# Martial artists and ethics?



## exile (Apr 14, 2007)

But the point is, LF, your decision to apply different standards to fine artists and martial artists, as per your post, is simply a reflection of your own additional requirements. It does not reflect common usage. It does not reflect any kind of social consensus on the application of the term `martial artist' to individuals. That was my point about Leonardo, Titian, Heidegger and so on. I can impose, Humpty-Dumpty-like, exactly the same requirement on them to qualify for the term `(Fine) artist' or `philosopher' that you seek to impose on martial artists. I can say, for example, `Well, Heidegger was a facist and Nazi collaborator, so he wasn't a true philosopher'. Nonetheless, that still leaves a large body of immensely influential philosophical work to account forafter all, a philosopher is one who does philosophy, and here is a dense record of philosophywho wrote it, if not a philosopher? What I think of Heidegger's morality or ethics or whatever is irrelevant.

By the same token, the term `martial artist' (= [ [martial] art]+ ist) denotes nothing other than one who practices martial artscombat arts. There is no external authority behind the term which imposes an additional requirement of `virtuous application'. That is your own criterion, which is why I said that you were using the term in a knd of private fashion. Now of course, you can say, well, all of the people who say that Kyan and Motobu were martial artists were wrong. But what you're saying is, they're wrong because _I personally_ do not believe the term should be applied to people like that. When you say, `apples and oranges', you're already _assuming_ the particular criterionvirtuous application, as I've called itwhich is at issue. From my point of view, it's not apples vs. oranges, because I don't impose that extra condition, as many people, certainly amongst those who've written about karate and its history, do not impose it. And if you say to me, well, you're wrong, all you're doing is in effect saying, `no, my definition of martial artist is the _correct_ one'.

But you can't demonstrate this correctness in terms of any external authorityit's not part of the social consensus that a dictionary definition reflects, for example. It's simply your view of how the term should be applied, based on your own requirement of `virtuous application'. That's fineas I say, we can impose these requirements any way we like: I can personally refuse to accord Heidegger the description `philosopher' on the grounds that though he produced philosophy, and is regarded as a philosopher even by other philosophers who despise his Nazism, a true philosopher cannot have been a Nazi. I can extend the same treatment in my personal use of the term `musician' to von Karajan and Wagner. My point is just that in saying that people like Kyan and Motobu aren't martial artists, you are expressing a strictly personal opinion of how a technically proficient exponent of systematic combat systems should behave socially. And that's a private opinionone far from universally shared.


----------



## Cirdan (Apr 16, 2007)

English is not my first language but saying Motobu was not a proper martial artist sounds very strange to me. Martial artist, fighter, bully, whatever - he certainly knew his Karate. 

Martial artist? Heck, even Ashida Kim qualifies for that title. Like with "warrior" there is no need to mystify.


----------



## Last Fearner (Apr 16, 2007)

exile said:


> But the point is, LF, your decision to apply different standards to fine artists and martial artists, as per your post, is simply a reflection of *your own* additional requirements. It does not reflect common usage. It does not reflect any kind of social consensus on the application of the term `martial artist' to individuals.
> 
> By the same token, the term `martial artist' (= [ [martial] art]+ ist) *denotes nothing other than one who practices martial arts&#8212;combat arts*. There is no *external authority* behind the term which imposes an additional requirement of `virtuous application'. *That is your own criterion*, which is why I said that you were using the term in a knd of private fashion.
> 
> ...


 
I challenge you to read every single line of the following "external authority." Then I suggest you rethink your above statements.
(my emphasis are added on special points of interest, but please read it all)
KEEP IN MIND THAT EVERYTHING YOU ARE ABOUT TO READ ARE NOT MY WORDS, BUT IS FROM RECOGNIZED AUTHORITIES, FOUNDERS, AND FAMOUS AUTHORS ON THE SUBJECT OF THE MARTIAL ART - 
my words here are in blue only!
____________________________________________________________

What is Karate?
by Masutatsu Oyama
(published 1963)

&#8220;*Karate and Moral Culture*&#8221;

&#8220;Essentially the art of Karate is the art of self-defense. In other words, Karate is designed for protective reasons and *should never be used to attack an opponent*.&#8221;

&#8220;...the guiding principle of Karate *never* allows you to hurt others *unless you are attacked*. The great *ancient masters of Karate*, Meijin and Tatsujin, were *never known to use it violently* throughout their lives. *Karate should not be violent: is should deny violence*.&#8221;

___​ 
&#8220;The essence of Karate, therefore, is nothing else than a training of mind over body. This is why Karate, capable of such power, should not be used wrongly or violently. The art of Karate seeks for something deeper than *simple physical cultivation*.&#8221;​ 
___​ 
&#8220;Since Karate exists for cultivating spirit and training body, it must be a *moral* way *surpassing mere technique*, just like 'Kenjutsu' has been given spirit in 'Kendo' and 'Jujutsu' has been given spirit in 'judo.' The techniques of Karate should also become Karate-do (Karate art) which seeks for a spiritual expression and not just physical form. Unfortunately the present status of Karate in Japan runs counter to the fundamental spirit of Karate.&#8221;

*Masutatsu Oyama*
____________________________________________________________​ 
Karate-Do Kyohan
Gichin Funakoshi
(published First Edition 1973)

&#8220;In fact, *true* Karate-do places weight upon *spiritual* rather than *physical* matters...&#8221;

*&#8220;True Karate-do is this*: that in daily life, one's mind and body be trained and developed in a spirit of humility; and that in critical times, one be devoted utterly to the *cause of justice*.&#8221;

&#8220;The indiscriminate use of the art of karate would cause great public concern and one cannot deny its potential dangers.&#8221; &#8220;The source of concern is largely based on the misconceptions arising from instructors of *poor character*, who thoughtlessly place the emphasis of training on the *techniques* rather than on the *spiritual* aspects of the *do*, and from 
the *misbehavior* and *poor attitudes* of *karate students* 
who are learning this art *solely as a technique of fighting*. 
There are even extreme cases in which students are 
actually *encouraged to employ their karate in brawls*. 
Such admonitions as &#8220;*You can never improve or polish your techniques without some actual application in fights*&#8221; or &#8220;*If you cannot beat so-and-so*, *then perhaps you had better quit karate training altogether*&#8221; are truly grievous for the reputation of Karate-do. However, such talk only *shows the lack of sense* of those who *know nothing at all about Karate-do*.&#8221;
_________________________________________

*I could stop right there!*
*...but there is more!*
____________________________________________________________

&#8220;...those who would learn Karate-do *must* be made to understand it at the outset and be instructed in its *proper use*. The *correct understanding* of karate and its proper use *is* Karate-do. One who truly trains in this *do* and actually understands Karate-do is *never* easily drawn into a fight.&#8221;

____​ 
&#8220;In contrast, in the moment that one misuses the techniques, for example in fighting in such a way that he injures another or himself, or brings dishonor upon himself, *he nullifies* any of these benefits and merits of Karate-do. Such misuse, arising from superficial understanding, is in fact self-defeating.&#8221;

&#8220;Through the man, techniques become art. *I must earnestly repeat: do not misuse the techniques of karate.*&#8221;

&#8220;Those who follow Karate-do *must* consider courtesy of prime importance. Without courtesy, the essence of Karate-do is *lost*. Courtesy must be practiced, not only during the karate training period but *at all times in one's daily life*. The karate student must humble himself to receive training. It may be said that a presumptuous or conceited person is *not qualified to follow Karate-do*.&#8221;

&#8220;Those who follow Karate-do must *never* forsake a humble mind and gentle manner.&#8221;

&#8220;It is because of the larger number of *false martial artists* in the world that the public tends either to ignore the martial artist or to consider him wild.&#8221; 

&#8220;Therefore, many serious martial artists are embarrassed. Students of Karate-do should always keep these points in mind.&#8221;

*&#8220;Emphasis is placed on development of the mind rather than on techniques.&#8221;*

&#8220;In a few words, then, those who seek karate *should not stop* merely with the perfection of their *techniques*. Rather, I hope, they will *dedicate their lives to seeking the true Karate-do*. This is because life through Karate-do is life itself, *public and private*.&#8221;

*Gichin Funakoshi*

____________________________________________________________


Karate-Do: My Way of Life
Gichin Funakoshi
(published First Edition 1973, second printing 1982)

&#8220;I burned incense at the Buddhist altar of each instructor and pledged myself never to make use of my trained body for any illicit purpose.&#8221;

___​ 
&#8220;I realized that if through my efforts such gangs learned karate and made use of it to maim or even murder people, my name would be *disgraced forever*. I am proud of the fact that out of the tens of thousands who have studied and practiced the art of Karate at my dojo, I know of not one single instance in which the skill has been *used illegally*.&#8221;

___​ 
&#8220;I have always stressed the point in my teaching that karate is a *defensive art* and must *never* serve *offensive purposes*.&#8221;
&#8220;That is why I teach my students always to be alert but *never to go on the offensive with their karate skills*, and I instruct my new students that I will under no circumstances permit them to use their fists to settle personal differences. *Some of the younger ones*, I confess, *disagree with me*: they tell me that they believe karate may fairly be used whenever circumstances make it absolutely necessary.
I try to point out that this is a *total misconception of the true meaning of karate*, for once karate enters, the issue becomes a matter of life and death. And how can we allow ourselves to engage in such life and death confrontations often in our few years on earth?
Whatever the circumstances, karate *must not be used offensively*.&#8221;

___​ 
&#8220;So I say that those who, having trained in karate, think they *must put their skills to use* pervert the meaning of the art.&#8221;
&#8220;Karate-do is not only the acquisition of certain defensive skills but also the mastering of the art of *being a good and honest* *member of society*.&#8221;

___​ 
*Six Rules*
(rule #6) &#8220;*Abide by the* *rules of ethics in your daily life*, whether in public or private. This is a principle that demands the strictest observance....

...I should like to think I am mistaken, but I am afraid I am not, for all too often recently I have heard young karate trainees use such expressions as jitsuryoku-gata (*'a man of real ability'*), or sento-gata (*'a man of battle*'), or jissen-gata (*'a man of actual combat'*). These terms are *absurdly childish* and betray an abysmal *ignorance of the meaning of Karate-do.*

Inasmuch as Karate-do aims at perfection of mind as well as body, expressions that extol only *physical prowess* should *never* be used in connection with it.&#8221;

*Gichin Funakoshi*

____________________________________________________________


Aikido: The Arts of Self-Defense
Koichi Tohei (Director and Chief Instructor at the general headquarters in Tokyo, Japan)
*Editor: Morihei Uyeshiba* - *Originator of AIKIDO*
(published 1957)

&#8220;He who would understand Aikido correctly, practice it correctly and gain a correct knowledge of it, *must pursue its fundamental truths* and then build upon this base of truth.&#8221;
&#8220;*All truths* are *discovered* by those whose *eyes are opened* to observe Mother Nature. All the cardinal points that govern our lives must emanate from our heart's thankfulness to her for her great gifts to us.&#8221;

___​ 
&#8220;The martial arts begin with gratitude and end with gratitude. If there is an error at the important starting point, the martial arts can *become* dangerous to others and *merely brutal fighting arts*.&#8221;

___​ 
&#8220;In Aikido, *right* is might. You are required only to perform your own mission in life - - it is not necessary to think about surpassing or overcoming others. Nor is it necessary to prove that you are strong, because of greater importance is the question of whether you are* right* or *wrong*, whether or not you are *following the laws*.&#8221;

___​ 
&#8220;There are those who think of Aikido as an art to throw an attacking opponent in a split second, or to hold down a strong man with only one finger. They think that Aikido as a highly developed self-defense art. This is a *superficial view*. Aikido is not merely an art to throw others but a way to apply the laws of Nature to our *daily lives*. *One who does not understand this does not truly understand Aikido.*

___​ 
[Morihei Uyeshiba attains enlightenment while strolling in the yard.]

&#8220;It was precisely at that moment that I received enlightenment: the *fundamental principle* of the martial arts* is God's love* and universal love. Tears of ecstasy rolled down my cheeks. From that time on, I have felt that the entire earth is my home and the sun and stars are mine. Neither position, nor fame, nor honors, nor wealth, nor the desire to become more powerful than others have any attraction for me - - these have all vanished away.&#8221;
&#8220;*The martial arts are not concerned with brute force to knock opponents down*, nor with lethal weapons that lead the world into destruction. *The true martial arts*, without struggling, regulate the Ki of the universe, *guard the peace of the world*, and produce and bring to maturity everything in nature.&#8221;
&#8220;*Therefore, martial training is not training that has its primary purpose the defeating of others, but practice of God's love within ourselves*.&#8221; ~ Morihei Uyeshiba 

___​ 
&#8220;The purpose of Aikido is to train both body and mind to make a man sincere. All Aikido arts are *not* to be... taught to *rogues* who will use them for *evil purposes*.&#8221;

___​ 
&#8220;Every effort *must first* be made after calm thought to *settle matters* *peaceably*.&#8221;

*&#8220;Strive to build within yourself a noble character.&#8221;*

*Koichi Tohei and Morihei Uyeshiba*

____________________________________________________________


Aikido and the dynamic sphere
by A. Westbrook and O. Ratti
(published 1970)

*The &#8220;Ethics&#8221; of Defense*

&#8220;But as indicated in Chart 1, page 30, self defense *according to Master Uyeshiba's* method *must always comply* with certain *ethical imperatives*.&#8221;

&#8220;In this chart, each panel represents an *ethical level of combat*.&#8221;

&#8220;In Panel A, the man on the left, *without provocation* and on his own initiative, *attacks the other man* and kills him. *Ethically, this is the lowest of the four levels* -- unprovoked aggression in the form of a direct attack.&#8221;

&#8220;In Panel B, the man on the left has not directly attacked the other man, but he has *provoked* the other man to attack him. It may have been an obvious provocation, such as an insulting remark or the more subtle provocation of a contemptuous attitude. In either case, when the other man is invited to attack and does so, he is killed. While the first man is not guilty of launching the actual attack, he is responsible for inciting the other man to attack. There is only a shade of difference *ethically* between Panel A and Panel B. &#8220;

*Westbrook and Ratti*

____________________________________________________________


Advanced Yang Style Tai Chi Chuan
by Dr. Yang Jwing-Ming
(published 1987, third printing 1989)

&#8220;In spite of the popularity of Tai Chi Chuan, whether in China, Taiwan, or other parts of the world, *the art is* *gradually becoming incomplete*. Because most Tai Chi practitioners are more interested in health that in self-defense, the *deeper aspects* of the art have been *gradually ignored*. Many people who have practiced Tai Chi Chuan for quite a few years *still do not understand* its theory and principles.&#8221;

&#8220;Furthermore, the original, major part of Tai Chi Chuan - - the martial application - - is dying out. The reader should understand that Tai Chi was created as a martial Chi Kung art. The self-defense applications remain a necessary part of the wholeness of Tai Chi Chuan.

