Is Shaolin-Do for real?

[Syn7]

Yeah, they were just trying to eat. I can't recall where I read it, but I think it was explicitly stated that they were fucking with him.

As for commentary;



Doesn't get much clearer than that. Her diaries are absurdly extensive.

Yeah, but it would have been nice if she was around when they were published to talk about it some more. I haven't read the diaries. I just read some excerpts and partials used in biographical type pieces. I've got such a long list of must reads. I may or may not get to it lol.

[Syn7]

Since WEn shu " blessyou you did sneeze right" anyway since he cant read i didnt post I was with the 101st working with some of the guys on special tactical training etc. No time to feed your silly little Ego. So maybe next weekend I have 4 days off. BTW I will post one of GMThe maybe 2 but no more. KC

You, my great friend, are a jeenyoos!

[Judge Pen]

Apparently the extent of your formal understanding is name checking a bunch of heavyweight ideas without anything substantive whatsoever. This useless exercise in intellectual vanity is fun and all but come on, its all just masturbatory misdirection.

It's very simple, point to some content that demonstrates this supposed effective core of Shaolin Do. It's either legit or it isn't regardless of what Sin The did and didn't say or do.



Language is symbols, slim.

Math is as natural a language as English.

There are plenty of shortcomings and arguments against the Keynesian School, but at least it actually starts from the basis of measurement and isn't just a wishy washy fabrication of idealistic axioms with no grounding in the real world whatsoever.



Subjective Idealism is such a cop out. "Truth doesn't exist so you can't prove anything."



Ohh the liars paradox. You got me.

I wouldn't be anywhere near your class; ESL ain't in my requirements. That's because I study shit that has real world usefulness like engineering, linguistics and biology and would not waste hundreds of thousands on an education just so I could spend all day trying to bed impressionable co ed undergrads with useless pontificating about subjective idealism and post modernism.

I can name drop big ideas too, watch:

Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.

How are you synthetic judgements apriori possible?




It's not about trust, truth, theories of knowledge, quantum mechanics or Hegelian phenomenology. It's about the claim that there is some bad ass effective core to Shaolin Do. And you still can't even demonstrate something as simple as that. All you offer is more community college dorm room smoke out level equivocation about Aristotelian Epistemology and Kantian metaphysics



lolwut? youfuckingkidding me or what? you high?

Instead of actually just presenting some simple evidence of the claim that there is something legitimate at Shaolin Do's core, you offer tens of thousands of useless characters about epistemology and metaphysics when all you have to do is post some fucking content demonstrating this supposed effective core Shaolin Do.

I applaud you for typing this many words and not using the word "retard" anywhere. I think you are growing as a person. Seriously, for someone as educated as yourself, it's unnecessary to resort to petty name calling. I always wondered why you did so; there's plenty of ways to point out the evils of SD without resorting to play-ground dialogue. All it does, for many anyway in light of this entire conversation of Truth and subjectivism, is discount your credibility entirely. Just my two cents.

[Shaolin Wookie]

LOL. And as I expected, my "made-up" and useless axioms are present in every thought that you just expressed. We may not know everything from the empirical standpoint (we are not gods), but we do know how it is that we know most things.

This also entails that we know how we DO NOT know most things. What you stated with regard to Keynesianism was modest. It is all flaws, no substance. But it is better than a complete system of economics that can, well, predict all the failures of Keynesianism itself?

What you don't realize is that if you don't have a true system of economic thought, rooted in a coherent value theory, then you stumble into theism. If you reject subjective value theory (not universal subjectivism), then you presuppose that there is an objective value setter---a God of value, who predicates all values for human beings in advance of their subjective valuations. But hte problem remains that value is subjective, since I don't even value two units of a good the same. And it is not guaranteed that I will value those units for very long. When asked about taxes, I call them theft. When others are asked, some would agree, and some would say they're "club dues." We value the State differently, right? One likes its services more than I. Even Keynesians would be forced to admit this. But then, they might turn to folk psychology, those ****ed animal spirits, or some other silly evasion of the truth.

An empirical theory of econ is, ironically, just a bunch of made-up ****. It is by definition. It's an empirical theory, and the only way to foist it on the public is by cramming it down their throats by centralizing economic activity in the State. It'll work, if only you have faith in the economic planners, they say.

