Morality in a teacher

[JamesC]

I know this has been discussed before, but what are your thoughts on training under someone that seems to have integrity issues?

For example, I recently found out one of my old instructors, and a friend, is losing students left and right because of the fact he cheated on a student he was seeing(which is retarded anyways) with the fiancé of another guy. The guy apparently showed up at his apartment while she was there. He's also a police officer(who are SUPPOSED to have integrity).

I'm not really speaking to this scenario in particular, but what are your thoughts on this? It seems especially hypocritical in a traditional martial art because of the focus on the character building aspects that go along with the physical.

[MasterKiller]

If you are there for skills, who gives a f@ck?

If you are there to be baby sat, I suppose it's a problem.

That being said, I wouldn't bang a student. Don't sh1t where you eat.

[EarthDragon]

MK said it best, if your there to train under him for his skills learn his skills, dont concern yourself with his personal life.

however speaking as a shifu character and integrity play a huge role in MA, and as a role model this type of behavior should never have been happening in the first place. I would personally never get involved with my students on that type of level, nor should any teacher.

My shifu even said dont get too close to your students, this never make any good in long run.

[JamesC]

I'm inclined to agree. I think it probably depends on your reason for training. Let's be honest, a majority of people that train in traditional arts aren't really there to learn to fight.

[omarthefish]

what are your thoughts on training under someone that seems to have integrity issues?

MK certainly summed up the obvious answer. However. . . .

Nevermind babysitting, I can't imagine getting particularly far or particularly deep into anything at all without developing a pretty deep and personal relationship with my teacher. Everybody needs mentors. This isn't limited to MA.

For me personally, serious integrity issues in a mentor are going to become serious obstacles to a serious relationship. Again, this has nothing to do with dismissing the thing as babysitting. I have never met anyone in any field at all who had any serious expertese who did not draw at some point for a serious relationship with some sort of mentor.

If you're there just as a "tourist" then that's fine. But if you are there as a long term, serious, dedicated student, you are going to be spending a lot of time with that person (the instructor) and if you want to learn effectively that will mean building a lot of rapport which will mean being in a "serious relationship" with him/her. (gotta leave your 13 year old humour at the door if you wanna understand this point)

Anyways, that's my 2 cents.

[Lee Chiang Po]

Judge not. Another persons integrity and morality belongs to them, not you. They have their own moralities. Most MA teachers do so because it makes them feel special being a MA teacher. They are also too lazy to get a real job. And for Christ's sake, if you are still going to a M A school after 20 years it is time to give it up.

[YouKnowWho]

If your teacher uses you as his punching bag for 2 hours and you still pay him, he must teach you something that's worthwhile for your pain and money.

[Robinhood]

If your teacher uses you as his punching bag for 2 hours and you still pay him, he must teach you something that's worthwhile for your pain and money.


Lol....No, you could just be an idiot.

[bawang]

if you cant fight, then your teacher has no morality.

if your sifu teach martial art without martial, ask for 50% discount.

[GeneChing]

If you are training with someone that is immoral and paying for those lessons, you are supporting immorality financially. Never mind the skills. You cannot divorce the skills from their source. It's sort of a No Mercy/Karate Kid issue, to default to a movie metaphor. As the twig is bent, so grows the tree.

Then again, if everyone could just be moral, we wouldn't need fighting skills. :rolleyes:

[Scott R. Brown]

If he will be a scumbag to others he will be be a scumbag to you, if the mood hits him!

Skip the scumbags and find someone with a little integrity!

On the other hand, everyone makes mistakes, if he owns up to his mistake and is contrite, forgiveness is appropriate.

[David Jamieson]

If you are training with someone that is immoral and paying for those lessons, you are supporting immorality financially. Never mind the skills. You cannot divorce the skills from their source. It's sort of a No Mercy/Karate Kid issue, to default to a movie metaphor. As the twig is bent, so grows the tree.

Then again, if everyone could just be moral, we wouldn't need fighting skills. :rolleyes: I don't think people look at it with this depth Gene and I don't think for the most part that people are fully aware of these facets to the reality that is extant in this hypothetiical or real case. To that end, I do not support those who are immoral or unethical. I see it as having a very great skill to be of great ability and to still be upright and of sound moral judgement. That is one of the most difficult aspirations, so when man is there, he gets my respects because of the actions he takes, not the trappings he surrounds himself with or the words he speaks etc.