___​ 
&#8220;With your whole being, *develop your life*. During all your practice and meditation, you must concentrate your whole attention in order to develop the *highest level of the art*. This dedication and concentration carry over to the rest of your life, and the *striving for perfection* becomes the *real inner meaning* of Tai Chi.&#8221;

Dr. Yang Jwing-Ming

____________________________________________________________


The Overlook Martial Arts Dictionary
by Emil Farkas and John Corcoran
(with contributions from Jhoon Rhee, Ed Parker, Hee Il Cho, etc.)
(published 1983)

[definition]
*DISCIPLINE* *Training that develops self-control and character*. It is proclaimed to be an additional *virtue inherent* in the martial arts.

Emil Farkas and John Corcoran

____________________________________________________________


Taekwon-Do - The Art of Self-Defence
by Choi Hong Hi
(published 1965)

*&#8220;Moral Culture&#8221;*

&#8220;*The moral culture of this art of Taekwon-Do does not merely aim at promoting the power and technique but also at preventing from misuse of them when he is an expert as well as student*.&#8221;

*&#8220;I wish to stress that if moral culture does not go along with the progress of power, after acquiring the knowledge of Taekwon-Do, it would be the same as giving an offensive weapon to a gangster or bully within the community.&#8221;*

&#8220;For the students and graduates of Taekwon-Do alike, they have a number of *obligations* to fulfill. Since Taekwon-Do is generally regarded as a 'weapon', the following steps have been taken to ensure that the *right type of person* is taught this art and his or her readiness to honor the pledge:

a. A close scrutiny is made on the mental makeup as well as the background of any applicant prior to his or her admission to the gymnasium.

b. Orientation to patriotism, particularly *since Taekwon-Do does not provoke fights, rather to help the weak.*

c.*Personal morals* as well as techniques are examined by the promotion board for the award of black belt.

d. In the case of people in possession of black belt who are found fighting, *punishment* is given by the Taekwon-Do Association and the appropriate authorities concerned....&#8221;

*Choi Hong Hi*

____________________________________________________________


Taekwondo (Poomse)
by The World Taekwondo Federation
(published 1975)

&#8220;Taekwondo transforms one's *character* into a strong, resilient spirit so that one can *develop leadership* to guide and lead in *every walk of life*. Leadership and a strong fighting spirit provide confidence in every work, so that one can *maintain composure* and security, which will in turn *create patience and modesty*. Then one will eventually overcome himself with the spirit of self-sacrifice, thus gaining an *outstanding character as a leader of society*.
Therefore, Taekwondo is a *basis* upon which *a man is* *refined* and *improved* to become a *righteous and patriotic person*

The World Taekwondo Federation
_________________________________________


A Book of Five Rings
by Miyamoto Musashi
(written in 1645, copyright in 1974 by Victor Harris, first published in paperback in 1982)

&#8220;The way of the sword is the *moral teaching* of the samurai...&#8221;

*&#8220;Way*: The character for Way is read 'Michi' in Japanese or '*Do*' in Chinese-based reading. It is *equivalent to the Chinese 'Tao'* and *means the whole life of the warrior*, his devotion to the sword, his place in the Confucius-coloured bureaucracy of the Tokugawa system. It is the road of the cosmos, *not just a set of ethics for the artist or priest to live by, but the divine footprints of God pointing the Way*.&#8221;

Miyamoto Musashi




exile said:


> *But you can't demonstrate this correctness in terms of any external authority*





exile said:


> &#8212;it's not part of the social consensus that a dictionary definition reflects, for example. It's simply your view of how the term should be applied, based on your own requirement of `virtuous application'.


 
*Not my own requirements - - legitimate, external authorities!* 
Chief Master D. J. Eisenhart


----------



## exile (Apr 16, 2007)

LF, two points:

First of all, you are&#8212;if I can put it this way&#8212;mixing apples and oranges. You are giving me a bunch of quotations from various people about the way the martial arts should be applied. _But that was and is not what our disagreement is about._ It is about whether the term `martial artist' can be legitimately applied to someone who does not conform to a certain set of moral standards on its use that someone else imposes. Look again at what I said: that people like Motobu and Kyan, and many other besides, who used their arts aggressively and fought for the sake of fighting (and as `fieldwork' to develop their arts, um, experimentally) were nonetheless martial artists&#8212;aggressive, sometimes brutal and ethically challenged, let's say, but MAists nonetheless. You argued that no, they were not martial artists because they did not live and behave in a virtuous fashion. Not one of the quotations you've assembled suggests that the people you cite did not regard people like Motobu as martial artists; every one of them is talking rather about the _proper use_ of martial arts. I am still waiting for some evidence that there is a broad social consensus&#8212;that is what I mean by `external authority', _as I make explicit in my previous post_&#8212;on the definition of the description `martial artist' that precludes application of the term to people like Motobu, Kyan, Arakaki and the others karetka/scrappers of that era&#8212;or the kwan warriors in 1950s Korea who challenged each other and fought brutally to `settle' differences and contest places in the pecking order. Your quotations are not about the original issue&#8212;who gets to be called MAists&#8212;but rather about the ethical use of the martial arts. Again, Leni Riefenstahl was a cinematographer. She also made propaganda films on behalf of the Nazis. I am saying that there is no more reason to deny LR the description `film-maker/cinematographer' than there is to deny Motobu, Kyan or anyone else like them the description `martial artists'. 

Second&#8212;though it's a minor point, because the the work you cite is, as I've noted, irrelevant to the issue of whether an aggressive practitioner of the martial arts is a martial artist&#8212;the fact is that  the attitude reflected in the citations from Funakoshi, his students and those who take their cue from GF derives from the deliberate effort of GF's efforts, and later his students to present Karate to the American occupation force as an instrument of moral 
training. Funakoshi was trying to preserve karate at a time when the occupying forces were suppressing every aspect of Japanese culture that was devoted to combat. They were demilitarizing Japan once and for all. Karate would have been suppressed permanently had GF not presented the case to the Americans that the primary purpose of karate was moral/spiritual training. And they bought it. But remember to, before the war, he made the case to the Japanese education and defense ministries that karate would be useful as a way to train young men for war (see Bill Burgar's _Five Years, One Kata_ for some discussion of this point). 

As for Misushai and the other samurai of his era... MM fought sixty duels in his life, basically challenge matches, and other samurai did the same. The samurai of his time killed, without remorse, peasants who they thought had not shown proper deference, as they were legally allowed to do. Again, it seems to me difficult to deny the samurai of feudal Japan the description `martial artist'...

Again, just so what I'm saying is crystal clear: nothing you've cited constitutes the slightest basis for denying the description `martial artist' to someone who is a skilled practitioner of the martial arts. The whole list of quotations you present is a set of opinions on how martial artists should behave. Again: I happen to think cinematographers, like other people, should not use their art and skills on behalf of Naziism or any other violent social regime. But that has nothing whatever to do with whether they are cinematographers and film-makers, and you'll get nowhere, even with people who think along the same lines I do, if you try to tell people that LR and other like her should not be identified as `film-makers'. We are not arguing about ethics here, since I agree that the MAs should be used in a morally responsible fashion. _We are arguing here over whether anyone gets to impose on speakers of a language a private criterion for applying a term which, based on its syntax and morphology, denotes `one who practices systematic combat skills', NOTHING MORE._ 

Bottom line: if you wish to restrict your own usage of the term to a certain subclass of skilled practitioners of those combat disciplines, fine; but others will continue to use the term `martial artist' in the broader sense, without the ethical litmus test, and it is perfectly right and proper that they do so.


----------



## Cirdan (Apr 16, 2007)

Not in the mood for a long winded post so I`ll just quote Musashi again. This pretty much sums up my view of the Arts and "True Martial Artists(tm)"

*"It is critical that you think everything is an opportunity to kill." *


----------



## exile (Apr 16, 2007)

One further point supplementary to my preceding post (#34), LF&#8212;the question at issue is about the application of an English construction. I don't see how any native speaker of Japanese or Korean could possibly say anything useful about the way people apply that construction unless that person happened to be a lexicographer working on English vocabulary. So far as I know, that isn't the case with Funakoshi, Oyama, Musashi or any the other sources you cite who are or were Asian MAists. 

When you look at the actual authorities on how people use vocabulary items&#8212; dictionaries&#8212;you find that a martial artist is typically defined as one who practices a martial art. And a martial art is typically defined the way Wikipedia does: 

_Martial arts, also known as fighting systems, are bodies of codified practices or traditions of training for unarmed and armed combat, usually without the use of guns and other modern weapons._

They add, as an afterthought, that

_People study martial arts for various reasons including fitness, self-cultivation (meditation), mental/character development, and self-defense._

So I have to say that adducing a set of quotes by Asian, mostly monolingual  martial artists (but, multilingual or not, people who are not in a position to comment on how native speakers of English use particular English vocabulary items) about how people who practice combat arts should behave has no bearing on the question of how English speakers, including martial artists themselves, apply the term `martial artist'. If you can give me some evidence that people use this term in a way which includes ethical judgments, then we have something to talk about. And if you acknowledge that they don't but they should.... well, again, that's your view. But if people don't accept your insistence that they adopt your usage in place of their own, don't be surprised. You'd react the same way if the situation were reversed, most likely&#8212;that's just how language works.


----------



## Last Fearner (Apr 20, 2007)

SELF DEFENSE TRAINING + PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT + ETHICS = MARTIAL ART

COMBAT SKILLS + LOVE AND RESPECT OF ALL LIFE + ETHICAL CONDUCT = MARTIAL ARTIST



exile said:


> But the point is, LF, your decision to apply different standards to fine artists and martial artists, as per your post, is simply a reflection of your own additional requirements.


I didn't apply the standards to "fine artist" - you did by saying they don't have any standards yet they are still "artists" I never disagreed with you on that point so please, PLEASE, *PLEASE* do not make another comparison to other artist. I got your point the very first time!

My point is that there is a different application of the term "art" as applied to Martial Art (not the simple "good at a skill" meaning which you assert), and that the Martial Art is a unique concept that does, in fact, require additional virtues which those others arts, skills, and professions do not. That is why I said it is like comparing "Apples to Oranges." They are similar, but not the same thing so you can not compare them in that detailed way. The Martial Art is the apple, and all other fine arts are the oranges.



exile said:


> It does not reflect common usage.


Who says it is appropriate to go by "common usage." Common among whom? The majority of lay-people who have just walked out of a Jackie Chan movie and *think* they are experts on the "Martial Art?" Common among color belt students, or beginner black belts? Common among experts in the field?

This field is full of fakes, frauds, and "buy my own black belt and make my own kinko certificates, wannabes! Even among those who could be regarded as experts or masters, the vast majority still do not fully understand this noble art. Mainly because they either want to twist it to be whatever they think it should be, or they have been misled by others who fail to understand the truth.



exile said:


> It does not reflect any kind of social consensus on the application of the term `martial artist' to individuals.


Again, I am not concerned with the "social consensus" of amateurs and wannabes. Only truly enlightened Masters and renowned experts in the field.



exile said:


> By the same token, the term `martial artist' (= [ [martial] art]+ ist) denotes nothing other than one who practices martial artscombat arts.


Ok, this is the crux of the problem, and where we disagree the most. You translate the English term as "Martial" = "combat" and "art" = "art" or technical skill. The first part is close to being correct, but the second part is way off. I'll address that in a bit.



exile said:


> There is no external authority behind the term which imposes an additional requirement of `virtuous application'.


You said there was no external authority. I provided you with plenty. You rejected them on frivolous grounds.

Your Three main reasons:

1. The quotes are about how to apply the Martial Art, not who should be called a Martial Artist. (This is absurd. They are one and the same. Being a Martial Artist IS how you behave and apply the knowledge you should have been taught.) 

2. These Asian Martial Art experts don't speak English well enough to tell English speaking people what the term Martial Artist means.



exile said:


> the question at issue is about the application of an English construction. I don't see how any native speaker of Japanese or Korean could possibly say anything useful about the way people apply that construction unless that person happened to be a lexicographer working on English vocabulary. So far as I know, that isn't the case with Funakoshi, Oyama, Musashi or any the other sources you cite who are or were Asian MAists.


(Even more absurd. Experts are experts regardless of what language they speak. The term Martial Art is English, but it refers to an Asian Art. To be Bushi you MUST follow the code of Bushido. To be a Martial Artist, you must follow the same code which is in the Martial Art, because the Martial Art is Bushido under a variety of names. Remove the code, and it is no longer a Martial Art.

