Yuk hing my Fathers old notes

[Scott R. Brown]

...as an individual I find confucianism while pious and honorable to be litrtle more than a control mechanism for one set of society over another and forced order where there perhaps isn't a need.

What system of conduct doesn't do this?

If society didn't have a system of conduct to control behavior we would not have a society at all! Humans together in groups ALWAYS create a controlling system of conduct. It is designed so that individuals may get along better to the benefit of everyone. Even those on the outside of a dominant system of conduct have their own control system of conduct for their sub-group!

Some basic universal rules of a controlling system within any group are:

1) Do not harm anyone within the group.
2) Do not do anything that will interfere with group cohesion.
3) Conform to the group’s controlling system.

These rules cannot be avoided if an individual wishes to be a member of any group!

[David Jamieson]

What system of conduct doesn't do this?

If society didn't have a system of conduct to control behavior we would not have a society at all! Humans together in groups ALWAYS create a controlling system of conduct. It is designed so that individuals may get along better to the benefit of everyone. Even those on the outside of a dominant system of conduct have their own control system of conduct for their sub-group!

Some basic universal rules of a controlling system within any group are:

1) Do not harm anyone within the group.
2) Do not do anything that will interfere with group cohesion.
3) Conform to the group’s controlling system.

These rules cannot be avoided if an individual wishes to be a member of any group!

I respectfully disagree.

A social construct can be made without any heirarchy whatsoever.
It demands responsibility and accountability.
It demands that we learn generationally to do the virtuous things and to not seek to blame others where we have our shortfalls.

Our societies that we live in are alwasy seeking to blame, blame blame.
People even ponder who's fault it is for weather conditions. Look at the Tsunami or even better New Orleans. These are unavoidable disasters.

Confucianism is antiquated and has some value to it, but there is a lot of sheer crap throughout it that doesn't fit with moving men forward in thought. It is all about kowtowing, heirarchy and knowing your place. Practically speaking, it's almost as bad as a caste system in many respects.

as soon as you look for a leader, you remove your own ability to lead your own life with much virtue.

[mantis108]

First and foremost, I think SimonM nailed it on the head although he didn't quite called the bluff. Royal Dragon showed a pair of Ace and the Chu(s) folded their deck (with the classic move - I am not talking to ya!) immediately. Meanwhile, Scott and DJ are showing their possible flush and pairs and the battle continues....

Who takes the pot? Whose deck reigns superme?!

Stay tune for the battle royale of Forum Poker.

Mantis108

[David Jamieson]

will there be stripping involved?

cause i really don't want to show and see anymore pee pees on this forum. lol

[svenfeynord]

I am sorry Chu and Yuk Hing, for the other members of this forum's disrespectful writing. From what I have seen on this site not many people take the art seriously. Send me a private message if you wish to communicate with someone serious, willing to learn and be humble to a master.

[dwid]

willing to learn and be humble to a master.

I think you've got the wrong forum. Try alt.leathersex/submissive

[Scott R. Brown]

A social construct can be made without any heirarchy whatsoever.
It demands responsibility and accountability.
It demands that we learn generationally to do the virtuous things and to not seek to blame others where we have our shortfalls

Hi David,

Can you name a successful sizable social structure that has accomplished this goal? If you can, which I doubt, can you demonstrate that its members conform to the social structure without any form of social coercion? This is doubtful as well. All social structures use some form of coercion to enforce compliance to the social structure! This coercion may be in the form of rewards, negative consequences or social conditioning which may be referred to as “education” by those who agree with the social structure or “brainwashing” by those who disagree!

You have a very idealistic view, but it is doomed to failure because it does not take into account human nature. . Humans by nature have differing personalities. Some are leaders, some are followers, some are sheep, some are wolves, some are shepherds, some are loners, some are peacemakers some are aggressive, etc.

Your view is no different than saying we could all get along if everyone would just agree with ME!! To get everyone to agree with ME I must use some form of coercion. Even a system of social rewards is a form of coercion. Once we use coercion to enforce/encourage conformity we are as bad, or worse than any other totalitarian method, whether governmentally forced or socially forced. It is just a more insidious form of totalitarianism. Groups ostracize those who refuse to comply. Once individuals do not have the freedom to non-comply with the group then your ideal falls apart.

[Scott R. Brown]

as soon as you look for a leader, you remove your own ability to lead your own life with much virtue.

Hi David again,

Behaviors/attitudes considered “virtues” are learned. They are learned from others whether we are conditioned by our parents, religion, teachers or reading the ideas of others. This eliminates our freedom to live a life of virtue by your standard because virtue then is determined/influenced by others and not ourselves. Humans cannot exist separate from social structures because we are born into them. These structures influence us from the beginning and affect the choices we make. When a social structure influences the available choices we have then we lose freedom.

None of us live our own lives according to whatever standards we choose because our choices are influenced by our conditioning. Once we are conditioned we no longer have complete freedom to choose freely.