If he will be a scumbag to others he will be be a scumbag to you, if the mood hits him!

Skip the scumbags and find someone with a little integrity!

On the other hand, everyone makes mistakes, if he owns up to his mistake and is contrite, forgiveness is appropriate.

generally, this axiom applies as does the one about how the guy who treats a waiter poorly and treats you well is still an ass and one day, will treat you poorly as well.

[PalmStriker]

If you are training with someone that is immoral and paying for those lessons, you are supporting immorality financially. Never mind the skills. You cannot divorce the skills from their source. It's sort of a No Mercy/Karate Kid issue, to default to a movie metaphor. As the twig is bent, so grows the tree.

Then again, if everyone could just be moral, we wouldn't need fighting skills. :rolleyes:
Have to agree with Gene. Also, an instructor/Master should always be on the lookout for psychopathic evil students who want to use Kungfu for, well, evil stuff. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH9pX0exwAo

[MasterKiller]

What if my yoga teacher is hot and I want her to be immoral?

[Lucas]

What if my yoga teacher is hot and I want her to be immoral?

That is perfectly fine! In fact, it's encouraged.

[Lucas]

It's best if your teacher is a bloodthirsty gangster with a history of aggresive violence and street fighting. That way you know if he is still alive, and not cripple, that his method works.

[TenTigers]

wait, this guy dated his student who was married to a cop?
Dude...f*** morality, you shouldn't study under anyone that stupid!

[JamesC]

wait, this guy dated his student who was married to a cop?
Dude...f*** morality, you shouldn't study under anyone that stupid!

No. The teacher is the cop

[SPJ]

Even thou a teacher is not a priest,

teaching by acts speaks louder than teaching by speech.

We do not expect moral lessons from a MA teacher.

However, being a teacher of any kind, we have to pay attention to our acts or behaviors.

:)

[David Jamieson]

Even thou a teacher is not a priest,

teaching by acts speaks louder than teaching by speech.

We do not expect moral lessons from a MA teacher.

However, being a teacher of any kind, we have to pay attention to our acts or behaviors.

:)

I personally avoid association with immoral and unethical people period.
I've quit jobs over issues of ethics and morality. I'd rather be temporarily impoverished than serve the unreasonable avarice of another.

I won't study under thugs nor will I commit time to practice with them, but I will observe and note their behaviours. These are generally the people you are defending against.

Just a personal choice of mine.

[Syn7]

I personally avoid association with immoral and unethical people period.
I've quit jobs over issues of ethics and morality. I'd rather be temporarily impoverished than serve the unreasonable avarice of another.

I won't study under thugs nor will I commit time to practice with them, but I will observe and note their behaviours. These are generally the people you are defending against.

Just a personal choice of mine.

What if they are just a stone cold killer, but not actually a thug or covetous?


Do you need a warm personality too? Or is it ok of they are cold?


What if they have never desired to hurt anyone or taken anything from anyone but were still egotistical jerks?




Another question... If you observe and take note of their behaviors are you not investing time?

[David Jamieson]

What if they are just a stone cold killer, but not actually a thug or covetous?


Do you need a warm personality too? Or is it ok of they are cold?


What if they have never desired to hurt anyone or taken anything from anyone but were still egotistical jerks?




Another question... If you observe and take note of their behaviors are you not investing time?

Too many hypotheticals. "what ifs" etc. I don't use them. the experience is either to be had or not.

Observation is not the same as giving them my time or money so no, it's not a significant investment. More of an acknowledgment.

[GeneChing]

Too many hypotheticals. "what ifs" etc. What if your teacher is bawang? :eek:

[Syn7]

What if your teacher is bawang? :eek:

Hypotheticals are the only things keeping us going at this point... lol.


Clearly this is a moral stance. I'm just curious as to where that line is. I know where mine is, don't you know where yours is?

[David Jamieson]

Bawang is all of our teacher is he not? Are we not entertained? :p

Anyway, a person morally aligns with you and you see this after time with them or you can have it immediately revealed to you depending on circumstance.

the rest is personal choice.

I personally won't study from such a person.

My loss I guess. Or not. It really doesn't matter as it is entirely going to be my experience anyway.

[Syn7]

Bawang is all of our teacher is he not? Are we not entertained? :p

Anyway, a person morally aligns with you and you see this after time with them or you can have it immediately revealed to you depending on circumstance.

the rest is personal choice.

