the purpose of study Chinese Martial art History

[yellowpikachu]

A purpose of study Chinese Martial art history is to be able to decode , clearify technical issues from history data.
Thus, the study of history can become a tool instead of become a myth generator to promote myth.



EI. philosophical wise, On Zen teaching relation.

it has been a while people love to use Chan Patraich, Chan Warrior, Chan teaching, Chan way, or teaching with mouth to ear, body to body....ect.

But wait a minute, the facts in the history of Chan is that there are only about 31 students of HuiNeng who studied under him got the Chan.

So, here is the problem. a patriach in his whole life only has 31 people master his teaching. isnt him teach in the Zenist style, Chan way, .... of mouth to ear, body to body teaching? so why is it only 31 got enligtenment?

The above facts show that even one is teach privately by the Patriach himself, there is no guareentee one will get it. thus, the method Chan, Chan patriach, or mouth to ear, body to body type of teaching is just a tradition but not a must and no guareentee to success or salvation. Not to mention, is the one who passed the Zen is within the 31? if not, then on got a problem of where is that Zen from?

Thus, the Facts about Zen lay clear in the history.



EI. Mechanics wise, FAlling steps vesus Sung/Chen Zhen Jing.

There are components of style which is described/ defined in the Chinese martial art history which one be able to track.

Say, Something which is related to the descrision of the Falling step will be about how to utilize the Falling Potential or Tie Shi (in madarin). one can see this falling potential utilization greatly in the script or kuit of the Drunken Style.

The usage of the FAll to accelerate to transfer power to neutralize power. That Tie Shi or falling potential has no direct relation to Sung/Chen or Zhen jing because it is about Potential not about the way of conditioning the physical body.

It is about how to use a potential in this case ; the potential while falling: be it intentionaly or accidentally. That fall potential then can be further anylize into free nature fall, intent generation fall, fast fall......etc


So, studying history of CMA does be able to provide a decoding help to see what is going on instead of taking Myth or he said/she said as the truth and continous on bebate with the bias speculation. But, see clearly what is what. there is no need to argure because very often the facts lay there clearly in details.



IMHHHHHO

[PaulH]

Since most people that I admire has much better fighting skills than me, I figure one way to get even is to beat them over their heads with long tomes of obscure oriental history and esoteric martial arts manuals. It gives me some satisfaction. =)

P.S. Hendrik, could you give an example on intention generation fall? I'm not clear on this.

[yellowpikachu]

Originally posted by PaulH
Since most people that I admire has much better fighting skills than me, I figure one way to get even is to beat them over their heads with long tomes of obscure oriental history and esoteric martial arts manuals. It gives me some satisfaction. =)

P.S. Hendrik, could you give an example on intention generation fall? I'm not clear on this.


boy, you do really seems like love mystherious stuffs.

Intention generation fall? try pick up your computer and smash it to the floor. that is intention generated fall isnt it? :D:D:D

[t_niehoff]

I don't care whether Abner Doubleday really invented baseball or not -- whether he did or didn't, it won't change my enjoyment of the game or how I play the game.

The history of a martial art, while interesting, doesn't help one develop skill in that martial art. Knowing the history of BJJ won't help one when rolling, knowing the history of boxing won't help one in the ring, knowing the history of swordfighting won't help one fence, and knowing the history of WCK won't help us fight (apply our WCK).

How some persons in the past were (allegedly) able to make things work for them isn't controlling or defining for how we should or need to do things for ourselves to make them work for ourselves. While I agree that we should learn from history, we should not be bound by history. If the history of marital arts teaches us anything, it is that martial arts continually evolve and grow because our knowledge and experience evolves and grows.

[reneritchie]

I just like good stories.

The Matrix (absent sequels), Star Wars (absent prequels), Shaolin Temple, whatever. If they're tied to an MA or not, good stories are good stories.

Gracie Way has good stories, although Ng Mui is more archetypal and powerful, IMHO.

[yellowpikachu]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
knowing the history of WCK won't help us fight (apply our WCK).



See, histoy comes with two parts. The events history and the technical history.

You might be suprise if people really investigate into history. since people cant differentiate between Sung/Chen / Zheng Jing with Falling steps this days. people needs histories. (NOt those myth)

furthermore, what is WCK's Keng Geng today? according to history it is a speedy shock wave turn into strike.

