Lol, nothing like blowing your own trumpet.........special one :bow1: Bruce Lee was far from cluttered as he was not about accumulating but was about daily decrease. People interpret things in different ways otherwise the world would be a boring place if everyone thought the same , e.g. In a similar situation, one person may use the straight lead to intercept whereas another person may use a hook kick to the groin or another person may use a sidekick to the knee. Thats what makes JKD special and unique.
right, but without trying new arts, you don't have any material to 'decrease.' i feel like we've had this debate before, lol. *blows horn-what can i say, i'm an incredibly quick learner, with strong lungs!:evil:
"A map is not the territory it represents, but if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness" - Alford Korzybski, father of general semantics. In other words, Ap, nice map you've put together there - well said.
Wow, I guess most didn't understand what I'm talking about...with my post before this one.... So, I'll leave it at that and move on... Good Training People I*-*I
Yeah, you're right. That makes much more sense than clarifying your thought. We're probably not ready for such elevated thinking anyway. Honestly, John, even when I disagree with you, I can recognize that you know what you're on about. There's no need for this kind of condescension. And disagreement does not equal "not getting it." Stuart
"A map is not the territory it represents, but if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness" - Alford Korzybski, father of general semantics. Was Simplicity onnce more attepmting to cause thinking, or some other thing? From what I have been able to map out as his consistent pattern, its obvious he was not attempting to just shell out the answer. App, how do you know Smplicity's second post was meant as condescending when, in your response to his first post you even declare clarification on his end would have been much appreciated?
but did he clarify? or did he just make a comment about how we don't get it. or should i say 'IT' lol
All I can attest to is how a thing comes off to me. Others are free to disagree. If it is a didactic approach, though, it's not one I'm very fond of, because it's predicated on the notion that the teacher has nothing left to learn. So they spoon out wisdom in easily digestible chunks for the student. My preferred approach is to offer whatever I can in as clear terms as I can, knowing that the ensuing discussion is likely to teach both my students and me a good deal more. But I've succeeded in derailing this thread with my objection. So, after all that, if I've gotten John wrong, my apologies. Sorry John. Fair enough? Stuart
Wow, I am definitly the runt of this litter! I have followed the progression of this post and just could not add or debate anything. I have alot of lab time to put in before i can hang.
Ah, Double Speak... you little devil, you. Consider yourself at a good staring point - try not to lose sight of that original freedom. What happened, Officer John, was that when guests first began arriving for the party, you know, seasoned individuals, what possible message, wisdom and clarity - JKD’s liberating effect - might have had in the matter, was inadvertantly mistaken for its label and turned back at the door. You know how that goes - gatherings rooted in ideology, in personal preferance, tend to “derail” “clarity,” at the door. When the preferred brand runs dry dry all we have is some other brand – you, know how; replacing one reaction with another. I mean, thanks for making known the possibility of food poisoning. All we can do is try to seek clarity, right? I mean, not that we would label it anything else at the door. At least, not intentionally, that is. After all, this thread is about preferance, remember; not about ideology.
Cliff Notes: The Long Vesrion I guess it depends on who's map one concludes my response applied to - to that of those on the way in, to those on the other side of that door, to my own, or all three. Just seems to me that a thread entitled "Is ___ part of your curriculum?" cannot but set off/point out the possible existence of preference, of ideology, and that that might be considered. I don't see pointing out that possibility as a sort of derailment; just something to consider evaluating every bit as important as training preferances. It was Lee's constant evaluation and re-evaluation of his own map, for example, which led to the liberating effect eventaully known as JKD. The very same habit of constant evaluation and re-evaluation of one's map which later led him to redefine the name JKD as merely a convenient label - useful for identification purposes and nothing more. As when you first log on to MAP. You have arts categorized. As a matter of convenience - otherwise there'd be one heck of a mess to sort through! Both JKD and Kali sometimes take a bad "rap." One being emphasized over the other and vice-versa. Both reactions being nothing more than the exchange of one extreme for another. You know how it goes - you're free one minute and then next thing you know, you're bound once more. Once more prefering one thing over another. Seems to me that should be evaluated on a regular basis for evidence of its possible return once more, towards its possible derailment - at every turn - towards clarity, towards freedom, as fleeting as that can be. Its a constant shedding process. As a result, I find that short anwsers are not always the answer. That that too can be an extreme reaction every bit as extreme as a long one. Someone in my circle once related to me how that "so and so always take the long way." Overtime, I found that long way was what she had needed to do. At the same time, I could not but help note that her critic had himself often been the butt of his own always short way. That what was needed by each was what fit the situation, not preference. Too often we conclude what worked once is the only way. Its a constant shedding process, for sure. Enjoy your Sunday, people.