[SimonM]

BTW: I took a look at the phrase that "Chu" posted in his "I'm not talking to Royal Dragon because he thinks he is the emperor of China" post... My Chinese is far from pefect but I believe the second last character is "Peru"...

I'm bringing th Chinese text with me to lunch and I'll get my Chinese friends who read much better than I to translate it.

[Royal Dragon]

Hello, Mr. Gian
Sorry for offend, but I Chu ca not be in conversation with you anymore because you too much controversy
With call yourself royal dragon and the emperor. This is reserve for only the emperor of China.and nor for regular people. Noone do not understand my notes but is the basic secret of all north south long quan (chuan) 全南北长拳基本秘决。

Maybe my son yuk hing talk to you about this more than me. Sorry but I can nnot talk to you anymore at all

Chu

Saijen

Reply]
Mr. Chu. I am not sure what time period you live in, but in 2006, there is no Chinese Emperor. Also, I do not "Call myself" the Emperor. The name "Royal Dragon" refers to the story of Tsao Tu Ming's worm. A learned scholor such as yourself must surely be familiar with the story of the Sung dynasty silk trader Tsao, Tu Ming, and how he discovered a new type of small Dragon along the silk trail. You must also be familliar with the part of the story where Tsao Tu Ming brought these Dragon's back with him, and started selling them to the Royal house holds as pets (Hence the name "Royal Dragons", and how they grew unexpectedly to be quite large.

I'm sure you know the rest of the story. I am not named for an Emperor, I am named for the Royal Dragon's brought to the Imperial house hold by the silk trader Tsao, Tu Ming.

Clik on the link below to see a picture of the Royal Dragon I am named for.

[David Jamieson]

None of us live our own lives according to whatever standards we choose because our choices are influenced by our conditioning. Once we are conditioned we no longer have complete freedom to choose freely.

Man, that's a tight world you see.

Reciprocal and non-heirarchical social structures may not exist now in larger portions of the civilizations that inhabit the earth now, but they do exist. And I still disagree that it is hard code for us to gravitate to forced control.

Yes, I agree, 'we' live in such a crappy construct, but that's not to say it doesn't have to be that way and I think you discount the ability for humans to naturally want peaceful co-existence overall.

take a look at your own neighbourhood. you don't all live in the same house, you don't all follow your community leader, but you do want your street lights on and you do want your garbage picked up. In that sense, there is reciprocity more than leaders and so on. I think that political mantels are donned, but for the most part of the year, unneccessary.

Maybe it's the libertarian in me more than an ideal. A social contract and construct can exist with a reciprocal and egalitarian society.

yes, certain people will be asked or will work towards management and maintenance of infrastructure, trade and even the military if need be. But decisions that effect life or death should not be in anyones hands but their own.

true democracy works towards this end. all service to the whole that is in agreement is voluntary, those who can't abide don't have to, but are not included in the resiprocity of the society.

I know where you're coming from, but you gotta see the possibilities. It's not all bleak house.

[Royal Dragon]

Story of Tsao Tu Ming's Worm

The following link is one version of the story I have seen. Unfortunetly I donot have the book I found the original in, but I have seen several versions on line in the past. Some take place in the Ming dynasty, one in the Sung, and another during the Ching dynasty. All are vertually the same story though.

[SimonM]

Noone do not understand my notes but is the basic secret of all north south long quan (chuan) 全南北长拳基本秘决。

Literally your "notes" in Chinese you posted in this say...

"North and south Long Fist's basic secret."

According to my friends this is an incomplete sentence and not grammatically correct Chinese.

So far you have provided us with:

A: Basic Confucianist principles that would be well known to anyone with even a passing knowlege of the Analects and Mencius.

B: Standard Taiji theory with a random Chinese character thrown in every so often to make it look more authentic.

C: A refusal to answer questions posed to you under the guise of "you are claiming to be the emperor of China"...?!?!?!?

Let me tell you: I know plenty of Chinese senior citizens. Not a Qing loyalist in the lot of 'em. I walk around in a rayon shirt with yellow and orange dragons all over it and the only comment I ever get is "nice shirt, where can I get one".

D: Mistakes in your chinese grammar evident immediately to the first Chinese person I showed it to.

E: Your "chinglish" doesn't read like a Chinese person who learned English as a second language. IT reads like someone who learned English as a first language who is trying to sound like they learned English as a second language. For instance I've never encountered the construct:

"Noone do not understand my notes"

The use of double negatives is quite rare among the writings of Chinese people who have learned ESL. They would be more likely to say "No one understand my notes."

So although I've danced around this for a while, trying to give you the benefeit of the doubt, I'm going to say what most of us are now thinking:

Nice troll but you aren't hooking anyone in with this. Back to the drawing board.

[Scott R. Brown]

Man, that's a tight world you see.