This is one of the most backward thinking notions I have heard! (no disrespect intended) You ask for an "external authority" about why I claim the Asian Bushido (Karate, Judo, Taekwondo, etc), which us Westerners call Martial Art(s) was intended to include virtues, ethics, and moral conduct among its practitioners, yet you disqualify Asian experts!!! Who should I consult, Americans who don't understand the concept, and who are the very reason the English term "Martial Art" is being wrongly defined, and misused to describe what the Asian experts know about? Should I consult English Dictionaries for this??? The English word was not made up for the purpose of describing a Western Art. It is a translation of an Asian term, "Bushido!" Thus, you must understand this term and its meaning to understand what "Martial Art" is supposed to mean.

3. Funakoshi was *lying* when he wrote his books because he was trying to sell a passive Martial Art to Americans immediately following WWII.



exile said:


> the fact is that the attitude reflected in the citations from Funakoshi, his students and those who take their cue from GF derives from the deliberate effort of GF's efforts, and later his students to present Karate to the American occupation force as an instrument of moral
> training.... And they bought it.


(No foundation to this whatsoever. He wrote his books in his native language for Japanese readers, shortly before his death in 1957 at the age of 88, so he was certainly not trying to convince the Americans of anything. Furthermore, these same texts were not transcribed and published in English until the 1970s yet his message still held true. To call him a liar, for whatever motives, is disrespectful and false. His doctrine was the true doctrine of Karate-do, and attempts to discredit his motives does not address the fact that so many other experts say the same exact thing.



exile said:


> But remember to, before the war, he made the case to the Japanese education and defense ministries that karate would be useful as a way to train young men for war (see Bill Burgar's Five Years, One Kata for some discussion of this point).


No need! The case for the Martial Art being useful as a way to train soldiers for war is a legitimate one (common to Jujutsu and Taekwondo) but has no bearing on the philosophical teachings beyond the battlefield, nor does it imply that Funakoshi did not believe that a soldier could be deadly effective in combat, yet use self control and adhere to ethical conduct in social settings.



exile said:


> The samurai of his time killed, without remorse, peasants who they thought had not shown proper deference, as they were legally allowed to do. Again, it seems to me difficult to deny the samurai of feudal Japan the description `martial artist'...


The samurai were legally allowed to do that at their discretion because of their status. They were obeying the laws of that time. By todays standards, however, this would be considered inhumane, illegal, and not the proper ethics of a Martial Artist. Furthermore, beating people up, and killing them against the rules of your Master, just to hone your skills, does not equate the era of legal justice administered by the samurai.

The Martial Art is effective combat that requires proper use under a strict ethical code.



exile said:


> That is your own criterion, which is why I said that you were using the term in a knd of private fashion.


I already proved that to be false. It is not MY OWN CRITERION. It comes from Asian experts on the subject of the Asian Art that many Westerners THINK they understand, or can recreate for their own purpose and give it their own definition! Why not?!! It's the English language - - define it anyway you want!! Who can tell you your're wrong - right?



exile said:


> And if you say to me, well, you're wrong, all you're doing is in effect saying, `no, my definition of martial artist is the correct one'.


No, I'm saying it is an Asian Art, having been given an English name to describe it, the name should reflect the intentions and definitions of the "consensus" of Asian experts. I'm just agreeing with them.



exile said:


> But you can't demonstrate this correctness in terms of any external authority.


Yes I can, and I did! Don't reject the authority because they don't speak English. It is not them who needs to understand our term of "Martial Art," but it is we who need to understand "Bushido" from which the term "Martial Art is derived."  All the "Mars - God of war" etymology has nothing to do with the fact that it was English speaking people who used this "Martial" term to try and convey a concept that was *foreign to them*!



exile said:


> My point is just that in saying that people like Kyan and Motobu aren't martial artists, you are expressing a strictly personal opinion of how a technically proficient exponent of systematic combat systems should behave socially. And that's a private opinionone far from universally shared.


It is absolutely not a private opinion. If you continue to insist that it is, then you are surely not reading the words of those experts. They too are saying what the core principles, and required ethics of the Martial Art is. 



exile said:


> You are giving me a bunch of quotations from various people about the way the martial arts should be applied. But that was and is not what our disagreement is about. It is about whether the term `martial artist' can be legitimately applied to someone who does not conform to a certain set of moral standards on its use that someone else imposes.


Those experts are specifically outlining how a student or black belt MUST behave. There is no room for doubt here as to what they are saying. Don't misuse Karate. Don't be aggressive and start fights. Don't hurt people unnecessarily. Live your life and conduct yourself by a code of ethics and justice. How can you deny the obvious message here? How can you say that this is not what our argument is about.

Plain English: A Martial Artist is a person who both studies the Martial Art and adheres to the principles taught in the Martial Art. Even pirates and thieves have a code, but they don't have to follow it - they're pirates and thieves!! They are dishonest to begin with! On the other hand, a Martial Artist MUST follow the code or lose the status of being a Martial Artist.

People stretch definitions, and change things to fit their twisted ideas, but you show me a consensus of experts who have written textbooks that say it is fine for Martial Artist to beat people up at will, and use their skills to hurt innocent people just to get better at fighting. Please offer me this proof!



exile said:


> Look again at what I said: that people like Motobu and Kyan, and many other besides, who used their arts aggressively and fought for the sake of fighting (and as `fieldwork' to develop their arts, um, experimentally) were nonetheless martial artistsaggressive, sometimes brutal and ethically challenged, let's say, but MAists nonetheless.


That is your opinion! Perhaps I am taking a bold, and lone-wolf stance by coming right out and saying that people who act like that are not Martial Artists, but I think you are the one who is going out on a limb and it might be lonely there with only four of you or so. I do not stand alone on this issue. I might be one of the few who are willing to say it out loud, but if you really understand the Martial Art itself - what it truly is (when taught correctly), then it is clear that a Martial Artists must be one who acts in accordance with the teachings. To find out what those teachings are, simple read what I have quoted (and many more texts on the subject).



exile said:


> Not one of the quotations you've assembled suggests that the people you cite did not regard people like Motobu as martial artists;


No, they did not mention those individuals by name, although you were the one who pointed out that Motobu's own instructor expelled him from the dojo for his behavior. What does that tell you?



exile said:


> every one of them is talking rather about the proper use of martial arts.


And your point is???? Do you actually believe this is not what our argument is about? These experts state clearly what is the proper use of the Martial Art, and they further say that anyone who misuses the skills such as Karate-do nullifies any of these benefits and merits of Karate-do A person who knows the proper use yet misuses the skills by hurting others for his own gain is presumptuous and conceited. A presumptuous or conceited person is not qualified to follow Karate-do. (said by Gichin Funakoshi) Hence, the obvious conclusion: They are not a true Martial Artist.



exile said:


> I am still waiting for some evidence that there is a broad social consensusthat is what I mean by `external authority',


And you'll be waiting a long time if you continue to dismiss true experts for frivolous reasons, or ignore the message they are clearly saying. They are the true external authority! that should be consulted; not some elusive broad social consensus.



exile said:


> Your quotations are not about the original issuewho gets to be called MAistsbut rather about the ethical use of the martial arts.


Sorry, Same Thing!!! The Martial Art includes ethics (my quotes prove that point). If you don't apply the code of ethics in your daily life, you are not a Martial Artist. To study the Martial Art is not enough - - you have to live it - - all of it - - every single rule and code of proper conduct. Not just the ones you want to pick and choose, or to ignore them altogether!



exile said:


> Again, just so what I'm saying is crystal clear: nothing you've cited constitutes the slightest basis for denying the description `martial artist' to someone who is a skilled practitioner of the martial arts.


Yes it does. Every bit of it does. The quotes clearly state that philosophy, ethics, and moral conduct are much more important than mere technical skills.



exile said:


> The whole list of quotations you present is a set of opinions on how martial artists should behave.


Amusing! A set of opinions. Like experts witnesses in a court of law, their statements are not considered mere opinions. Yet they do describe, as you say, how martial artists should behave. Fail to behave that way, and you fail to be a Martial Artist.



exile said:


> We are arguing here over whether anyone gets to impose on speakers of a language a private criterion for applying a term which, based on its syntax and morphology, denotes `one who practices systematic combat skills', NOTHING MORE.


Not true! We are arguing whether or not the subject of Martial Art includes additional codes of conduct and virtue over and above the technical content, and if a person who applies their skills without following such a code should be considered a Martial Artist or not.

The side argument over whether or not speakers of different languages should be held up as experts on a specific term is superficial because the term is either applied to an Asian concept (in which case the Asian speaking experts would have the most authoritative input) or the term is a loose, general, English word that can be applied to whatever English speaking people want it to be.



exile said:


> Bottom line: if you wish to restrict your own usage of the term to a certain subclass of skilled practitioners of those combat disciplines, fine; but others will continue to use the term `martial artist' in the broader sense, without the ethical litmus test, and it is perfectly right and proper that they do so.


Bottom line: if you wish to restrict your own usage of the term to a certain subclass of skilled practitioners of those combat disciplines who lack ethics and moral conduct, fine; but others will continue to use the term 'martial art' in its proper sense, with the ethical and moral code in tact, and it is perfectly right and proper that they do so. 



exile said:


> So I have to say that adducing a set of quotes by Asian, mostly monolingual martial artists (but, multilingual or not, people who are not in a position to comment on how native speakers of English use particular English vocabulary items) about how people who practice combat arts should behave has no bearing on the question of how English speakers, including martial artists themselves, apply the term `martial artist'. If you can give me some evidence that people use this term in a way which includes ethical judgments, then we have something to talk about.


I did give you plenty of evidence, and your reasons for rejecting their expert input is without merit.

In any event, here are some final quotes from Joe Hyams, the English speaking author of Zen in the Martial Arts who trained directly with people such as Bruce Lee, and Ed Parker (also English speaking experts).

Technical knowledge alone is not enough. A martial artist must simultaneously transcend technique and develop intuitive action so that the art becomes an artless art, a way to physical excellence, a way to spiritual enlightenment. ~ Joe Hyams
(exile, If you say that technical combat skill is all there is to the Martial Art, and nothing else - you would be wrong!)

For the true master, karate, kung-fu, aikido, wing-chun, and all the other martial arts are essentially avenues through which they can achieve spiritual serenity, mental tranquility, and the deepest self-confidence. ~ Joe Hyams
(exile, for the true master, these things do not include ruthless behavior and assaulting people)

Yet I had studied the martial arts for several years before becoming aware of this. In the early stages of training, like most students, I spent my time learning and refining complex physical techniques and movements. Only occasionally did a sifu ('instructor' in Chinese) hint that there were other lessons to be mastered. ~ Joe Hyams
(exile, there are other lessons to be mastered)

Only after several years of training did I come to realize that the deepest purpose of the martial arts is to serve as a vehicle for personal spiritual development. ~ Joe Hyams
(the deepest purpose is spiritual development, not technical skills)

For this reason perhaps the practice hall -- dojo (Japanese), dojang (Korean) kwoon (Chinese) -- where martial arts is studied is traditionally called The Place of Enlightenment. ~ Joe Hyams
(The place of enlightenment - - not the gym of violence and fighting)

A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action. ~ Samurai maxim

To know and to act are one and the same. ~ Samurai maxim

There have been numerous books about karate written by the masters. In my view, the best of all these books was written by the greatest of all the masters, *Gichin Funakoshi*. At nearly ninety years of age he wrote his autobiography, Karate Do: My Way of Life. In telling of his own famous teachers, not only their mastery of technique but also of their behavior in critical situations, *Funakoshi reveals the true spirit of karate*. ~ Joe Hyams
(personal endorsement from an English speaker that says it all!)

Ed Parker says, The only reason men fight is because they are insecure; one man needs to prove that he is better or stronger than another. The man who is secure within himself has no need to prove anything with force, so he can walk away from a fight with dignity and pride. He is the *true martial artist*

*These are the true experts, and they have made my case for me. *
*Nothing more needs to be said!*


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 20, 2007)

Cirdan is right, far too much too read on screen.I did get this bit below and decided my opinion wasn't wanted anyway. Incidentally in Wado I was taught a first strike move so saying karateka don't strike first is not exactly true. ( in short left fighting stance, hands down by sides, step forward with left front snap punch. I described it in English to make it understandable. Iain Abernethy was the one who pointed this was a first strike ) 


_" Again, I am not concerned with the "social consensus" of amateurs and wannabes. Only truly enlightened Masters and renowned experts in the field."_

_ 


_


----------



## exile (Apr 20, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> Cirdan is right, far too much too read on screen.I did get this bit below and decided my opinion wasn't wanted anyway. Incidentally in Wado I was taught a first strike move so saying karateka don't strike first is not exactly true. ( in short left fighting stance, hands down by sides, step forward with left front snap punch. I described it in English to make it understandable. Iain Abernethy was the one who pointed this was a first strike )
> 
> 
> _" Again, I am not concerned with the "social consensus" of amateurs and wannabes. Only truly enlightened Masters and renowned experts in the field."_
> ...



Tez, don't worry. What LF has posted is in fact a classic example of circular reasoning; I've been classifying the various logical fallacies in the comments presented in that post and my response will be what I hope is a fairly concise roadmap to them. But your gut reaction is dead rightthe logical structure of (i) LF's claim that only martial artists are allowed to prescribe the meaning of a fairly common English noun phrase and (ii) his restriction of the term `martial artist' to a small subset of those who study systematic fighting systems leads to (iii) the consquence that the only people whose opinion is relevant to the definition of MA/MAist are those who hold the position he does. There are many variants of circular reasoning; this one is a very interesting combination of (a) the so called argumentum ad vericundiam (justification by appeal to an already agreeing authority) with (b) the `no true Scotsman' fallacy dissected by Anthony Flew in a famous book thirty years ago. Teasing the various fallacies and circularities out of the post is taking up more time than I have available today, but I'm gonna post the resultswhich, as I say, I think are very interesting and revealinga bit later. 

