Does Taiji require a structured belief system??

Self pity is an aspect of us; it's not a problem to be who we are, nor is it a sin.

Nor does having awareness of it mean that we must be saying it's a sin or a problem. In your thinking, you work on mass scale - society as a whole, mass amounts of individuals and how their beliefs, world view affect the mass society.

I'm not that kind of thinker - so to understand me, you have to understand that I already accept that most people must, inevitably adhere to the mass, herd view. The work I do, and people like me, is for a very small number of people - those who have the personal interest and strength to leave the herd view and explore the make up of themselves, of their reality, psyche etc. For those people, self pity has to be explored and understood, and can be a barrier and a problem to wider view. For people on a larger scale, some understanding, or getting past some aspects of self pity can help with facing trauma or difficult life experiences.

But it's no sin to be human Joanna. Why did we ever accept that it was? Those who told us it was are the people who hate humans most of all - starting with themselves.

Yes we are - or rather, on a deeper level, judgment itselfis artificial, so we are neither perfect nor imperfect - the "perfect/imperfect" concept is a completely human conceptual invention, trapping our attention.

But, that being by the by, as I have said, it's only twisted mirror world view that thinks that no change comes from seeing that we were always fine. In fact, that's the origin of change - getting the monkey of other people's judgment of our back - setting ourselves free from being a hostage to the past. And also "forgiveness" - setting others free from being hostages to their past.

There's nothing "bad" about self pity at all. It has effects, that's all, and to achieve certain things, it is useful to recognize, and sometimes neutralize those effects. But nothing wrong, bad, or sinful -it's a practical philosophy, not a moral one.

I never said it was a problem - not in the sense you mean. "Ideology" simply means our ideas. The journey of what it means to be a human being in the first place requires us to have ideology - just the "I" the very "me" the actual human being is a product of ideology - it's no sin to be what we are.

Understanding the power of ideology isn't for making another instrument of torture to make people feel bad about being human.... all over again... It's to male people free. But there's nothign wrong with not being free either. All it is, is choice... we have all the power, and use it however we want.

But you mean something different by problem. You're translating all in to sins that make others in to victims. That's within your conceptual structure, caused by how you feel about yourself - so what I'm saying is there is actually nothing wrong with doing that - it's just that some people take a step back from their actions and ask why - why do I think, feel, do, repeat that?

The answer isn't that your judgment is bad - it isn't, and it's very useful for some things - it's that your judgment is THERE. Not God's judgment, your judgment. Like the elephant in the room that no one sees... it is there...

Perfect is just an idea that we made up. Dismantle judgment far enough and what are we? Just beings of awareness, witnessing an astounding world.

Do you really think, at this point, that I't's likely that I'm an inconsistent thinker? Your on step one of a deep idea. It's not possible to see all the implications.

 

Judgment and self pity aren't wrong, JK, they're just there. But if you're asking me why we did develop them, the answer is just that when we created ourselves, we created a being that is utterly alone.

 

Absolutely - I think your words are all just smoke and mirrors. You also have a habit of writing crazed rants and then deleting or heavily editing them when you have a change of heart. However, you admitted that you never just admit when you're wrong, saying:

so instead you just feign that there are deeper levels of understanding, beyond the understanding of the questioner:

You are just employing the same old IMA get-out-clause that everything you say is too deep to understand - that way you can accuse anyone who disagrees with you of misunderstanding.

On the surface, your words may seem profound to some, but deep down they are superficial. Your "mirror world" philosophy certainly lives up to its name - it is a highly polished two dimensional object designed to reflect all Light or illumination away from itself. Any appearance of depth beneath its shiny surface is just an illusion.

 

Assuming awareness is absolute and is the original state beyond all things, then consciousness is a point whereby awareness experiences ... a bit like the individual taste sensors on the tongue ... the only viable conclusion is that we (as points of consciousness) are in fact all one, al one, alone.

It's a bit like fractal geometry whereby each fractal fragment contains and can regenerate the whole, and each fragment telescopes in magnitude both ways to infinity ... I'm not trained in mathematics so again ... my laymans perspective could be way out of kilter heheh!

