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

[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!

[Oso]

because teachers from other styles smell funny.



sheesh, everyone here want's to overcomplicate every issue that comes up.

[Minghequan]

The short answer is simply : Ego and Politics! Sad but true.

[Oso]

No, you're wrong.

It's the differing qi gong's.

each qi gong changes you biochemically and your sweat changes and you smell different.

on top of that, your sense of smell becomes more sensative to other qi gong smells and can't stand it to the point of being an ass about it.

It's simple: no body wants to admit that they stink.

[SPJ]

It's simple: no body wants to admit that they stink.

agreed. we used to say that I think you stink. and then my bro would say you stink--ER.

now we would say that you suck. and then my bro would say you suck--ER.

alright then.

we both stink and suck at what we do.

[Oso]

agreed. we used to say that I think you stink. and then my bro would say you stink--ER.

now we would say that you suck. and then my bro would say you suck--ER.

alright then.

we both stink and suck at what we do.

I and I, my friend.

If we all agreed we stinked and sucked at what we did...we'd all be happy and training and drinking good beer together at the end of the day.



peace ya'll

g'night

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Scott: By your analogy: I am standing in waist deep water.. a wave approaches.. i manuever a position of least resistance (i.e.: duck under water), cooperate with the impending force.. the wave is just being a wave, no conflicting intention.. i am responding to a natural occurance, no conflicting intentiion.. Your analogy implies that all change is related to conflict, which is itself a personal value system.. it is clear that we differ in our concept of conflict, i require an intention.. Webster indicates "hostile, opposing, antagonistic", none of which are present in the wave analogy..

Crap!! now i forgot how we got into this dialogue...

We must not confuse conflict with battle/war. Battle/War is a subset of conflict, but conflict is not necessarily battle/war. Conflict is any form of disequilibrium, which is dissatisfaction with the status quo. Desire for something we don’t have creates disequilibrium it is this desire that creates conflict. If we are in harmony/equilibrium we feel no need for change. Change is the process of returning to equilibrium from disequilibrium.

Oh yeah, this was it.. where you advocate conflict as inherent to imbalance (disequilibrium) through the desire to return to balance.. i advocate opportunity until i intend to "oppose" or become "hostile or antagonistic".. if the stimulus is embraced and change is effected without opposition, i sense no conflict.. in an effort to arrive at a consistency of concepts based on linguistic interpretations, i find it useful to make clear distinctions.. by isolating "conflict" to a condition of intention it simplifies communication, more closely conforms to a standard (Webster), and reduces ambiguities of nuance.. or, everything would be conflict.. not unlike the Buddhist idea the life is "suffering"..

Be well....

[David Jamieson]

Relative to many others, I do not stink or suck in the least.
Relative to Many others, I clearly need work and stink and suck a little.
Relative to a few I stink and suck.

That's generally how it plays out in anything.

But otherwise, It's mostly because "they" stink and suck, and that's why all the trash talk.

[hungganyc]

There are still sifus who speak out against other sifus because of a moral, ethical, & traditional obligation. this doesn't apply only to kung fu. it's not always politics.
Unfortunately there are always three sides to every story.

[lkfmdc]

Without hate, there can be no love. Without darkness there can be no light. Without sadness, there can be no joy. Without Ying, there can be no Yang.

Our world requires hatred in order for love to exist.

So like i said ealier, without hate, the world would be a very boring place.

without cheese, there would be no macaroni

without the meat ball, the spaghetti would be plain

without the pole, the dancer would just be naked

what was this thread about anyway?

[hskwarrior]

without hair bigfoot would just be a normal naked man.

without alligators (? spelling) boots would just be boots.

without money, we'd all be broke.........


but i don't know what's happening anymore

[David Jamieson]

If there were no men in the world, what remains would be a lot of fat happy lesbians and a zero crime rate.

If there were no women in the world, nothing would have ever been invented and there would be bands of roving predators seeking out other camps to destroy and steal their food. The h0mo stuff goes without question.

In a primal sense, men are bad and women are good. Go figure why many religions and philosophies got that ass backwards.

and what it all really boils down to is this:

my dog eats meat.

[hskwarrior]

WTF?

i JUST DON'T GET IT

[SPJ]

men will always be men.

women will always be women.

dogs will always like to eat meat.

things being things are.

the question is about how to get along with things and move forward as a whole.

stressing everything in its purest/extreme way?

or life is just about mixing things up or balancing all values!

[lkfmdc]

men will always be men.

women will always be women.

Haven't been in the Chelsea area of NYC have you?