Meanwhile, Tez, _I_ (and a lot of other _martial artists_ on the board  ) value your opinion very highly! So please don't let circular justifications keep you away from this discussion. Actually, your imput is badly needed, I believe.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Apr 20, 2007)

Big words make my head hurt. Dur.

Ahem. Martial Arts are just words, just a label. No matter how much certainty we have in our INTERPETATION of the term, that intepretation will in no way change the reality of the term. No matter how how passionately, no matter how intensely I believe the word Dog describes a pig, that will not alter the fact that for most people a dog is a small hairy creature that barks and poops alot, and a pig is pink, likes to roll in mud, and is eaten frequently.
When it comes to labels, the meaning of the label is assigned by the majority. And in the case of MA, the majority have no one particular set criteria that it fits. Just that its sorta to do with fighting, but also other stuff too, but they're not quite sure what.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 20, 2007)

The thing is...in the time it would take to read such an epic post as Last Fearners I could have done a fair bit of training which in my mind a Martial Artist would have done as opposed to pontificating over semantics. In the time it would take to actually understand the post I could have invented a new style of martial arts!
I love the expression "noble art" - for crying out loud,noble art? it's bashing people! Okay it's very good bashing people but that's what it is! I gave someone a thick lip the other night, it wa a good move but not _noble!_
It's people who can be noble, they may do noble things,they may fight for a noble cause, they may practise a martial art but don't kid on that what we do is noble.What we do is *fighting. *The simple philosophy behind fighting is to win. 
What you chose to believe other than this is entirely up to you but like arguments on religion and politics please accept that we could agree with you but then we'd all  be wrong!:uhyeah:


----------



## exile (Apr 20, 2007)

Last Fearner said:


> *These are the true experts, and they have made my case for me. *
> *Nothing more needs to be said!*



Ah... where to start??

I'll begin by saying that I think, from Last Fearner's point of view, that his last statement is correct, but probably not for the reasons he believes. More on this below.

For the record, I'm responding here to LF's post #37 in this thread. In reading through the seven pages of text he supplied, I found myself sorting the post by the various logical fallacies (circularity, `no true Scotsman', argumentum ad vericundiam and a number others) that it appears to break down into. So rather than go through it in the same sequence LF presents it, I think my response will be much easier to follow if I deal with in terms of the various layers of fallacies embedded in it, with pointers to the appropriate sections of LS's text. 

First of all, there is an overarching fallacy of circular reasoning which arises in a very interesting way and is worth making explicit. LF has a certain position which I've challenged. This position consists of the claim that, as LF puts it at one point `Being a Martial Artist IS how you behave and apply the knowledge you should have been taught', with a particular idea of `virtuous application' in particular'. I'll call that LF's Central Claim (aka CC).

Next, we have the position that, as he says, `Again, I am not concerned with the "social consensus" of amateurs and wannabes. Only truly enlightened Masters are reknowned experts in the field". These are the only people whose opinion counts, LF is explicitly saying, and constitute the `authorities' that he appeals to at some length, providing quote after quote from a chap named Joe Hyams, apparently a student of Bruce Lee and Ed Parker, `English speaking' experts (but not experts on the use by English speakers of common vocabulary items).

So we have the following:

(i) CC 
(ii) Only the opinion (enlightened) martial artists (who apparently must also be enlightened and reknowned) are of concern to LF.

But since, in his explicit view, to be a _true_ martial artist of _any_ kind requires you to accept CC (as reflected in in your behavior), we can replace (ii) with its entailment (ii)':

(ii)' Only the opinion of those who accept the CC are of concern to LF.

From (i) and (ii)', (iii) immediately follows:

(iii) Only the opinions of those who agree with LF are of cocern to LF.

Since

(iv) LF's `authorities' are a subset of those who agree with him,

it follows, again as an unavoidable entailment, that

(v) only those who agree with LF with respect to the CC are admissible in the discussion as authorities on whether the CC is correct.

I have to say that I understand and to some extent sympathize with the desire to only give credence, in a debate with an opposing point of view, to those who happen to agree with me. I've certainly experienced it firsthand! But as a general rule, arguments based on the general form of (v) are regarded as instances of circular justification: you justify X because those who believe X belive it to be justified. There is not a single argument in the world which cannot be supported if (v) is admitted, including mutually exclusive positions.

This particular version of the fallacy of circular reasoning is overlain with others, though in a sense they're all interconnected and self-reinforcing, the way complex reasoning built on fallacies often are. One that's particularly important to be aware of is the fallacy that's sometimes described as building your conclusion into your premises (anyone recall the technical name for this one?) This occurs repeatedly in LF's post, so just a single example will have to suffice. When LF says, `You said there was no external authority behind the term. I provided you with plenty. You rejected them on frivolous grounds', notice that what I was rejecting was the relevance to the question under discussion&#8212;who does the description `MAist apply to'?&#8212;of a list of citations from Funakoshi, Oyama, Musashi M., and now Mr. Hyams, Ed Parker and various others. Examine what these people have said carefully and you will see that apart perhaps from Mr. Hyams, none of these people have said anything about what the term `martial artist' means; they've only expressed an opinion about how martial artists should behave. But since LF assumes that there is no difference between how someone trained in combat behaves, on the one hand, and their eligibility for the description `martial artist', on the other, he regards the comments of his authorities on proper behavior as equivalent to comments on who and is not a martial artist. It follows that in insisting on the distinction between the two things, I am `rejecting them on frivolous grounds.' By now, it should be clear that _if_ LF were indeed right---that virtuous behavior and martial artistry are mutually implicated---then I'd be rejecting his invocations of authority for the CC. _But since the CC is the very point that's under dispute,_ what LF is saying, to put it a little crudely, is that `If I _were_ right, then you'd be wrong to dispute the opinions of people who'd be agreeing with me if I were right.' Lovers of infinite regress (I confess!) should be able to spend many a happy hour playing with this sort of self-bootstrapping justification. 

It's worth pointing out also that the various explicit references to `true martial artists' that pop up in the posts are an instance of the `no true Scotsman' fallacy that Anthony Flew drolly exposed in his 1975 book _Thinking about Thinking_; a nice summary of his thinking is provided at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman. The book's line of thinking, which I've just been admiring, is more developed, but the Wiki summary should be enough to allow the skeptical observer to recognize the prevalence of this particular fallacy both in LF's own text and in certain passages he cites in `evidence'.


There are a number of asides in LF's post about fakes, frauds, Kinko's-certificate black belts and other things, which I think are pretty much irrelevant to the lines of fallacious reasoning that take up most of the post; these are in effect straw-men tangents, and not really entitled to the status of `logical fallacy', since they are about matters of fact that are not implicated in any of the reasoning steps involved. But I do think it appropriate to comment on the following comment by LF, since it shows the degree to which the argument developed in his post is in effect a snake swallowing its own tail:

`Who says it is appropriate to go by "common usage" Common among whom? The majority of lay-people who have just walked out of a Jackie Chan movie and *think* they are experts in the "Martial Art"... I am not concerned with the "social concensus" of amateurs and wannabees. Only truly enlightened Masters and reknowned experts in the field.'

The fact is, of course, that not one of the `authorities' that LF cites is an expert in what the question was at the point when I first posted: who gets to be called a martial artist? The people who are experts in English usage aren't martial artists, but lexicographers. And this is completely typical of the kind of thing they say in their dictionaries and other reference works:

_Martial arts are systems of codified practices and traditions of training for combat. Martial arts are studied for various reasons including combat skills, fitness, self-defense, sport, self-cultivation (meditation), mental discipline, character development and building self-confidence. A practitioner of martial arts is referred to as a martial artist._

(Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_arts)

_Any of several Asian arts of combat or self-defense, such as aikido, karate, judo, or tae kwon do, usually practiced as sport. Often used in the plural._ (_Answers.com, http://www.answers.com/topic/martial-art)

Martial arts cover a broad range of activities that involve fighting techniques, physical exercises, and methods of mental discipline, among other skills. Martial arts originated in the ancient cultures of Asia, and are used today around the world for self-defense, exercise, health, spiritual growth, law enforcement, and athletic competition.

 (Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine, http://www.answers.com/topic/martial-art)

Martial art: one of several Oriental systems of self-defense, including karate, judo and aikido.

(Webster's New International Dictionary)

Ad infinitem.

Now all I'm claiming, remember, is that the English term `martial artist' means `one who practices martial arts, and that martial arts refer to codified systems of combat principles, tactics and skills. I'm talking about usage. And that's all that dictionaries and reference books provide, based on the research of the referece-book makers. I've seen literally dozens of dictionary entries for `martial art(ist)s'. Every one of them has been of the kind I've just cited. Not one refers to a criterion of virtuous application---just combat knowledge.

What LF seems to me to be saying is, `I'm right and you can't be right because on the basis of what I know, you don't qualify as an MAist since you don't believe the CC and part of what I know is that only people who believe the CC know what a MA(ist) is.' It was for this reason that I characterized his characterization of a MAist as a kind of private usage. 

And this is why I say that from his own point of view, LF is right: given the  assumption that LF's opinion and those who agree with him necessarily constitute the true definition of MAist because only they know what it is/should be, no one knows what a MAist is except for those who share his view of what a MAist is. So for him, it's true, nothing more need be said. 

But I'm going to give Tez and Shotgun Buddha the last word here 





Shotgun Buddha said:



			Big words make my head hurt. Dur.

Ahem. Martial Arts are just words, just a label. No matter how much certainty we have in our INTERPETATION of the term, that intepretation will in no way change the reality of the term. No matter how how passionately, no matter how intensely I believe the word Dog describes a pig, that will not alter the fact that for most people a dog is a small hairy creature that barks and poops alot, and a pig is pink, likes to roll in mud, and is eaten frequently.
When it comes to labels, the meaning of the label is assigned by the majority. And in the case of MA, the majority have no one particular set criteria that it fits. Just that its sorta to do with fighting, but also other stuff too, but they're not quite sure what.
		
Click to expand...




Tez3 said:



			I love the expression "noble art" - for crying out loud,noble art? it's bashing people! Okay it's very good bashing people but that's what it is! I gave someone a thick lip the other night, it wa a good move but not noble!
It's people who can be noble, they may do noble things,they may fight for a noble cause, they may practise a martial art but don't kid on that what we do is noble.What we do is *fighting. *The simple philosophy behind fighting is to win. 
What you chose to believe other than this is entirely up to you but like arguments on religion and politics please accept that we could agree with you but then we'd all  be wrong!:uhyeah:
		
Click to expand...

_


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 20, 2007)

Exile, you have far more patience than I answering LF's posts! However!!

(Even more absurd. Experts are experts regardless of what language they speak. *The term Martial Art is English, but it refers to an Asian Art.* To be Bushi you MUST follow the code of Bushido. To be a Martial Artist, you must follow the same code which is in the Martial Art, because the Martial Art is Bushido under a variety of names. Remove the code, and it is no longer a Martial Art.
Okay, question... what is this "Martial Art" *you* are talking about?
I know of several non Asian martial arts. I daresay you do have follow Bushi to be Bushido, it would make sense but again who decided that Bushido is the code, under any name, that the Thais, Chinese, Koreans, Phillopinos etc follow? Who decided that to kick, punch, knee, throw etc we have to give up our faiths and beliefs and follow Bushido in order to do so?

Who should I consult, *Americans who don't understand the concept*, and who are the very reason the English term "Martial Art" is being wrongly defined, and misused to describe what the Asian experts know about? 

Well I'll give you points for managing to insult the intelligence of an entire nation there. From what I've read on this forum I'd say there are a good many people who understand a great many concepts on martial arts.

The English word was not made up for the purpose of describing a Western Art. It is a translation of an Asian term, "Bushido!" Thus, you must understand this term and its meaning to understand what "Martial Art" is supposed to mean.

I was on a seminar recently where some of the participants do follow the code of Bushido, the thing is they called it Bushido, not martial arts. They understood the meaning of the word and didn't need to have it translated into anything else. Oh yes and they asked what martial art we practised. Did I mention that although British they were Japanese trained?

The Martial Art is effective combat that requires proper use under a strict ethical code.

Bollocks.

Last Ferner, you've obviously thought long and hard about what you have written but in doing so you have made the mistake of insulting others intelligence and passion for martial arts. It is good to have a code of behaviour that defines good behaviour and encourages people towards that behavior but there are many such codes, all good and all following different paths to the same goal. However, you have taken a huge subject squashed it into pseudo religious type credo and then demanded that only those who follow it can be called martial artists. Ooo I think not sunbeam! I would make a very good assumption that all who post on here are martial artists and very happy with that desciption and long may they do so!


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Apr 20, 2007)

So what do you call someone who trains in a martial art but does not agree with the spiritual philosophy?

All of the morals and ethics had to do with Zen, Buddhism and Taoism which is not inherent in many of todays interpretations of the arts.  It's also not present in some of the newer arts of today.  All martial arts are not asian and many never were.

Some of the definitions being thrown around have become outdated.  Whether this is good or bad is a matter of opinion.  Personally I learned morals from my grand parents who raised me.  I didn't need to learn how to kill and maim with bare hands to teach me discipline and values.  I learned how to kill and maim to protect my values.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 20, 2007)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> So what do you call someone who trains in a martial art but does not agree with the spiritual philosophy?
> 
> _All of the morals and ethics had to do with Zen, Buddhism and Taoism which is not inherent in many of todays interpretations of the arts. It's also not present in some of the new arts of today._
> 
> Some of the definitions being thrown around have become outdated. Whether this is good or bad is a matter of opinion. Personally I learned morals from my grand parents who raised me. I didn't need to learn how to kill and maim with bare hands to teach me discipline and values. I learned how to kill and maim to protect my values.


