Is Shaolin-Do for real?

[Shaolin Wookie]

Two lousy cats and a snoring, pregnant wife kept me up this morning.


So, I was thinking. For those who still believe that Sin The' is capable of telling the truth (and I do think this, since everyone can admit that they're wrong):


Imagine he were to come out tomorrow and tell you that he learned his mantis from Je Shou Fu, or that he learned his bird systems from Liu Su Peng, nevermind what his deposition states. He tells you about CHung Yen, multiple teachers, and thus slightly contradicts his prior stories, but not entirely----just enough to make them shape-up in your mind.

Would you have any reason to believe him? Or, would you assume that he was lying (or that he had read this thread)? And do you suspect he would stop at the believable claims, or continue on to extraordinary ones?

If he can't recall what he taught between '65 and '90, and if he misrepresented everything that he did between '65 and '90 in the 90's, why in the hell should anyone trust that he can recall what he did between '55 and '65? And why would you have any reason to believe him now?

Now, I always suspected that 1) the lineage was false, if not fake (i.e., difference between stories received from Ie vs. reality---hence my avatar and name here), 2) that nobody could take GM The's claims in his books without a grain of salt, and 3) that GM The' was a fabricator, but I also thought that there was enough correspondence between what he taught (Lian Wu Zhang, Jie Quan) and variations of those forms elswhere to suggest that he had learned something from someone, at some time.

In this situation, though, given the deposition's "revelations," I wouldn't trust him even if he confirmed what I suspect was true about his training in Indonesia (and his command of 5 languages, LOL, when he hasn't mastered this one).
__________________________________________________ ________

Sidenote: As a thought experiment, consider the following scenario. I'm on a blackbelt test that GM The' is officiating. He asks me to perform the adaptive drunken immortal form. Instead, I break out into the Longfist routines that I learned five or six years ago from a different teacher outside the art. GM The' gets a little confused at what I'm doing and stops the test.

"What are you doing?" he asks.

I say, "the Adaptive Drunken Immortal."

He says, "That's not the Adaptive Drunken Immortal."

I say, "Okay, it's actually Longfist. I learned it from a book."

He says, "That's actually good, if you learned it from a book."

I say, "I didn't learn it from a book, I learned it from my Longfist teacher. His name was Chop Suey."

He says, "That's a strange name."

I say, "His name isn't really Chop Suey."

[Shaolin Wookie]

He says, "I didn't think it was. That's a really silly name. What is your name?"

I say, "James Dalton."

He says, "Well, Mr. Dalton, if you don't mind getting back to the test, I'd like to see what you know."

I say, "Actually, James Dalton was the name of the character that Patrick Swayze played in the movie Roadhouse."
__________________________________________________ ______________

After being caught in so many fabrications, why should he believe anything I say?

__________________________________________________ _______________

[Continued}


He says, "The form, sir, the form. Let's get back to the test."

I say, "How do I know that this is adaptive drunken immortal and not Longfist?"

He says, "Because that's its name."

I then pull out his deposition and point to the section where he admits to having created names for some 30-50 forms. I also pull out Jim Halliday's book and point to contradictory info--the Shaolin inheritance, so to speak.

I say, "I beg to differ, sir. It says here that you created the names for many of your forms."

He says, "That's all just a misunderstanding. And it was only a court case, if you catch my drift. There's lots of misrepresentation in a court case. You're trying to win, and often you have to kick someone in the nuts to win."

I say, "I'll grant that, but is the misunderstanding yours or mine?"

He says, "Yours."

I say, "Perhaps you can enlighten me, then."

He then tells me personally about his training, confirming the suspicions I had all along.

__________________________________________________ ________________________
Why should I believe him, if I am quicker to solve his misunderstanding than he is.

__________________________________________________ ________________________

I say, "That's a great story. Where did this adaptive drunken immortal form come from? Did you create it, was it passed down from GM Ie or one of your Indonesian teachers, or did you learn it from a book?"

He says, "A bit of each, to be honest."

I say, "Then you're not being honest. You're either 1) trying to believe your own falsehood, 2) making stuff up to avoid admitting that you don't know, or 3) very confused."

HE says, "Trust me."

I say, "Why? You lied, or at least misrepresented, what you do in print--multiple times, in person, and under oath. You can't be right in all scenarios."

He says, "But that doesn't mean all of it is wrong."

I say, "And thus I have no reason to believe anything that you have to say. If you don't mind, I think I'll finish this adaptive drunken form for the test."

I then finish my Longfist routine and ask him for a black belt.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Who is more absurd in the preceding scenario?

