have the same basic instinces
- Society discourages violience for social harmony and to control the masses

Fighting based MA's (supposedly for psycopaths?!) such as Muay Thai, boxing, MMA give it's practioners the following:
- Self-discipline
- An understanding of the true dangers of fighting
- Stress relief

IMHO 99.99% of people who train don't want to be street fighters. Criminals problems exist due to sexual abuse, drugs, unemployment, poverty etc. To blame it on boxing etc is pure ignorance.

The biggest problem with this higher being stuff is the way McDojo's abuse this. The more mysticism and "philosophy" that is shown to the students - the harder it is for the student to logically and critically assess the validity of the system they are being taught. A bit like a lot of religious organisations.

[oneninja]

I think that originally martial arts were a way of life,a philosophy and perhaps a religion.Yes the arts enable you to fight but I believe they were originally designed for excersize and self defense purpose. However since men are basically violent I believe we may have turned these arts into fighting instead of self protection.Also as far as self discipline and self respect I think the martial arts are a great way to learn each of these things.When I started studying ninjutsu around 1965 the arts were much more respected,I think today because of the buy a belt schools and a general lack of respect for these arts, things are going down hill,that isnt to say there are not good schools out there.I think perhaps people should be very cautious when choosing a school.Also like anything else there are bad examples of martial artists. I believe a good martial arts school will teach you disipline,self respect,and how to defend yourself and others not just how to fight.

[Happeh]

I disagree with your statement that tribal does not apply to todays world or that it does not show itself in emergencies.

I would bet you money that if you set up a study that put people from varous ethnic groups in the same room, then had an emergency, I would bet you money that the people would separate out into groups of ethnically the same people. Yes there will be some group crossover. Mostly it will be black with black, white with white, asian with asian and hispanic with hispanic. I have seen this happen before.

[Happeh]

"Everybody thinks out loud when communicating. It's known as communication. Your position in this seems untrusting. You have reason to feel you should conceal what you may "actually" think and so assume that others do also? Curious."

Don't take this personally. I really do not like whoever trained you to talk like this. I have seen this before. In my opinion it is a trick to put people off guard. When I saw it used, the people using this method of speech would talk like you do, endlessly about these esoteric ideas using this huge vocabulary. When they finished they invariably held out there hand and said "pay me now". And the people did.

What happens is that the victim is so bamboozled by listening for 1/2 hour of big words and ideas that he goes to sleep. He becomes hypnotized. When the guy asks for money, the victim gives it to him because he is hypnotized.

I literally run from people that talk like that. It is contagious and will make your brain turn to pudding.

If you can be more straightforward in your speech. Perhaps make your point in smaller words in smaller sentences, I will try to answer you. I will not "eat poison", what I consider your style of speech to be, simply to be polite.

[Happeh]

Hi nimrook. You are wrong. But then maybe we should be more precise about what we describe as martial arts.

If your definition of martial arts is fighting only, then you are right.

If my definition of martial arts is a system of behaviour that takes a human being and turns him into a higher human being, then you are wrong.

We need to agree on the definition first. If we agree with your definition, then I am wrong. We need a different word to describe what one of us is talking about so we can seperate the two ideas.

You are wrong about Chi to. There is such a thing. You are wrong about philosophy, there is such a thing and you are wrong about games.

;)

[Happeh]

One ninja knows what I am talking about. A way of life meant to change an average person into a superior person. That is what martial arts are about.

In todays world, martial arts has degenerated into being about fighting only. It is not the fault of people that they think it is fighting only. That is what they have been told.

Good post one ninja.

[Vanir]

I disagree with your statement
Science doesn't care in the slightest who agrees nor disagrees with it. It is based in falsiable conclusions formed of testable hypothesis. Therefore in the absence of testable results from experimentation it is a simple observation that existing facts must stand. Quite often individual scientists may suspect otherwise, however there is ethic and human fallacy to consider.
In other words, being considerate means one may not always completely agree with what they themselves must say to remain accurate.

If you wish to make assertions regarding human behavior, as fact you should provide acceptable references. It's good scientific process. Some facts are well known in terms of acceptable reference (humans typically have two eyes, a nose and a mouth).
I would bet you money that if you set up a study that put people from varous ethnic groups in the same room, then had an emergency, I would bet you money that the people would separate out into groups of ethnically the same people. Yes there will be some group crossover. Mostly it will be black with black, white with white, asian with asian and hispanic with hispanic. I have seen this happen before.
It is perfectly reasonable for a scientific mind to make such a hypothesis. However for this to become an assertion you would then need to provide testable results from appropriate experimentation. "I bet you any money" is not a falsifiable conclusion, it's already falsified. "I've seen this before" is not a testable result. Is it a reproducable result? Was there a control body involved in the experimentation? That humans will organise into cultural groups under stress is (at this time, here) an unsupported claim. If you're interested in the genre, please, Google-search "anthropology" and have a browse. I'm sure you'll come back telling me a thing or two. See if any studies have been made to support your intuition/personal observations.
Don't take this personally. I really do not like whoever trained you to talk like this. I have seen this before. In my opinion it is a trick to put people off guard.
The clinical term for this outlook is paranoia. I assure you I have no ill intentions whatsoever.
At this point I am somewhat, genuinely concerned for your well-being. Please don't go through life thinking people are "trained" by others to conspiratorial ends. It is comparitively, an exceedingly rare occurance typical of cult-like individual circumstances or similar, which I have at no time been trapped within. Intellectual development is a good, and cannot be a bad thing. It is very important to understand this.
Hi nimrook. You are wrong.
I say this only out of my, aforementioned genuine concern. If you please, from reading your posts it can be understood that the words you mean to use here are more like, "You are wrong in what you are saying." But you must understand that clipped statements like, "You are wrong" are hard to take for people. Unnecessarily shortening your sentences, in this case is more misleading to your perfectly reasonable intentions than succinct.
What happens is that the victim is so bamboozled by listening for 1/2 hour of big words and ideas that he goes to sleep. He becomes hypnotized. When the guy asks for money, the victim gives it to him because he is hypnotized.
Life lessons include: complacency. You may have to exercise your intellectual mind to maintain healthy social interactions. But just like physical exercise it means work: looking things up, figuring things out based in information from reputable sources, listening to documentaries every now and then.
If your primary contact with the scientific element of human population is the news and media then you will certainly become complacent. A lot of it's just marketing and political psychology. Gearing conversations to keep you interested/excited is far more manipulative than extensive use of the English language.

Since this may be of concern to you, let me help with some strategy for similar occasions, when you consider that a person speaking to you is attempting to bamboozle you with language use:
Stick with the parts of the conversation you follow. When you can't follow what's being said, ask them to put it another way if possible, or if in a seminar type of situation simply go on to something else yourself. Look around the room. Be honest about having simply lost interest or no longer maintaining specific comprehension. It is not a statement of low IQ or anything by itself.
Try not to be paranoid about the speaker but at the same time don't go making excuses for them to not consider conspiratorial intentions. Everybody finds someone with which they simply can't keep up at times. In a different field the tables are often reversed.
Don't be afraid of language. Look things up, eventually you'll be surprised at what you remember. We're all going to be around for at least the rest of our lives, might as well try to enjoy as much of it as possible.

Your opinions are always valid, but they are only opinions where not supported by reasonable establishments.

[oneninja]

Thank you happeh,The true martial artist will gain knowledge,respect,self disipline and self control and also learn how to defend themselves.If all you are learning is how to fight you are missing out on a large part of what the arts are all about.The people who pioneered martial arts were simple monks who did not hope to gain glory and titles from their studies,this was a way of life for them.Martial arts have changed a great deal over time and I think the founders would be very disappointed.Also before studying the arts one should take a good hard look deep inside themselves and make a knowledgable decision.If you look to martial arts for fighting only then how can you consider yourself a serious martial artist?If you read any book on the ancient martial arts I think you will find that they all were started with the same thing in mind,a better way of life!

[Happeh]

"Science doesn't care in the slightest who agrees nor disagrees with it. It is based in falsiable conclusions formed of testable hypothesis. Therefore in the absence of testable results from experimentation it is a simple observation that existing facts must stand."

This is why I don't want to talk to you. You are stuck solid in concrete. It will take dynamite to get you out of the spot you have put yourself in.

I am kinda tired. I worked on people that think like you for 6 months and you know what? At the end of the 6 months, not one of them changed. And they all thought I was an a** and had no problem telling me so, loudly, repeatedly and publicly.

[Happeh]

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"It is perfectly reasonable for a scientific mind to make such a hypothesis. However for this to become an assertion you would then need to provide testable results from appropriate experimentation."


Please be reasonable. This is an internet forum and you and I are having a personal discussion. I am just some Joe Blow. I do not have the assets to set up studies and prove things just to you, one person I happened across on the internet.

Do your demands truly seem reasonable to you?

I am asking you not to rely on scientific experiment and absolutes, but to rely on your own two eyes in everyday natural situations that you can participate in. I am asking you to treat this discussion as a relatively relaxed coffee table gossip session, not an academic review of idea put forward for a thesis with the required rigorous proofs.

[Happeh]

"The clinical term for this outlook is paranoia."

Is it really? I should let you know that I don't let words stick to me unless I care about the person. Having just met you, I have not decided if I care enough about you to let your words stick.

"I assure you I have no ill intentions whatsoever.
At this point I am somewhat, genuinely concerned for your well-being"

I hope I didn't say that I thought you were purposeful. I think someone taught you how to speak like that or you picked up the style of speech because you like it. As for your concern, I burst out laughing out loud. I can see this guy in a suit in front of his computer, a stern look on his face, typing in very seriously "I am concerned about you". HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

If I thought you were concerned I would be proud of you. I think your concern is a false statement meant to create the impression that you are superior while I am inferior.