 
Good post, I'm not sure that even in the past these had much to do with martial arts in all the Asian countries but LF's talks only of *The Martial Art and Bushido,* I'm not sure he is talking about anything other than Karate and probably Shotokan at that? My Japanese art is Wado and Ohtsuka Sensei had a different take on things.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 20, 2007)

I have seen and read a lot here that are quotes from various Japanese martial artists. Then I assume that Chinese martial artist are not considered ethical because for the most part they never heard of any the people that have cited...Interesting. 

And I did notice that the Tao and Confucius were mentioned but it was still in reference to Japan anyway so....




Last Fearner said:


> SELF DEFENSE TRAINING + PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT + ETHICS = MARTIAL ART





Last Fearner said:


> COMBAT SKILLS + LOVE AND RESPECT OF ALL LIFE + ETHICAL CONDUCT = MARTIAL ARTIST




Where did these come from?

And I am glad this is what it means to you but in reality it is not how martial arts was defined by many historically nor is it defined this way by all today. 

Also your previous quotes are in places speaking of Karate-do which has a very different view of things that its precursor Karate-jitsu.

And can I also assume that by this that you feel the Samurai where fine examples of what a martial artist should be?


----------



## tradrockrat (Apr 20, 2007)

It all comes down to personality and personal opinion (IMHO anyway).  Ask yourself this question and then try to guess how both Exile and LF would answer it - How sacred is the word "Art" to you?  Does it mean skill set or does it mean a transcendence of the mundane to levels of enlightenment, or something in between?

Many people feel that to be a martial artist is to walk a very specific path of teachings both physical and spiritual.

Others feel that anybody that's learned a good left hook is a martial artist.

These feelings in no way take into account the dictionary definition of the words, nor should they.  Be honest.  Words mean more than what the dictionary tells us - as any racial epithet shows.  Words have power beyond the textbook definitions and they mean different things to different people.

So in a sense, LF is not wrong in what he says, nor is Exile because they aren't actually debating the same thing.  Exile has the english language to back up his claims of what the words martial and arts actually mean. LF has the writtings of what it means to be a martial artist by men he believes to be martial artists. Not the same issue at all.

However, while I personally feel that a martial artist is indeed more than an accomplished fighter (I consider that martial sport or martial combat, depending on the situation), I and most everyone I have ever trained with in Bando would take *serious *exception to the idea that martial arts = bushido.  That's just crap.  The Japanese don't have the market cornered on martial artists - not by a long shot.


----------



## Langenschwert (Apr 20, 2007)

Last Fearner said:


> The term Martial Art is English, but it refers to an Asian Art.


 
I'm getting the impression that you ascribe the definition of Martial Arts to Asian arts in particular, to which I take exception.  If that's not your intent, my apologies.  However:

The first extant literary use of the term "Martial Art" in the English language refers to an _Italian_ art, namely rapier fencing.  The work is the 16th Century English rapier manual entitled "Pallas Armata" which refers to the "Noble Martial Art of Fencing".  Please note that the term fencing refers to fighting in general, not the use of the sword alone.  There's not much philosophy in a back-alley rapier fight, but it's certainly a martial art, and an exacting one at that.

If someone wants to define _his_ art as "martial applications plus philosophy X", that's fine with me.  Fill your boots, it's all good.  If someone wants to define it as "win at all costs", that's equally (if not more so) valid, and certainly more martial.  Just don't denigrate those Martial Arts that don't share certain _non-martial_ characteristics.

I certainly call myself a Martial Artist.  I may not be a good one, but I train my Arts five days a week, read and try to interpret the techniques described in the ancient manuals.  I train how to kill people in a very gruesome fashion, and may the gods ensure that I never have to use it for real.  However, I don't follow the code of Chivalry (the European equivalent of Bushido), I'm not a Roman Catholic (the belief system most dominant during the development of European swordsmanship), but I am a swordsman, and a Martial Artist.  And proud of it. 

Best regards,

-Mark


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 20, 2007)

Langenschwert said:


> I'm getting the impression that you ascribe the definition of Martial Arts to Asian arts in particular, to which I take exception. If that's not your intent, my apologies. However:
> 
> The first extant literary use of the term "Martial Art" in the English language refers to an _Italian_ art, namely rapier fencing. The work is the 16th Century English rapier manual entitled "Pallas Armata" which refers to the "Noble Martial Art of Fencing". Please note that the term fencing refers to fighting in general, not the use of the sword alone. There's not much philosophy in a back-alley rapier fight, but it's certainly a martial art, and an exacting one at that.
> ,
> ...


 
Italian fencing/sword fighting was one of the arts I had in mind when I posted. I saw an article on it in a martial arts magazine and it was absolutely fascinating and still, I believe widely practised. I also have read articles on martial arts from Malta,the Canary Islands, the Balearic Islands and France as well as Greece - Pankration anyone?


----------



## exile (Apr 20, 2007)

Terrific points, Tez, Kempojj and XS. It's remarkable how much sense amateurs and wannabes can come up with, in spite of their lack of reknown and enlightenment! :wink1:

I wanted to just add a note to my preceding post about a matter not about valid reasoning but rather history. Bill Burgar's book, _Five Years, One Kata_, does indeed contain a nice discussion of the basis on which Funakoshi was able to persuade the Japanese military and educational establishments to incorporate karate on a widespread basis in prewar Japan. So far as GF's repackaging of karate as a spiritual discipline, I read a nice discussion of this in some material by the karateka (admittedly an American!) Robert Redmond, author of _Year of the Chicken_. Redmond is fluent in Japanese and has produced critical translations of a number of touchstones of Japanese MA `philosophy' (much of which, he argues, is better understood as etiquette); unfortunately I've lost track of that material but am quite certain that I shall be able to dig it up again, and as soon as I do I'll post it, or a pointer to it. Redmond does not like to be quoted without written permissionhe's very touchy about his website. But I'm allowed to quote short passages, and I thought the following might be of interested to readers who want to follow up on the claim that LF appears to be saying I madethough I did not actually make itthat GF was `lying' when he told the Americans that karate was essentially spiritual. (I'm more of the opinion that GF told people whatever he thought would be to the advantage of karate. It's not the same thing at all, but never mind!)

_The Japanese were invading other Asian nations and had troops deployed in occupation of Manchuria. Karate seemed like an excellent hand to hand combat system which could also then be turned around to train conquered people in other lands to behave like obedient Japanese citizens. Physically, it was good for soldiers, and mentally, it was good for instilling obedient discipline in ordinary people.

If you find this concept bizarre, consider that it is repeatedly mentioned in Funakoshis early books.... if it were not in print, it might be difficult to believe that Funakoshi is quoted in his own book as saying, War is a tool God gave man to organize the world._

Funakoshi was a very gung-ho booster of Japanese colonial expansionism, which included the well-documented horrors visited upon the inhabitants of Korea, China, the Philipines and other parts of Asia forin some casesmany decades before the war. Given his wholehearted support for one of the most evil and destructive regimes of the modern era, the possibility that he might have told people what he thought would be good for them to hear hardly seems particularly noteworthy, eh?


----------



## Langenschwert (Apr 20, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> Pankration anyone?


 
Indeed.  The grandfather of European Martial Arts, and perhaps some of those in Asia as well... Alexander the Great and all that.  And let's not forget the wrestling moves carved into walls from ancient Egypt.  No culture has a monopoly on Martial Arts.

@ Tez:  probably the most prolific culture with regards to MA manuals were the Germans.  In fact, the Manuscript I.33 is likely the oldest extant treatise on personal combat in the world, and without doubt the oldest in Europe.  It's a German manuscript dated to about 1290, detailing the use of sword & buckler.  Interestingly, the combatants are priests/monks.  Combative monks were not merely an Eastern phenomenon, and many were known as expert wrestlers. I have a copy of I.33 with an English translation... it's a very interesting read.

Best regards,

-Mark


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 20, 2007)

I think Exile's post touches on a point made by others that in view of Japan's history it is tactless at the very least to say that Bushido, a very Japanese concept, is the only way for martial arts to be acceptable as martial arts. This view negates the validity of martial arts from any other country.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 20, 2007)

exile said:


> Funakoshi was a very gung-ho booster of Japanese colonial expansionism, which included the well-documented horrors visited upon the inhabitants of Korea, China, the Philipines and other parts of Asia forin some casesmany decades before the war. Given his wholehearted support for one of the most evil and destructive regimes of the modern era, the possibility that he might have told people what he thought would be good for them to hear hardly seems particularly noteworthy, eh?


 
Ahh yes and they referred to the Chinese as logs because they were thought of in the same way they thought about logs thrown on a fire. Just about as useful and equally expendable.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 20, 2007)

Langenschwert said:


> Interestingly, the combatants are priests/monks. Combative monks were not merely an Eastern phenomenon, and many were known as expert wrestlers. I have a copy of I.33 with an English translation... it's a very interesting read.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> -Mark


 
Templars in the crusades.  Warrior monks.


----------



## exile (Apr 20, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> Ahh yes and they referred to the Chinese as logs because they were thought of in the same way they thought about logs thrown on a fire. Just about as useful and equally expendable.



And Gichin Funakoshi, from all accounts, would have had no problem with that; prior to and during the war, he was, as I said, an all-out booster and cheerleader for Japanese military expansion; indeed you might have concluded that he was native Japanese, instead of an Okinawan expatriate who made it big in colonial headquarters.

Now one of the odd things about LF's post, as I noted, is that he seems to be accusing me of an unthinkable slander in suggesting that Funakoshi told people what he thought they ought to hear&#8212;that I was accusing GF of actually.... _lying_ (with all kinds of exclamation points). The irony here is that after all the lectures about Westerners (`Americans') getting Asian points of view wrong, LF himself seems to have fallen into the very cultural trap he describes, for GF's behavior in this respect&#8212;and don't worry, I have the documentation of the point somewhere and I _will_ supply it as soon as I can&#8212;was entirely in accord with familiar norms of Japanese social behavior. Bruce Clayton, whose detailed 2004 historical study, _Shotokan's Secret: the Hidden Truth Behind Shotokan's Fighting Origins_ is one of the best general overviews of the early history of karate and the social conditions under which it developed, stresses the following point:

_one eventually realizes that Japanese writers and karate masters enjoy a very special relationship with the truth. It confounds the naïve Western reader to discover that respected Japanese sense *casually conceal, distort or fabricate stories about karate's historical origins for their own purposes*. In Japanese culture this is the normal thing to do, and it would not occur to them to do otherwise. In Japan, the official story is more important than the actual truth. In fact they consider the official story to be another kind of truth, even if the story is completely inaccurate and deliberately misleading. For a person to question the official story is shockigly rude. People who insist on digging for verifiable facts are derided as_ rikutsuppoi, _or `reason freaks' [footnote supplying substantial documentation omitted]


...The Tokugawa edicts forced the Japanese people to adopt a double standard of truth. Every person had their private opinion, their secret_
honne,..._ [but] all staunchly supported the official government story, the _tatemae. _... The distinction between honne and tatemae appears again and again in karate history, right down to the present day....Tatemae means the cover story, and is written with kanji that mean `to build' and `in front'. In other words tatemae is the screen we erect to hide the truth...
Funakoshi and his friend, Shito-ryu maser Kenwa Mabuni, developed the story that hard-style karate was an ancient Chinese art, not a recent Okinawan invention.[footnote supplying substantial documentation omitted] This was their tatemae, their official story, intended to make karate more acceptable to the average Japanese citizen._ [emphasis added]

(_Shotokan's Secret_, pp. 31-33.) And he gives many, many other examples of this. Now, not once does Clayton use the word `lie'. Neither did I in anything I posted. LF, however, simply plunges in and assumes that an official falsehood has a status which corresponds to `lie' in English, and professes horror that I would suggest something absolutely consistent with what we know about Funakoshi and many other apologists, in the technical sense, for karate, according to the facts that Clayton reports, and documents.

By the way, Clayton, giving a summary of Chotoku Kyan's life&#8212;a life of gratuitous violence, hostility and debauchery, as well as superb karate&#8212;casually refers to him as `the most overtrained _martial artist_ in history' (p.87; emphasis added). Dr. Clayton is a fifth dan in Shotokan, and a careful historian of karate. But given that he identifies Kyan as a martial artist, I suppose, going by LF's method of reasoning, that we have to regard him as (in LF's words) an `amateur and wannabe'. Dang!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 20, 2007)

exile said:


> And Gichin Funakoshi, from all accounts, would have had no problem with that; prior to and during the war, he was, as I said, an all-out booster and cheerleader for Japanese military expansion; indeed you might have concluded that he was native Japanese, instead of an Okinawan expatriate who made it big in colonial headquarters.
> 
> Now one of the odd things about LF's post, as I noted, is that he seems to be accusing me of an unthinkable slander in suggesting that Funakoshi told people what he thought they ought to hear&#8212;that I was accusing GF of actually.... _lying_ (with all kinds of exclamation points). The irony here is that after all the lectures about Westerners (`Americans') getting Asian points of view wrong, LF himself seems to have fallen into the very cultural trap he describes, for GF's behavior in this respect&#8212;and don't worry, I have the documentation of the point somewhere and I _will_ supply it as soon as I can&#8212;was entirely in accord with familiar norms of Japanese social behavior. Bruce Clayton, whose detailed 2004 historical study, _Shotokan's Secret: the Hidden Truth Behind Shotokan's Fighting Origins_ is one of the best general overviews of the early history of karate and the social conditions under which it developed, stresses the following point:
> 
> ...


 
WOW!!! You know your history 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I am impressed. One of these days I will get more into the Japanese side of things, it is also of intrest to me. But being CMA I tend to know much more about China.  