I personally won't study from such a person.

My loss I guess. Or not. It really doesn't matter as it is entirely going to be my experience anyway.

Whether it's a loss or not is dependent on your priorities I guess.

[David Jamieson]

Whether it's a loss or not is dependent on your priorities I guess.

Exactly. So I lose nothing by living my life as I see fit.

[Syn7]

Exactly. So I lose nothing by living my life as I see fit.

Not from your perspective, nope. But this topic opens up a huge bag of involved conversation, so I'm happy to end with that. :D

If you're happy, I'm cool with that. As long as people don't mess with mine, I really don't worry what they do. That too opens a long convo as to what is destructive directly and indirectly, but you know what I'm sayin'.

[sanjuro_ronin]

AH morality...subjective or objective, that is the question...

[David Jamieson]

AH morality...subjective or objective, that is the question...

When somebody shows you how they really are, let them. :)

[Syn7]

AH morality...subjective or objective, that is the question...

Subjective. Morality is a social construct, not on the level of something like the laws of thermodynamics.

[David Jamieson]

Subjective. Morality is a social construct, not on the level of something like the laws of thermodynamics.

I don't think the construct of morality is so far apart in society from one member to the next.

It appears as concrete in our systems of law.

IE: it's immoral to be a pedophile - which aligns with the law against it. Would anyone disagree that this is wrong?

It is immoral to be a thief - also alligns with Law. Is this wrong?

Killing is immoral in the boundaries of society, the exception being where a rampaging killer is killed in the process of stopping them. That can be debated as to whether or not that was moral though.

an so on and so forth.

I don't think Morality is vague at all. I think if you want to be clear on morality, you are better off looking at the rule of law under which you live. If there is none, I would agree that it is a lot more grey. But if you are like most members of this forum then you are American or Canadian or for the most part living in a western liberal democracy of some sort and there isn't a lot of people form elsewhere here.

So, in that respect, we share pretty close rule of law which is what really governs what is moral and what is not in our similar societies.

[LaterthanNever]

"seems to have integrity issues?"

If you have to say "seem", you are couching your intent behind being politically correct. Why not just SAY it? The instructors integrity is lacking.

His/her behavior is not ethical. While ethics is relative to some extent..I agree with Gene.

Is it immoral or lacking integrity..if lets say..an instructor smokes cigarettes during class while the class is performing chi gung exercises? If the instructor wants to destroy his health on his own time in private, that's his business.

But isn't chi-gung designed to be for health promoting effects? Isn't it accepted that inhaling carcinogenic agents vis a vis cigarette smoke non health promoting?

Some would say this is not having integrity. I agree.

Is it having integrity to lets say..tell students that one studied with a famous master and was certified in their style of martial arts when the famous master turns around and claims "I met him only once"? Not to me!

There are countless other things one could list.

[Syn7]

I don't think the construct of morality is so far apart in society from one member to the next.

It appears as concrete in our systems of law.

IE: it's immoral to be a pedophile - which aligns with the law against it. Would anyone disagree that this is wrong?

It is immoral to be a thief - also alligns with Law. Is this wrong?

Killing is immoral in the boundaries of society, the exception being where a rampaging killer is killed in the process of stopping them. That can be debated as to whether or not that was moral though.

an so on and so forth.

I don't think Morality is vague at all. I think if you want to be clear on morality, you are better off looking at the rule of law under which you live. If there is none, I would agree that it is a lot more grey. But if you are like most members of this forum then you are American or Canadian or for the most part living in a western liberal democracy of some sort and there isn't a lot of people form elsewhere here.

So, in that respect, we share pretty close rule of law which is what really governs what is moral and what is not in our similar societies.

I'm not saying it's vague. I'm saying it doesn't actually exist apart from ourselves. That makes it subjective.

Also I disagree on the agreement part. Yeah we have many common morals, but we have many that aren't. Like random sex is considered immoral by many, for example.

Some tribes have the young males suck off the elders in order to gain more virility. I see this as exploitive and immoral, clearly they do not.

How bout the death penalty? How bout cutting off a hand for stealing? Those are laws based on morals, yet many find them abominable and deeply immoral.


There are tons of examples.

Subjective....!!!

[David Jamieson]

Subjective....!!!

Not in the society you live in. It is clear cut rule of law that decides what is moral or immoral where you live and where I live.