If you want to believe that go ahead. It does not cost me anything. It will cost you though. I know things you do not. I am in a sharing stage of life. What I know is yours, free for the asking.

But if you are not bright enough, or too stubborn to ask questions, what can I do?

I will go be happy with the people that want to listen.

[Happeh]

"Since this may be of concern to you, let me help with some strategy for similar occasions, when you consider that a person speaking to you is attempting to bamboozle you with language use:
Stick with the parts of the conversation you follow. When you can't follow what's being said, ask them to put it another way if possible"


Stop! Please! I can't take no more! I am going to bust a gut if I keep laughing.

You have decided that I used the word bamboozle because I did not understand reasonable or worthwhile information. That my poor underdeveloped brain could not comprehend and that nice people would be happy to explain further if I told them I was a dolt and did not get it.

My meaning in using the word bamboozle was that these people would say anything, goggledygook, just to be saying something. The way the hypnotisim works is to talk and talk and talk until the guy goes to sleep. Sort of like the huge post you just wrote.

[Happeh]

Oh yeah. For people that think that martial arts is more than fighting. You will benefit if you read the exchange between vanir and I.

It clearly demonstrates that martial arts apply to areas other then physical fighting.

If you don't see it, don't worry. The stuff works by slipping into your unconscious. Even if you cannot figure out what is being done, one of these years, you will set up in bed and go "Dang, that is what they were doing!".

[Furikuchan]

Evolving to a higher being?
Well, in a philosophical sense, perhaps we do "evolve" by living the moral codes of the martial arts and by strengthening our bodies through training. We certainly can claim to be somewhat tougher than the Average Joe, but it's still no reason to claim higher status.
Maybe you've been playing too much Dungeons and Dragons?
"At 20th level, a monk has tuned her body with skill and quasi-magical abilities to the point that she becomes a magical creature. She is forevermore treates as an outsider (extraplanar creature) rather than as a humanoid."
So, the question is, how do you know when you've hit level 20? :D

[Matt_Bernius]

u can veiw M A'S on many many levels, sure on the basic level just fighting, movements shapes, an outline, but the deeper you look, the more u penetrate, the more u will realise with a still, inquireing mind, the self desolves, take tai chi for an instance, their is outward movement but inside, stillness, when the mind is still where is the fighter?????

In there waiting until it's needed. Cheng Man-Ching for all of his stillness could still bring it. The best fighters are still and detached (for a great cinematic example of that see the Sword Saint in The Seven Samurai).

Everyone's entitled to thier own opinion. Avoiding conflict, defusing conflict, engaging in conflict, it's all part of the same wheel. And it's all part of being a fighter. At the end of the day, it's all part of Martial Arts.

What you are proposing isn't martial arts but a possible result of the study of the martial arts. It's also the result of diligent study of any of the classical arts & sciences. You could reach the same point through the study and practice of dance, poetry, chemestry, football. At the end of the day, while the details might change, the overall rules for flow and creativity remain the same (see the work done by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi in these areas).

And that isn't a new concept. Musashi was talking about the Way centuries ago: "In one thing know many things." The Martial Arts are the study of fighting. It's the diligent and true "Study" that leads to what your describing.

- Matt

[Andy Murray]

Something a lot of people seem to find hard to accept, is that everyone is different.

Their upbringing is different, their environment is different, so naturally their opinion is different.

That doesn't necessarily make them wrong.
Just different.

For me, MA is about self development, not in terms of fighting ability, but in setting challenges for myself.
Call that Hippie nonsense if you like, but it's not about fighting. training serves as a constant reminder of how ugly violence is, and I abhor those who revel in it without some higher motive.

[Matt_Bernius]

For me, MA is about self development, not in terms of fighting ability, but in setting challenges for myself. Call that Hippie nonsense if you like, but it's not about fighting. training serves as a constant reminder of how ugly violence is, and I abhor those who revel in it without some higher motive.It's not hippie nonsense. Personally I consider myself a pragmatic pacifist (which at the end of the day is hypocritical because I'm essentially saying that I'm a pacifist until my back is up against the wall and then it all goes out the window... for absolute pacifism see Gandi's response to the immediate pacifist method of resisting the Nazis). I ahbor violence on a day to day basis.

The martial arts are for resolving conflict. And that's what they excel at. They're not about self growth.

My point is (prehaps not well posted) that self improvement comes from the aspect of studing, not from the martial arts. Get lots of masters from different fields of study in a room and the can all talk to each other. Why? Becuase they have not only mastered their respective arts, but they've mastered the concept of studying. And that's the common experience and language that binds them together.

Or at least, that's my educated, objectivist opinion.

- Matt

[Andy Murray]

The martial arts are for resolving conflict. And that's what they excel at. They're not about self growth.


My point being, if your reason for training them isself growth, then that's what they are.

My purpose defines my reason.

[Matt_Bernius]

My point being, if your reason for training them isself growth, then that's what they are.

My purpose defines my reason.
Andy,

I'm probably splitting hairs (but that's the job of Social Scientists). Your purpose does define your reason, but neither of them define the arts. Personal goals/reasons, while valuable, do not define what something is. Cnversly, just because something is defined a certain way, it does not negate the personal satisfaction/growth one derives through it.

Self growth comes through the effort put into the study. I theorize that if you were to put the same effort into Poetry that you have put into the Martial Arts, you would reach the same level of self growth that you've found from the arts. Granted it would be subtly different, but no less valuable (unless you've specifically had to defend yourself using the martial arts).

But all of that effort doesn't change the fact that what you've learned in the Martial Arts is how to fight or that in some alternate universe you wrote reams of poetry.

Again, my 2 cents.

- Matt

[Andy Murray]

Andy,

I'm probably splitting hairs (but that's the job of Social Scientists). Your purpose does define your reason, but neither of them define the arts. Personal goals/reasons, while valuable, do not define what something is. Cnversly, just because something is defined a certain way, it does not negate the personal satisfaction/growth one derives through it.

Self growth comes through the effort put into the study. I theorize that if you were to put the same effort into Poetry that you have put into the Martial Arts, you would reach the same level of self growth that you've found from the arts. Granted it would be subtly different, but no less valuable (unless you've specifically had to defend yourself using the martial arts).

But all of that effort doesn't change the fact that what you've learned in the Martial Arts is how to fight or that in some alternate universe you wrote reams of poetry.

Again, my 2 cents.

- Matt

I don't think you're splitting hairs Matt.

I'm not saying what martial Arts is, just making an observation on what I use them for.
I was also saying that what other people use them for, will be different to me.

[Matt_Bernius]

I don't think you're splitting hairs Matt.

I'm not saying what martial Arts is, just making an observation on what I use them for.
I was also saying that what other people use them for, will be different to me.
Ok, now we're on the same page. The definition of what Martial Arts is doesn't necessarily change. What people derive from them does as it's a personal experience.

Given that model, it's possible to say:

Martial Arts are, at their core, about learning how to resolve conflict. What one can develop through the study of Martial Arts is self knowledge. Therefore one can use the Martial Arts as a method of self discovery.

I think that's something that we can live with.

- Matt

[Andy Murray]

Martial Arts are, at their core, about learning how to resolve conflict. What one can develop through the study of Martial Arts is self knowledge. Therefore one can use the Martial Arts as a method of self discovery.

I think that's something that we can live with.

- Matt

I can live with that, if as a by-product of my enlightenment, I can become more effective physically. ;)

[Colin Linz]

This is where the term martial art is inadequate; it is why they categorise them as budo, bujutsu, ect in Japan. If you are studying a form of budo, then it most definitely is a character developmental tool, it is designed to teach community values and attitudes. This is what separates budo from bujutsu. Bujutsu is the study of fighting methods, where as budo uses the study of fighting methods, as an experiential learning tool and the teacher guides the student’s character development.

Are the instructors qualified to teach ethics and guide character development? I don’t know, but then who is qualified? Can students gain benefit from other studies? Yes of course, but poetry may or may not capture the same demographic.

I can only speak about Shorinji Kempo from personal experience, but we definitely have a formal syllabus that we are tested on based on how Doshin So thought we should interact with society. It is a stated goal of Shorinji Kempo to produce students with the strength and character to make a difference in society and to understand the value of relationships.

[Happeh]

Evolving to a higher being?
Well, in a philosophical sense, perhaps we do "evolve" by living the moral codes of the martial arts and by strengthening our bodies through training. We certainly can claim to be somewhat tougher than the Average Joe, but it's still no reason to claim higher status.
Maybe you've been playing too much Dungeons and Dragons?""

I am curious. Do you mistake my simplistic speech style to mean that I am a kid? Or some other easily dismissable person?

That is how people get beat in fights. They make assumptions about things. You ought to ask a few more questions and verify your assumption about me before you put out the derogatory questions.

"At 20th level, a monk has tuned her body with skill and quasi-magical abilities to the point that she becomes a magical creature. She is forevermore treates as an outsider (extraplanar creature) rather than as a humanoid."
So, the question is, how do you know when you've hit level 20? :D"


Yes, Yes. You are very funny. I am laughing hysterically just like everyone else.

Did you know that back when people thought the earth was flat, all the jocks, all the men who are all muscle and no brain, they all got together and made jokes about Galileo. They pointed their fingers at him and laughed uproariously.

Turns out the earth was round. Galileo was right. What will you do when it turns out I am correct?

[Happeh]

"Self growth comes through the effort put into the study. I theorize that if you were to put the same effort into Poetry that you have put into the Martial Arts, you would reach the same level of self growth that you've found from the arts. Granted it would be subtly different, but no less valuable (unless you've specifically had to defend yourself using the martial arts)."