Answer: Both are partially right, and both are partly wrong, but one clearly has made a valid point.

GM The' can't fix his error this time. 10 strikes and you're out, sir.

Those who think the reductio ad absurdum is not a valid medium for making an argument can take my word for it that it is in fact a sound medium for argumentation--I teach Quantum Physics in middle school. I can fax you syllabi, give you student emails (I won't, since that would be illegal, but I could in theory), and even invite you to a class when I get back to teaching after the wife has our daughter. You don't have to just "Trust" me. Logic is universally sound.

[Shaolin Wookie]

I just lied. I teach rhetoric, logic, and grammar in college, and my wife is having a boy.

Or is this, too, a lie? You'd have to know me to find out, and only those who know me could know the truth if I state 1000 falsehoods to the contrary. But, assuming a fellow SD practitioner could in fact know me and whether (as well as what) I teach and have a pregnant wife, could they know which forms were fabricated, and which were primarily original?

LOL. Logic is a *****. A personal history with GM The' can't solve this lovely conundrum.

[Syn7]

Wow... Just wow!

[shen ku]

i want to know one thing wook.... what the he// did you eat for breakfast to your brain work like that this early on a saturday... or was it the no sleep ??

[hskwarrior]

lmao!!!!!!!!

[wenshu]

Logic is universally sound.

If logic is universally sound why do all of your arguments selectively disregard fundamentally provable propositions?

p^~p

It either is bullshit or it isn't bullshit.

Community college rhetoric 100 isn't sufficient to obfuscate that one small terse fact.

Perhaps it's time to admit to yourselves that you just like yourselves some bullshit.

Q.E.D bitches

[tattooedmonk]

If logic is universally sound why do all of your arguments selectively disregard fundamentally provable propositions?

p^~p

It either is bullshit or it isn't bullshit.

Community college rhetoric 100 isn't sufficient to obfuscate that one small terse fact.

Perhaps it's time to admit to yourselves that you just like yourselves some bullshit.

Q.E.D bitches

talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I see you dump more bullsh!t here than anyone else, with all your fancy talk and cr@p.....it doesn't make you sound educated and intellectual , it makes you sound like a pompous @$$.

get over yourself, get off your high horse, and pull the stick out of your @$$.

[Shaolin Wookie]

If logic is universally sound why do all of your arguments selectively disregard fundamentally provable propositions?

p^~p

It either is bullshit or it isn't bullshit.

Community college rhetoric 100 isn't sufficient to obfuscate that one small terse fact.

Perhaps it's time to admit to yourselves that you just like yourselves some bullshit.

Q.E.D bitches

Here's a bit of knowledge for you. You are trying to argue, but you don't have the correct form. What you posed is a false dilemma. Do you know what material is truly original or what was made up? Sorry, you don't. The first rule in logic, as well as in Kung fu, is that one must know one's limits.

Okay, you believe it to be bull****. I suspect some of it is classical, or was at a given time. Beliefs and suspicions are not the province of logic.

Here's a bit of irony for you--- you may know some ****, but you have no formal understanding of argumentation. Your suspicions may be correct, but your arguments are the wrong ones. If you don't like that I shoot down your objections and often play devil's advocate, it is because you don't know how to think clearly.


Try harder grasshopper.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Symbolic logic is like mathematical economics. Keynesians have tried to prove that expansion of the monetary base (I.e., inflation) makes us all richer. Drink the Koop-aid, chief. Symbols are a poor substitute for words, since they can only represent concepts on a tertiary level.

But you're probably a universal empiricist. Knowledge is democratic, right? Consensus based? And who decides what is pure knowledge in a vote of the statistical variety? Well, a force of numbers. He said she said. Not exactly a good position to take when posing false dilemmas to solve he said she said debates.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Either all things are true or all things are false. If this statement is true, then all things are true. But if all things are false, then this statement must be false, right? Wait, but then the part about all things being false is actually true, and so the purely skeptical conclusion that all things are false cannot be true.

You'd get an "F" in one of my classes, Wenshu.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Now add empirical content. The best conclusion you can reach is that GM the cannot resolve the true/false dichotomy. You'd have to trust him or distrust him universally. I'm not willing to jump to one extreme or the other. Some of his claims are true, some false. Which is which? You now need more evidence. We don't have it.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Oh, and I forgot. Because GM The' lied under oath, he can no longer be cited as a reliable source. This doesn't negate everything he's said. It removes him from the equation. His words are now mere sounds, lacking a firm basis. This sounds cold, but it is what it is. He made his bed and whatnot

[Syn7]

No, no, no. You're not thinking. You're just being logical!!!