This post has given me an idea for a much less exciting post that is basically History as we know it that will likely get far fewer responses. The truth is simply not as exciting. But I will start with links and see where it goes, if anywhere.

But with that said I will end with this

The historical origin of Japanese martial arts can be found in the warrior traditions of the *samurai and the caste system that* *restricted the use of weapons by members of the non-warrior classes*

That is one heck of a way to reduce threat form those of lower class now isn't it and of course incredibly honorable too..... well not really


----------



## tellner (Apr 20, 2007)

And the saintly worshipped-as-a-g-d Ueshiba was a leg-breaker for a jingoistic cult. Later he taught killing to spooks and spies. The sweetness and light and love for all creatures came after Japan was defeated.


----------



## tellner (Apr 20, 2007)

LF, let's cut out all the intermediate steps and get right down to the essentials. "Martial Art" refers to a very small set of Asian empty hand systems. Nothing practiced by guards, soldiers, samurai, ninja, Chinese stylists other than a few Buddhist monks, regular people for self defense, duelists, Southeast Asian villagers, Persian knights, Dayak pirates, Western masters of defense, prize fighters or pretty much anyone else who ever picked up a sword or punched someone qualifies. All of the above-mentioned (and many many more) don't fit your peculiarly romanticized pacifist standard. That includes, of course, all of the followers of "Bushido" which sort of tears your argument apart from inside.

Of what use, then, is your definition? I contend that it is to make the circle of "martial arts" and "martial artists" cozily small so that it includes you, your friends, your students, your teachers and precisely those people with whom you are comfortable. As such it may be good for your ego, but it is a pretty worthless perspective for anyone else.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 20, 2007)

Sorry to blunder in late to what is obviously a well developed thread but I have a fairly pertinent observation.  

Assuming that this hived off from another thread and was prompted by some statements *Last Ferner* made, has it been noted that said worthy has not made any further comments?

It is a unfortunate truth that when people who feel passionately about something meet in an annonymous environment and when 'conversation' is non-synchronous, then the minority opinion can get shouted down, or at best drowned out.

MartialTalk suffers from it less than most fora but I have to confess that this thread has me stumped as there are a number of people in it who I respect very highly and yet the impression I garner (from skip reading I admit) is that *LF* is getting beaten up.

Can someone direct me to where this started so that I can grab a handle?  I don't want to start shooting off opinions in the wrong direction, so to speak .


----------



## MJS (Apr 20, 2007)

In case anyone is wondering where this thread generated from, these posts were split from this thread, as the discussion seemed to be going in two different directions. 

Mike


----------



## exile (Apr 20, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> Sorry to blunder in late to what is obviously a well developed thread but I have a fairly pertinent observation.
> 
> Assuming that this hived off from another thread and was prompted by some statements *Last Ferner* made, has it been noted that said worthy has not made any further comments?
> 
> ...



Sukerkin, if you read from the begining what you'll see is that LF basically has claimed that you are not a martial artist unless you have a built-in ethic of virtuous application; that the fact that this is not reflected in the way the term is used in ordinary English is of no interest to him because, as he puts it, only the usage of `enlightened masters and reknowned experts' or something like that count so far as the definition of the English noun phrase `martial artist' is concerned, that the general usage reported in dictionary definitions, reflecting English speaker's knowledge of the word-building rules and semantic interpretation principles for complex expressions for their language, basically reflects American's ignorance of Asian cultures, and that if a bunch of `amateurs and wannabes' happen to use the expression `martial artist' in such a way that there is no built-in criterion of `virtuous application', that's just a consequence of the fact that they're `amateurs and wannabes' in whose use of the term he has no interest, no matter how common it is. Several people have found this presumption to superior knowledge of what the term means offensive and insulting, so I think that's where the response you're seeing is coming from.  This dismissal of common usage on grounds that we just don't know any better... well, it's bound to provoke a reaction, I'd think.

I myself don't feel so much insulted as bemused by all the many and various forms of fallacious and circular reasoning involved in LF's posts, as per some of my earlier posts; given how many of these there are, I've just tried to point out a representative sample.  But beyond the errors of reasoning (and fact as well), it's pretty hard to have a discussion&#8212;which assumes some kind of common ground amongst the discussants&#8212;when one of the parties insists that the others are wrong a priori, that he simply _knows_ better, and that&#8212;as he puts it&#8212;there's nothing else to say. Given all that, it's not surprising that people have had the response you've noticed, I suppose....


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 20, 2007)

Ahh!

Well it is certainly true that the term 'martial artist' is fairly clear in English useage, I agree.  It's hard to argue against the meaning of the words, after all .

It is also true that phrasing an argument in such a way as to belittle the position of those that disagree is not guaranteed to provide a smooth ride - perhaps that makes the 'rock throwing' nature of the thread a touch more clear.

I'm surprised that such emotiveness sprang from such small beginnings tho', especially as, after all, the _idealised_ image of a martial artist *is* of one that can wreck havoc if he so chooses but restrains those impulses.  

It is true, sadly, that the gulf between the ideal and the actuality has historically varied quite a bit (and who happened to be watching seems to have had a bearing on occaision too ).

I feel I'd better go and absorb more of the background to this fracas before I say much else - I was simply surprised that a relatively established 'member of the club' looked (on the surface) as if he'd been flamed like a troll.


----------



## exile (Apr 20, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> Ahh!
> 
> Well it is certainly true that the term 'martial artist' is fairly clear in English useage, I agree.  It's hard to argue against the meaning of the words, after all .
> 
> ...



The thing is... not one person in this debate, not one, believes that a martial artist should behave in an uncontrolled way with respect to his/her ability to inflict damage on someone else. The problem is this one whereby the very words `martial artist' become a grandiose title that only someone worthy of a vision of the Holy Grail is entitled to. Compare this utter mystification of the martial artistthis denial of documented historywith what Clayton has to say:

_The unspoken truth is tha the great Okinawan masters were just people like ourselves. They had strengths and weaknesses. With the insights of modern psychology we can see that they became masters BECAUSE of their weaknesses. Funakoshi, Kyan and Higaona were all very small men, for instance. Karate helped them compensate for their size. Sakugawa was haunted by the terrible death of his father... these people all had psychological issues that karate helped them alleviate._

(p.58). Instead of the plaster sainthood that we've seen demanded of the great masters of the past to warrant qualifying as a martial artistChoki Motobu has to first satisfy someone's ethical litmus test for _him_ to qualify as a martial artist???!Clayton's far more generous, realistic and genuinely humble view is so much closer to the way we talk about martial artistry that there's no comparison...


----------



## Last Fearner (Apr 21, 2007)

First of all, I would like to begin this post by apologizing to anyone whom I might have offended thus far.  It was not my intention to insult or offend any of the members here at MT, nor any serious Martial Art practitioners.  

I believe some of my comments have been misunderstood, and conclusions have been drawn in a direction that does not match my original meaning.  For these misunderstandings - - I am sorry!
For those who are confused as to how this got started, here is a brief update:

As to the origin of this discussion, it seem to have moved around a bit.  The first part of the conversation began with a thread started by tellner where he quotes some common phrases repeated too often to serious questions on these threads:
http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48334

"The best way to fight is by not fighting."
"My greatest (weapon|technique)  is my (mind|mouth|running shoes|calmness|selective resemblance  to a bull  elephant)."
"Martial arts isn't just about fighting."
"De-escalation."



tellner said:


> Those of us who've been at this game for a little while all know  and understand  these things. It's just a tool, you're the weapon.  Don't get into any fights you  don't have to. The man who fights  and runs away lives to sneak up behind his  enemies when they don't  expect it and bushwack them another day. Those who  haven't will  not appreciate the pearls of wisdom.


I tend to agree with the above statement, which is part of the basis for my stubborn opinion about how Martial Artist should behave.
tellner goes on to say:



tellner said:


> There's nothing wrong with a disclaimer or two.  There's also nothing wrong  with giving a straight answer to an  honest question. You don't learn how to talk  or emotionally de-escalate  in almost any martial arts class. You don't practice  running technique  or E&E either. What people learn in martial arts classes  is  how to fight and how to deal with the aftermath of the fight if  you have a  particularly good teacher. So why do people insist  on doing this?


In the course of this thread, Steel Tiger wrote the following comment:



Steel  Tiger said:


> Unfortunately, I think that a lot of martial artists  have bought into the nonsense spouted by Hollywood about martial  arts. "the True  Warrior is a pacifist" Tellner wrote, but look  at the men who founded the  various arts. They were not pacifists!  The sought combat to test and hone their  skills.


So as not to &#8220;hijack&#8221; the thread, I split off and started the following thread entitled &#8220;Martial Artist Classification,&#8221; and linked to Steel Tiger's comment:
http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48833

In my post, I made comments that exile disagreed with.  One such point of conflict was when I suggested that Martial Artist are required (by the nature of what the Martial Art is) to have certain values, ethics, and behave in a way that does not misuse the Martial Art skills.  I go so far as to state that if a person misuses their Martial Art skill to hurt people without just cause is not (in my opinion) a &#8220;true Martial Artist.&#8221;

Exile compared this conclusion to musicians, painters, and other artists who can behave however they want, and still be "artists."  I simply consider the Martial Art to be something more special than those other &#8220;fine arts,&#8221; and I further asserted that ethics and values are a part of the training.  I, personally, feel that those who misuse the knowledge of the Martial Art are not worthy of calling themselves &#8220;Martial Artists&#8221; (my personal opinion).

Exile disputed that, and asked me for &#8220;external authority&#8221; which I took as meaning outside of the fact that &#8220;its true just because Master Eisenhart says its true.&#8221;  So, I offered quotes from books by authors that I consider to be &#8220;experts&#8221; in this field of study, as example of &#8220;external authority.&#8221;  Exile reduced each of their bits of testimony to mere &#8220;opinions&#8221; and that it held no weight because they don't speak English fluently, or that their occupation is not in the field of linguistics.

During the flow of replies (only 3 on that thread) I did not even realize that exile had moved the discussion to a new thread entitled &#8220;Martial Arts and Ethics.&#8221;  Since then, my replies have basically been responding to exiles questions, comments and counter-claims to my opinions, and the quotations by the &#8220;experts&#8221; I offered as an &#8220;external authority.&#8221;
Now, to clear up some misunderstandings:



Cirdan said:


> "It  is critical that you think everything is an  opportunity to kill."


I agree with the above statement as a philosophy for training and being prepared.  I just don't believe that Martial Artists should take up that opportunity unless it is warranted.



Tez3 said:


> Incidentally  in Wado I was taught a first strike move so  saying karateka don't  strike first is not exactly true.


I am familiar with the &#8220;strike first&#8221; concept, and I am not opposed to it.  I don't believe I stated that Karateka don't strike first.  When confronted with a life or death situation, you move when you feel it is best to move to survive, if that means to move first.  However, I believe there is a clear difference between the necessary implementation of &#8220;first strike&#8221; and simply beating up innocent people because it makes you better.  For the most part, I do not believe in &#8220;starting fights&#8221; that you could avoid with non-violent methods.  These two schools of thought do not conflict, in my opinion.



Tez3 said:


> The  thing is...in the time it would take to read such an epic  post  as Last Fearners I could have done a fair bit of training which  in my mind  a Martial Artist would have done as opposed to pontificating  over  semantics.


You know, I am posting this thread to apologize, and clear up some misunderstandings, but at the same time, I don't care to be criticized for openly expressing my opinion on a topic.  I have been a member here for about 16 months and have only posted 470 times as of this post (average of about 1 post per day), and it might be my last.  Others have been here for much less time and have posted much more - so I guess their time in training as opposed to time spent on the internet is not that important.  Some have time to post thousands of times, but I don't point fingers at them, nor should anyone at me.  Some of my posts are long (sorry about that), but there are fewer of them, and I find it necessary to write longer answers to those who question my points of view.



Tez3 said:


> I  love the expression "noble art" - for crying out loud,noble art?  it's  bashing people! Okay it's very good bashing people but that's  what it is! I gave  someone a thick lip the other night, it wa  a good move but not noble!
> It's people who can be  noble, they may do noble things,they may fight for a  noble cause,  they may practise a martial art but don't kid on that what we do  is  noble.What we do is fighting. The simple philosophy  behind fighting is to  win.





Langenschwert said:


> The  work is the 16th Century English rapier manual  entitled "Pallas  Armata" which refers to the "Noble Martial Art of  Fencing".


I guess others use the term &#8220;Noble&#8221; when speaking of this concept.



exile said:


> Terrific  points, Tez, Kempojj and XS. It's remarkable how  much sense amateurs  and wannabes can come up with, in spite of their lack of  reknown  and enlightenment!





exile said:


> Dr.  Clayton is a fifth dan in Shotokan, and a careful  historian of  karate. But given that he identifies Kyan as a martial artist, I  suppose, going by LF's method of reasoning, that we have to regard  him as (in  LF's words) an `amateur and wannabe'. Dang!



You know, exile, during the course of our discussion, our opinions may differ but I really did not intend to show you, or anyone else here any disrespect by explaining my points of view on this topic (after all you did pose various questions for me to elaborate upon).  However, I find your methods of twisting my words, taking quotes out of context, and intentionally labeling others here as though I called them &#8220;amateurs and wannabes&#8221; to be rude and offensive.

To clear up, once and for all, my use of these terms, I am not referring to anyone here at MT, or to those who simply disagree with me, but to the real problem that we all have experienced.  Most of us here at MT have, at one time or another, commented on the problem of &#8220;McDojos,&#8221; trolls on the internet, and &#8220;wannabe&#8221; people who lack any credible knowledge of the Martial Art, but act as though they are Masters.  I did not make up these terms, and they are a real problem in our field of study.

