Why do other sifu's hate on other sifu's

[im_dabich]

You know I have seen a lot of hateing on here, and in real life.. There is a lot of either jealousey or something between a lot of sifu's well and masters too.. Can't we all just get along? LoL.... There is no room in life for hate. Life should be full of happiness, fun, and hard work.. We dont need to hate other people or be mean to other people.. If you have that much knowledge then you should share it.. Not act like 2 year old's with the whole "thats mine" crap.. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Why do sifu's hate on other sifu's?

[Emeraldphoenix]

Dont be discouraged. very common place in the world of MA.

Competition, politics and ego. are the main drive behind this. Just normal human behavior.

Just look beyond it. focus on your self and you will be just fine.

[David Jamieson]

im_dabich

do you not harbour a little ill will towards another?
Is there not a person out there in the world who pushes your buttons and raises your ire?

In any line of practice, you will find detractors and supporters.
Standing up for yourself isn;t always hating on someone, it can be refuting, rebutting, or simply a heated debate or argument.

there is competition and tehre are people who feel that things need to be done in a certain way while others find results with a different path and occasionally point that out and in the form of comparitive analysis which in turn will detract from what someone else is doing.

That's when the teardrops start...fella.

[Royal Dragon]

When you get a bunch of fighters all together, they are goi'n to.....ahh.. FIGHT!

[MasterKiller]

When you get a bunch of fighters all together, they are goi'n to.....ahh.. FIGHT!

either that, or they'll spend hours talking about flan. It's a toss up in most cases.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Mmmmmm... Flan!!

Be well..

[SPJ]

In theory, we are all students of the first teacher/ o sensei one way or another.

We may have different oppinions about theory and practice from our own "experiences".

usually, there are more things in common then we realize that are "different".

right or wrong? my way is da only way? may not be so?

Im da bomb or Im da man?

[Asia]

You know I have seen a lot of hateing on here, and in real life.. There is a lot of either jealousey or something between a lot of sifu's well and masters too.. Can't we all just get along? LoL.... There is no room in life for hate. Life should be full of happiness, fun, and hard work.. We dont need to hate other people or be mean to other people.. If you have that much knowledge then you should share it.. Not act like 2 year old's with the whole "thats mine" crap.. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Why do sifu's hate on other sifu's?

If we could all get along then we wouldn't have Martial Arts.

[TenTigers]

http://www.cookingforengineers.com/article.php?id=32

[tattooedmonk]

.......ego!!

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi TaiChiBob,

I understand it may appear a matter of semantics or how we each view the same principle from a different perspective, but calling a library a “learning resource center” does not change the fact it is a library, “A rose by any other name is still a rose!” Conflict is part of life; it is illustrated by the dynamic of Yin-Yang. There may be an element of cooperation found within conflict, but that does not change the inherent presence of conflict within the world system.

Our discussion here represents a conflict. I have views I share that are different from the views you share. When we engage in a discussion concerning our differing views, despite the cordiality of it, it is still a conflict between contrasting views. Even if neither of us agrees in the end we are changed in some manner due to the interaction (conflict).

…while i may have differing opinions compared to another's, if we are seeking the best solution and are willing to change opinion's in light of better evidence, i sense no conflict...

If your views were unified (harmonious, in equilibrium) there would be no need to change your opinions. Because your views are in conflict one or both must “change” in order to restore harmony (regain balance, reach an agreement).

What you have described by your example here is a productive and beneficial resolution of conflict using reason to reach compromise. The conflict was present; it was how you resolved the conflict that gives the appearance of no conflict. Further, the fact that you and your partner, in this example, are working “towards a solution” implies there was a dilemma (conflict) to resolve in the first place. There was a condition present that was not satisfactory to what was desired. This is a conflict between what you had and what you wanted. Most likely you and your partner had at least slightly different methods of arriving at your desired result. This is also a conflict. The fact you resolved your conflict of ideas easily due to your common goal, maturity and reason does not eliminate the fact that conflict was present.

Remember that conflict is what motivates change. In your example, one or both of you changed their view of how to solve the dilemma in order to arrive at a mutually beneficial resolution and the solution to the dilemma created a changed condition as well.

…i sense unity of purpose and no conflict…

Here you are focusing on the positive manner in which the conflict was resolved. I agree at times it may be more beneficial to focus on positive aspects rather than negative; however conflict was present to motivate a solution which caused a change in condition. It seems that you may have a general idea that conflict is a negative condition. Conflict is neither a positive nor negative condition, it merely IS. It is a condition of life. Positive or negative views concerning conflict are what individual’s project onto the phenomenon of conflict and are not its inherent value. Conflict exists! It motivates change! There is no inherent positive or negative value to it; it is what we bring to the conflict, our attitude towards it that determines the value for us!

…if one or the other struggles to prevail, regardless of evidence, conflict is manifested...

Conflict is present from the beginning. There IS a struggle to prevail. It is just that the solution, in your example, is more important to the parties than the ego attachment each has to which solution is chosen. Because of this the inherent conflict is not perceived. The struggle, in your example, merely follows a more productive method. A discussion of varying points of view occurs. Evidence is provide by each party regarding their reasoning for preferring their particular view and an agreed upon a method for determining the best action to follow occurs. It may involve testing methods, arguing points, drawing straws, etc. This method is nice and tidy, however it is only effective when dealing with individuals with common goals and a willingness to compromise. What would your reaction be if your partner demanded a solution your experience repeatedly informed you would not work and was in fact dangerous to yourself, your family and others? What if your partner was convinced their view was right and your view was wrong? This would demonstrate a conflict of a different quality, but both remain conflicts.