The symbol of taiji is the wholeness, the absolute of awareness comprising of the dual nature of things experienced within consciousness. IMO the large part of the meta-physical theory to traditional taiji was attached to it through time. However to embrace the physical truths of taiji does not require that we embrace the original metaphysics IMO.
People are free to take what they need and syncretise what makes sense to their own belief system ... without changing the inherent nature of the physical aspect of the art, remebering that a belief system is not automatically about religion, although it can be that as well.

 

My observation FWIW, is:

The meaning of a lot of what is said by FQ is 'profound' but not because it is he who says them, but because of the universal meaning they contain.

When you say "deep down they are superficial" you are not attacking FQ even if that is your intention, but you are attacking ideas that happen to be different to yours as being superficial. To be fair, when FQ debates your world-view, he points out HOW you interpret your beliefs is his particular issue, and (generally) not how the underlying belief is at fault. He is (usually) addressing specifics in interpretation.

FQ uses laser surgery and high-lights your particular expression (and sure that can be annoying). You on the other hand use a big mallet and flatten the lot ... .

 

It comes to me that I fail to find the martial arts in this sub-forum anymore. I fear that it could be said of Tai Chi practicioners in general. All I would advise is "more bleeding and less bleating". It is not a structured belief system that Tai Chi lacks but people willing to bleed to explore the art. To attempt full speed techniques and risk serious harm in the goal of proving the style.

The Bear.

 

I agree, PB, but to some people it will always be about "dismantling judgement" or "meta-physical duality" or something. I stand by my belief that this is just elitist and pretentious "metaphysical mystification". But people like it that way - they like it elitist. They do not want or try to come to ordinary people, but instead to belittle them.

Life just doesn't have to be that complicated and paradoxical. Sometimes things are as mundane and ordinary as they seem and the best thing to do - the deepest thing to do - is to get on with it, just like ordinary people do. This was my "enlightenment" after a few years of being rather drawn to paradoxes and philosophical self-indulgences myself.

We can just understand that Taiji finds the right balance for any given job of hardness and softness, speed and slowness, smoothness and explosiveness, long and short power, circular and undulating, structured and loose, mechanical and organic. In training we might sometimes find it useful to think in terms of contrasting physical qualities, in order to improve our fighting techniques. Yes, you do need to be able to stay mindful and adaptable too, which you can think of as "the spot of yin within yang" or whatever - "maintaining the ability to subvert the binary thinking structure of 'The West' " but good martial artists from any style do that without getting all philosophical about it (including Western ones no doubt.)

Martial artists don't have to "subvert the dominant meta-narrative of the nature of being." I think those Yangs who encouraged the Manchurian ruling families to become "absorbed in mysticism so that they would endlessly pursue a mental achievement" have a lot to answer for. The problem, in my view, is that Taiji / IMA tries to wax philosophical at all. FQ asks who's interest it is in for people to think less.

The rest of the world's. Philosophy is over-rated. Where's my mallet?

 

Yes sure PB, taiji can mean lot of things to a lot of people. Your POV has a place too in this thread in that it represents the 'NO' perspective ... but that doesn't mean the discussion stops here on this thread ... there are other perspectives as well.

We all move on and we're all at different stages in our lives where taiji or MA is concerned. BTW, I was doing the 'speed & bleed' scenario for real when you were a 5 y.o ... As I said we're at different stages in our lives.

JK ... I have a real problem trying to follow your line of argument. You are (or seem to be) one of the main proponents of a religious belief system in previous posts because you say that is how you are ... it may or may not be germaine to your personal MA training ... but are you now saying that a belief system is not necessary? As has been pointed out before, absolutely ANY approach to this constitutes a personal believe system ... if it is how we believe we should approach our training. It makes a boat load of sense.