This is not correct.

Martial arts were invented to help people grow. The martial arts, when done properly, create changes within the human body that turn it into a higher being.

Furinchinkan thinks this is funny. That is because he cannot be bothered to think. "What is a higher being" would be a good question a thinking person would ask. The idea of a higher being is not a big deal. It is similar to phenomenon that we see everywhere around us.

I like to use cars as a comparison because everyone knows cars. If you buy a chevy, let us say that it gets %50 percent fuel efficiency. We will agree that a regular human being is also running at %50 efficiency.

Everyone knows that you can go buy a car that gets %90 percent fuel efficiency. If you buy a hybrid car, it runs on electricity most of the time so it uses less fuel. This means the car gets more miles to the gallon. We all accept this phenomenon and don't think anything about it. This car is "better", a "higher" car than the regular car because it gets better fuel efficiency.

Why is the concept that martial arts are meant to move the regular human at %50 up to %90 so hard for people to accept? It seems so obvious. A person who trains martial arts is like the regular car being turned into a hybrid car.

Does that comparison make the idea more acceptable?

[Furikuchan]

Furinchinkan thinks this is funny. That is because he cannot be bothered to think.
"Furinchinkan" is a she, last she checked. *looks down* Yep!
Come on. I just wanted to make my DnD joke. It seemed funny when I made it, but looking back, it makes me realize what a pathetic geek I am for actually taking the time to quote the Player's Handbook directly. I have no life.
Now, seriously, like I said, the philosophical concept of turning into a higher being through the physical, mental, and spiritual training of the martial arts is a valid point. Through bettering yourself, you become a better person, and, (in theory), faster, stronger, smarter, than the average joe, and, thus, a "higher being" than him. However, with all the training comes humility. Simply because you have more ability than another person does not mean that you should think that way. Always keep respect towards everyone around you. Because, there is ALWAYS someone out there even better than you, no matter how hard you train.
Sorry about the joke, I didn't think it would get taken that badly.

[cxw]

"

Turns out the earth was round. Galileo was right. What will you do when it turns out I am correct?

Aristotle 384-322bc gave a pretty good argument to the earth being round.

Colombus in 1492 gave pretty good proof with his voyage.

Magellan sailed completely around the globe in 1521 - this was definitive.

Galileo was born in 1564. He did some great things, but proving the earth was round isn't one of them.

[sean]

Anything and everything can be turned into something deeper than it is, people make martial arts what they want it to be. example: someone wrote 1000 words describing a peice of bread........


Hey man could you at least share whatever it is that you are smoking.

lol :p

-Sean

[Vanir]

I do not wish to make it appear I have the intention of continually contradicting you, Happeh. Nevertheless:
Martial arts were invented to help people grow. The martial arts, when done properly, create changes within the human body that turn it into a higher being.
This is not correct.

Were it an opinion, it would be valid. However it is a statement of fact and as such, is an inaccurate one. The martial arts as such began historically at some point in early Pharaonic Egypt, where military organization consecrated national interests in contrast to the tribal organization of warriors utilizing instinctive (rather than studied in an organized fashion) combat skills. Organized military troops were the first to use martial arts by record.
Others on this forum have cited the first homonid to pick up a stick and wield it in combat was the first martial artist, I don't want to open a can of worms on this one but suffice to say the martial context is not foremost one of philosophical pursuit, although it contains necessarily elements of individual development. The same way exercising particular muscles makes them grow more effectively for use.

If you think a higher being is someone whom has been "changed" as to wield combat weapons more effectively you're using the term pretty loosely. If you think any inherent martial arts philosophy is about anything other than combating others more effectively, you're misleading yourself.
What you may have noticed without realizing is that most modern "martial arts" have an Eastern religious bend of one denomination or another. Taoism, Buddhism, Shinto are all elements of a strong emphasis in popular martial arts we all know quite well. And Eastern religions are a little different to our witchburning Western heritage. They're determinedly political. And in my opinion, somewhat a little unimaginative, but then I'm not big on "local" religions either.
No offence, because to my mind you're talking about religion. And from the outside, what you say sounds outright superstitious, the single most threatening human tendancy.
Furinchinkan thinks this is funny. That is because he cannot be bothered to think. "What is a higher being" would be a good question a thinking person would ask. The idea of a higher being is not a big deal. It is similar to phenomenon that we see everywhere around us.
Hence for your own interests I should point out that one may hear this kind of statement from any two-bit evangelist. In fact it's typical. You should exatrapolate what you have to say instead of conceptualise. Speak plainly. Explain yourself at the onset. Otherwise you could be referring to things of which you in fact have no personal knowledge whatsoever.
"Higher being" my arse. It's when someone happens to stand two inches taller than the one next to them.
I like to use cars as a comparison because everyone knows cars. If you buy a chevy, let us say that it gets %50 percent fuel efficiency.
Actually, when cars, say your Chevy are engineered they are designed inherently to run at close to 100% fuel efficiency (I won't go into molecular fuels and specific impulse). They are then detuned "for the street."
Ever notice all that aftermarket gear you can buy for that Chevy to make it pull 11 seconds at the quater-mile? Well that was what the engineers had in mind and that's what the prototype engines themselves are more like but it all starts to get expensive and unrealistic in terms of production. In other words the Beancounters stepped in and there's a whole lot involved, but the point is an race engine runs at around 95% efficiency (for that engine block) and most street cars run at closer to 70%. Twin cams, contemporary manifolds and fuel injection help a lot compared to the old OHV iron-blocks of days gone by.

So when you say a Chevy runs at 50% fuel efficiency I should ask, "At which stage of its development?"
You would say, "Standard road trim."
But it didn't start out that way.
We will agree that a regular human being is also running at %50 efficiency.
No, we shall not. Human beings are born running at close to 100% efficiency. From there they may (or may not) become "detuned." Try studying an infant, or simply ask any of the parents at this forum as to the inherent potential of their offspring. At the least in a given area, the typical response you'll find will be, "Limitless."
Perhaps the "martial arts"/religion of which you speak could be of some use to uncluttering a human being once performance inhibiting changes have been already accumilated, thereby alleviating their psychologies from unwanted and irrelevant obstacles. Life had "detuned" them to say, 50% efficiency and this would seek to return them to as close to 100% efficiency. Any religion (and more than a few telemarketers) the world over would claim to do precisely the same, you're in for one hell of an argument trying to support this system of yours, especially using something which may conceivably be perceived as violence related by those with no interest in it.
And perhaps the biggest mistake would be to claim that this system of yours (or one to which you refer) elevates individuals as to become higher beings. It is impossible for a person to become more than the inherent potential which they began with, however which they may, most certainly re-attain and which may be often regarded as "limitless" in scope. Some retain much of it to begin with.

As far as priests and the martial arts are concerned, historically there have been a number of organizations, religious and "mystical" whom took upon a martial emphasis as their political environment dictated the need. The Shaolin (of whose history I know little) and the Japanese Ninja of medieval times. However those interested in the philosophies of these groups today now have the opportunity to study without threat of being attacked by sword-wielding totalitarians and those original philosophical roots may be pursued once again.
Nevertheless you must realize that to form a philosophy based upon a foundation of martial arts today, for the purposes of influencing others could only be met with the social response one would expect for any cult. It is dangerous and for the most part, illegal in some fashion or another.

Lastly, Happeh, does the idea that some people may not find martial arts a conceptual religion make it easier for you to accept their diversity in the field? Ethic is important, human ethic. Not martial arts worship.

[Matt_Bernius]

I do not wish to make it appear I have the intention of continually contradicting you, Happeh. Nevertheless:

This is not correct.

Were it an opinion, it would be valid. However it is a statement of fact and as such, is an inaccurate one. The martial arts as such began historically at some point in early Pharaonic Egypt, where military organization consecrated national interests in contrast to the tribal organization of warriors utilizing instinctive (rather than studied in an organized fashion) combat skills....

Ditto & Thanks Vanir. I didn't have the time to write all that, and I agree 100%.

- Matt

[chapskins]

In there waiting until it's needed. Cheng Man-Ching for all of his stillness could still bring it. The best fighters are still and detached (for a great cinematic example of that see the Sword Saint in The Seven Samurai).

Everyone's entitled to thier own opinion. Avoiding conflict, defusing conflict, engaging in conflict, it's all part of the same wheel. And it's all part of being a fighter. At the end of the day, it's all part of Martial Arts.

What you are proposing isn't martial arts but a possible result of the study of the martial arts. It's also the result of diligent study of any of the classical arts & sciences. You could reach the same point through the study and practice of dance, poetry, chemestry, football. At the end of the day, while the details might change, the overall rules for flow and creativity remain the same (see the work done by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi in these areas).

And that isn't a new concept. Musashi was talking about the Way centuries ago: "In one thing know many things." The Martial Arts are the study of fighting. It's the diligent and true "Study" that leads to what your describing.

