Evolving past bashing styles, systems and schools.

[BentMonk]

Ok, perhaps rudeness was not the word I should have chosen. MST may be making an effort not to be rude, but he is blatantly condecending, and arrogant. Still two qualities unbecoming of someone with solid credentials and the years of experience required to earn said credentials.

[The Willow Sword]

i am glad it got such a good response. i am going to continue to walk my talk on this and go onto other posts. As for the detractors here about what i posted in the past, i already stated that i own my own writings here, and that i am moving past them. i think that you should as well. I am through with the SD threads because they are a waste of my time, and everyone elses for that matter( no offense intended to the SD'ers who post here in a good manner).

Water Dragon: yes i was beat up by a tiger guy, but it was not the reason why i left SD. since you seem to be so interested in bringing up the past why not go in to the archives and find out why i actually did leave SD(what i chose to share with people here) that being said,,, im out

see you guys in other posts.

Many Respects,,,The Willow Sword

[Water Dragon]

Originally posted by The Willow Sword

Water Dragon: yes i was beat up by a tiger guy, but it was not the reason why i left SD. since you seem to be so interested in bringing up the past why not go in to the archives and find out why i actually did leave SD(what i chose to share with people here) that being said,,, im out

I know why you left SD. The point was the experience of the 2 individuals engaged in the argument. You = a couple years in Shaolin Do and maybe met a few others. MS2 = over 20 years in the CMA, the credentials, fight record, and endorsement of other accepted professionals in the field to back it up.

Did I state anything that is not true? Here's a good general rule. When you come across someone on the boards who has more experience and is a better player than you. STFU out of respect and listen to them. You don't have to agree, but you should STFU.

[MasterKiller]

STFU out of respect and listen to them. You don't have to agree, but you should STFU.

I don't think anyone here is above a friendly challenge or debate. TWS just should have cut his losses sooner.

Regardless of what people here think, there actually is a difference between showing respect and showing your @ss.

[The Willow Sword]

i have over 17 years in the martial arts. a mixed bag of stuff but a good solid 8 years in the internal arts.

and i do listen and STFU when it is warranted.

Peace,,,TWS

[Radhnoti]

I thought folks were overly abrasive(?) to TWS in that exchange as well...though I have a different interpretation of the parable. It would have been easy...in my opinion...to give him some breathing room and not try to score "points". But, perhaps, people were for some reason more personally invested in the discussion than I realize.

Concerning relativism, since we seem to have folks who understand it so well. I've been called a moral relativist...and that may be a fair evaluation as I think "evil" and "good" are not concrete and defined except in a societal context.

Is the primary argument against this mindset that it allows for people to argue that they aren't "guilty" because they see things in a different context?

...'Cause I have a way around that in my mind...or is there another argument of which I'm not aware? I just took Logic and Philosophy 101 in college.

I tried to link off the link to "relativism" before, but it was dead...and the sites I've found mainly attack moral relativism with the argument I outlined. Thanks.

[MonkeySlap Too]

TWS - just read the version you posted. As far as I can tell, it is a Westernized version of the tale, and I can see how you drew your conclusion. While I still think that if you viewed the tale from the context of Zen thought your answer would still be different.

While I still do not think your interpretation is accurate - I can at least see how you got there.

This also brings up the idea of the metaphors used as descriptive jargon in CMA. Without the cultural context, how many of us actually get the meaning?

Finally, I still will not agree to the 'everybody is right' school of relativisim. No one has produced a valid argument on why it makes logical sense or validates the position taken by TWS.

[Christopher M]

"There have certainly been intellectual nihilists of this kind in the past, but just now the relativity theory of modern physics seems to have gone to their head. They start out from science, indeed, but they contrive to force it into self-abrogation, into suicide .... According to the anarchist theory there is no such thing as truth, no assured knowledge of the external world. ... Since the criterion of truth--correspondence with the external world--is absent, it is entirely a matter of indifference what opinions we adopt. All of them are equally true and equally false. And no one has a right to accuse anyone else of error. ... All I can say is that the anarchist theory sounds wonderfully superior so long as it relates to opinions upon abstract things; it breaks down with its first step into practical life. Now the actions of men are governed by their opinions, their knowledge; and it is the same scientific spirit that speculates about the structure of atoms or the origin of man and that plans the construction of a bridge capable of bearing a load. If what we believe were really a matter of indifference, if there were no such thing as knowledge distinguished among our opinions by corresponding to reality, we might build bridges just as well out of cardboard as out of stone.... But even the intellectual anarchists would violently repudiate such practical applications of their theory."
-Sigmund Freud (qtd from Carveth)

Just cause they're great quotes.

[Radhnoti]

So, Freud's POV was also:

"And no one has a right to accuse anyone else of error."


I think each group can act within the confines of their own relative position, AND people outside that "position" can condemn it...even punish it if they have the power to do so.
That may be a bit of a "might makes right" argument, when it comes down to practical matters I suppose...but that's my point of view.
I do know that Neitche was quite the relativist. The folks who assaulted my position used "relativist" as a condemnation and acted as though the position had been thoroughly debunked.

Don't leave me hangin' here guys, what's some good resources for me to either tear down or solidify my position?

Apologies to TWS for taking such joy in his sentiment and thread derailing, but I've wondered what the weakness of my position was ever since that exchange...

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Radhnoti
So, Freud's POV was also:

"And no one has a right to accuse anyone else of error."

No. That's what he was arguing against.

He's implying that since "the criterion of truth--correspondence with the external world" isn't, in fact, absent, then it's not "a matter of indifference what opinions we adopt," and so on.

I don't want to give you any resources to bolster your position, because relativism is the devil.

[CrippledAvenger]

According to Freud's theories, the mind obscures reality as a coping mechanism to deal with subconcious desires being thwarted by society. There does exist a reality, but it's almost a binary system that focuses on the pleasure-pain principle-- no room for relativism in Freudian views of the world.

In other words, what the mind perceives of the concrete world (in this case, "individual truth") is not to be automatically trusted, as it may very well be an attempt to cover up an unsatisfied sexual or aggressive desire.

And so ends my pillaging of Bertram J. Kohler's lectures.

[Christopher M]

Right... but Freud's not saying that "we can say nothing" about the underlying reality, he's just saying that it might not be how it immediately appears.

[CrippledAvenger]

But at the core of it, a Freudian believes in a definitive, universal reality, not a relativistic or empirical one. There is a concrete world, and there are universal parameters that guide all human interaction and decision making. The paramaters may sometimes be obscurred through our own internal struggles to either sublimate or satisfy desire, but they still exist as universal boundaries. Furthermore, the world itself exists in its entirety regardless of interpretations and personal vision.

I'd go into more detail, but I have to get up early for work and I have yet to do my sets of 13 Tai Po (to steer this conversation back to kung fu ).

[Christopher M]

Absolutely; for sure.

[Bluesman]

Never have so many, said so much, about so little.

Hey, that includes me