No death penalty in Canada because collectively, we as a society decided it was immoral and so we don't do that under our rule of law and by that merit our shared morality.

What goes on in countries otherwise can be deemed immoral, even if it is not so in those societies in which the immorality is practiced or tolerated.

We could pretend to be subjective and do what we like, but lets not be surprised when we are arrested for that. :p

[Syn7]

Not in the society you live in. It is clear cut rule of law that decides what is moral or immoral where you live and where I live.

No death penalty in Canada because collectively, we as a society decided it was immoral and so we don't do that under our rule of law and by that merit our shared morality.

What goes on in countries otherwise can be deemed immoral, even if it is not so in those societies in which the immorality is practiced or tolerated.

We could pretend to be subjective and do what we like, but lets not be surprised when we are arrested for that. :p

Yeah but the construct of morality isn't limited to the great white north. If you hold your ideas of morality to others who feel different, then yeah they can be immoral. To you...

SUBJECTIVE....!!! :p

Perspective is subjective. As a species that has a built in desire to survive, we have come to some agreements in order to help ourselves. Don't stick me in the eye and I will give you the same courtesy. Don't take my **** and I won't take yours. All connected to desires we have collectively.

[Sima Rong]

Not in the society you live in. It is clear cut rule of law that decides what is moral or immoral where you live and where I live.

No death penalty in Canada because collectively, we as a society decided it was immoral and so we don't do that under our rule of law and by that merit our shared morality.

What goes on in countries otherwise can be deemed immoral, even if it is not so in those societies in which the immorality is practiced or tolerated.

We could pretend to be subjective and do what we like, but lets not be surprised when we are arrested for that. :p

I'd like to believe that there is a general human sense of morality, but laws are something different.
As much as I would like to feel that I am in a civilized society, I know that there are many people who get away with what I would personally consider immoral behaviour because of laws, and that many laws exist to control people who don't have the power to break them.

All the same, I'm glad there are laws. Just not all of them. Laws are not morality of themselves.Many laws are just a contract like for a piece of new software that you ignore and skip through to agree with for the sake of living in a society.

We could absolutely be arrested for doing something in one civilized society which most people in another different civilized society consider to be perfectly moral.

[David Jamieson]

Morality is interesting, because I believe it is not only just learned but it is also intuitive due to emotional content.

We are not only our minds, we are our hearts as well and while we use our minds to impede emotion to further some other action, that emotion still happens.

What I believe this organic reaction to be and what it is are two different things I suppose, but nevertheless, there it is. I am compelled to feel compassionate and to act morally towards someone in dire need.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Subjective. Morality is a social construct, not on the level of something like the laws of thermodynamics.

A hot topic of debate in some circles.
While most will agree that certain aspects of morality are indeed cultural ones, most will also agree that, regardless of society and culture, there are things that everyone may view as universally wrong.
What those things are does, however, differentiate between culture BUT that all agree with is a wrong and right, yes.

So, while morals may be subjective, the notion of right and wrong exists in a universal way.

[RenDaHai]

Subjective. Morality is a social construct, not on the level of something like the laws of thermodynamics.

It is precisely like Thermodynamics.

Moral laws could be scientifically derived if we knew enough about the construction of the human mind.

There are absolutes. All humans are extremely similar machines to one another.

The deep conclusions of morality are made inevitable by the human condition.

The whole purpose of Religion and philosophy and spirituality is to assist us consciously identify Vice from virtue, right from wrong, absolute from relative. Truth from illusion.

Of course there are many relative things but all of them are created by the human mind. The human mind fractures things into Yin and Yang by its confused condition but the truth is absolute and unchanging. And there IS truth to the human condition.

Sorry to sound religious and preachy, I wasn't trying to.

[Scott R. Brown]

.....most will also agree that, regardless of society and culture, there are things that everyone may view as universally wrong.
What those things are does, however, differentiate between culture BUT that all agree with is a wrong and right, yes.

I think that all peoples consider "right and wrong", but specifically what is right and what is wrong does vary from culture to culture.

So, the IDEA of "right and wrong" is universal, but just what specifically is right or wrong varies.

[David Jamieson]

There's a few things I've learned whilst travelling around the sun:

People in general have a tendency to be afraid of leading, being accountable for their actions and taking responsibility. this is reflected every day throughout society and through our individual actions or lack of them in a given circumstance.