- Matt



so very true, u can come to the same point in any form of study, be it a musician, a doctor whatever, but as i had said from my own experiance and a good deal of close friends of mine have shared this same experiance, again using tai chi as it's both mind and body connected from the outset, with dilligent practice the mind comes to a point of not being or being, non becoming, merging with the infinate, the vast ocean, at that point their is no tai chi, the self has been stripped away to its essence, this is the same veiw as Budhha, christ, Krishna Mertie, their is no fighter, the fighter only exists when we, ourselves exist, when the becomer becomes,


It is very true as i had already said that the martial arts are on the low level plain and simple fighting techniques, but with an inquiring mind, using tai chi again, the depths are unfathamable, it depends also the style of martial arts that one studies in, some are more prone to lead the mind to make the inqirey that i talk of and some may not, some are just for fighting, say western boxing, to tar the whole MA'S with this very same veiw that i am talking would be nonsence, but thats no problem, not to me nor anyone else, again i am not taking of a specific end game, a result of certain MA styles, but what i am talking of is their can be deeper depths to what is on the serface, talk of higher and lower is the same as yin and yang, what i am talking of is penertrating deeper than the constant conflict, u could veiw this in a Budhhist light or again a Taoist light, both would be correct, but not important, hope this makes some sense


oh chen man ching, have heared it said mant times that he was quite a bully, leads ont to think why the yang family would not teach him and why he had to secretly steal of them, could it be that he did not have the correct type of charater to be taught by the Yang family, makes one wonder, u see, the previous post when i was talking of stillness, i dont think u have had the same experience of what i was talking of, i got the idea that for u stillness leads to a better fighter, this is not true, this is not stillness, WHEN ONE IS STILL THEIR IS NO FIGHTER, THE SELF IS DESOLVED, u see??? their is awareness of the constant, these are just words, very dirty, we all have the ability to see this

[Vanir]

As a sidetrack, I noticed this post and found this comment interesting:
the fighter only exists when we, ourselves exist, when the becomer becomes,
Could such a perspective suggest that we are absorbed normally, in the events which surround us however when threatened we become self conscious, one whom is to become, becoming with no reason but for itself? That is to say, (potentially) dangerously present as any animal may be?
Fascinating concept.

[chapskins]

As a sidetrack, I noticed this post and found this comment interesting:

Could such a perspective suggest that we are absorbed normally, in the events which surround us however when threatened we become self conscious, one whom is to become, becoming with no reason but for itself? That is to say, (potentially) dangerously present as any animal may be?
Fascinating concept.


how are u, hey we've had 30 degres over here in old england, how's it over in OZ, yeh what u understand what i was saying is correct, we are absorbed daily by our selves, looking at MA'S, we can aborbe ourselves with just the fighting aspect of MA'S, so then we bcome the fighter, but looking deeper again i have to ferer to Tai Chi as one is aware of the movments, when one is aware of the movment (watchfull) the mind becomes quiet, one becomes less and less, when one becomes less one is less likely to fight, a situation could come up when attaked and one would less likely to inflict harm on the attaker, if the self is not pressent their is no ego to inflict harm on another, it's only the self that harms.


Happen, could u please explain what you are putting across, dont meen to sound offensive but cannot see the point you are making, if u read my posts do u think they make some sense.

[Matt_Bernius]

but as i had said from my own experiance and a good deal of close friends of mine have shared this same experiance, again using tai chi as it's both mind and body connected from the outset, with dilligent practice the mind comes to a point of not being or being, non becoming, merging with the infinate, the vast ocean, at that point their is no tai chi, the self has been stripped away to its essence, this is the same veiw as Budhha, christ, Krishna Mertie, their is no fighter, the fighter only exists when we, ourselves exist, when the becomer becomes

What your talking about can best be described as the psychological concept of "Flow." And I think we're all in agreement that Martial Arts are one of many activities can can be used to lead one to the state of flow. And while one is in the state of flow the notion of self disipates. (Of course it's also interesting to note that in order to recognize flow, one must spend time out of flow. You need to have a sense of self to later realize the times that you lose it. Realizing that you're in flow typically knocks one out of flow).

But just because something serves as a gateway doesn't make that activity necessarily about where you end up. A gateway is simply that: a gateway. How one uses it, or where one goes is up to individual choice and effort. So perhaps a gateway isn't the best analogy. A multilevel stairway might be a better one. You walk the stairs and can get out at any floor depending on how many stairs you want to walk. What you find on each floor is different. And how many stair you walk is up to you. But at the same time, don't over romantisize anything, your basic activity is walking up or down stairs. And I think we all agree on that.

It is very true as i had already said that the martial arts are on the low level plain and simple fighting techniques, but with an inquiring mind, using tai chi again, the depths are unfathamable, it depends also the style of martial arts that one studies in, some are more prone to lead the mind to make the inqirey that i talk of and some may not, some are just for fighting, say western boxing, to tar the whole MA'S with this very same veiw that i am talking would be nonsence, but thats no problem, not to me nor anyone else, again i am not taking of a specific end game, a result of certain MA styles, but what i am talking of is their can be deeper depths to what is on the serface, talk of higher and lower is the same as yin and yang, what i am talking of is penertrating deeper than the constant conflict, u could veiw this in a Budhhist light or again a Taoist light, both would be correct, but not important, hope this makes some sense

Here I have to slightly disagree. And this is my opinion. Every robust fighting system (including western boxing) has to have philosophy built into it. Philosophy, doctrine and strategy all go hand in hand. You look at true masters of boxing like Ali or Lewis and as you go beneath the surface, I think you'll find that these people have reached deeper understandings through their persuit of the arts. What I do conceed is that certain Taoist and Zen arts deal with these aspects more explicity than others. But I really think that it's all in there.

i dont think u have had the same experience of what i was talking of, i got the idea that for u stillness leads to a better fighter, this is not true, this is not stillness, WHEN ONE IS STILL THEIR IS NO FIGHTER, THE SELF IS DESOLVED, u see??? their is awareness of the constant, these are just words, very dirty, we all have the ability to see this

Could such a perspective suggest that we are absorbed normally, in the events which surround us however when threatened we become self conscious, one whom is to become, becoming with no reason but for itself? That is to say, (potentially) dangerously present as any animal may be?

we can aborbe ourselves with just the fighting aspect of MA'S, so then we bcome the fighter, but looking deeper again i have to ferer to Tai Chi as one is aware of the movments, when one is aware of the movment (watchfull) the mind becomes quiet, one becomes less and less, when one becomes less one is less likely to fight, a situation could come up when attaked and one would less likely to inflict harm on the attaker, if the self is not pressent their is no ego to inflict harm on another, it's only the self that harms.

First of all, I don't think I've ever posted that because one is a fighter they go out looking for fights. I firmly believe that an aspect of the Martial Arts is nonviolent conflict resolution. However, I would also suggest that the trues form of selfless flow that one reaches in the Martial Arts is to react to a situation without thought and with 100% commitment. To Vanir's point to react to a situation in much the same fashion that an animal would. Watch a snake strike and you see total (mental and physical) commiment to that strike. When push comes to shove they don't mamby pamby. The reason is that, to our knowledge, there is no sense of self involved in that strike.

So I disagree that a sense of self either harms or heals. The only thing self does in inhibit action. A self concious person avoid a situation because of self. And egoist might engage in needless conflict in order to "protect" their sense of self. In both cases self has inhibited those individuals from taking an optimal course of action.

So an ultimate Martial Artist, in flow (and I'm simply using flow because it can be defined and more or less measured), should respond to a situation as needed with 100% commitment to action. That may be to verbally defuse a situation. But, back to the wall, I firmly believe that also includes doing the correct amount of damage to another person in order to successfully survive that situation. Flow is niether good nor bad. Harmful nor helpful. It simply is. Just as the animal's reaction isn't moral or immoral. It's simply acting to protect itself or its interests.

So I still contend that the reason we train to fight is so that we internalize the fighter. And so that, when push comes to shove, we don't need to think about how to fight. The fighter comes to the surface and does its job. Without thought or question. Dispassionate and resolute. And when the job is done that aspect goes back to where it was until it's needed again.

- Matt

[chapskins]

What your talking about can best be described as the psychological concept of "Flow." And I think we're all in agreement that Martial Arts are one of many activities can can be used to lead one to the state of flow. And while one is in the state of flow the notion of self disipates. (Of course it's also interesting to note that in order to recognize flow, one must spend time out of flow. You need to have a sense of self to later realize the times that you lose it. Realizing that you're in flow typically knocks one out of flow).

But just because something serves as a gateway doesn't make that activity necessarily about where you end up. A gateway is simply that: a gateway. How one uses it, or where one goes is up to individual choice and effort. So perhaps a gateway isn't the best analogy. A multilevel stairway might be a better one. You walk the stairs and can get out at any floor depending on how many stairs you want to walk. What you find on each floor is different. And how many stair you walk is up to you. But at the same time, don't over romantisize anything, your basic activity is walking up or down stairs. And I think we all agree on that.



Here I have to slightly disagree. And this is my opinion. Every robust fighting system (including western boxing) has to have philosophy built into it. Philosophy, doctrine and strategy all go hand in hand. You look at true masters of boxing like Ali or Lewis and as you go beneath the surface, I think you'll find that these people have reached deeper understandings through their persuit of the arts. What I do conceed is that certain Taoist and Zen arts deal with these aspects more explicity than others. But I really think that it's all in there.







First of all, I don't think I've ever posted that because one is a fighter they go out looking for fights. I firmly believe that an aspect of the Martial Arts is nonviolent conflict resolution. However, I would also suggest that the trues form of selfless flow that one reaches in the Martial Arts is to react to a situation without thought and with 100% commitment. To Vanir's point to react to a situation in much the same fashion that an animal would. Watch a snake strike and you see total (mental and physical) commiment to that strike. When push comes to shove they don't mamby pamby. The reason is that, to our knowledge, there is no sense of self involved in that strike.

So I disagree that a sense of self either harms or heals. The only thing self does in inhibit action. A self concious person avoid a situation because of self. And egoist might engage in needless conflict in order to "protect" their sense of self. In both cases self has inhibited those individuals from taking an optimal course of action.

