Yes, eating a greasy cheeseburger is bad for your health, but probably not as bad as smoking, which is very bad for your health. Every cigarette you smoke is harmful - the poisons damage every cell they come into contact with. These statements are quite reasonable because they are true. http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/healthyliving/smokeispoison/ http://gosmokefree.nhs.uk/downloads/107659_shs_booklet.pdf You might also be interested to discover just how long the health hazards of smoking have been known about. Read this fascinating paper from 1916: http://medicolegal.tripod.com/higley1916.htm This article shows that the harmful effects were known about as long ago as 1527: http://medicolegal.tripod.com/effects.htm
I feel like you missed my point. I’m not arguing that smoking is good for you or that eating greasy food is bad, I’m suggesting that dividing everything into two (or any finite number of) categories (good for your health and bad for your health, in this example) is not the best idea. The world is better reflected in terms that are only measures of degrees and not measures of absolute properties. Is smoking bad for you? Until you can give me a concrete definition for ‘bad’ that doesn’t define it in relative terms I object to the premise of the question (that is to say I reject that some things are good and some things are bad) and reply with “Smoking is worse for your health than not smoking.” This may seem like a pointlessly fine distinction but I would argue that there is utility in categorizing the world more accurately and that describing things in relativist terms better describes the world as it actually is.
I haven't missed your point at all, anguirus, I just know that relativism is nonsense - it makes no sense. I've already explained why in previous posts, so I won't go over it again. Regarding cigarettes, we can describe them as "bad" simply because they have no nutritional value and are highly toxic - for those who smoke them and the people around them. Secondhand smoke contains the same toxins as the filtered smoke, but at concentrations that are on average 4 times greater. The scale that you wish us to place smoking on is a linear scale - a scale with good at one end and bad at the other. The degrees you speak of are degrees of relative goodness vs. badness. Without those two premises at either end, the scale is meaningless. For you to say that smoking is worse for you than non-smoking is itself on that scale. To make that statement you have already accepted the premise of the good vs. bad scale. Your choice of term is "worse". What does "worse" mean if not "more bad"? In reality, you are not arguing a relativist position - you are merely saying that there are degrees of subtlety within absolutes. (I think the term situationalism is a more accurate word than relativism in this instance.) I have no argument with the premise that things can be good or bad by degrees. I would however suggest that smoking is certainly past the neutral half-way mark on the scale of things that are good for you - things that improve your health - and things that are bad for you - those things that can only damage it. It is that differentiation in the middle that gives us the terms we can place at the two ends. We are discussing consumables that promote and prolong life (such as healthy food) vs. those that harm it (poisons). The constituent parts - the ingredients of tobacco smoke are all highly poisonous - they all damage your health and can lead to all manner of fatal illnesses. The "Smoking Kills" message on cigarette packets is clear enough - it is a scientific fact and is stated as such. The fact that smoking kills is backed up by almost incalculable amounts of evidence. It is objective rather than subjective - your personal feelings on the matter cannot alter the facts. There is no room for doubt.
Hopefully we can reach some sort of understanding here. Don’t mistake my position, I am not arguing for truth relativism. Rest assured that I am an objectivist. I agree that it is (probably) objective fact that smoking is very harmful to the longevity and (perhaps) quality of life of those that smoke and those that are around them. My position regarding relativism is not that there is no objective truth but rather than truth claims are a measure of objective degree. Smoking is (probably) bad because it (objectivly) contains a high degree of badness, however, smoking falls short of the ideal bad and cannot, therefore, be said to be absolutely bad. What, then, does ‘bad’ in this sentence mean? I would suggest that it means worse (closer to the absolute bad) than the inverse (not smoking). I think that Bailu Taijiquan’s point about there being a lot of interpretations and none of them being wrong is that all of the probable (or even humanly possible…if we want to go that far) interpretations are representative of different aspects of the (unimaginably complicated) truth. There is an objective truth to the matter but that is not to say that anyone claiming to know that objective truth fully does. But then again, I believe in forms…so I’m sort of in the minority here. Side note: I find it funny that you think that I’m a situationalist because nothing gets me incensed quite like non virtue ethics.
Considering the expanse of the hitherto known universe and the estimated time of its existence, how bad is smoking cigarettes of a single human being, his lifespan considered in that relation and how much does it matter. :yeleyes:
Why remove the image? You do not like information that does not fit into your preconceptions? I was gonna leave, but I feel sorry for you so............. Yang is hard. The picture you removed showed the upper and lower arm bone forming half of a square. Bones are hard. Bones are mostly straight. You cannot make a circle with bones. You can only make squares with straight bones. You really ought to get over your need to delete what bothers you. You will stay in the rut you are in, until you allow new information into that dark place in your head. Watch this:
Why aren't you a robot? No I meant the upper body still maintains more of a straight line than a circular one. During research I have also found how even in stance you have straight lines. Say you are to put the 8 trigrams down and you are in the center. If you take a front bow stance (say with right foot forward) then you will create a straight line between your two legs. If you were to press against this line this is where the strength of the stance comes in. However, if we follow the 8 trigrams and your stance is at two this means that your stance is only the absolute strongest at 2 points (because you only have 2 feet) the other 6 trigrams present varying degrees of weakness within the stance. So this is another way I have seen how a "circle (the idea of one) can overcome a square" However, like in Hsing I thought a straight line can pierce the circle when presented properly. This idea can also apply if you super impose the trigrams around someone that is facing you and you look at their stance etc. and see the straight lines, how balanced ones structure is etc.