There are very very very few people who actually posses this virtue most of the time. I am not one of them and don't claim to be, but that I am aware, for now is enough in my opinion and regard.

Another thing is that it is rare that someone will stand up and do the right thing for the sake of it. It would appear we will wait a long long time before anyone including ourselves does this without ulterior motivations.

Persecution, prosecution and keeping the light off oneself seems to be the way of us.

I personally am disheartened by it all.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I think that all peoples consider "right and wrong", but specifically what is right and what is wrong does vary from culture to culture.

So, the IDEA of "right and wrong" is universal, but just what specifically is right or wrong varies.

Correct and I agree and this is where religion comes in, to make a more concrete statement about what is right or wrong.
Religion and civilization have gone down hand-in-hand through the ages and it is debatable about which beget which BUT, IMO, I think religion lead to civilization.

[sanjuro_ronin]

There's a few things I've learned whilst travelling around the sun:

People in general have a tendency to be afraid of leading, being accountable for their actions and taking responsibility. this is reflected every day throughout society and through our individual actions or lack of them in a given circumstance.

There are very very very few people who actually posses this virtue most of the time. I am not one of them and don't claim to be, but that I am aware, for now is enough in my opinion and regard.

Another thing is that it is rare that someone will stand up and do the right thing for the sake of it. It would appear we will wait a long long time before anyone including ourselves does this without ulterior motivations.

Persecution, prosecution and keeping the light off oneself seems to be the way of us.

I personally am disheartened by it all.

Sadly, there is much truth to that.

[Scott R. Brown]

Correct and I agree and this is where religion comes in, to make a more concrete statement about what is right or wrong.
Religion and civilization have gone down hand-in-hand through the ages and it is debatable about which beget which BUT, IMO, I think religion lead to civilization.

I don't know about that. In the Western Tradition of the peoples of the book and Buddhism, morality and religion are connected, but not for most other religions.

In the ancient world morality was distinctly separate from religion.

[RenDaHai]

In the ancient world morality was distinctly separate from religion.

Religion at its core has always been an attempt to learn the absolute truths of nature. Of course it is quickly destroyed by theology and dogma.

All the religions contain these seeds of truth and all of them fall foul to their own theology. But morality was always a key in their construction.


Aesops fables contain profound lessons about human nature. But were you to take his stories as fact then it would have serious consequences for your sanity. You perception of the world would be loosened by such misinformation and it would no longer be possible for you to separate right from wrong as you can't even separate fact from fiction.

[Scott R. Brown]

Religion at its core has always been an attempt to learn the absolute truths of nature. Of course it is quickly destroyed by theology and dogma.

All the religions contain these seeds of truth and all of them fall foul to their own theology. But morality was always a key in their construction.


Aesops fables contain profound lessons about human nature. But were you to take his stories as fact then it would have serious consequences for your sanity. You perception of the world would be loosened by such misinformation and it would no longer be possible for you to separate right from wrong as you can't even separate fact from fiction.

This is not true. Only very few of the MAJOR religions involve morality. The Roman and Greek religions did not involve morality. Neither did the Egyptian, or most shamanic religions.

Aesops Fables was not connected to the Greek religion.

It is noteworthy that the ancient Hebrew religion was the first religion to connect God with morality!

[sanjuro_ronin]

I don't know about that. In the Western Tradition of the peoples of the book and Buddhism, morality and religion are connected, but not for most other religions.

In the ancient world morality was distinctly separate from religion.

Yes, but notions of right and wrong were present I believe.

[Scott R. Brown]

Yes, but notions of right and wrong were present I believe.

Ahh, I reviewed your comment and my response; I misread your statement. Where you said "civilization and religion go hand in hand" I read "religion and morality go hand in hand"

[RenDaHai]

This is not true. Only very few of the MAJOR religions involve morality. The Roman and Greek religions did not involve morality. Neither did the Egyptian, or most shamanic religions.

Aesops Fables was not connected to the Greek religion.

It is noteworthy that the ancient Hebrew religion was the first religion to connect God with morality!

But of course they did.

The Greek religions involved tales of the Gods and their human-like nature. They were as the fables, examples of the way people act and the consequences of acting in such a manner. They do not explicitly tell people what morals they should have. Rather they give the listener a story to contemplate through which morality is generated.