Hmmmmm.....wise move.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Instead of actually just presenting some simple evidence of the claim that there is something legitimate at Shaolin Do's core, you offer tens of thousands of useless characters about epistemology and metaphysics when all you have to do is post some fucking content demonstrating this supposed effective core Shaolin Do.

Hmmm. The ***** doth protest too much, methinks.

If you want evidence, you have to meet me, I wager. And if I toss you around and armbar or triangle you, you'd just say---Wookie, you don't represent SD. You have other training. Or if I post a good video--same result. Short of a personal meeting, you don't really care. It's just he said she said. This thread is mostly about knocking what we know is not true out of the SD canon. The best thing we can do is chip away at the block.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Not only are you outright plagiarizing Hegel, you somehow found a way to make the prose even more bloated, imprecise and tiresome. I didn't think that was possible.

Just out of curiousity, though. If you don't accept those premises, I think it's safe to say that you believe in an unmoved mover, correct? A subject that acts independent of all action, and might in fact be performing all actions?

The only converse you can take is that if there is a form of action, you must assume a prior cause. That cause may be an intentional cause (a human/animal cause) which changes the course of nature to satisfy an appetite, or that the cause is strictly etiological--it is a cause that is the effect of a prior cause, and whatnot.

What you would have is neither. This is called ignorance.


BTW--neither an idealist nor a Hegelian. Contrary to what you may have learned in college, Kant was not an idealist. Hegel was. He may have built upon Kant, but what he introduced was error, not "advancement." Kant was on the right path himself, but veered into some zany asides. Again---it's not either "all right" or "all wrong."

If you reject "axioms" and pursue temporary rearguard actions in reason, then you're...well...a mystic, or a fool.

[Kellen Bassette]

Keynesian Economics are fundamentally flawed. We have plenty enough history to be sure this model is an ineffective exercise in futility. Clinging to this idea is as absurd as the Regan lovers still preaching Trickle Down Economics, in the face of evidence and statistics...

People just got to be able to get over it and move, on....hey we liked the idea, but it don't work in practice, back to the drawing board...no reason to slow down world progress because we can't accept an idea was wrong...just beat that dead horse some more...

You know, Communism looks good on paper, but any reasonable person can see it fails miserably in the real world, because it discounts human nature. The difference with Keynesian Theory is it doesn't even look good on paper. It's just a bad idea and yet another factor contributing to the decline of the west....

[Judge Pen]

Keynesian Economics are fundamentally flawed. We have plenty enough history to be sure this model is an ineffective exercise in futility. Clinging to this idea is as absurd as the Regan lovers still preaching Trickle Down Economics, in the face of evidence and statistics...

People just got to be able to get over it and move, on....hey we liked the idea, but it don't work in practice, back to the drawing board...no reason to slow down world progress because we can't accept an idea was wrong...just beat that dead horse some more...

You know, Communism looks good on paper, but any reasonable person can see it fails miserably in the real world, because it discounts human nature. The difference with Keynesian Theory is it doesn't even look good on paper. It's just a bad idea and yet another factor contributing to the decline of the west....

Nice observations here. Especially on communism discounting human nature.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Did it have anything to do with whatever head/face contact rules were in effect? Or maybe an expectation of exercising more restraint against maybe a perceived lesser-skilled opponent? A perception of other ways of handling the scenario? I don't know, I wasn't there (that I know of), just asking. I know there was a time when excessive or even any face or head contact was not allowed in some settings. In a sparring class with GMS I had side of my face blackened pretty good, he asked if I was alright and when I said yes we just went on.

Here's what I suspect. Everyone is always on adrenaline by the end of an SD test (which is why I generally abhor test "sparring"). You've just done 14 forms, weapons included, and then you spar. Most people get hyped up. I remained pretty calm and exploited a weakness. Is there a better place to hit a chick who you outweigh by 65 pounds when you don't wish to leave a mark---or hurt badly? I couldn't find one in those 10-20 seconds. Now, I'm not saying GM The' was wrong for breaking it up. I was myself surprised at the whiplash effect of a punch to the forehead (since nobody with any sense "punches" a forehead intentionally in a realitime scenario). BUt I did have fluffly gloves and I knew that it was a neutral target. What I am saying is that he assessed the problem incorrectly. He probably figured--this guy threw two stiff punches, this girl threw 30 techniques that he avoided or checked. He is the aggressor because he changed the level of contact. I didn't, though. It was just a stiff punch--a good punch that hit its target.