So an ultimate Martial Artist, in flow (and I'm simply using flow because it can be defined and more or less measured), should respond to a situation as needed with 100% commitment to action. That may be to verbally defuse a situation. But, back to the wall, I firmly believe that also includes doing the correct amount of damage to another person in order to successfully survive that situation. Flow is niether good nor bad. Harmful nor helpful. It simply is. Just as the animal's reaction isn't moral or immoral. It's simply acting to protect itself or its interests.

So I still contend that the reason we train to fight is so that we internalize the fighter. And so that, when push comes to shove, we don't need to think about how to fight. The fighter comes to the surface and does its job. Without thought or question. Dispassionate and resolute. And when the job is done that aspect goes back to where it was until it's needed again.

- Matt


i can only point in the dirrection of oneness, it is up to you to look to the depths, you have missed the point, or maybe more likely to say, you have not had the experience, so how could you either agree or dissagree, like i said, the fighter is self, dualism.


as to the point u made about self and non self, the snake analogy, NONSENCE, what about premeditated murder, would you not agree that it is self that makes one murder????? think again

[Matt_Bernius]

as to the point u made about self and non self, the snake analogy, NONSENCE, what about premeditated murder, would you not agree that it is self that makes one murder????? think again
Clearly you have missed my point. I agree that premeditated murder is an act of self. At no point did I suggest that premediated murder is an act of Flow.

In fact I think I clearly stated that in flow one reacts to the situation. A snake doesn't murder. That isn't part of it's world view. It stikes to gather food. It doesn't kill it's prey out of anger. It kills it because the snake is hungry and needs to eat.

Likewise it strikes to defend itself. If the snake thinks that it is in danger and it cannot escape, it strikes. One could argue that getting bitten, under these circumstances, is the fault of the creature encroaching on the snake. The snake is only following its nature.

I can't think of anything more Zen than this. There's no issue of self. There is only the situation and action. How is the snake acting to definitivly defend itself without thought or malice any different that your selfless martial artist reacting in flow with the situation. And that response from the martial artist could be a non violent one, it could be a control, or, if necessary, it could be to strike down their opponent cleanly and quickly. But whatever it would be it would be in keeping with the scenario that one is in. I don't think a Martial Artist, acting in Flow, would tear out the spine of a person accosting them for change. But, I also do no believe that a martial artist who, in flow, kills someone who posed a credible and definitative threat at that moment has committed an act of premeditated murder. Or perhaps even murder.

As for not understanding the relationship of the fighter and the self, what can I say? The fighter is an aspect of the self. So in that respect I agree in the concept of oneness. But I don't conceed that when one has reached enlightenment they transcend or somehow abandon the aspects of themselves that helped them achieve that state. There are more things in heaven and on earth than are dreampt of in my philosophies. And I expect my views to change and grow. Currently thought, I'm not prepared to conceed that your point of view is any more correct or advanced than mine. But I'm always open to possibilities. Please elaborate more and maybe I'll find your vantage point to look upon things.

- Matt

[chapskins]

As for not understanding the relationship of the fighter and the self, what can I say? I conceed that there are more things in heaven and on earth than are dreampt of in my philosophies. And I expect my views to change and grow. Currently thought, I'm not prepared to conceed that your point of view is any more correct or advanced than mine.

- Matt


hey matt, if i put forawd anything that may not sound right it may be because i got flu at the mo and my head is swimming, please please please dont think that the points i have made are put to u to belittle u or to think that mine are suppiriour to yors, just speaking as you are speaking :)

your thoghts on flow are what???? would be good to talk about, what would u say to this, when mind and body connect, come together their is the moment, the constant, is this what you talk of as flow?? limitless boundless??? in truth, unspeakable??? the self again stripped back to its orig face??

as to what u speak of about the snake, their is self their, its defending itself, this is the tricky bit, when we come upon full enlightenment then one could choose to die if attaked as the self has simply been desolved, no self, no attachment, does that make any sense???

[Matt_Bernius]

your thoghts on flow are what???? would be good to talk about, what would u say to this, when mind and body connect, come together their is the moment, the constant, is this what you talk of as flow?? limitless boundless??? in truth, unspeakable??? the self again stripped back to its orig face??

Flow, that I keep referencing, is a phsycological concept. I realize that it's different than enlightenment. But since enlightenment is somewhat undefinable, and I'm involved in the social sciences, I tend to fall back on things that can be decribed and categoried.

Flow is an optimal experience characterized by:
- a sense of playfulness
- a feeling of being in control
- concentration and highly focused attention or highly unfocused
attention. Basically either seeing one thing or seeing everything.
- mental enjoyment of the activity for its own sake
- a distorted sense of time
- a match between the challenge at hand and one's skills
- sense of self disapears
- action and awareness are merged
- activites become autotelic (Greek for something that is an end to itself)

This, in my mind, is the most repeatable and observable manifestation of temporary enlightenment. Hope that clarifies. Again I realize that this is more limited than enlightenment, but it's something far easier to define and discuss.

as to what u speak of about the snake, their is self their, its defending itself, this is the tricky bit, when we come upon full enlightenment then one could choose to die if attaked as the self has simply been desolved, no self, no attachment, does that make any sense???
My understanding about the loss of self is that there is no choice. There is simply action. And taking no action is an action. However, choosing not to defend ones self seems to me to be an act of self. Personally, I don't see where choice enters into the selfless equaision. But I could have a skewed view. It's one of the reasons I'm enjoying this dialog.

In my mind, it's like the anecdote of two monks, a master and an apprentice, on a journey. They come upon a woman who cannot cross a river due to the current. The elder monk picks her up and carries her across, setting her down on the opposite bank. This bothers the younger monk, as they are not supposed to interact in such ways with women. Eventually upon reaching their destination the younger monk asks the older monk "Why did you do that?" The older monk replied with his own question "I carried her across the river. Why did you choose to carry her for the rest of our journey?"

In my mind the older monk acted without thought. It was the younger monk's sense of rules and self that caused himself so much confusion and stress.

Again, my 2 cents. Thanks for the follow up. Hope the flu is getting better. This is helping me better understand where you are coming from.

- Matt

[chapskins]

Again, my 2 cents. Thanks for the follow up. Hope the flu is getting better. This is helping me better understand where you are coming from.

- Matt


thanks for mentioning the flu thing, heads all over the show, i'll try and drop a line or two tommorow :)

[Happeh]

Hello furikuchan. I have been accused of being humorless. ;)

It all comes down to how others view people. I popped in here and tried to tell people I knew some stuff and could help. Then some people ask questions or say things that are designed to make me look less than trustworthy. I don't really care personally. People who are watching the exchange might choose to believe the person belittling me. If I do not step up and try to protect my reputation, then people will not be willing to listen to me. They will think I am whatever the other people have said about me.

I took your post as a kind of "oh ha ha look at this kid." That is what it sounded like. I felt I had no choice but to seriously rebut that kind of comment so that I can hopefully get enough respect that someone might let me tell them something.

It is not a big deal.

[Happeh]

"Galileo was born in 1564. He did some great things, but proving the earth was round isn't one of them."

Oh I do not like doing research on unimportant stuff. What is important is the idea I put forth. A commonly accepted idea being shown to be false. You are correct. Galileo said the solar system revolved around the sun, contradicting the idea at the time that the solar system revolved around the earth.

I did make a mistake in the name. I think the validity of my example is self evident. I would get the correct scientist name. I can't justify wasting time on such a silly thing.

[Happeh]

"I do not wish to make it appear I have the intention of continually contradicting you, Happeh. "
"
You can say whatever you want to me as long as I can return the favor.

"This is not correct.

Were it an opinion, it would be valid. However it is a statement of fact and as such, is an inaccurate one."

I regret that I will not be able to reply to you. You are playing games I do not wish to participate in. You are stuck in your scientific world and you will stay there for a long time to come I predict.

I am getting old and lazy. I want to talk to people that do not fight me. People with open minds and curiosity about what the world is really like.

Closed minds like yours, demanding proof of everything, are suffocating. Your style of thinking and speech kills imagination and ideas.

I skimmed some of the rest of your message. It literally nakes me sick, not an insulting statement, my stomach is literally sick, to see someone play games like you do. You are not interested in revelation. You are interested in playing games with words so that you emerge victorius.

OK. I Happeh declare that that mighty Vanir has totally discredited me with his pompous and verbose style of speech. I am crushed to the ground, unable to withstand the onslaught.

(I said that for vanir's ego. I do know what I am talking about. Come see me in a thread where Vanir cannot find us.)

[Happeh]

"Ditto & Thanks Vanir. I didn't have the time to write all that, and I agree 100%."

I misjudge people. I always give them the benefit of the doubt. I came here expecting adults and experienced people. Instead I find people that.......are too young? to have a clue.

That hurts. Vanir is a bozo. Is that a sin bin offense? When someone is speaking junk that is going to send people the wrong way, I will risk being sin binned so I can get people to go the right way. I am willing to sacrifice for others while vanir is only concerned with his word games.

Do you know what it is like to have groups of 20 or 30 people give you an attitude? "Oh your stupid, your a fool, you have no clue". Do you know what that is like? Especially when you are looking at all 30 of them and you know in your heart that they are clueless? They are arrogant young people who judge rather than think?

I am not a fighter. I don't stand in front of people and project "If you disagree with me, I will physically abuse you". That is not my style. I open my heart to people and try to get them to see reality so they can make the right decisions that are best for them.

You will find when you get more experienced, that punching someone in the face is trivial. Standing still while an unknowing person derides you and ridicules you publicly, that takes cojones made of titanium.

[Happeh]

"Happen, could u please explain what you are putting across, dont meen to sound offensive but cannot see the point you are making, if u read my posts do u think they make some sense."