I don't think they was intentionally taking a shoot at you Krabong! They did not get the relation to yang and yin. Most don't know the 'yao system' or how it is exchanged in the end.
Oh I think it's comments like "You do not like information that does not fit into your preconceptions?" and "I was gonna leave, but I feel sorry for you so............." and "You really ought to get over your need to delete what bothers you. You will stay in the rut you are in, until you allow new information into that dark place in your head." that start sounding alarm bells - and quite rightly so. Comments like that say a lot about a person. Such an arrogant tone & enigmatic "I know something you don't" behaviour tends to make people switch off, and rightly so. People might say "ah - but then that is your problem - you are missing out on valuable information" but if people take that kind of attitude, I'm rather inclined to think "tell someone who cares." I know plenty of wise people who want to share what they know and see it as their responsibility to convey it accurately to others. I'll just listen to them instead. I think many of us probably know enough about yin and yang to "get" what was being said, but the main problem here as I see it is in its relevance to the thread - to the OP or otherwise. I have encountered different schools or systems of Daoist thought and found there to be any number of differences between them. Personally, I do not bother to retain what is not useful - what will not help with fighting skills. So who wants to be the first to explain - in logical and rational terms - in practical terms - in physical terms - in useful terms - what was meant by the original post, what on earth angular joints have to do with anything, and how any of it offers anything new and unique to help anyone to fight. I know of plenty of other martial traditions that do not resort to esoteric language or haughtiness to explain to you that you can strike with your elbows or that you can flow seamlessly through different combat ranges.
I think you fail to understand how your actions make people feel. Let's say I was a college professor in a class of 100 students. I get up and I write for 15 minutes on the blackboard some information that all 100 students either need or want. Then some student gets up, walks to the blackboard and takes an eraser and erases half of what I spent 15 minutes writing. When I ask the student why he erased my hard work and why he erased information that was meant for the other 99 people in the class, he says something to the effect, "I don't like you and I don't like the way you talk". How would you feel? Honestly? You are the teacher. You are given responsibility to pass on information to the 100 students. Because they are students, it is generally accepted that they should defer to you, the teacher. Instead, this student treats you with disrespect by erasing your work, and prevents you from getting through to the people who want to learn. I am no teacher and you are not a student, but you must see how angering it would be for some 3rd person to come between me and someone else, and decide what I can and cannot tell some other 3rd person. You have no right to decide what I tell to another person. There might be other people though, that do not mind mystery. Maybe they even get a thrill out of mystery. They might like detective books or police stories where they get only little clues to the plot, and they are supposed to figure the rest out by themselves. Why not allow those people to learn in the way that they like to? I believe the beginning post said something about what was the relationship between Yin, Yang, Squares and Circles. I created two posts that showed a picture of half of a square, with lines on it that formed a half circle. I wrote 3 words, "Squares are Yang". My post and my words do relate to the beginning post. I cannot tell you what I have to say will help you fight. It is more along the lines of either philosophy, or knowledge of how things work. I am not certain the original question was posed in reference to fighting. I felt the original question had a philosophical tone or a fact finding kind of tone to it. Can I ask you a question? Do you feel like you are developing internal power martial arts? Or maybe more specifically, do you feel like you know what the Yin part of your body is, and you feel you are working on growing it, and observing it as it grows? Or is the Yin part of your body some mysterious thing you read about and talk about only? You don't really where the Yin parts of your body are, or if they are growing or not?
Let's be clear. Your analogy is false and misleading. The image was not removed because of its content, nor does it have anything to do with any opinion I might have about you or your ideas. I removed that image because we have a policy about hotlinked images here. We've since amended it, and seeing as you were upset about the removal, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and put it back. I am not "some 3rd person." In your analogy, I would be the administrator walking into the classroom and erasing the board. Not only that, but your assertion that the information you provided is/was desired is also false, because none of the posters that I have seen in this thread seem to be receiving the image with any of the reverence that you apparently think it deserves. Further, if you have any issue with something I do from a moderation capacity, it is your obligation to contact me in PRIVATE, and not make it public discussion. A simple email asking me to replace the image would've done the job. Plus, all of this could've been avoided if you'd eschewed the silly games in the first place and simply explained what you meant by the images you posted.
Hi Krabong - I have as much right to speak my mind about your enigmatic behaviour as you have to exercise it. You don't seem to realise how much you put other people down in your own comments. That said, I apologise for offending you. Secondly, the OP made no mention at all of yin or yang. Thirdly, I don't believe in internal power. I know the theories - I was taught in quite a traditional manner, but I completely reject the idea that there exists such a thing as an internal martial art. I think that IMA people make too much out of aspects such as subtle body mechanics, sensitivity, seamless flow, momentum and not opposing force with force. (Other martial arts have those things too, but make a lot less of a song and dance about them). I also consider much of the philosophy and all of the internal alchemy concepts unhelpful and entirely unnecessary. It is not mysterious to me because I do not buy into the mythology of it and I don't care about it or for it. Regards, Joanna
Thank the light for that! For a while there I thought you were actually in to this stuff, JK, lol - great post, and thanks for saying it.