I have maintained that despite of my own meta-physical beliefs, or because of them, my approach to MA is entirely practical and mundane, involves copious amounts of sweat, time and effort (...and I've been doing it since I was 9 y.o. When I was a soldier it was a component of my personal survival tool-set and now while I work in security ... I have to be practical!), so I agree with quite a bit of what you say in this last post ...HOWEVER ... the thread is "Does Taiji require a structured belief system??"

Why do you still persist in personal attacks? I don't think I'm elitist or pretentious and I'm NOT trying to mystify ... are you purposefully misrepresenting me or is it just a bilious reaction?

 

Pipe and slippers for you then.

Just a quick question.
How many live hand to hand engagements did you have in your military career?

The Bear.

 

Well, it could be that I'm doing that, or it could be that there are deeper levels that you don't understand yet.

Well, I can see why you would think that, and the irony isn't lost on me.

I have to say, it's not often that I'm called a shallow thinker, lol - thanks for the refreshing change. I'm usually told that I think too deeply.

You can trust your instinct - I could be a shallow thinker, trying to fob you off, or you could be a shallow understander, trying to fob yourself off.

Of course it is - it's all illsuion. That's its point reflecting at back at you right there...

 

If they come to me and say we are all alone,I say we are all one... if they come to me and say we are all one, I say we are all alone....

This is what I think, might be wrong:

I have an idea - what ever we believe, distrust. Distrust it because it's made out of words, and words are artificial. Infected with binary thinking,ego -holding our attention trapped between illusory, opposite points, for reasons of personal ego issues.

"We are all one" is a belief, of course. If we strip that belief away though, the human being "feels" utterly alone - that's why they invented the belief that we are all one, in my view.

My belief is that we aren't even "in" this world, never mind all part of it. The "I" is a result of evolving language and concepts, "hosted" in a brain that has evolved to be able to hold massive amounts of information.

I believe we exist "as" a kind of emergent, systemic property of the way our ideas and language work - although, not really emergent - not to be side tracked, lol.

"Conceptual information" especially the "self" that is in-formed - literally from "information" - formed from within by language, isn't the kind of thing that can "be" in this world, this universe. In that sense "in" is a meaningless word - we try to use the functional language rules of our ancient ancestors to apply to a phenomenon that is so abstractly beyond what they ever concieved, that just by usig the word "in" we create a piece of artificial reality to confuse ourselves with. We are not "in" our heads, or "in" our bodies.

The "I" isn't the kind of thing that can be "in" this world - it's in its onw world, its own youniverse - conceptual space. Everything - our body, our homes, the substance of the reality is in a compeltely different dimension to our "I"... and each person is locked within their own conceptual dimension - each, utterly alone - except for those cases where people develop more than one "I" within the same conceptual space.

The moment we start storing information - first words, senses, etc., we begin installing the "foreign installation" - an alien being from the depths of the universe that infects us, literally word by word, until enough of the programme is in us for it to infect the host ape, siezing control of its awareness, emotions, ultimately devouring all of our awareness, and not only that, forcing us to cause and take part in ridiculous situations where it can eat the emotion and awareness thus created.

The alien being is us. And we build soemthing that is utterly alone in its own space. But, the source code of the foreign installation is social - so we are actually connected as well - but not the "I" - the ego... that sits alone, and that is a deep, deep, suffering if we let it be... and if we sit quietly while family and friends chatter, we can feel it.

After that, almost everything is about reaching out to connect, through the astounding medium of this reality that we built, specifically to allow connection through it, or else, self harming because of the deep pain of it.

That's my view, from my conceptual space. What allows me empathy with others, and what nails solipsism, is that the foreign installation for me, and for everyone else, is from the same source... O Logos.

 

Well what are you doing here then?

 

Well, if you genuinely wanted to think less, I'm the last person you should be consorting with.

 

goading cheeseballs.

The Bear.

 

Honestly, you want to stay away from those "parties" you keep frequenting.

 

Aw but your wife keeps in inviting me.

The Bear.

 

I use the term "wife" loosely - legally and anatomically...

 

:love:

 

Since when have you ever been ordinary? Is that what you're telling me - you wish you were ordinary?

 

Don't worry she does the same at the "parties".

The Bear.