U will need to be more specific. What I say is usually obscure and confusing. One of the goals of my style of speech is to encourage the listener to think on their own. If I spell out exactly what I am saying, people get lazy and they start expecting every thing to be handed to them.

By making people think, I train them not to rely on having things handed to them. Also, the process of thinking makes their brain open up. If their brain is closed, I can talk all day and nothing happens. Only if I can get their brain to open up can I then insert some useful information.

[Happeh]

I can't let this go cause I am getting ignored and put down everywhere. I guess this is superiority. Some people counsel humbleness. I myself do that.

Some situations call for claiming what you know, regardless of how others may feel.

I can tell you exactly how your body is constructed and I can tell you in detail how many of the advanced martial arts work. I can tell you if you are crooked or straight. That is important because if you are crooked, when you do martial arts you will become more crooked. You need someone to straighten you out, then you need to do martial arts. I can look at you and point exactly to where you have problems, where your energy is blocked and I can make a fair guess as to why you appear the way you do. I can tell you if you are blind, if you are predisposed to heart condition, if you are mentally unbalanced.

Having said all of that, if I was one of those old time guys? I keep seeing the name cheng man ching. I don't know who he is but he must be important. Back then, the old guys that had knowledge like I just described, if you told them u did not believe them, or if you acted disrespectful, they would never, and I mean never, no matter how you begged, talk to you again.

There are still old time asian instructors around that are like that. If you act like a smarty pants, or you do something that shows them disrespect, they will continue to take your money for lessons, but they will never, ever teach you anything important. You stepped over the line.

Think about it.

[YODA]

Happeh...

1. That's 6 posts in a row.

EDIT BUTTON!

2. If you're quoting someone please use the QUOTE button - that way we know WHO you are quoting.

[shootodog]

i'm with matt here. martial arts were created with the martial aspect of life in mind. that in which strife and violence exist. anything else would be a pleasant by product. religion and spirituality were initially injected into some arts (most notably that of the japanese samurai tradition. also, the quoran said that if a faithful died in battle and killed forthe sake of the faith, he would go straight to heaven with a hundred virgin serving him, etc.) to overcome that "fear of death" hurdle.

as for one ninja's post about martial arts initially being excercises for self -betterment/ health should be taken in context. kung fu/ wushu or whatever chinese dialect you elect to call it does come from excercise either from the indian buhddist traditions that were codified in siaolin or from the mount wudan strain. yet, not all martial arts had the luxury of being created in peace time. it has to be noted though that these forms were also in response to existing martial arts that were prevalent in the armies of the warring kingdoms era.

speaking from my own martial arts' tradition, fma were designed to kill and maim. the art was born out of war and strife. the bujutsu were created for war. the sword skills developed, though romanitcized, were made to kill people. fencing were developed to be used in duels and on the field of battle. western boxing and wrestling were off shoots of the ancient greek combat form of pankration athlima. though it was part of competition, the heart of it was the unarmed combat skills that one uses in the field of battle.

also through study,one can see that indian martial arts have their origins in the armies of the raj and the king. krabbi krebong (sp?) were created to be used by the armies of the king of siam. muay thai is the unarmed version of it. and the list just goes on and on.

[cxw]

"Galileo was born in 1564. He did some great things, but proving the earth was round isn't one of them."

Oh I do not like doing research on unimportant stuff. What is important is the idea I put forth. A commonly accepted idea being shown to be false. You are correct. Galileo said the solar system revolved around the sun, contradicting the idea at the time that the solar system revolved around the earth.

I did make a mistake in the name. I think the validity of my example is self evident. I would get the correct scientist name. I can't justify wasting time on such a silly thing.

Copernicus was the first to argue that the earth went around the sun. Galileo did carry on from Copernicus's work.

I don't think the history of science is a silly thing.

If you were wrong about who proved the earth was round, why are you so sure as to the purpose of MA?

I think it's largely a personal choice as to whether MA is for fighting or evolving. Physical things such as the earths shape can be proven with a very high level of confidence. However, I don't believe it is possible to prove what MA is designed for as it's not something that can be measured, disected and analysed.

Your view is perfectly fine regarding MA. But it can only ever be your view.

[chapskins]

"Happen, could u please explain what you are putting across, dont meen to sound offensive but cannot see the point you are making, if u read my posts do u think they make some sense."

U will need to be more specific. What I say is usually obscure and confusing. One of the goals of my style of speech is to encourage the listener to think on their own. If I spell out exactly what I am saying, people get lazy and they start expecting every thing to be handed to them.

By making people think, I train them not to rely on having things handed to them. Also, the process of thinking makes their brain open up. If their brain is closed, I can talk all day and nothing happens. Only if I can get their brain to open up can I then insert some useful information.


I should hazzard a guess, but the reason you cannot explain in clear terms is because you are unclear, you are a teacher are you, of what prey tell???
was the buddha unclear, was Lao Tzu, Chwong Tzu unclear, no they were not, thier's been quiet a few of us on this thread explaining in clear terms, what about you??


What makes you draw such conclutions, what school of thought is this, where did you learn this?? please dont get angry by my tone, am asking you these questions for clarity, for everyone here, myself, what you dicribe is far to simplistic, you have to look to the roots to see why men or women are evil or nasty to one another, when people realize it's only theirselves that suffer and cause suffering their would be true clarity, their would be no fighting, it's the ego that fights my friend, deal with the ego not any exterior notions of tribes and so forth.

it all sounds like you are trying to reinvent the wheel in very simlistic, untought out terms, what i have posted bellow is all self explaitory, straightforward buddhist understanding of the nature of suffering, realization of suffering and the end of suffering, far more penertrating than what you discribe.


Im not into knocking you, am into sharing, thought or dirrect experience

[chapskins]

Flow, that I keep referencing, is a phsycological concept. I realize that it's different than enlightenment. But since enlightenment is somewhat undefinable, and I'm involved in the social sciences, I tend to fall back on things that can be decribed and categoried.

Flow is an optimal experience characterized by:
- a sense of playfulness
- a feeling of being in control
- concentration and highly focused attention or highly unfocused
attention. Basically either seeing one thing or seeing everything.
- mental enjoyment of the activity for its own sake
- a distorted sense of time
- a match between the challenge at hand and one's skills
- sense of self disapears
- action and awareness are merged
- activites become autotelic (Greek for something that is an end to itself)

This, in my mind, is the most repeatable and observable manifestation of temporary enlightenment. Hope that clarifies. Again I realize that this is more limited than enlightenment, but it's something far easier to define and discuss.


My understanding about the loss of self is that there is no choice. There is simply action. And taking no action is an action. However, choosing not to defend ones self seems to me to be an act of self. Personally, I don't see where choice enters into the selfless equaision. But I could have a skewed view. It's one of the reasons I'm enjoying this dialog.

In my mind, it's like the anecdote of two monks, a master and an apprentice, on a journey. They come upon a woman who cannot cross a river due to the current. The elder monk picks her up and carries her across, setting her down on the opposite bank. This bothers the younger monk, as they are not supposed to interact in such ways with women. Eventually upon reaching their destination the younger monk asks the older monk "Why did you do that?" The older monk replied with his own question "I carried her across the river. Why did you choose to carry her for the rest of our journey?"

In my mind the older monk acted without thought. It was the younger monk's sense of rules and self that caused himself so much confusion and stress.

Again, my 2 cents. Thanks for the follow up. Hope the flu is getting better. This is helping me better understand where you are coming from.

- Matt


Im studying Wing Chun at the moment but for some years did Tai Chi thats why the constant rerences back to it, with Wing Chun it's not as straight foward as tai chi is, but with awareness is the same as tai chi, from the outset one is constantly aware of each and every movment, the same as mindfull walking is, the style that i practiced was yang long form and the teacher did not over emphasize the fighting aspect but also in the same breath did'nt push it away, was a whole thing, dont know if you have done any chi gong (standing meditation) or sitting meditation but the being in control thing that you mention would be the total opposite to what im talking of, this would be best discribed as the comentator or the controler, who is it that controls when their is nothing to be controled, like gripping a handfull of sand , the tighter the grip, the more sand escapes, one cannot control the dao.

hey flu's getting better
:)

[chapskins]

The Heart Of The Buddaha's Teachings


The Four Noble Truths.

First noble truth. Is suffering, we all suffer to some extent, loss of a lover
money, whatever.

Second Noble Truth. the origin, roots, nature, creation or arising of our
suffering, we need to look deeply to see how it came
to be.

Third Noble Truth. the cesation of creating our suffering, refraining from
what makes us suffer.

Fourth Noble Truth. is the path that leads to refraining from doing the things
that cause us to suffer, this is the Eight Fold Path

Eightfold Noble Path

Right veiw, Right thinking, right speach, right action,
Right livelihood, right dilligence, right mindfullness,
Right concentratiation


The Twelve Turnings Of The Wheel

Suffering. Recognition, this is suffering
Encouragement, suffering should be understood
Realization, Suffering is understood

Arising of suffering. Recognition, their is an ignoble way that has led to
suffering
Encouragement, that ignoble way should be
understood
Realization, that ignoble way is understood

Cessation of suffering. Recognition, well being is possible
Encouragment, well being should be obtained
Realization, well being is obtained

How well being arises. Recognition, their is a noble path that leads to well
being
Encouragment, this noble path has to be lived
Realization, this noble path is being lived

[chapskins]

What I say is usually obscure and confusing. One of the goals of my style of speech is to encourage the listener to think on their own. If I spell out exactly what I am saying, people get lazy and they start expecting every thing to be handed to them.

