There is no doubt in my mind that the way taiji is approached these days is ridiculous. People talk taiji theory without anything to back it up ... and when someone comes along as says ... well, back it up ... they get hoity toity and conflate questioning that they can't answer with being rude! Taiji theory is an abstraction of complete utter-utter-utter mumbo jumbo crap. Jin, jing. peng, pung who flippin' cares? It all stays under the radar until people start to make unsubstantiated outlandish claims. Mind you, tis not much different from the mystic crap that emanates from the silat swamp at home and abroad ... roflmao. Entertainment just doesn't get better than this, better than sea monkeys in an aquarium.
Maggie Thatcher... Vinston Churchill... yur boy took a helluva beating last night (one commentator: "fought like a novice")
Your response to my specific doubts of other people's claims to greatness and fighting excellence seems to be that I'm a bad person, or a coward - which is what we call a "levelling tactic" - like, if you can't prove what you say, the best you can hope for is to smear the doubters and make it seem like they are just as bad as you. Let me ask you this, if we take your argument to its logical next step, I would then ask you if you've ever fought with me - therefore hoping to intimidate you in to not carrying on with the argument. That's called "intimidating the argument" - an abhorrent strategy. But it's what you're doing - you're saying that I can't doubt someone's claims of being a great fighter because if I do, I have to go and have fights and prove I'm a great fighter first. I don't. Doubt is free - and like Christopher Hitchens says, if you present your claim without evidence, why shouldn't I dismiss it without any? Well, you know, us cowards and weaklings only really have one defence against the swaggering, boastful bullies - to strip away the tin coating of your hot-air weapons, revealing that underneath, you're really just one of us.
Lol - fate makes me a fool again. Such is life. However, Amir Khan losing is like Manchester United losing to Chelsea.... while me and the taiji greats on this forum are like the Rose and Crown pub team, and Winklechester united, laughing at them.
All this discussion makes me wonder: Does a "high" level in anything matter? For example what is a "high" level in TCC? Is this where you compare yourself to the skills of another (either physically in a fight, or in theory perhaps??) And if you get beat in either does it mean you are not "High" level? I think all this "high" level talk is rather redundant and pointless, the only "high" level that matters is whether or not you are higher than where you were when you started or perhaps even higher than when you practiced yesterday. Grandmaster Jou Tsung Hwa used to say: "Make a little progress each day" So ultimately what does it matter if your skills are proven against another? Every great fighter will eventually get beat by another. Give me -one- fighter who has never lost a single match (Professional or otherwise). Just reading through this thread makes me think: Less bickering, more practice.
I don't think that is what Oldpalden is doing. Although you provided a good example of this strategy when, on another thread, you posted this at me: In fact what's worse about this is that you didn't even try and intimidate me yourself. Instead you accused me of calling other people low level hoping to incite them to do your dirty work. "Hey guys that bloke just said you're all thick and ugly and he could take you with one hand tied behind his back. Are you going to let him get away with that!!!" Apply some of your critical thinking to your actions and motivation for them.
Meh... maybe you're taking it too seriously, Tao? What's the internet for if not bowling down a few skittles that people set up?
Yeah he is. Saying that people can't comment on other people's unlikely claims unless they go and have fights is just the same as saying that anyone can lie and anyone who challenges those lies has to go through violence. I can see why liars would like that. Oh de dums.
I believe that very few men truly come up with original knowledge. For the rest of us, maybe the best we can do is challenge ignorance, to see what's left.
Spread the message, brother, spread the message... I have another message from you - it's from the horse, which, even though dead, has made the effort to briefly rekindle its existence to tell you that even it is now sick of being flogged.
Never said -original- knowledge, besides if I don't have it already isn't it original to me? Who cares all knowledge is just that, knowledge, original, traditional, ancient, new etc. The descriptive term you put in front of knowledge does not change that is knowledge.... Funny same thing can be said for ignorance. Sorry this has been :topic: And thanks BT, good to see you are still around.
Well, how does this work for you - if you've got knowledge, share it, but let me challenge it, to see if it's true. I haven't got time to believe everything, only to find out the hard way that it's not true. I'd rather question it first, and save time for training.
I have shared much of my knowledge here and my beliefs and they have all been challenged. In essence this is no different from anyone else's normal daily routine, for each day most of our knowledge or beliefs are challenged so feel free to challenge away. As for how to determine it is true? Then we have to establish which mechanism you would be using to determine it's validity. If it is your own that is hardly fair, however if it is another's that may agree with you is that still unbiased? And even if -you- declare it true (or untrue) does that mean it is truly either? Bottom line. It is easier to share your knowledge and let others either accept it or deny it for themselves. For, to me, it is far better to be comfortable in your own beliefs and knowledge than worrying too much about what others deem as truth.
So, in other words, if it's true for you, then it's true? Well, why that's a con is that it only refers to a very specific group of phenomena, such as "what is the most scary thing in the world?" type of things, or "Who is the sexiest person in the world?" We all know that there is that kind of knowledge. But when you were taught that, you should have also learned that there is the general knowledge which isn't determined by individual fancy or prejudice, but by evidence shared and seen to be true and reasonable by all rational men.
Yes, that is correct, there is always general knowledge that is apparent (i.e. gravity). But the point is to expand that basic general knowledge, everyone may know "something" but the key point is whether or not they are happy knowing one little "something" or if they are seeking to -understand- the points behind that knowledge. Understanding and knowledge are two different ideas as well.