The gods themselves are manifestations of human nature and natural things. They serve as characters for the stories.

The method of using myth and legend to teach is arguably better than explicitly stating morals. It cause people to contemplate themselves since we never really learn what other people tell us, only what we realise ourselves. It is the WuWei method.

[RenDaHai]

But also, mainly I said that religions contain Truth, not morality.

Religions evolve along with humans. They adapt to the times. In the most ancient times morality was not the truth we needed and the religions reflected the truth of the world around them and imparted useful advice.

Times have changed and now morality is far more central to the truth we need.

[Scott R. Brown]

But of course they did.

The Greek religions involved tales of the Gods and their human-like nature. They were as the fables, examples of the way people act and the consequences of acting in such a manner. They do not explicitly tell people what morals they should have. Rather they give the listener a story to contemplate through which morality is generated.

The gods themselves are manifestations of human nature and natural things. They serve as characters for the stories.

The method of using myth and legend to teach is arguably better than explicitly stating morals. It cause people to contemplate themselves since we never really learn what other people tell us, only what we realise ourselves. It is the WuWei method.

The mythological tales did not relate directly to the practice of their religion!

That was literature/drama, that is the secular aspect of their lives.

[RenDaHai]

The mythological tales did not relate directly to the practice of their religion!

That was literature/drama, that is the secular aspect of their lives.

But what practice?

The Gods all hated each other and to favour one was to scorn another. There are important lessons in this alone.

But the general practice of making tribute and sacrifice to the appropriate god is more interesting. It means people get together and focus their intent on a certain aspect of what they are doing. It is a reasonable practice.

Without the stories there is no religion. They would have evolved together.

[Scott R. Brown]

But what practice?

The Gods all hated each other and to favour one was to scorn another. There are important lessons in this alone.

But the general practice of making tribute and sacrifice to the appropriate god is more interesting. It means people get together and focus their intent on a certain aspect of what they are doing. It is a reasonable practice.

Without the stories there is no religion. They would have evolved together.

The religious practice was very simple. You respect the patron Gods of the city, participate in religious sacrifices and do not break the taboos! The taboos were not moral taboos by the way.

[Lucas]

We must follow the Gods as an example of how to conduct our lives so that we might entertain them upon their lofty position over our realm. That is why we should look to the Odinson to learn how to drink, womanize, steal and fight.

[Scott R. Brown]

We must follow the Gods as an example of how to conduct our lives so that we might entertain them upon their lofty position over our realm. That is why we should look to the Odinson to learn how to drink, womanize, steal and fight.

Yeah!! Its HAMMER TIME!!!

[Lucas]

!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.pinu.it/thor2.jpg

[David Jamieson]

I personally think you guys going on about other cultures and ancient times etc are somewhat off base and losing the topic. You live where you live and you live under rule of law devised out of a shared social more.

Seriously? Going on about ancient religions as if they apply to you and you practice them?

[sanjuro_ronin]

I personally think you guys going on about other cultures and ancient times etc are somewhat off base and losing the topic. You live where you live and you live under rule of law devised out of a shared social more.

Seriously? Going on about ancient religions as if they apply to you and you practice them?

*stops sacrificing virgin and hides knife*
Yeah...you guys...

[David Jamieson]

Better. Lucas, get off the 8 legged horse and put the stones down. the rest of you butt those torches out and return the pitchforks to the barn.

[GeneChing]

*stops sacrificing virgin and hides knife*
Yeah...you guys... But we tried that virgin sacrifice on Lucas (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1215074#post1215074) and he squirreled (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4619) out with the zombie (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50475) clause. :o

[Lucas]

I'll get off my 8 leg horse when I'm ready to sacrifice it!

[sanjuro_ronin]

Poor Lucas, they even wrote about the whole debacle !
http://ecimages.kobobooks.com/Image.ashx?imageID=wtFWjEsBt0W3slPXNfMyyA&Type=Full

[David Jamieson]

I'll get off my 8 leg horse when I'm ready to sacrifice it!

You can't sacrifice Sleipnir!!!

For one thing, it isn't a virgin...

[David Jamieson]

Poor Lucas, they even wrote about the whole debacle !
http://ecimages.kobobooks.com/Image.ashx?imageID=wtFWjEsBt0W3slPXNfMyyA&Type=Full

worst post ever for you S_R

we are all disappoint....

[sanjuro_ronin]

worst post ever for you S_R

we are all disappoint....