By making people think, I train them not to rely on having things handed to them. Also, the process of thinking makes their brain open up. If their brain is closed, I can talk all day and nothing happens. Only if I can get their brain to open up can I then insert some useful information.



what you have described thus far would in reality crumble, it would'nt work, talk of high and low is talk of the continous cycle of life, death and rebirth, yin and yang, what i am speaking of is what buddha spoke of, lao tzu spoke of, what is beyond the turning wheel of dualistic states.


The essence of Chan teaching in theory is that every human being has the potential of becoming a Buddha – an enlightened one. Chan teaching offers the way or path to achieving that aim. It also reveals the truth of human existence and tells us how to remove the obstacles in our life and brings peace to us.

To have a peaceful mind is the first aim of training in Chan. Because peace and calm is a base for any healthy development; especially for spiritual and intellectual achievement, mental and physical health and tranquility is essential. Chan although semingly separate from Gongfu, they have an interactive relationship in many ways. That is why most Chan masters in China know Gongfu. So, for many reasons the Chan practice has a very close relationship to Gongfu, Qi Gong and other health exercises.

Bodhidharma, the first patriarch of the Chan School, started his Chan and meditation teaching from ShaoLin Temple in China. Addition to his teachings of Chan, he probably taught some Gongfu to his followers. Now we have some physical exercises under his name, such like Bodhidharma’s twelve forms.

[aikiMac]

[QUOTE=aikiMac]Huh? That's so not true. Martial arts do not attract people who are violence prone. "

Please think carefully before you jump up and express your thoughts. Let me ask you a question. How many martial arts schools have you been in? Logically, I would guess you have not been to every school in the world. Logically, that means that you do not know for a fact that martial arts do not attract people who are violent prone. On the other hand, I only have to show one school with one violent prone person to prove my point. Martial Arts is about thinking carefully. Thinking sloppy usually means the person throws sloppy punches.

My oh my, you do have a chip on your shoulder, eh?

"People" is plural. You'd have to find more than one violence-prone person to prove your point. But two in the world wouldn't be enough of a percentage to justify your initial statement. You'd have to show that a meaningful percentage of martial arts students are prone to violence, before your statement has any value.

Back to facts: I've been studying martial arts continuously for over 12 years in four States. None of my classmates who stayed more than one month were prone to violence. Ergo, my statement. Perhaps you'll say that students who dropped out after a month were prone to violence, but where's your proof, huh? You asserted a statement without proof.


"Martial arts is and always was about teaching people to fight. For some of the arts, it's about fighting someone else (i.e., me against you). For some of the arts, it's about fighting yourself (i.e., me against me, trying to cut away my evil tendencies). Either way it's about fighting. "

I suppose if you want to think this way you can. It is my position that the purpose of martial arts is to make a human being evolve into a higher person. That is the original intent waaaay back when it was invented.

Um, I've read a lot of martial arts books and a lot of martial arts magazines, and I've never, ever read what you're saying. So I'll stick with my views, thank you.


For instance. You say martial arts is about fighting. So when you go to martial arts class, how do you feel? For most people, when they think about the word "fight", they get tense, they sweat, they get butterflies in the stomach.

None of that sounds good does it? How can you fight or train effectively if you are nervous or tense or your belly hurts?

On the other hand, let's choose another word. Let's use the word "Play".

Instead of martial arts fighting, we are playing martial arts. How does the word "play" make you feel?

You've never heard of aikido, have you? I thought not.

You're a sick, sick, man if you think that grown men simulating the acts of breaking necks and cutting throats is healthy "play." But then, maybe you've never heard of kali or silat either, so you don't know what they do.

[Vanir]

It is not we whom continually make comments such as this upon the forum, Happeh:
Then some people ask questions or say things that are designed to make me look less than trustworthy.
I took your post as a kind of "oh ha ha look at this kid."
tried to tell people I knew some stuff
Oh I do not like doing research on unimportant stuff.
You are correct (although I cannot show in what fashion).
I misjudge people (namely myself).
I always give them the benefit of the doubt (although I refuse to look at myself with clear eyes).
And this pearler:
Do you know what it is like to have groups of 20 or 30 people (upon a popular martial arts forum) give you an attitude?
I dunno, that you're just not a martial artist? Anti-social? Misunderstood? Wrong? Could be any of these.

Some situations call for claiming what you know, regardless of how others may feel.
Try showing what you know instead. Anyone can make claims as if they could elaborate in an illustrative fashion, the ones which actually do know what they're talking about. You forget that children are aware of many wondrous things, have experienced none of them and consider themselves experts until they do. Any youth can sound like a philosophical master and many do. Few if any, have anything of value to teach. And lessons of "rebel against the system comprised of smart people" are the kind nobody has any need to learn. Anybody can increase their IQ, you personally, choose not to.
I can tell you exactly how your body is constructed
As well as a medical practitioner or a biologist? You claim far too much, back it up. And (knowing you a little bit by now) provide corroberative evidence.
I can tell you in detail how many of the advanced martial arts work.
Go right ahead. I look forward to taking your ignorance apart wherever you may present it. Firstly, which ones precisely are the "advanced" martial arts? And just a reminder, corroberate your statements for once please.
I can tell you if you are crooked or straight. That is important because if you are crooked, when you do martial arts you will become more crooked.
More of your superstitious rot? What pray tell, is crooked to you? Have you turned this amazing insight you claim to have regarding the personalities, characters and psychologies of others upon yourself lately? Or did you not get that was its purpose?
when you do martial arts you will become more crooked. You need someone to straighten you out, then you need to do martial arts.
Okay now someone's been playing with the Stupid Stick haven't they?! Regardless of what you intend to "impart" you must think about what you say.
I can look at you and point exactly to where you have problems, where your energy is blocked and I can make a fair guess as to why you appear the way you do.
Oh. Duh "energies". You're talking about duhultimatefightingsystem huh? And I guess that makes you T3hD3adly!
Heard this way of talking on Bullshido.net and it fits.
Once again, just in case you missed out on say, schooling from the age of 10, dah "energies" is what people in medieval times used to call things we now refer to as psychology.
But of course, you're a medical practitioner and a biologist, plus an anthropologist specializing in human martial practises, so why the hell not a psychiatrist? Whilst you may state to think that is to say anyone with these qualifications is the absolute authority in the area of their field it is not, but that you are claiming precisely this for yourself and yet you can provide no corroberative references for any statement you make, have no schooling in the field, claim that the scientific body has no idea what it's talking about and that intellectually sound individuals are conspiring to defame you personally.
Yes psychologies are a genuine thing. Yes they do react. Yes they can be damaged by others. They're not toys for completely unqualified, self made "experts" to play with, especially someone with a self confessed medieval level of development in the field.
I can tell you if you are blind, if you are predisposed to heart condition, if you are mentally unbalanced.
Wow, you could tell if I was blind? Or do you mean "blind" ? Perhaps you have in fact successfully diagnosed yourself here: "blind" and mentally unbalanced, with emotional problems (a "heart condition")? Just a thought.
Having said all of that, if I was one of those old time guys?
Yeah, gutters are full of vagrants. Or hadn't you noticed? Every one of 'em an expert on everything. Just go ask. It's a social issue, something's gotta be done about it but hell, it's no good if you want to head right there and plant your flag.
And don't go talking about "times past" when your head's apparently so anally inserted you seem to have forgotten how recent the idea of human rights is.
Back then, the old guys that had knowledge like I just described, if you told them u did not believe them, or if you acted disrespectful, they would never, and I mean never, no matter how you begged, talk to you again.
No, when someone spoke like you've described (three or four centuries out of date on ideology, ridiculously inaccurate on fact and self proclaimed expert on anything you claim), they'd probably get quietly hacked to pieces and the matter forgotten. Respected "old guys back then" as now were respected for particular reasons. It wasn't a character which megalomaniac kids could just mimic but those individuals could actually explain what they claimed to know about in an accurate and succinct fashion. Their accumilated life experience often meant they could make it an enjoyable or entertaining experience. Sometimes they were nice or funny to boot. Occaisionally they were disciplinarian.
If you act like a smarty pants, or you do something that shows them disrespect, they will continue to take your money for lessons, but they will never, ever teach you anything important.
Let's see, would "smarty pants" refer to someone who makes claims they apparently cannot corroberate, shows complete disregard for qualified authority and proclaims themselves as expert?
Nevertheless the treatment you have described is what I would call vindictive and I personally consider it unethical to treat you in such a manner, for essentially childish slights. The instructors you refer to may threaten to make themselves equally childish.
Whether or not you choose to believe it the responses you have been getting at this forum have not been knocking you but examine what you are saying. I suggest you do the same thing. You want experience in your presence? There's some of the most experienced martial artists around on this forum, I've noticed. Check the length of involvement of some of the people here.

[chapskins]

Okay now someone's been playing with the Stupid Stick haven't they?! Regardless of what you intend to "impart" you must think about what you say.




you should'nt say such things, i got a really sore throat, i laughed so much u made it worse, not having a dig at the Happeh fella, is funny would'nt everyone agree????

Sir i do think u have hit the nail on the head, for myself their are far to many self confessed teachers out their imparting their missunderstandings, something like what has already been spoken of because of it's lucidity can in the wrong hands be VERY DANGEROUS but hey, nevermind, am able to give this one a wide berth, what say you Happeh?

[Matt_Bernius]

"Ditto & Thanks Vanir. I didn't have the time to write all that, and I agree 100%."

I misjudge people. I always give them the benefit of the doubt. I came here expecting adults and experienced people. Instead I find people that.......are too young? to have a clue.

No offense Happeh, but get a grip. I offer the following, look at the dialog that Chapskins and I have been having in this thread. It's obvious that we have different ideas, experiences, and philosophies. But we have been sharing them and working hard to see from each other's vantage points. It's all been done in a spirit of sharing. Suck it up. People don't agree with your ideas and are posting pretty elloquent rational for why. There have been no threats or personal attacks (well, perhaps excepting for the Stupid Stick thing)


"Galileo was born in 1564. He did some great things, but proving the earth was round isn't one of them."