Knowing Keng Geng sure will help one fight and improve atleast 2x capability. :D as the history said.

[t_niehoff]

A person doesn't need to know the "technical history" of boxing to become a good boxer, they don't need to know the "technical history" of BJJ to become a good groundfighter, and they don't need to know the "technical history" of WCK to become a good WCK fighter. Theoreticians dogmatically stick to "technical history" (this is how folks have tried things in the past) for how they should do things today because they aren't fighting. Without the feedback from fighting (seeing what really works for them), they can do nothing more than mimic the actions of past practitioners in noncombative situations (this is what I would do in a fight) while assuring themselves that "doing this worked for so-and-so, so it will work for me."

[Vajramusti]

A person doesn't need to know the "technical history" of boxing to become a good boxer,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment on above- true.

However- Ali knew a lot about what earlier fighters did or didnt do.
Tyson in his formative years with D'Amato was an an avid watcher of ALL old fight films---the late Joe Jacobs his co trainer had the best collection of fight films ever. That collection has now broken up into several ownerships.

An aside- Tyson lives here in the Phoenix metro- unfortunately and allegedly and reportedly jumped on the hood of a car night before last outside of a night club . Angry that the driver didnt move his car. Beat the hood of the car with his fists and did considerable damage to the hood. Showed up ata hearing with a lawyer and refused to answer questions. He is also rebuilding after knee surgery. The driver is a Tyson fan - just wants his car repaired without pressing charges.

Bud Wilkinson the late great football coach at Oklahoma used to watch all the old and the then current football films.

With an open mind you pick up insights wherever you can-then its up to you- experiment, practice, adjust.

[yellowpikachu]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
they don't need to know the "technical history" of WCK to become a good WCK fighter.

Theoreticians dogmatically stick to "technical history" (this is how folks have tried things in the past) for how they should do things today because they aren't fighting. ....


so what is this people doing? street fighting or WCK?

looking at an atleast 2x improvement if one knows keng geng compare with before one has no idea about it. that is a 200% heck improvment and transcent be it in fighting or daily life. :D
thanks to the technical history! thus, I have heard.


BTW: the comparison qouting of falling steps and sung/chen zheng jing shown that you have not meet a real TCMA theorician yet. A TCMA theorician will not make the equavalent of the sung/... to falling steps. a make belive theorician might. :D:D:D

the dangerous is on one doesnt know what one thinks one know.

[Theorb]

niehoff say: they don't need to know the "technical history" of BJJ to become a good groundfighter


I say: I dare you to go find one person helio train to above black belt who do not know "technical history" of both BJJ and JJJ


:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[reneritchie]

They know Helio Gracie's version. Carlson's would be different, and Japanese Judoka's perhaps different still...

[yellowpikachu]

Thus,

When the event history and the technical history dont converge,
One knows the direction of the history reseach has a problem.






They know Helio Gracie's version. Carlson's would be different, and Japanese Judoka's perhaps different still...--------



One might remember differently how a guy was hit by a truck.

But, the truck that hit the man and the man who hit by the truck ; and the speed of the collusion can be traced.

beyond he says she says or what one thinks.

[YongChun]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
A person doesn't need to know the "technical history" of boxing to become a good boxer, they don't need to know the "technical history" of BJJ to become a good groundfighter

Usually intelligent people in ANY subject like to explore EVERYTHING they can about their subject and that includes history. It doesn't help a modern physicist to solve his differential equations by knowing how Archimedes did his science either. But every physicist is aware of what he did and how. A street fighter doesn't care about academics, the only thing that counts is if he bashes someone's head in. There is something good about scholar's too. To apply an armlock, it's true I don't need to know the history of arm locks.

Ray

[kj]

Originally posted by Vajramusti
An aside- Tyson lives here in the Phoenix metro- unfortunately and allegedly and reportedly jumped on the hood of a car night before last outside of a night club . Angry that the driver didnt move his car. Beat the hood of the car with his fists and did considerable damage to the hood. Showed up ata hearing with a lawyer and refused to answer questions. He is also rebuilding after knee surgery. The driver is a Tyson fan - just wants his car repaired without pressing charges.

Perhaps Tyson would have benefitted from a little more time spent studying history.

Regards,
- kj

[Vajramusti]

KJ--

True.

Just when you think that he is settling down something happens.
Given his down hill slide he should be ready for mma soon. he tried to break Botha's arm once so he could be ready -together with his
taste for ear lobes(Holyfld) and knees(Lewis at the weighin) he could be ready for handling some ground or pound and ground folks . The problem is- that wont pay his bills- apparently he has many.
But --- re standards... compared to Don King?....


joy

[Theorb]

rene say:They know Helio Gracie's version. Carlson's would be different, and Japanese Judoka's perhaps different still...


hahahahahahahaha

i dare you to convince them their version really different from the other


:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[Vajramusti]

Hendrik IMO is correct and is an invaluable source of information.
One does not have to agree with all his conclusions.

History is full of many myths... but understanding the technical history of any field of knowing allows innovations to take place without reinventing the wheel.

Most good boxers and wrestlers are not usually self taught--they also have had good coaches who have picked up tacit knowledge of the subject over time--- per experience, reading, discussion, listening, thinking,mentoring and experimenting- a good mix of things.

The Dundees, Sewards and others have played important roles..
and they have a sense of the technical history of the subject. Alexander Karelin attributes much of his success in wrestling to his coach who is also knowledgeable on the techinal and comparative background of the subject.

And- being open minded on insights from the past does not mean mechanical imitation of anyone.

[t_niehoff]

Vajramusti wrote: being open minded on insights from the past does not mean mechanical imitation of anyone.

**Joy, it's hardly an "open-minded" position to believe that if WCK isn't done as some ancestor says to do it (or, more accurately, how they interpret whats been said), then it is no longer WCK. And you're right that good wrestlers and boxers have had good coaches, but I've met and trained with lots of both that have no idea of the "technical history" of their martial art, and didn't have an interest in it either.

[anerlich]

They know Helio Gracie's version. Carlson's would be different, and Japanese Judoka's perhaps different still...

Just as well this sort of thing never happens with TCMA history ;)

[Vajramusti]

**Joy, it's hardly an "open-minded" position to believe that if WCK isn't done as some ancestor says to do it (or, more accurately, how they interpret whats been said), then it is no longer WCK.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terence- unless actual imrovement on the ygkym or chi sao or key principles occurs or is convincingly explained- I dont think that having a tacit sense of the boundaries of the art is being closed minded. I have never argued that wck is the only way to fight or defend oneself. Lots of evolution in the understanding of the ygkym and chi sao has occured IMO. I have seen better chi sao in the US than lots of chi sao in HK.All kinds of things can work- but why does it have to be called wck. Why not just call it mma, smith's self defense system or whatever.
I dont have blind obedience to ancestors- but I do think that it is important to try and analyse -not blindly follow- what earlier founders of the art have said, suggested or pointed towards.

[t_niehoff]

Joy wrote:

Terence- unless actual imrovement on the ygkym or chi sao or key principles occurs or is convincingly explained-

**How do we measure "actual improvement" on the YJKYM other than our ability to use it where it was meant to be used? How do we measure "actual improvement" in the drill of chi sao other than how it increases our ability to use our WCK tools where they were meant to be used? How do we measure "actual improvement" of in our grasp of theory (key principles) other than though using our WCK as it was meant to be used?

**And, persons can often do things differently and still be effective (so not an actual improvement). The test of a good jab isn't that it meets some criteria set out by some boxing ancestor but whether it is effective *for me*. Same with YJKYM. And how you determine that, whether for the jab or YJKYM, is the same way.

I dont think that having a tacit sense of the boundaries of the art is being closed minded.

**You begin with the assumption that there is a boundary.

I have never argued that wck is the only way to fight or defend oneself.

**That's besides the point.

Lots of evolution in the understanding of the ygkym and chi sao has occured IMO. I have seen better chi sao in the US than lots of chi sao in HK.

**What does "better chi sao" really mean? How do you judge whether someone is getting the intended benefit of the drill -- which obviously goes beyond the drill -- or not?

All kinds of things can work- but why does it have to be called wck.

**Simple, if it uses the tools of WCK - tan, bong, fook, YJKYM, etc. -- then it is WCK. What's wrong with that? If it uses the tools of BJJ, then it is BJJ; if it uses the tools of boxing, then it is boxing; if it uses the tools of muay thai, then it is thai boxing. Is there in any fighting art some requirement that the tools must be used or performed a certain way? The only requirement is that the practitioner can make them work effectively.

Why not just call it mma, smith's self defense system or whatever.

**If someone takes me to the ground, I'll not be "using" WCK; but if I'm fighting with the tools and method of WCK, then it is WCK.

I dont have blind obedience to ancestors- but I do think that it is important to try and analyse -not blindly follow- what earlier founders of the art have said, suggested or pointed towards.

**This is true in any fighting art. Boxers read Dempsey. Fencers read Nadi. Does that mean if they don't do it like Dempsey they aren't boxing? If they don't do it like Nadi they aren't fencing? Should they then call it MMA or smith's self-defense system?

**And look at it from this perspective -- if one group says "you must do it like this to be WCK" and another group says "no, you must do it like that to be WCK" do we then do a historical analysis to decide how to correctly do it? LOL! I don't need history to tell me whether my punch is effective or not.

[Vajramusti]

Comments on Terence's points in brackets:

**How do we measure "actual improvement" on the YJKYM other than our ability to use it where it was meant to be used?

((Comes down to informed judgments. True for many fields))

**And, persons can often do things differently and still be effective (so not an actual improvement).

((WCK is not the only effective system. If I use taiji or boxing well it does not become wck. Simple))

The test of a good jab isn't that it meets some criteria set out by some boxing ancestor but whether it is effective *for me*.
((So???))

Same with YJKYM. And how you determine that, whether for the jab or YJKYM, is the same way.

((Sorry-our POVs are different. You are comparing apples and oranges))



**You begin with the assumption that there is a boundary.

((I do- ok by me if you dont))



**That's besides the point.

((What's point?))


**What does "better chi sao" really mean? How do you judge whether someone is getting the intended benefit of the drill -- which obviously goes beyond the drill -- or not?

((Again different POVs. Chi sao is not just a drill))

.

**Simple, if it uses the tools of WCK - tan, bong, fook, YJKYM, etc. -- then it is WCK. What's wrong with that?
((Thats your definition. Bot mine. I dont lecture people on definitions much. If they think that boxing with bong like shape ina move is wck thats their problem))

)) If it uses the tools of BJJ, then it is BJJ;

(( I dont define bjj- not my art))

if it uses the tools of boxing, then it is boxing;

((If tough man contest are boxing- I differ))





**If someone takes me to the ground, I'll not be "using" WCK;
((I would!!))



**This is true in any fighting art. Boxers read Dempsey.

((Really?-I havent met many that have.Sonny Liston didnt read much period))

[t_niehoff]

Hi Joy,

Joy wrote:

**How do we measure "actual improvement" on the YJKYM other than our ability to use it where it was meant to be used?

((Comes down to informed judgments. True for many fields))

"Informed" based on what? It's easy to see actual improvement, with no need for subjective "informed judgments" -- by seeing how well they can actually use it. Absent that, all you have is speculation.


**And, persons can often do things differently and still be effective (so not an actual improvement).

((WCK is not the only effective system. If I use taiji or boxing well it does not become wck. Simple))

There is room for variety in any fighting method -- WCK is not tai ji or boxing, they all have different tools (for implementing a different approach toward fighting).


**The test of a good jab isn't that it meets some criteria set out by some boxing ancestor but whether it is effective *for me*.

((So???))

Similarly, the test of a good YJKYM isn't that it meets some criteria set out by some WCK ancestor but whether it is effective for me.


**Same with YJKYM. And how you determine that, whether for the jab or YJKYM, is the same way.

((Sorry-our POVs are different. You are comparing apples and oranges))

How so? Aren't both physical actions? Sure one is a punch and the other a body mechanic but as physical actions the test for either is in the fighting effectiveness of that action.


**You begin with the assumption that there is a boundary.

((I do- ok by me if you dont))

Hendrik says WCK has the backfist, you say it doesn't -- now you both have different boundaries of what is WCK. Another lineage has a different boundary. And another yet another boundary. Pretty soon the map of what is WCK looks like an overlapping Venn diagram!


**That's besides the point.

((What's point?))

The point of the discussion.



**What does "better chi sao" really mean? How do you judge whether someone is getting the intended benefit of the drill -- which obviously goes beyond the drill -- or not?

((Again different POVs. Chi sao is not just a drill))

What do you think it is? For me a WCK drill is any exercise, short of fighting, that's purpose is to enhance my ability to use the WCK tools in fighitng. Chi sao seems to fit that bill to me. Do you think chi sao is an exercise or not? Do you think it is short of fighting or do you think it is fighting? Do you think its purpose is to enhance the trainee's ability to apply their WCK tools or not?


**Simple, if it uses the tools of WCK - tan, bong, fook, YJKYM, etc. -- then it is WCK. What's wrong with that?

((Thats your definition. Bot mine. I dont lecture people on definitions much. If they think that boxing with bong like shape ina move is wck thats their problem))

Funny, you say you don't lecture people on definitions but at the same time say that "if they think boxing with a bong-like shape is WCK that's their problem"! LOL!


**If it uses the tools of BJJ, then it is BJJ;

(( I dont define bjj- not my art))

The point, and I know you're intelligent enough to see it, is that any martial art has certain principles of strategy and body movements that support those strategies (btw, ask Hendrik if the ancient chinese didn't use the same means to categorize MAs ;) ) -- I shorthand it into "tools". I can recognize BJJ by its tools, just as I can recognize boxing by its tools, just as I can recognize WCK by its tools. I think you can do the same. The mere fact that we can recognize these methods just from their tools tells you what it is that "defines" them.


if it uses the tools of boxing, then it is boxing;

((If tough man contest are boxing- I differ))

It may be bad (low-level) boxing, but it is still boxing. Butterbean started in "toughman" contests and then went onto pro boxing. Did the definition of what he was doing change when he changed rings? ;) And there's no argument that there is lots of bad WCK out there too, but that doesn't mean it isn't WCK.


**If someone takes me to the ground, I'll not be "using" WCK;

((I would!!))

I wish you the best of luck with that. Maybe you should one day give it a try with someone that knows what they are doing on the ground and see how that works for you.


**This is true in any fighting art. Boxers read Dempsey.

((Really?-I havent met many that have.Sonny Liston didnt read much period))

I've met some, but it doesn't matter. That's the point. What matters is that they can take the tools of boxing and find ways of making them effective for themselves. That's what everyone who fights does with their art. What they don't do is limit themselves in the expression/use of their tools, especially by the performance of historical figures.

[Vajramusti]

Comments on some of Terence's points:

Hi Joy,

Joy wrote:



((Comes down to informed judgments. True for many fields))

"Informed" based on what? It's easy to see actual improvement, with no need for subjective "informed judgments" -- by seeing how well they can actually use it. Absent that, all you have is speculation.

(("seeing" a "fact " is a subjective act. That is why in your field of activity at the federal level and in most states- findings of fact are left upto common law juries- not the judge. The nature of the observer plays a an important role in "seeing". FWIW I suggest Michael Polyani on the nature and importance of "tacit knowledge" even in science))







Hendrik says WCK has the backfist, you say it doesn't -- now you both have different boundaries of what is WCK. Another lineage has a different boundary. And another yet another boundary. Pretty soon the map of what is WCK looks like an overlapping Venn diagram!

((Possibly Hendrik and I differ on the meaning of a back fist- the structure and dynamics of that fist. We may or may not agree.
Possibly some differences between Ip man and Cho boundaries.))








What do you think it is? For me a WCK drill is any exercise, short of fighting, that's purpose is to enhance my ability to use the WCK tools in fighitng. Chi sao seems to fit that bill to me.

((Again IMO chi sao is not a drill. pak sao against punch is a drill.
Describing the meaning of chi sao would be a long essay-too ;ong for a thread discussion))




**Simple, if it uses the tools of WCK - tan, bong, fook, YJKYM, etc. -- then it is WCK. What's wrong with that?

((Thats your definition. Not mine. I dont lecture people on definitions much. If they think that boxing with bong like shape ina move is wck thats their problem))

Funny, you say you don't lecture people on definitions but at the same time say that "if they think boxing with a bong-like shape is WCK that's their problem"! LOL!

((We may mean different things on what a lecture is. If someone thinks thata boxers use of a low deflecting hand is a bong sao and ergo wck- I am not easily inclined to try and change their mind- hence no lecturing))




The point, and I know you're intelligent enough to see it,

((How do you know that?))

The mere fact that we can recognize these methods just from their tools tells you what it is that "defines" them.

((A child using a spanner does not make him or her a competent mechanic))




((If tough man contest are boxing- I differ))

It may be bad (low-level) boxing, but it is still boxing. Butterbean started in "toughman" contests and then went onto pro boxing.