I recently learned some silat techniques to the forehead that might have worked better, but I didn't know them then---something more along the line of mantis's capping palm---something to turn the head up and offset the opponent's balance. With fluffly gloves you can hit anything.

[sean_stonehart]

Eh it was probably more you hit a girl period.

I don't remember a big dust off when Aaron knocked Omar out... or was it Omar knocking Aaron out? Either way... two guys, roughly the same size & skill levels with a little beef in there for measure when they put the gloves on at test time.

Next time just don't hit her so obviously... carry on.

[Judge Pen]

Here's what I suspect. Everyone is always on adrenaline by the end of an SD test (which is why I generally abhor test "sparring"). You've just done 14 forms, weapons included, and then you spar. Most people get hyped up. I remained pretty calm and exploited a weakness. Is there a better place to hit a chick who you outweigh by 65 pounds when you don't wish to leave a mark---or hurt badly? I couldn't find one in those 10-20 seconds. Now, I'm not saying GM The' was wrong for breaking it up. I was myself surprised at the whiplash effect of a punch to the forehead (since nobody with any sense "punches" a forehead intentionally in a realitime scenario). BUt I did have fluffly gloves and I knew that it was a neutral target. What I am saying is that he assessed the problem incorrectly. He probably figured--this guy threw two stiff punches, this girl threw 30 techniques that he avoided or checked. He is the aggressor because he changed the level of contact. I didn't, though. It was just a stiff punch--a good punch that hit its target.

I recently learned some silat techniques to the forehead that might have worked better, but I didn't know them then---something more along the line of mantis's capping palm---something to turn the head up and offset the opponent's balance. With fluffly gloves you can hit anything.

Wookie, forgive me for this post. It may not be true, but I sense some Rashamon revisionism here. Do you think it may be because Sin The thought your confidence was arrogance and that your actions were just another expression of ****iness? I've been in some rough sparring in front of Sin The. I've seen people go down from shots that end the match. I've seen Sin The stop fights and tell people to keep control. I've never seen him lay hands on anyone in the process. I can only deduce that the varible here that is different is you and his attitude toward you. Just a thought, I could be completely wrong.

[Judge Pen]

Back to SD:

What other schools teach Hua Tau's 5 animal frolic as part of their curriculim? Is there a book or video explaining Hua Tau that Sin could have borrowed? Anyone know how Sin claims to have acquired this training?

[Judge Pen]

I recently learned some silat techniques to the forehead that might have worked better, but I didn't know them then---something more along the line of mantis's capping palm---something to turn the head up and offset the opponent's balance. With fluffly gloves you can hit anything.

What level were you testing for? If it were black, you should have known these techniques. Where did you learn "silat" techniques?

[Kellen Bassette]

Here's what I suspect. Everyone is always on adrenaline by the end of an SD test (which is why I generally abhor test "sparring"). You've just done 14 forms, weapons included, and then you spar. Most people get hyped up. I remained pretty calm and exploited a weakness. Is there a better place to hit a chick who you outweigh by 65 pounds when you don't wish to leave a mark---or hurt badly? I couldn't find one in those 10-20 seconds. Now, I'm not saying GM The' was wrong for breaking it up. I was myself surprised at the whiplash effect of a punch to the forehead (since nobody with any sense "punches" a forehead intentionally in a realitime scenario). BUt I did have fluffly gloves and I knew that it was a neutral target. What I am saying is that he assessed the problem incorrectly. He probably figured--this guy threw two stiff punches, this girl threw 30 techniques that he avoided or checked. He is the aggressor because he changed the level of contact. I didn't, though. It was just a stiff punch--a good punch that hit its target.

I recently learned some silat techniques to the forehead that might have worked better, but I didn't know them then---something more along the line of mantis's capping palm---something to turn the head up and offset the opponent's balance. With fluffly gloves you can hit anything.

Let her have it...should have swept the leg, lol...you know I always get hurt (not taking damage, just annoying bruises) play sparring with my wife or with kids, because I'm afraid to hurt them but they aren't afraid to hurt me.

It's just too difficult to spar someone when your actively trying to pull everything and they are trying to land everything, it makes all your moves awkward.

When I'm sparring the guys, we'll go as hard as we want, as long as I feel it's still sparring and there's not an intent for real injury. When I feel it's escalated and my sparring partner is gunning to hurt me for real, or knock me out, it has to move to fight mode...I immediately try to take them out to end the sparring match. It's too dangerous to spar with someone who is trying to fight you. You both got to be on the same page.

This is why a lot of instructors don't like to fight newbies. They are trying to teach and work with them, but often the new kid wants to feel like a tough guy, landing one on his teachers jaw.

You can say it's a big man and a small girl, but if she's trying to hit you for real and your pulling everything, it's going to make you look like an idiot, at your test no less...she may not have realized this, but it's disrespectful to go all out on a stronger opponent that's going easy for your benefit.

One of my biggest pet peeves, when I'm sparring someone with less experience, is when I throw a kick to their head and pull what could have easily been a knockout, only to have them grab the foot and try to sweep me.

You only get to do that once. If your too stupid to realize I could have took your head off, but didn't want to, then you take advantage of me when I half froze my leg in the air...next time it's not getting pulled.

I learned this the hard way at 14. I was sparring my instructor he left me an opening to see what I would do, I had my hands down, he threw a backfist and pulled it...I stepped in and punched him in the chin. We did this 3 times, each time he was trying to get me to realize I wasn't guarding my head, but I was so stoked to have a chance to punch him, I wasn't even paying attention. The third time I stepped in to take advantage he knocked me out with the backfist. One of the best lessons I ever got, I'll never forget it.

[Judge Pen]

Let her have it...should have swept the leg, lol...you know I always get hurt (not taking damage, just annoying bruises) play sparring with my wife or with kids, because I'm afraid to hurt them but they aren't afraid to hurt me.

It's just too difficult to spar someone when your actively trying to pull everything and they are trying to land everything, it makes all your moves awkward.

When I'm sparring the guys, we'll go as hard as we want, as long as I feel it's still sparring and there's not an intent for real injury. When I feel it's escalated and my sparring partner is gunning to hurt me for real, or knock me out, it has to move to fight mode...I immediately try to take them out to end the sparring match. It's too dangerous to spar with someone who is trying to fight you. You both got to be on the same page.

This is why a lot of instructors don't like to fight newbies. They are trying to teach and work with them, but often the new kid wants to feel like a tough guy, landing one on his teachers jaw.

You can say it's a big man and a small girl, but if she's trying to hit you for real and your pulling everything, it's going to make you look like an idiot, at your test no less...she may not have realized this, but it's disrespectful to go all out on a stronger opponent that's going easy for your benefit.

One of my biggest pet peeves, when I'm sparring someone with less experience, is when I throw a kick to their head and pull what could have easily been a knockout, only to have them grab the foot and try to sweep me.

You only get to do that once. If your too stupid to realize I could have took your head off, but didn't want to, then you take advantage of me when I half froze my leg in the air...next time it's not getting pulled.

I learned this the hard way at 14. I was sparring my instructor he left me an opening to see what I would do, I had my hands down, he threw a backfist and pulled it...I stepped in and punched him in the chin. We did this 3 times, each time he was trying to get me to realize I wasn't guarding my head, but I was so stoked to have a chance to punch him, I wasn't even paying attention. The third time I stepped in to take advantage he knocked me out with the backfist. One of the best lessons I ever got, I'll never forget it.

Very good observations. Sweeps are good for that, but if you are too effective, or they don't know how to properly fall, it can be just as bad (speaking from experience here).

I learned a lot of difficult lessons along the way sparring early in my days. I was a high school football player and thought I was pretty tough. I started training when I was 14 and most of the upper ranked students in my class were a couple of years older and non-football players. They resented me coming into their world (you know how small town high-school politics are). They relished teaching me that they were tougher than me and were very rough and aggressive even as I was learning techniques. It improved my sparring very quickly (sink or swim) and I'm amazed at how well my teacher kept control under the circumstances. I think he knew I needed humbling but never let things get dangerous or tempers get too hot.

He was a good man and became one of my best friends. He died in a helicopter accident not long after I reached black. One of the reasons I kept training in SD was to honor that relationship and attain the same rank he had when he passed.