Oh I do not like doing research on unimportant stuff. What is important is the idea I put forth. A commonly accepted idea being shown to be false. You are correct. Galileo said the solar system revolved around the sun, contradicting the idea at the time that the solar system revolved around the earth.

I did make a mistake in the name. I think the validity of my example is self evident. I would get the correct scientist name. I can't justify wasting time on such a silly thing.
Ahh, the idea is more important than fact. What's even more ironic is in your explanation you were a bit off again. As Twain wrote, "It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." Facts do matter. And mistakes like this undercut the credibility of your argument. Explaining away the mistake in such a rediculous way only undercuts your personal credibility.

- Matt

[chapskins]

No offense Happeh, but get a grip. I offer the following, look at the dialog that Chapskins and I have been having in this thread. It's obvious that we have different ideas, experiences, and philosophies. But we have been sharing them and working hard to see from each other's vantage points. It's all been done in a spirit of sharing. Suck it up. People don't agree with your ideas and are posting pretty elloquent rational for why. There have been no threats or personal attacks (well, perhaps excepting for the Stupid Stick thing)

- Matt


It's a crazy crazy world, sharing is a healthy thing, helps to understand what before could'nt be in our own headspace, for me, people have laughed many times at what i have said, it's no big deal, it's only when we can't laugh at ourselves theirs a problem, ehh, Happeh, take it easy, smile some

[Matt_Bernius]

It's a crazy crazy world, sharing is a healthy thing, helps to understand what before could'nt be in our own headspace, for me, people have laughed many times at what i have said, it's no big deal, it's only when we can't laugh at ourselves theirs a problem, ehh, Happeh, take it easy, smile some
Here, here! And glad to hear you're feeling better.

- Matt

[chapskins]

[chapskins]

Thanks Matt :)

What u have said so far has been very interesting to read, so true about what u mention about what i mentioned about an enlightened being deciding to die, that as you put it would be an act of self, i'll get back to you when i'm out of the dark side

[Vanir]

I agree most certainly with the sentiment:that I hope Happeh has learned to smile at himself and accept the ease of which one may be wrong, or otherwise the work (ie. patient research and succinct explaination) involved when they are certain they are not.

[Nukite]

Huh? That's so not true. Martial arts do not attract people who are violence prone.



Religion is how you change violent men. There is, at times, a religious component in martial arts, but more often there's not.



Martial arts is and always was about teaching people to fight. For some of the arts, it's about fighting someone else (i.e., me against you). For some of the arts, it's about fighting yourself (i.e., me against me, trying to cut away my evil tendencies). Either way it's about fighting.



That's so not true!
Violent men are the first to be killed lacks emotional intelligence to see dangers, the one,s who fight are professionals and violence can hinder reality thinking. Real violence needs a brain to listen to reality and react to changing situation. These so called violent men are trying to make people fear but "real men" have used them throughout the centuries as fools who got killed because of their stupidity. Evil tendencies is good to a point but real crazy evil people don,t stand a chance in society or wars only sane people make it through.

[aikiMac]

Violent men are the first to be killed lacks emotional intelligence to see dangers, the one,s who fight are professionals and violence can hinder reality thinking. Real violence needs a brain to listen to reality and react to changing situation. These so called violent men are trying to make people fear but "real men" have used them throughout the centuries as fools who got killed because of their stupidity. Evil tendencies is good to a point but real crazy evil people don,t stand a chance in society or wars only sane people make it through.

Would you please translate that into American English? I don't understand it.

[shootodog]

Would you please translate that into American English? I don't understand it.

just a loose interpretation of what (i think) he said:

"if your martial arts has no grounding in making you a "spiritual" or better man, and instead makes you a violent man. you'll be a dead man."

i disagree. does owning a pistol or rifle or a knife make you violent? will it kill you?

the question is: are you pre-disposed to the notion that you are a bad person inherently? if the answer is yes, then all the amrtial arts training in the world won't make you good. if the answer is no, then all the martial arts training won't make you a saint. does martial arts teach something higher? yes it does, but that's up to you to derrive from it what you may. it is not the martial arts' prerogative to force it on to you.

[CKava]

Would you please translate that into American English? I don't understand it.
The language is know as word cut after spell checker cut and paste neat trick or right click for mirriam webster dictionary online ha ha ha
Ive personally given up trying to decipher NUkite's quasi-English posts. Good luck aikiMac!

[Andy Murray]

Makes sense to me!

Try using your Tai Gip filters everyone! :p

[CKava]

Ahh your right Andy! I didnt think to try using Gip Filter V2.0!

[Tomanak]

If you study anything with dedication, discipline, and enthusiam, you are bound to learn valuable lessons and become a better individual. The pursuit of knowledge itself is the journey to self-actualization, and NOT necessarily the object of study.

I don't believe martial arts leads to self improvement and "evolution into a higher being" any more than a dedicated and disciplined pursuit of rugby, gymnastics, glass blowing, paper mache', or swimming does.

Martial arts, to me, is all about fighting. Its about discovering effective, innovative, and scientific ways to inflict damage on a body for the defense of oneself (or in some instances, for competitive purposes). If I wanted to learn philosophy, I would go to university. If I wanted religion, the Church is a couple of meters away.

[shootodog]

If you study anything with dedication, discipline, and enthusiam, you are bound to learn valuable lessons and become a better individual. The pursuit of knowledge itself is the journey to self-actualization, and NOT necessarily the object of study.

I don't believe martial arts leads to self improvement and "evolution into a higher being" any more than a dedicated and disciplined pursuit of rugby, gymnastics, glass blowing, paper mache', or swimming does.

Martial arts, to me, is all about fighting. Its about discovering effective, innovative, and scientific ways to inflict damage on a body for the defense of oneself (or in some instances, for competitive purposes). If I wanted to learn philosophy, I would go to university. If I wanted religion, the Church is a couple of meters away.

can i get an amen on that? amen!

[AntonToo]

This thread sucks, no criminal seriously thinks that learning martial arts is important to his/her goals, there are things much more effective.

And as far as people with extra agression in their genes(or childhood) martial arts is a great way to release it like any other sport(nvmnd chess).

[Knight_Errant]

Again, the sheer number of idiots happy to randomly misuse words such as 'evolution' amazes me. A couple of points:
1. Evolution can NOT happen inside 1 generation. It takes thousands of years of natural selection
2. Acquired characteristics are not inherited. This is one of the principal things you have to grasp in order to understand evolution.

[AntonToo]

Again, the sheer number of idiots happy to randomly misuse words such as 'evolution' amazes me. A couple of points:
1. Evolution can NOT happen inside 1 generation. It takes thousands of years of natural selection
2. Acquired characteristics are not inherited. This is one of the principal things you have to grasp in order to understand evolution.


I dont think he is talking about evolution of species. Evolution of species cannot happen in one generation(unless some mad scientists alters the Genes! muhahhaha :D ),

Evolution into higher bieng is completely pluasable...I think... :rolleyes:

[cybermonk]

My thoughts on the issue:
Martial arts as the name states it are arts of war, made specifically for war and fighting. However, does knowing you are in control in most violent situations make you a more secure, better person? Maybe. Does knowing how frail the human body is and how devastating an attack could be, thus learning not to use force unless necessary make a more passive individual? It is possible. Does taking a life make you understand how precious life is thus avoiding taking lifes irrationally make you a "higher being"? Could be. Again, the most basic principle of martial arts is to devaste opponent/opponents. If all they wanted was to make people better persons they could aswell have left out the devastating techniques and weapons. Character development is just a side effect.

I also keep hearing "defense of oneself" a lot, personally I dont think when they were created it was that one sided, i believe it goes more like "what can i do to be effective defensively and offensively." Its the same with weapons, they werent meant only to defend oneself they were meant for both, agression and defense.

[Colin Linz]

The problem is that we are not all studying the same thing, yes we may all study martial arts but what does that mean? As I have said before, we have a different understanding and classification than say, the Japanese. I will give the Japanese example as it is one I’m familiar with, but the concept may be the same with other Asian arts.

What we lump together as martial arts, the Japanese separate into 4 classifications. These classifications define what the intent of the art is. Bujutsu, is the study of fighting systems for no other reason than skill development; Bugei, is the study of fighting techniques for entertainment; Kakutogi, is the study of fighting techniques for sport; and Budo, is the study of fighting techniques to develop the person. Therefore, no matter what your personal viewpoint is, if you are studying a form of budo, you are studying a martial art that has a goal to develop your character.

Should we use the study of martial arts to develop attitudes and the character of people? My thoughts are why not?

[Knight_Errant]

I dont think he is talking about evolution of species. Evolution of species cannot happen in one generation(unless some mad scientists alters the Genes! muhahhaha ),

Evolution into higher bieng is completely pluasable...I think...

Really? I've seen his website, I think his meaning is pretty clear :D

[shotokanwarrior]

Psychopathic killers? NO WAY!!!!!!!!!! I would never attack another human being, unless he was about to blow up the planet with a nuclear bomb or something. It was doing MA that gave me a sense of honour!!!!! I like to see myself as someone like an Arthurian knight (albeit female), a fighter bound to a code of honour. Yeah, I know, that sounds totally up my own arse, but I can't find another analogue.

[Knight_Errant]

Now it's been bumped, can I just voice the opinion that this thread has outlived its usefulness, was started by an UTTER TROLL, and is going from bad to worse even as we speak?

[YODA]

Pardon? :Angel: