Fire Quan, your perspective on "quan" and the influence of intuition matches my own experience, so I know that you are right , just as others might know differently, and I believe that might be an important distinction. I guess I'm already "converted", although I think converting people to a POV can be very hard work .. heheh. FWIW, Lelaku roughly translates to "following of a/the way" ... and from my village culture perspective, silat = taiji and there is no difference when it comes down to expression of principle, but I can see that from the purist's perspective that is not kosher. OK-lah there is no fundamental conflict, just all of us practicing our ways ... Peace people ...
I doubt Lao Tzu intended his words to be a stick to beat others with but since we 're doing quotes, here's a favourite of mine: "Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, seek what they sought." Basho (Zen poet)
Interesting because my teacher called everything "kung fu" no matter where it was from - Western boxing was Western kung fu, then there was Japanes kung fu, Thailand kung fu... You know, you're really making a profound point there, that not a lot of people consciously consider. There really aren't any physical principles that "belong" to any art - they're just "there" as part of our physical potential. Is the art the destination, or the vehicle!? Can there really be a physical taiji principle in muay thai? Or a muay thai principle in taiji? Do those arts "own" aspects of human potnetial - or are they just, were they just, intended as ways of unfolding our natural potential? Kembang, when I see your name it is like a light in a dark place!
I always wondered who said that - it's one of my favourite quotes. According to legend, Lao Tzu was on his way to kill himself in the desert - but he was dissuaded, and pursuaded to write his wisdom down first. And he was going to kill himself because he was just sick of people breaking his balls with their BS, lol. Very funny!
Do you like really hate him secretly? Because you're really not doing him a service. And you know, not that you care, but the very first line of self defence is for all of us to contribute to generating a society where through ethical vision and caring for each other we make violence taboo and frowned upon. If it wasn't for people contributing to the culture of promoting violence as the final outcome of all arguments or disputes, then we wouldn't even need self defence instructors.
I feel that violence is less about culture promotion and more about primeval fear that is inside all of us. It was neccessary for most of our milienia on this planet, but society has moved so fast that we retain instincts that are no longer useful to our survival. Hence most MA training is about retraining the mind NOT to work on instinct but to read the situation.
That’s just rubbish. Violence is entirely about culture and much less about 'survival'. For most of (infact almost entirely all of) human evolution, I do not think that people have really been that big a threat to each other...in real terms. Most 'violence' would have been in terms of shows of strength amongst your 'tribe' to gain a higher social status and hence better chance of having more kids. This is why almost all cultures have ritualised 'ethnic' grappling styles that normally end in throwing the other guy to the floor rather than killing him.
Well, it is obvious that you haven't got a degree in Anthropology or Archaeology. Some knowledge of either would show that mankind has lived in a state of personal warfare for most of history. Because the outlet for aggression that was used for millenia has been removed, the inherant aggression remains. This, coupled with living crowded together, causes stress and intolerance, terminating in violence. When you add recreatrional drugs and alcohol consumption together with a general lack of respect, you end up with a violent society.
Well you're a real charmer, aren't you? Actually, you're wrong. The development of ritual violence in those cultures is widely considered to be an indication that in a previous stage of social evolution there was warfare and violence that was so destructive that they just had to do something about it. They didn't just evolve wrestling so that women could decide who they wanted to have sex with. They evolved it because otherwise there would be no one left to have sex with.
And yet, when we look at 'native' wrestling, we see that in every case the winner was chosen when the opponent has been over powered, normally by being thrown onto his back or forced to the floor, not when he is killed. This is true in Asia (Shua Jiow, Sumo, Mongolian wrestling), Europe (Cumberland, westmoreland, Scottish wrestling), Africa (stick fighting Clip ) (interesting that the commentary states that the purpose is to knock the other guy to the floor, its against the rules to hit a guy on the floor and the winner is held aloft so that people, especially women, can see. Fighting to actually kill people on any organized way was restricted to a very narrow warrior elite. Before this, I see no reason to think that even pre humans did anything other than ritualistic figfhting, hell even deer, fish and wild dogs decide who is the stronger by ritual rather than murder.
Well, duh, what are you saying "native" people don't kill anyone? Have you been away for a while? For one, we're all native, and for two, humans kill each other on preposterous scales. The reason why wrestling rules evolve like that is just a natural consequence of sport. Wrestling isn't the only ritual violence used in traditional, tribal culture - you're just choosing evidence that suits your own, quite bizarre, interpretation of your own ideas. What you missed was the reason why wrestling evolved in the first place. You're still thinking chicks will dig you if you can kick someone's ass... Well, some chicks will... You got a video of that?
I agree for the most part, that is that martial arts are to teach one how to deal with confrontation. You need to study and watch some "liokault" what you are saying basically true about specific situations when society had some level of civilized mind. The thing is we would either fight or flight pre-society, so the thing from the corner of are eye made use very superstitious and mystic belief oriented. We could stay and see what was in the corner of are eye and possibly die for it or run and live. The hardest thing for human to do is control are fear!
Now in his defense there are very few that survive the deadly Archeology degree. There are lots of lawyer and pharmacologist, though - and they are rich.
Should this not work Fire-quan remember shiv fu. The deadly even! Years of training in Kung fu to be reduced to having to make your own knife, store in well I could be banned for saying that. I think you understand.
Indeed we are all 'native' hence using two forms of grappling from the UK. Secondly, yes we are killing each other on a 'preposterous' scale. This is almost entierly carried out by a very narrow warrior elite.