…if i yield under pressure but maintain balance there is no conflict…but, if i resist pressure, balance or not, i am in conflict with the situation...

If you have the need to yield you are perceiving conflict. The conflict may not have been physically manifested, but you perceived it as impending and this caused a reaction. In this circumstance, perception of conflict may be visual as in the perception of an approaching force, or physical as in the physical pressure you mention. The fact you have yielded is merely your chosen solution to the conflict. Here is what has occured:

1) You are occupying a specific space.
2) You feel a pressure on you to move. This pressure IS the conflict whether it is a physical pressure or a psychological pressure manifested by your interpretation of an impending event.
3) You choose to yield (move yourself out of) your presently occupied space.
4) This yielding is “a change” in position in response to the conflict perceived. The conflict, which was manifested as pressure (psychological or physical), caused you to change your position by yielding your occupied space.
5) Conflict caused change.

Yielding to pressure is merely one choice that may be made concerning how to resolve conflict. Let us consider a similar example where you might choose to resist the pressure. A person is moving towards you in an uncontrolled manner. You are all that stands between this individual and the edge of a cliff. Instead of yielding you might resist the forward movement (pressure). Once again, the forward pressure IS the conflict. Your resistance CHANGES the forward movement and, most likely, your position was CHANGED in order to effectively and safely stop the forward momentum. The forward momentum was the conflict; in order to resolve it CHANGE was necessary.

…if i apply pressure but my opponent yields and unites with my force, he has created a harmony in his favor.. i have pushed into emptiness, no conflict.. he has added (cooperated) force in the direction of my intended push, no conflict.. just an outcome different than i intended...

Your act of pressure creates the conflict. Your opponent must react and he will change. His change, whether it is to yield to your pressure or to be forced to move by you, are both stimulated by your action of pressure. The pressure (conflict) created change.

Your pressure represents conflict because you are “imposing” a force upon an otherwise stable (balanced) condition. You are creating a circumstance where your opponent WILL change. He was in a condition of balance and your pressure caused him to change in order to maintain his balance. If you had not imposed a force upon him he would have had no reason to change his condition to retain balance. If he had not changed his condition he would have become unbalanced. Either one is change caused by your application of force. You created a conflict that caused him to change in order to maintain a condition that he preferred that is, he prefers to remain balanced. To do this he was required to change in accordance with the conflict you created.

Your opponent may unify his force with yours, but once he seeks to change your force in any manner, whether by increasing it, decreasing it, or redirecting it, conflict has resumed.

[Scott R. Brown]

TaiChiBob continued...

…from my perspective, conflict implies struggle or resistance...

Yes I understand that, but conflict is any condition where a particular state of being is imposed upon by a force. So in Tai Chi practice, if you are blending with your opponent to redirect his force, you have 1) reacted to his initial imposing force, which is a changed condition for you, and 2) changed his force of movement by redirecting it towards a goal or direction other than his original intent. In both cases change was caused by the imposition of an external force and this force WAS the conflict that stimulated the change.

If you are standing in a balanced position and another individual attempts to change your balanced position by imposing a force, in order for you to maintain your balance you MUST change in some manner. You must either resist his force with greater force or yield and move. Both are conditions of change stimulated by the imposition of force. It is just that your personal choice is to yield rather than resist. Since you MUST react to the force in some manner, change WILL occur as a result of the force. The force is the conflict. I may perceive the conflict with my eyes and respond by moving rather than choosing to engage the force with my body, but it is still conflict that I am reacting too. One is merely impending physical conflict while the other is a physical manifestation of conflict. This is why many Masters are not seen to engage each other in physical combat. Their battle is one of spirit or mind. There is still conflict occurring it is merely of a more subtle quality. Just because the conflict is not apparent on a physical level does not mean it has not occurred.

If your opponent is approaching you with force and you yield your space without contacting him then your removal of what he would interpret as impending resistance would cause a change in him. In this case the conflict he experiences that causes him to change or attempt to change his momentum has it origins from within himself. He EXPECTED resistance, this resistance did not occur. The difference between what he wanted (expected) and what occurred created a conflict between his intent and what actually occurred. This caused a change in his expected outcome. In this circumstance it was the removal of force (expected resistance) that was the cause of change. In other words, your method of change caused a change in his method, LOL!!

…as long as we are agreed to seek the necessary change to restore equilibrium we are in harmony with the natural processes.. resistance to change or forced manipulation to effect change is my perception of conflict...

The decision to change in order to restore equilibrium IS a reaction to an external force that has caused or seeks to cause disequilibrium and therein resides the conflict. If there was no conflict there would be no reason to “restore” equilibrium. Once again, it is conflict that creates change! It appears to me that you view “choosing to follow the least resistant path to achieve the goal” as equivalent to eliminating conflict, but this is not the case! There is no need to change or restore anything if balance or equilibrium is present. It is when disequilibrium occurs or is perceived about to occur that change is stimulated in order to restore or preserve equilibrium. This change is caused by conflict.


As always a most enjoyable conversation my friend!

P.S. In retrospect, in selected circumstances, perhaps it would be more accurate to substitute the term "external force" and "force" with "external stimulus" and "stimulus"! I'm just too lazy to go back and change it all! LOL!