Blame Lucas, he should look more like this:
http://www.tinyadda.com/images/e55d673wsk5eh8qngfmf.jpg

[David Jamieson]

I don't think that is a virgin either....

But if Lucas looked like that!!!

I think I'd classify myself as gay as buckets!

[Lucas]

You can't tame my dragon biznitches!!!!

If I looked like that I'd take my own virginity, and I'd probably not leave home much, unless I was going to a lesbian bar.

[bawang]

We must follow the Gods as an example of how to conduct our lives so that we might entertain them upon their lofty position over our realm. That is why we should look to the Odinson to learn how to drink, womanize, steal and fight.

i follow wombat. wombat not steal, wombat take. strong.

[Lucas]

can wombat kombat teach me how to crush the strong so that i bask in the lamentations of their women and bathe in a fountain of their tears?

[Syn7]

You are all bat **** crazy.

We work together to benefit ourselves in our primary drive to survive and procreate. EVERYTHING else is supposed to support that. There mos def is a collective will to survive that is tied in with the individual drive. You can call that morality if you like.

David, your heart pumps blood. I never liked the heart analogy. It's just a remnant of ignorance. Yall need to get over that stuff. If we did have some innate morality, it would be in our heads.

[RenDaHai]

You are all bat **** crazy.

We work together to benefit ourselves in our primary drive to survive and procreate. EVERYTHING else is supposed to support that. There mos def is a collective will to survive that is tied in with the individual drive. You can call that morality if you like.

David, your heart pumps blood. I never liked the heart analogy. It's just a remnant of ignorance. Yall need to get over that stuff. If we did have some innate morality, it would be in our heads.

I think morality is a glimpse into a deeper mechanism of our evolution. More complex than what you say.

The 'collective mind' over powers the individual. There is example within the animal kingdom of altruism. Without complex minds it stands to reason this is an evolutionary advantage. One sacrifice himself for the many.

But when we think about it, all the virtues are evolutionary advantage. We take pride in teaching another person, his is how our instinct rewards us for correct behaviour, teaching enhances our species and other animals do it. Ask a question on the forum, look how many people try to help you to no material advantage of their own.

Thus if these virtues of human behaviour become advantages to survival then they become evolutionary forces. Society will have bent the species to its will and society itself is formed from our nature.

So in a deeper sense Virtue is inevitable. It is the correct behaviour written into our DNA. And I believe it will be a consequence of all sentience. All life everywhere will require these same advantages.

If so then it is an absolute law of the universe.


On the heart, it is important to treat the conscious mind and the unconscious instinctive emotional mind separately. In old terminology, before the concept of the unconscious both east and west used the term 'heart' to mean that aspect of the mind. it is a better word.

[SPJ]

ethics or moral codes

each school has its codes of conduct

or door rules

men gui

--

spelt out on the first day of school

written on a banner or plaque

--

every one follows

including teachers

--

morality applied for all

--

[David Jamieson]

You are all bat **** crazy.

We work together to benefit ourselves in our primary drive to survive and procreate. EVERYTHING else is supposed to support that. There mos def is a collective will to survive that is tied in with the individual drive. You can call that morality if you like.

David, your heart pumps blood. I never liked the heart analogy. It's just a remnant of ignorance. Yall need to get over that stuff. If we did have some innate morality, it would be in our heads.

YOur opinion is duly noted, but I haveto ask you, what is it that makes you feel in love? What makes you feel sorry for someone? Etc.

heart is a metaphor for emotional wisdom and isn't literal so, yes, I know what the heart is and that it pumps blood and I am going to guess that you probably understood my inference but I am ok with explaining it further.

Anyway, your personage is not a device for carrying your brain around. lol. You are the entirety of your being. It is not a remnant of ignorance, it is ignorant to deny the emotional content that is within you and to think that you can control that with an on off switch like a math problem. You can't.

That feeling is there whether you want to think it away or not.
If you don't like analogy, that's cool, but be prepared to be stuck in circles of semantics and pedantic drivel and tautological jerk offery.

But if you prefer that, well, whatever floats your boat. :)

metaphor, allegory, analogy etc are perfectly acceptable forms of communication especially if we can assume everyone has a similar ability to understand.

Literalness and absolutism is often foolish though and invalid long before an analogy or allegory has lost it's connection to a given thing.