Reciprocal and non-heirarchical social structures may not exist now in larger portions of the civilizations that inhabit the earth now, but they do exist. And I still disagree that it is hard code for us to gravitate to forced control.

Yes, I agree, 'we' live in such a crappy construct, but that's not to say it doesn't have to be that way and I think you discount the ability for humans to naturally want peaceful co-existence overall.

take a look at your own neighbourhood. you don't all live in the same house, you don't all follow your community leader, but you do want your street lights on and you do want your garbage picked up. In that sense, there is reciprocity more than leaders and so on. I think that political mantels are donned, but for the most part of the year, unneccessary.

Maybe it's the libertarian in me more than an ideal. A social contract and construct can exist with a reciprocal and egalitarian society.

yes, certain people will be asked or will work towards management and maintenance of infrastructure, trade and even the military if need be. But decisions that effect life or death should not be in anyones hands but their own.

true democracy works towards this end. all service to the whole that is in agreement is voluntary, those who can't abide don't have to, but are not included in the resiprocity of the society.

I know where you're coming from, but you gotta see the possibilities. It's not all bleak house.

Hi David,

I am sure it is my nearly 15 years of working with socio-paths in the CA prison system that influences my opinion. Individuals who have never known or experienced the dark side of human nature, that of manipulators and predators, tend to have more of a Pollyannic view of humans getting along in peaceful co-existence than those of us who have long term exposure to a more complete spectrum of human behavior. I frequently tell friends of mine without the experiences I have had that you cannot reason with the unreasonable! You just can't make nice with those who do not want to make nice with you in a fair and open exchange. Socio-paths will “appear” to accommodate you because is lulls you into a false sense of security. This sense of security and in many cases self-satisfaction at what a wonderfully advanced and understanding person you are creates a weakness in you that will be exploited by the predator. He has purposely set up the situation to take advantage of you for his own personal gain. Your ideal society must have a means of dealing with this type of individual.

Humans are inherently focused upon their own self interest. Many or most individuals will lie and cheat if they think it will benefit themselves over the benefit of others. This was graphically demonstrated to me within a Sociology class I attended many, many years ago. We played a game called the X/Y game.

The class divided into groups of 8. Each group of 8 contained 4 groups of 2. Each pair made a series of secret choices of either X or Y and then put the selection into the middle of the table. Each pair was awarded points or lost points based upon how their choice measured against the choices from the other 3 pairs. It became clear that if you guessed Y when everyone else guessed X you would be awarded the most points. If everyone guessed a specific way then everyone would benefit by receiving equal points although with lower over all points than if you gambled and guessed correctly against everyone else.

During the course of the game we were allowed to negotiate with the other pairs of the group of 8 in order to work out strategy. Me, being basically egalitarian minded and also of rather strong personality, convinced everyone in the group to work together for the benefit of all rather than risk losing everything and ending up with NO points at all. The first round or two following the negotiation went well but, it became clear to the selfish minded (basically half of the pairs at my table) that if they cheated by going against the agreement they would benefit. What they didn’t anticipate was that by doing so it opened it up for everyone to do whatever they wanted and it became a free-for-all where gaining points returned to a risky proposition. After more negotiation I got everyone to forgive each other and in the end everyone worked together. Because of the earlier deceptions some pairs had more points than others, but everyone ended up with some points. At the end of the class it turned out that the real plan was to pit the groups of 8 against each other and not the pairs within the groups of 8. It was the cumulative point totals of each pair within in the groups of 8 that mattered not the point total of each pair singly. My group won because I was able to negotiate a mutually beneficial agreement and heal the rift created by the selfish minded.

This game was intended to demonstrate just your ideal where everyone works together for the benefit of all, but contrasts it with human nature. That is the natural tendency for individuals to take advantage of the illusion of security to take advantage of circumstances for their own benefit.

Your proposal is predicated on an ideal that does not take into account those who enjoy taking advantage of the trust of others and/or enjoy creating fear and chaos in others. Some individuals prefer to dominate through fear and they enjoy it. Others prefer the more insidious route of manipulation I have mentioned above.

In your ideal civilization the act of denying reciprocal benefits to those who do not play the game is a form of coercion that influences the individual to comply with the rules of the group. Any method of coercion is a type of force. I agree my previous example contained a bit of hyperbole, but coercion is a subtle form of force. When negative consequences are imposed for non-compliance the difference in method from a totalitarian organization is only a matter of degree.

It is not a negative perspective that influences my view, but a realistic understanding of prevailing human nature.

[Scott R. Brown]

So although I've danced around this for a while, trying to give you the benefeit of the doubt, I'm going to say what most of us are now thinking:

Nice troll but you aren't hooking anyone in with this. Back to the drawing board.

Hi Simon,

I have noted that his father's name is Yuk Hing and I have been wondering about it. I know nothing of Chinese, but it is suspiciously similar to "YUCKING"???? As in,"The joke is on you!!!!"