((Much maligned "speculation" works.I figured Butterbean would come up. He is a joke)) **If someone takes me to the ground, I'll not be "using" WCK;

((I would!!))

I wish you the best of luck with that. Maybe you should one day give it a try with someone that knows what they are doing on the ground and see how that works for you.

((Presumptuous of you to assume that you know what I do or dont do))

((I think that we have reached an unproductive stage in the discussion. Cheers))

[planetwc]

Who are some prominent "historian/technician" types who upon study and preservation of the past can also demonstrate good WCK fighting skill?

Who are some prominent "fighting" types who in their fighting demonstrate good WCK fighting skill?

Would it not be helpful for both kinds to have an agreed upon standard of what IS WCK fighting skill?

What are the characteristics of body mechanics, power generation, structure, posture etc.

From there you could go forward with evolution based on trial by "combat".
ie Figure what works, figure out first if "IT" is being done properly in the first place before "evolving" it.

Otherwise, might you just have people who aren't grounded enough in understanding HOW something is supposed to be done, changing it, dropping it etc, because they simply never had it to begin with?

[Vajramusti]

Re; David W's post:

Just to be contrarian

((Me too- but in a different direction))


Who are some prominent "historian/technician" types who upon study and preservation of the past can also demonstrate good WCK fighting skill?
((These days we are fascinated with "visibility". Good wing chun is in part a thinking person's art. Wing chun does not have an
academically supported history- taiji is in better shape. Chen Xiao Wang can not only do it but can explain the history of Chen style quite a bit- showing the differences.
"demonstrate"/ You mean capture on film in video? The medium defining the message?

Many good wing chun folks have had some contextual understanding of history enough for understanding their fighting.
Wong Shon Leung would be an example- discussing and understanding the role of jam sao in slt.Dont have to write massive books on history. Any one who thinks and fights have to have a bits of the historian, the survey researcher and the experimentalist in them.

There are several other sifus- but name dropping usually results in escalating the crap level on most discussion lists.

"Technician"? Understanding techniques- their reasons and apllications-and knowing how to fight ---my sihing Danny Chan is superb.

Pham a Ho Kam Ming protege in Toronto has note books after notebooks on history and is good with his wing chun. Lots of people dont even know about and dont bother with KFO and other lists.

Different realities and different scripts.

Hendrik used to fight... and he is pretty good as a historian on the list.)))

Who are some prominent "fighting" types who in their fighting demonstrate good WCK fighting skill?

((There you go- prominent? A consumer culture term. Again avoiding name dropping -WSL and others. Tam and Liu Min Fa in Macao have fought- other styles including Muay thai folks))

Would it not be helpful for both kinds to have an agreed upon standard of what IS WCK fighting skill?

((Not likely to happen. MMA is on the way like chop suey. I wont even argue that it should happen. In an old fashioned way- I think that folks interested on kung fu should struggle in searching for a good style and a good sifu. Let mass production and paying attention to media take its own course.))



Otherwise, might you just have people who aren't grounded enough in understanding HOW something is supposed to be done, changing it, dropping it etc, because they simply never had it to begin with?

((Its already happening...Gresham's law works. Authentic craftsmen are not disturbed by the behavior of the crowd))

[yellowpikachu]

[i]
Comments on some of Terence's points:

Hendrik says WCK has the backfist, you say it doesn't -- now you both have different boundaries of what is WCK. Another lineage has a different boundary. And another yet another boundary. Pretty soon the map of what is WCK looks like an overlapping Venn diagram! ---- T





Hendrik also says his WCK has SLT and Tan Sau and Fook Sau.

one can keep look at the minor different and forget about the major similarity. and worried about the world is going to explode because of differences.

one also can look at it as, every lineage is approaching a convergence which everyone is expanding thier boundary. people learn and evol from each others. and evol their system to be even better and better and broader boundaries when time past.


Instead of looking with a Control THEORICIAN eyes of --- Pretty soon the map of what is WCK looks like an overlapping Venn diagram!
instead of let the nature to take its corse?




BTW. I love Chaos. and with SLT/SNT as the center of the boundary the wide the boundary grows the better.

But, without the technical history background of the SLT/SNT is the center. Then, one has to concern is it still WCK?

Just some thoughts.