The reason I used these terms was in seeking a clear explanation as to who you, exile, meant by an &#8220;external authority,&#8221; and a &#8220;social consensus.&#8221;  You suggest that the term &#8220;Martial Art&#8221; be defined by a &#8220;social consensus,&#8221; but I simply asked who would be in this kind of opinion poll to define something that most (if not all) of us feel is a bit more complex then is revealed in Martial Art movies.

All I was asking was for you to narrow the field of the members of a &#8220;social consenus&#8221; to not include those who are amateurs, and generally admit they do not yet fully understand the Martial Art, and &#8220;wannabes&#8221; who we all know would like to think they understand it.  When considering a serious discussion on an advanced understanding of this field of study, I don't believe any of us would put much weight on the input from those two groups.  I have never said that anyone here is part of those groups, so please stop implying that I have done so.

If you were to debate the terms used in brain surgery, or crime scene investigation, you would probably want to seek out brain surgeons and criminologists; established &#8220;experts&#8221; in those fields rather than those who simply watch ER and CSI on TV.

When debating war strategies, there are thousands of &#8220;arm-chair Generals&#8221; who have never been in the military, or who served their time in non-leadership rolls.  The over-all &#8220;social consensus&#8221; from these individuals might show an overwhelming majority opinion, but I would not put much stock in it. (mind you, this is purely for an analogy.  I am not calling anyone here an &#8220;arm-chair General!!!")



Tez3 said:


> I  think Exile's post touches on a point made by others that  in view  of Japan's history it is tactless at the very least to say that  Bushido,  a very Japanese concept, is the only way for martial  arts to be acceptable as  martial arts. This view negates the validity  of martial arts from any other  country.


Ok, I am not saying that Japan is the origin of all Martial Art (those who know me from the Taekwondo threads know better), nor am I suggesting that Bushido is the only example of this type of training and philosophy.  I have been using the &#8220;Bushi / Bushido&#8221; example because I believe more people are familiar with it, and there are more written definitions and documentation about it.

Although the term &#8220;Martial Art&#8221; might have been used in some context for other weaponry, and fighting skills, the Western application came into play from our exposure to this unique concept for the first time, in any real detail, through our exposure to the Chinese and Japanese systems.  Warriors and fighters from around the world may very well have the same concept and principles, and may have had it longer.  However, the Western (specifically American) awareness to these things came to be more prevalent in much more recent times.

Perhaps I am wrong (and I'm open to new knowledge), but I believe that the mainstream of population that began to adopt this &#8220;common term&#8221; of Martial Art were doing so in specific reference to the Japanese and Chinese systems that they first came in contact with during the 19th and 20th centuries.

This does not mean that what other countries and cultures did throughout history, and still do, are not Martial Arts.  I was not intending to imply that, so no need to be offended.



exile said:


> The  thing is... not one person in this debate, not one,  believes that  a martial artist should behave in an uncontrolled way with respect  to his/her ability to inflict damage on someone else.


This is not the impression I got from your exalting those who behave this way.



exile said:


> `each  time Itosu taught him a new technique, Motobu would  rush down  to Naha's red-light district and try it out on someone... when Itosu  found out about these experiments, he publically humiliated Motobu  by expelling  him from the class.' (Shotokan's Secret, p.  59), There is not a single  great karate master of the era, however&#8212;Egami,  Mibuni, Toyama&#8212;who did not regard  Motobu as a martial artist  of the highest caliber.





exile said:


> And there are far worse  stories about Chotoku Kyan, about whom Clayon notes  in admiration  that `half of the Okinawan Shorin styles are based on the  teachings  of Kyan, Kyan provoked many fights, and using his apparently  unparalleled  agility and evasive skills along with the pitiless version of  Shuri-te  he developed, killed a number of attackers, including several whom  he  himself provoked to attack. It should be noted that in spite  of this extreme  aggressiveness and almost gratuitous love of violence,  there is not a single  accomplished student of Okinawan karate  who regards Kyan as anything but a  supremely accomplished martial  artist.





exile said:


> Look  again at what I said: that people like Motobu and Kyan,  and many  other besides, who used their arts aggressively and fought for the  sake  of fighting (and as `fieldwork' to develop their arts, um,  experimentally) were  nonetheless martial artists&#8212;aggressive,  sometimes brutal and ethically  challenged, let's say, but MAists  nonetheless. You argued that no, they were not  martial artists  because they did not live and behave in a virtuous  fashion.





exile said:


> &#8212;Clayton's far more generous,  realistic and genuinely humble  view is so much closer to the way  we talk about martial artistry that there's no  comparison...


I gather that your chosen expert author whom you quote should go unchallenged as an &#8220;external authority&#8221; - - unlike those that I offered.  Well - so be it.



exile said:


> The problem  is this one  whereby the very words `martial artist' become a grandiose  title that only  someone worthy of a vision of the Holy Grail is  entitled to. Compare this utter  mystification of the martial artist&#8212;
> Instead of the plaster  sainthood that we've seen demanded of the  great masters of the  past to warrant qualifying as a martial artist&#8212;Choki Motobu  has  to first satisfy someone's ethical litmus test for him to  qualify as  a martial artist???!


Ok, my final comment.  I am not suggesting that anyone be chastised for making mistakes, or for not being perfect saints.  I believe that having a set of values, ethics, and moral compass by which to guide our actions is a good thing.  I don't think that most of us here disagree with that.  I happen to believe that this concept is an inherent part of &#8220;Martial Art&#8221; education, and it is what separates the Martial Art from mere fighting skills.  It's just my personal opinion, and I believe others who have written on the subject have a similar view.

If two people are walking down the street, and are surrounded by a group of thugs who are obviously intending them harm, I have no disagreement if one of them steps up and defends himself, even if he strikes first in a preemptive manner.

However, if further down the street, one of them sees a guy waiting at a bus stop and says to his buddy, &#8220;watch this!&#8221;  Then he proceeds to go over and beat the guy into the ground for no reason but to prove he can (or to &#8220;hone his skills"), then I have no problem standing a firm ground that this person has misused the Martial Art.  It is my own personal opinion that anyone who does this is not a true Martial Artist.  Beat me down if you disagree, be angry, flame me, give me negative reputation points (as someone has), and call me egotistical or whatever.  This is my personal belief because I hold the teachings of the &#8220;Martial Art&#8221; and the title of a &#8220;Martial Artist&#8221; to be more special than the actions of a common criminal.

I am not imposing my standards on anyone, but I believe there is a time when all civilized, intelligent people can decide right from wrong.  Some cultures believe in corporal punishment for children, some do not.  Some believe women should cover their skin, some do not.  Debates rage on.  However, to molest a child is wrong.  To rape a women is wrong.  I don't believe anyone here would justify those actions, but I go so far as to say a person who studies to fight, yet rapes women is not a Martial Artist.

If you disagree - - fine!  So be it!  But I am proud to say that Martial Artist must live up to a civilized standard of moral conduct or loose the claim to be called such.

When I finished my last post by saying &#8220;nothing more needs to be said,&#8221; I was wrong.  What I meant was that I felt I had presented enough credible &#8220;external authority&#8221; (including English speaking ones) that *I* did not need to say any more to validate my position.  I was not implying that no one else needs to say anything, or that my word was final and no one had any business responding.  Those who read such things into other people's words are going a bit too far, in my opinion.

What apparently did need to be said was that I am truly sorry I offended anyone here!

Now this *is* all that I need to say as I have lost my taste for this.
Enjoy the debate if you wish, but do so without me.  I am done.

Take care
Chief Master Eisenhart


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 21, 2007)

Sukerkin, I think LF's posts hit a nerve in a few of us in that he was posting in such a way that made us feel he was belittling us and/or the martial arts we did. He posted his arguments up which is a reasonable thing to do but when questioned on his posts, again a reasonable thing to expect, he said he didn't want opinions from amateurs or wannabes only established masters he named. I think people should be passionate about their beliefs and defend what they think is right. The disagreements or debate though should be respectful.There were several points made by LF that were not, there were some sweeping statements made that begged answering. I don't think he was treated like a troll rather as one who was high handed in his assumptions of us... the amatuers and wannabees.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 21, 2007)

exile said:


> Sukerkin, if you read from the begining what you'll see is that LF basically has claimed that you are not a martial artist unless you have a built-in ethic of virtuous application; that the fact that this is not reflected in the way the term is used in ordinary English is of no interest to him because, as he puts it, only the usage of `enlightened masters and reknowned experts' or something like that count so far as the definition of the English noun phrase `martial artist' is concerned, that the general usage reported in dictionary definitions, reflecting English speaker's knowledge of the word-building rules and semantic interpretation principles for complex expressions for their language, basically reflects American's ignorance of Asian cultures, and that if a bunch of `amateurs and wannabes' happen to use the expression `martial artist' in such a way that there is no built-in criterion of `virtuous application', that's just a consequence of the fact that they're `amateurs and wannabes' in whose use of the term he has no interest, no matter how common it is. Several people have found this presumption to superior knowledge of what the term means offensive and insulting, so I think that's where the response you're seeing is coming from. This dismissal of common usage on grounds that we just don't know any better... well, it's bound to provoke a reaction, I'd think.
> 
> I myself don't feel so much insulted as bemused by all the many and various forms of fallacious and circular reasoning involved in LF's posts, as per some of my earlier posts; given how many of these there are, I've just tried to point out a representative sample. But beyond the errors of reasoning (and fact as well), it's pretty hard to have a discussionwhich assumes some kind of common ground amongst the discussantswhen one of the parties insists that the others are wrong a priori, that he simply _knows_ better, and thatas he puts itthere's nothing else to say. Given all that, it's not surprising that people have had the response you've noticed, I suppose....


 
I agree and I do not much to add here except that I feel I should point out that the argument that was stating the "American's ignorance of Asian cultures" was based solely on Japan, a rather idealistic view of Japan, but still Japan, which is part of Asian but certainly not representative of all of Asia and its culture and quite different from the culture of another BIG country in Asia that is also a major contributor to Martial arts China.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 21, 2007)

I believe the mods moved the thread not Exile?

One of the problems when discussing any subject 'by forum' as opposed to orally is that you can't stop and say "wait a minute, what did you mean by saying...." the discussion has moved on by the time you get to ask and taken other directions quite often.
My response to the fact that it was a long post difficult to understand was in direct answer to the fact LF had said he didn't want the views of amateurs (which I am, I'm not a master of anything) and wannabees (which I am - I want to be very much the best martial I can be) I accept that if he is apologising for this remark then that's is the end of that part of the discussion. I have posted on here perhaps more than he only because I am recovering from illness and have been unable to train as much as I would have like. In fact  I would say MT has saved my sanity over what was, for me, a dark time.
Rereading LF's posts I still find myself upset at some of the things he's written and no I didn't give negative rep. I say things out in the open. I'm not going to get into a "he said, she said" argument, the posts are there to be read by everyone to make their own minds up. I accept totally that LF's posts weren't intended to hurt anyone.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 21, 2007)

Thanks to everyone for helping me grasp a little better what happened {bows to all}.  

My personal opinion is that there was a little bit of grabbing-the-wrong-end-of-the-stick and that a small initial misconstruing (have I just made a new word ) lead to more hurtful things ... ?

Also, kudos to *LF* for trying to clear things up.

Don't abandon *MT* because something 'brewed up' my friend.  That sort of thing happens sometimes.  I made a right fool of myself on Netsword the other week and have not ventured to post there since ... but I will once my blushes fade.  Perhaps that's a slightly different case because it was more obviously my 'fault' but the principle remains.  Plus, noone gets two-stars in less than 500 posts if what they've got to say isn't worth hearing :tup:.


----------



## IWishToLearn (Apr 21, 2007)

Nicely wrapped up by all sides, IMODHO.


----------



## exile (Apr 21, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> I believe the mods moved the thread not Exile?



That's correct, Tez. I have no control as a Mod over any thread I'm involved in as a discussant, and since I'm up to my neck in this one, I can't move it, split it off or anything else. 



Tez3 said:


> One of the problems when discussing any subject 'by forum' as opposed to orally is that you can't stop and say "wait a minute, what did you mean by saying...." the discussion has moved on by the time you get to ask and taken other directions quite often.
> My response to the fact that it was a long post difficult to understand was in direct answer to the fact LF had said he didn't want the views of amateurs (which I am, I'm not a master of anything) and wannabees (which I am - I want to be very much the best martial I can be) I accept that if he is apologising for this remark then that's is the end of that part of the discussion. I have posted on here perhaps more than he only because I am recovering from illness and have been unable to train as much as I would have like. In fact  I would say MT has saved my sanity over what was, for me, a dark time.



Tez, I'm very sorry to hear that. But you used the past tense, so I can take it that things are now much better...




Tez3 said:


> Rereading LF's posts I still find myself upset at some of the things he's written and no I didn't give negative rep.



Was there negative rep given? It didn't come from me; I have yet to give neg rep to anyone, and actually, given my druthers, there wouldn't be such a beast. I can't see neg repping someone you disagree with, even as polar opposites; and if someone is being consistently bigoted, hostile, nasty, or anything along those lines... well, they're gonna be banned soon enough, so neg rep isn't really necessary in those cases. So I myself don't see it playing a useful role. 



Tez3 said:


> I say things out in the open. I'm not going to get into a "he said, she said" argument, the posts are there to be read by everyone to make their own minds up. I accept totally that LF's posts weren't intended to hurt anyone.



Hear, hear, Tez. I've spent the last 24 hours gardening, it feels like&#8212;we've had two glorious days of perfect weather, so haven't had a chance to log in too frequently&#8212;so I'd better catch up on this thread and see what the state of the discussion is....