[GeneChing]

You are all bat **** crazy.
You're just figuring that out now? Well, good on you. Just remember, when it comes to the forum, birds of a feather...



I never liked the heart analogy. It's just a remnant of ignorance. Actually, it's the new interpretation of the word that gives it the anatomical aspect - sort of a renaming, if you will. The root word for coronary - cor - is connected to 'courage', 'cordial' and 'cardio' - three concepts that are key to martial arts, IMO. That being said, I use 'heart' a lot in my next cover story, the one for the May June 2013, which is currently at press.

[MightyB]

You are all bat **** crazy.


You think this is bat **** crazy, check out where I've taken the UFO OT thread. :D

[Syn7]

You think this is bat **** crazy, check out where I've taken the UFO OT thread. :D


Yeah I did. And I am starting to think maybe I shouldn't have opened that door.

I guess I can't complain of thread crossover since I'm a serious offender myself.

[MightyB]

Yeah I did. And I am starting to think maybe I shouldn't have opened that door.

I guess I can't complain of thread crossover since I'm a serious offender myself.

LOL take a walk on the wild side!!! It's got UFOs, Religion, Atheists, and apedos! I think I'll ad cryptozoology to that thread to help round it out.

[Scott R. Brown]

LOL take a walk on the wild side!!! It's got UFOs, Religion, Atheists, and apedos! I think I'll ad cryptozoology to that thread to help round it out.

What I would really like to know is, "Is Shaolin-Do for real? :confused:

[MightyB]

What I would really like to know is, "Is Shaolin-Do for real? :confused:

ROTFL!!!

Scott R. Brown for the Win!

[Syn7]

YOur opinion is duly noted, but I haveto ask you, what is it that makes you feel in love? What makes you feel sorry for someone? Etc.

heart is a metaphor for emotional wisdom and isn't literal so, yes, I know what the heart is and that it pumps blood and I am going to guess that you probably understood my inference but I am ok with explaining it further.

Anyway, your personage is not a device for carrying your brain around. lol. You are the entirety of your being. It is not a remnant of ignorance, it is ignorant to deny the emotional content that is within you and to think that you can control that with an on off switch like a math problem. You can't.

That feeling is there whether you want to think it away or not.
If you don't like analogy, that's cool, but be prepared to be stuck in circles of semantics and pedantic drivel and tautological jerk offery.

But if you prefer that, well, whatever floats your boat. :)

metaphor, allegory, analogy etc are perfectly acceptable forms of communication especially if we can assume everyone has a similar ability to understand.

Literalness and absolutism is often foolish though and invalid long before an analogy or allegory has lost it's connection to a given thing.

Why can't emotions just be a mechanism? Why do the have to be attached to a soul?

Yeah I know what you meant by heart. I just don't like the analogy. It assumes that things attributed to "having heart" are separate from our thinking apparatus.


And what about people who have no empathy? Are they soulless?

[Syn7]

LOL take a walk on the wild side!!! It's got UFOs, Religion, Atheists, and apedos! I think I'll ad cryptozoology to that thread to help round it out.

HEY!!! Leave the African Private Enterprise Development Organization out of this.

[sanjuro_ronin]

What I would really like to know is, "Is Shaolin-Do for real? :confused:

Not, THAT is evil !

[GeneChing]

Please keep the UFO (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=65443) and SD (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32782) discussions confined to their respective threads. :mad:

No?

Oh well...never mind then... :o

At the very least, make sure you click-through our topmost banner this week. They are paying the rent now. Support the forum with your clicks. Click often! ;)

[Lucas]

I am click banner many time.

[MightyB]

At the very least, make sure you click-through our topmost banner this week. They are paying the rent now. Support the forum with your clicks. Click often! ;)

Done and done!

[sanjuro_ronin]

I am click banner many time.

You speech good amercanize !

[Lucas]

thanks you. I has the greats. i are experted with maths in addition to my top amercanize.

[sanjuro_ronin]

thanks you. I has the greats. i are experted with maths in addition to my top amercanize.


http://www.hurricanemedia.co.uk/assets/0000/2120/borat-high-five.jpg

[GeneChing]

I've moved all the posts that were discussing MTW to the MTW thread (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=58512) now. That would be the on topic 'moral' thing to do. Besides, the advertisers will only look at that thread, not this one, if they look at any thread at all. Again, thanks for your support on this everyone!