A time to rollback, a time to just kicka$$!

[rogue]

Taken from a post on e-budo by Scott Sonnon. This hit me like a bolt of lightning.


Regarding Balance. Balance is not NECESSARILY a positive characteristic at any one point in one's lifetime. Balance happens over a LIFETIME. For instance, Dr. Tudor Bompa, author of the sport science tome, PERIODIZATION, speaks to the dangers of "****tail coaching" - of adding this and that to try and have the most balanced or "eclectic" approach possible. He speaks to the hazards it wreaks upon the body's ability to adapt specifically to the demands placed upon it. This is why the eclectic martial art movement will die as a sustainable discipline. It DEFINITELY was a necessary period of history for shaking people from their dogmatic slumber. It must and is evolving.

I PREFER a balance between what I have named "Hard-Work" and "Soft-Work" in English language. But Balance happens from oscillating between the extremes, not by merely choosing and walking the Middle Way. It's a logical fallacy. Balance happens from tacking (like a sailboat) through the course of one's life, going too far on Soft-Work and being "checked" by the negative of over-training that direction, and then going too far on Hard-Work and being "checked" by the negative of over-training in that direction. Over time, one discerns with greater acuity the subtle dance between Hard and Soft.

Not to take away from Scott but here's the original version of Scotts idea. (http://www.comportone.com/cpo/religion/christian/scripture/season.htm) Was good advice then and is good advice now.

[HuangKaiVun]

I know guys that can do only one thing, but they can do it really well. Mr. Sonnon seems to be one of these.

I also know guys that are better off studying a bunch of different things all at once. I am one of those.

If you try to take the one-track mind and multitask it, you end up with confusion. If you take the multitrack mind and confine it to a single discipline, you end up with paralysis. Either way, you lose.

Notice that though Mr. Sonnon "oscillates between the two extremes", he hasn't found it in his mind yet to realize that both can coexist - and then some. And that's why he either lives in overwork or in torpor without finding the equilibrium that he's REALLY looking for.

Perhaps if he realized that the world doesn't function in a dualistic manner, he can have his pie AND eat it at the same time. Or he might realize that there are alternatives to pie if something sweet is what he's looking for.

Because of the beauty of our world, eclectic martial arts have been and will be around for centuries. Thank goodness for that.

[rogue]

TTT

[vingtsunstudent]

yes very well said, by both coach sonnon and HuangKaiVun.
definetly a good post so far.
vts

[eulerfan]

I think his point is that there are some lessons that you can only really teach yourself.

Let me ask this question:

Do you think there is a difference between a person who never drinks to excess because she was raised not to and a person who never drinks to excess because she drank to excess on several occasions and saw that no good came of it?

I think there is a difference. It's the difference between a person who is following rules and a person who is following an understanding.

[Braden]

But there are many ways to come to an understanding.

I don't walk down the road shooting people in the head, but not because I've done it so much I'm maudlin about it.

[KC Elbows]

So you're still in your pre-maudlin stage?

[Merryprankster]

Braden,

Gotta side more with eulerfan on this one, but you have a very valid point.

Learning from other people's mistakes is equally as important as learning from your own--however there's an awful lot of stuff out there that's hard to learn without experience.

Your personal learning style, personal energy level, etc, are all things that you have to experience--you have to work from your own understanding. Very if you meet the Buddha kill the Buddha--you can examine others and say I want to end up that way (or god forbid I end up that way), but only you can figure out how YOU can end up that way.

I think it's all a matter of putting a "within reason," perspective on it. We're social animals so we learn from each other. We're also individuals and in some ways, inscrutable to the other social animals, so we gotta figure some stuff out on our own.

[Braden]

I'm not sure where you disagree with me.

I never mentioned anything about social learning, and your thesis, presumably "so we gotta figure some stuff out on our own" was exactly the same as my thesis.

[eulerfan]

Originally posted by Braden
But there are many ways to come to an understanding.

I don't walk down the road shooting people in the head, but not because I've done it so much I'm maudlin about it.

Heh.

Have you ever read Henry Miller? I'm reading Tropic of Capricorn right now and he really took that idea and ran with it. I don't think he ever killed anybody but he intentionally defied almost every other ethic to see why it was an ethic.

But you are right. I think the rest of us can rely on extrapolation.

If drinking to excess didn't work for you, you can reasonably understand why mainlining heroin isn't a good idea. I've hurt other people and saw that it hurt me, too. So, I can theoretically extend that to murder and feel like I own the decision not to kill.

[Merryprankster]

it might BE your thesis but that wasn't clear to me at the time. On the other hand, it is quite clear now :D

[Braden]

I understand and agree with what you guys are saying about social learning and extrapolation.

What my statement was specifically is that there are many ways to come to an understanding.

Direct experience was the one introduced in this thread. We've now introduced another - social learning. So these are different examples of the phenomenon I suggested exist.

FWIW, I do not think our compunction against killing comes from observing being hurt, observing hurting others, understanding these as analogous processes, and extrapolating minor hurt to murder.

I think we've 'come to an understanding' about murder through a means other than direct experience, and other than social learning.

Note also, an understanding. Just as there are many means, there are also many understandings.

[KC Elbows]

Don't know if this is really part of this discussion, but at the same time, I think it's important that someone has gone over that line to find out what life is on the other side of ethics, especially since ethics change from place to place and culture to culture.

Now, I'm not advocating murder by any means, but I'm agreeing that there is a qualitative difference between being ethical because of understanding than being ethical because of compulsion. Understanding, barring brain damage, is consistent, whereas compulsion is external and thus subject to change. In fact, the most heinous person I've ever known started out as a very ethical person, but only because of compulsions. Once he became an adult, and thus, the enforcer of ethics in his world, he couldn't handle it, as he had no understanding of the reasons for ethics. By the time he was the master of his own ethical world, he had never been on the outside of that world in sufficient doses to understand the consequences(without outside punishment) of unethical behavior.[anecdotal, I know, not trying to use him as evidence, merely babbling]

[eulerfan]

KC,
don't sweat it. Babbling is an unavoidable result of discussing this topic. I mean, from personal experience, I can tell you that it is possible to read everything from Plato to Kant, take a class on the subject and still not be clear about the true nature of ethics.

[HuangKaiVun]

Ethics?

It goes like this: If you were in the other person's (or animal's) shoes, would you want to be the victim of abuse?

[fa_jing]

Originally posted by eulerfan
KC,
don't sweat it. Babbling is an unavoidable result of discussing this topic. I mean, from personal experience, I can tell you that it is possible to read everything from Plato to Kant, take a class on the subject and still not be clear about the true nature of ethics.

Or you could read a little further to the moderns who claim that all ethics come from within the individual, and we choose them of our own free will. The only thing that makes them universal is that we know from observation that we are basically built the same as others, therefore we should act as we want others to act, if they do the same everything will be peachy.

I have to stop writing about this crap. :)

[rubthebuddha]

eulerfan,

seems the more time you spend reading up on kant and plato and other ethics buggers, the further from an opinion you are. if you're an everyday schmo, you have an idea where your ethics lie and don't think about it much. if you have too much free time on your hands and study up, and then realize that each person has a valid point, yet no one is convincing enough to outweigh the others. thus, you're more torn than ever.

ah, the search for truth. :o

[Braden]

I more or less agree with Kant on this, as with most things.

[Ryu]

Kant. :) I like him too. Mostly... :D

"especially since ethics change from place to place and culture to culture."

Not sure I agree with this. I've been to lots of other countries, and have had deep relationships with people from many different cultures be they Asian, Western, Middle Eastern, etc. What I've come to realize is that "Ethics" don't really change a whole lot from culture to culture.... very little in deed. What does change a great deal is social norms, mores, etc.
I wouldn't necessarily equate these though to "ethics".

The real "relative" thing about ethics is in it's definition. Humanity is humanity for a reason. We share common values, emotions, and observations about the world around us. In a broad sense I do not believe humans are "races" of sub-cultures all isolated from each other and completely different. I don't believe that at all. Not from the hands on experience I have. We cry, we love, we worship, we show empathy, we show discipline. These things are very universally "human."

Ryu

[Chang Style Novice]

Well, Egalitarianism is a really new idea in ethics, and one that really hasn't caught on widely, yet.

So, I dunno.

[Ryu]

Well, Egalitarianism implies that all people are more or less "equal" in fundamental and moral worth...... I'm not sure I agree with that notion either.... :D How's that for "balance" for ya?

People's fundamental and moral potentials might be equal, but few would claim that Hitler's moral actions are on the same equal ground as Mother Theresa's..... ;)

Ryu

[Chang Style Novice]

Actually, I'd argue that once you've got egalitarianism, all other moral and ethical standards fall into place rather nicely. So, although it is a very new idea, it is also just about as fundamental as ethical and moral standards come. After all, if you start with "This guy/gal right here is no greater or lesser than I am, just the same as the rest of humanity" you get to the Categorical Imperative without even a hop skip or a jump. From the Categorical Imperative everything else is just frills and window dressing. Well, sorta.

[Ryu]

That's an interesting premise. I suppose if it were truly "universal" you technically couldn't get the "hitler's" of this world, could you?

Almost a "pay it forward" type of routine? :D

Ryu

[Chang Style Novice]

Egalitarianism assumes people have equal value and rights from inception. It doesn't assume that their actions have equal value, or that their actions will not affect their social utility.

In other words, before Adolf Hitler started going berzerk and oppressing and killing everyone in sight, he was as good as anyone. After that, he violated the principles of egalitarianism himself and became a menace to the greater good.

How did you get egalitarianism mixed up with 'moral relativism to the point of meaninglessness'? You're a smart guy, and better educated in this stuff than I am. ;)

[Ryu]

I'm not sure. Coffee withdrawls can hurt you LOL.

[Braden]

What's egalitarianism?

[rogue]

Can you guys return my thread when you're done with it?:p

[Chang Style Novice]

Braden - Egalitarianism is the notion that "All men are created equal"

Rogue - I figure I'm done here. It's in Ryu's hands now. Or yours. Enjoy.

[Braden]

In every sense of the word?

Or would there be different kinds of egalitarianism?

[Chang Style Novice]

Egalitarianism is mostly concerned with innate rights. ie: no caste systems, no aristocracies, no ownership of other human beings, etc. It's a big deal in the American and French revolutions, and the Enlightenment in general. I'm not really a student of philosophy, but those guys can split hairs like nobody's biz, so I wouldn't doubt that there are different 'sects' so to speak of Egalitarianism.

edit -

Sorry, Rogue, looks like I lied. But it's Braden's fault! I'll go back to watching my DVDs now...