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 22, 2007)

Thanks Exile ( I tried to Pm you but.....lol!) I'm well on the mend now.

Robust arguments are good for for us, makes us think.. hopefully! I may be upset about what someone has written but I would reply not give neg rep. I do, literally, have a problem with long posts though, I have to print them out to read them, it's purely a computer problem though (I think!), it's very difficult to read them on screen.


----------



## Shaderon (Apr 23, 2007)

I've only just read all this, why am I always late to the parties?

I'm not as eloquant as LF or Exile, well not in writing anyway and certainly not to the same degree, but I do believe I may have a little pertinant input.
(Hopefully not impertinant)
Tradrockrat and Shotgun Budda, in thier own words had something very interesting and very true to say.

The term "Martial Artist" is in essence a "Label".   Labels have power, anyone who knows anything about proper use of language knows this, maybe not conciously, but they know it.   If someone knows my name, they can have a power over me.... stick with me here.....   They can call my name and I will turn round, they can tell other people things about me and in effect they can influence my life.   BUT, my best friend will know different things about me than my husband.  They know two different personalities in the same label, but it's still me in here.    *points to chest*   

Going back, the term Martial Artist is a label.   Exile knows the CONCEPT behind that label as one thing, LF knows it as another, Tez knows it as another, I know it as another, Xue knows it as another..... I could go on but I know I've not got the patience to name everyone....   in short everyone has thier own concept, moulded by their own experiences and preconceptions of it, and applies the label "Martial Artist" to that concept.  It is not however a sentient being, so it doesn't have a _self concept_ like I do, in fact the label may be applied to any number of things without us realising....  

Keep with me, I'm going somewhere.  Promise.

Now I can think of 3 different definations of the label "Martial Artist" off the top of my head, and all three have slightly different concepts behind them.   

1. A Martial Artist is someone who practices a Martial Art.
2. A Martial Artist is someone who practices a Martial Art and upholds the Martial Code. (I won't say Bushido because I don't practice a Japanese art)
3. A Martial Artist is someone who practices a Martial Art and has got to a certain standard (e.g. you can't call a white belt who's just walked into a training hall a Martial Artist)
I've just thought of another.... 
4. A Martial Artist is someone who practices a Martial Art, upholds the Martial Code and has got to a certain standard.

I'm sure there's plenty of other concepts... for example, some people don't include weapons.... some people do.  So take all that lot and include weapons, and take it all and disclude weapons... there we have 12 definations already and I've not even really thought about it yet.

Now as we have many different concepts, I will use what I believe to be simple mathmatics, which is basically what all life drills down to, look for a common denominator and take that as perhaps the common concept of the label and therefore perhaps the core meaning of the label?

1. A Martial Artist is someone who practises a Martial Art.

So we have a common denominator, but is this a true meaning of the label or does it have something missing?

So we look for any examples that might back up our result.   We don't need anything that won't back it up, just something that does.  Hey... you are reading this thread, YOU do martial arts... do you call yourself a Martial Artist? 

I shall leave that for the audience and participants to think about.  Please note here, we only need one example that this works, we dont need add-ons, or more concepts of what makes a Martial Artist.... unless someone can come up with something that doesn't include "Practices Martial Arts".  Then we would have to re-think our common denominator.

Just a note, I myself believe that a true Martial Artist should follow the Martial Code.... BUT I couldn't logically prove that statement, so it's really just my defination, my concept, and I won't assume it's the true meaning of the label.

Please don't forget guys, we are not arguing about each others concepts, we are discussing the use of the English LABEL "Martial Artist".  Language is a funny thing... did you know the word "spam" is also a food product?  Odd isn't it?


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 23, 2007)

Very well spoken, *Shaderon* - impressive linguistic logic there :tup:.

BUT I do have one very large dispute with something you said ... SPAM may be _defined_ as a food product but I believe that many would argue against that :lol:.  Then again, when combined with chips, eggs and beans in multiple configurations it does produce a rather splendid comedy sketch ...


----------



## Shaderon (Apr 23, 2007)

Thanks Suk.... looking back it was rather eloquant after all.... gives me a headache reading it. 

Did I really write that?  All this refraining from alcohol is having a weird effect on me.

Hey my concept is spam is a food product.... my dad eat it for years and I used to have it slapped on my sandwiches for school.  Ok it tastes like **** but I never died.   Not to my knowledge anyway 

Now S.P.A.M. is definatly NOT food product.... not even food for the mind....


----------



## Shaderon (Apr 23, 2007)

I just got an unsigned rep for my eloquance 3 posts up.... can whoever did it pm me please?  I'd like to that you for YOUR eloquance... that was quote a long explanation. 

Thanks.


----------



## exile (Apr 23, 2007)

Shaderon said:


> I've only just read all this, why am I always late to the parties?



To keep us waiting impatiently for you to turn up? 



Shaderon said:


> Now I can think of 3 different definations of the label "Martial Artist" off the top of my head, and all three have slightly different concepts behind them.
> 
> 1. A Martial Artist is someone who practices a Martial Art.
> 2. A Martial Artist is someone who practices a Martial Art and upholds the Martial Code. (I won't say Bushido because I don't practice a Japanese art)
> ...



Astonishing, is't it, how far a little bit of ordinary common sense rationality will get you! This is exactly the methodology that lexicographers, the diligent and objective folks who give us dictionary definitions based on how terms are actually used by native speakers of a language (as vs. their own preconceptions), employ in determining what to give as the entry for the words the dictionary contains. Even if you think that the only _true_ artists are those who consciously strive for beauty, a preconception which would deprive Rodin, Picasso and a few others of that caliber of the description `artist', you the lexicographer don't succumb to the temptation to play the God of Meaning to the unwashed. By the same token, even if you believe that `true' scientists are those who strive to unlock the secrets of the natural world using a certain combination of induction, inference and predictive success, _purely for the sake of pushing back the frontiers of the unknown_, you don't put that criterion in your dictionary, because the way the word `scientist' is applied by speakers of English generally, industrial scientists, who do science to increase the profitability of their employers, are scientists every bit as much as the physicists at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton&#8212;the ones whose charge is just to sit there and think up Nobel-Prize-caliber ideas about matters which will probably have no technological impact for a thousand years or more. If you're a lexicographer and your interest is not in making sure that everyone follows _your_ idea of what X or Y means, but rather in making sure that you capture the conventional use of X or Y as words of English (or whatever language your dictionary is for), you use Shads' methodology. 

That doesn't mean that there aren't more specialized technical meanings along with the more widespread ones. But those are given later in the numbered sequence of definitions, well after those that are more widespread. You can lobby all you want for people to adopt your private criteria for word usage. But don't expect to get very far...

Again&#8212;outstanding post, Shaderon!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 23, 2007)

Shaderon said:


> I've only just read all this, why am I always late to the parties?
> 
> I'm not as eloquant as LF or Exile, well not in writing anyway and certainly not to the same degree, but I do believe I may have a little pertinant input.
> (Hopefully not impertinant)
> ...


 
A martial artist is someone who wears a badge, has deputies and likes to paint pictures 

But seriously nice post :asian:


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 23, 2007)

Shaderon, nice post! I think the problem comes when people state things as being true in all ways, for everyone when actually it's an opinion or belief. Whether LF realised it or not his posts contained a lot of statements which were stated to be true because they _were_ stated! Subjects like this aren't black and white, there's lots of shades to it, I have no problem with anyone believing anything they want, I just don't want to be told "no I'm right, you are wrong" because then, perversely perhaps, I will go all out to prove _them_ wrong! I don't like sweeping statements, it makes me want to argue very strongly! I loved Shaderon's going through all the different meanings she could think of, there's something there to make you think! I don't believe I'm right, I'm open minded, always open to persuasion ( except to Spam, no no no! not even battered!) but I don't want to be lectured to!


----------



## Langenschwert (Apr 23, 2007)

Last Fearner said:


> I simply consider the Martial Art to be something more special than those other fine arts,


 
I take exception to this.  As a former professional musician, I can say without hesitation that those I have interacted with professionally over a decade or more of performance have been by and large, more compassionate, more spiritual, more trustworthy and less judgemental than those that I have interacted with in MA.  Certainly my musical training has had a more spiritual impact on my life than nearly anything else.  I could, just for fun quote an external source of unimpeachable stature, namely Plato: "Musical training is more potent than any other for rhythm and harmony find their way into the inner parts of the soul".  But that's neither here nore there.  If people want to quote illustrious thinkers, I thought I'd jump in on the fun.



> Some of my posts are long (sorry about that), but there are fewer of them, and I find it necessary to write longer answers to those who question my points of view.


 
It's all good.  It's a _forum_, after all.  You can write as many words as you like!   You think before you write, and that is appreciated.



> I guess others use the term Noble when speaking of this concept.


 
Noble doesn't imply a philosophy.  It could imply a bloodline, and I'm not of noble blood.  Does that mean I can't study a "noble" art?  I'm not a knight, a noble, nor petty gentry.



> Although the term Martial Art might have been used in some context for other weaponry, and fighting skills, the Western application came into play from our exposure to this unique concept for the first time, in any real detail, through our exposure to the Chinese and Japanese systems.


 
Quite untrue.  In fact, when Europeans first encountered the Asian fighting arts, they didn't espouse them, since they were already doing those things at the time.  There was nothing unusual about those arts to the Europeans.  Europeans only started investigating those arts when their own arts became focused on the firearm.  There's no reason to learn jiu-jutsu if you know Ringen.  There's also a lot of similarities between German and Japanese swordsmanship.  If one is a Martial Art, then so it the other.  Also, the phrase "Arts of Mars" goes back centuries in Europe, long before contact with Asia.  "Martial Arts" literally _means_ "Arts of Mars", the Roman god of you guessed it, *war*.  It is not a translation of Bushido.  Not even a little bit.

That being said, I shall restate that I am not opposed to the marriage of philosophy to MA, but they are not (and should not be) inextricably linked.  It's like saying I have to be a liberal/whatever to be a jazz musician.  Which I'm not.  Jazz musician yes, liberal no.  So sue me. 

Best regards,

-Mark


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 23, 2007)

Quote:
*I guess others use the term &#8220;Noble&#8221; when speaking of this concept*. 
The term 'noble was used by LF in his own post.

This field is full of fakes, frauds, and "buy my own black belt and make my own kinko certificates, wannabes! _Even among those who could be regarded as experts or masters, the vast majority still do not fully_ *understand this noble art.* _Mainly because they either want to twist it to be whatever they think it should be, or they have been misled by others who fail to understand the truth._
My point all the way through this debate is that LF uses only the singular for 'martial art', never martial arts.In fact he calls it THE martial art and several times talks as if there were only one, Japanese 'style' or 'art'. I think too the rest of this quote shows what I was trying to point out, the vast majority of martial artists on this forum I think do not twist the truth nor are misled by others. There are many beliefs held on here on what martial arts are, unless it's a case of believing you are free to go round killing people, I think each person's view is as valid as the nexts. No one has the monopoly on the truth.


----------



## Shaderon (Apr 24, 2007)

Tez3 said:
			
		

> No one has the monopoly on the truth.


 
How wonderfully stated and how perfectly true.   (??)   Is that a self denying statement?    Never mind, I'm thinking too much.


----------



## tellner (Apr 24, 2007)

Nobody has a monopoly. But some don't even have an option to buy :wink2:


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 24, 2007)

It's worth of course looking at what martial arts means to individuals and what their ethics are regarding martial arts but it has to be an open discussion! Do people have different ethics to deal with martials arts from their everyday life or do they view everthing in the same light? How does knowing that you can hurt people by physical violence affect you? Is it humbling or empowering?
The very fact we practice different arts and have different thoughts is what is so fascinating! (but of course I'm always right lmao!... I wish!)


----------



## Shaderon (Apr 24, 2007)

With power comes responsibility, and training in a martial art is gaining power...  (knowledge = power), in fact training in anything is gaining power, so we all have a growing responsibility while training to use our art in a way which will not hurt, upset or disadvantage any innocent being.  The more responsibility a wise man has, the more he is humbled as he becomes a servant of others more.  

You are right, some of our arts are very different, but for that they have so many similarities.  We attack, we defend, we gain strength, we gain power.  We fight.  We all have differant minds but in some things, some of us are in one mind about certain subjects.

No one views everything in exactly the same light, it's impossible, our personal circumstances interfere, no matter how much we don't want them to, so everyone has to have slightly different ethics.  We had a discussion last night about corporal punishment, in a class of 7 of us, including 1 instructor in a very bloodthirsty frame of mind (he has these phases and it's funny) we came to 7 different but very similar conclusions, all tempered by our slightly different knowledges and experiences.   Who is right?   Is anyone right?

Ethics regarding Martial Arts is going to be slightly different for each person, in defence, one will stop at scaring someone, one will stop at a slight contact, one will stop once the other is hit hard, one will stop at a submission and one will stop at nothing.  There are degrees of defence, just as there are degrees with everything.  Most poeple will judge each situation in it's own light and I think this is the most important thing to learn in a Martial Art, how to judge the situation.   It's easy to say "I'd do this" in an ethical discussion, but in what situation?    Are we dealing with a handbag snatcher?  a rapist? or a serial killer?    Or are we dealing with the guy next door who gets drunk and tries it on because he's seen our uniform?

We also have to think what we have to work with, the people in the old times who picked on someone to start a fight in order to learn how to fight, may have done it because they had no other way and it eventually saved the lives of many more people... sacrifice the few to save the many?   Which is right?   Sacrifice the few?  or Sacrifice the many?     I don't think we can call that one, I don't think anyone has a right to judge what has gone past and can never be fully investigated in order to be understood.


----------



## JBrainard (Apr 24, 2007)

Wow! It took me *two days* (on and off, of course) to read through this entire thread!
I don't think I need to imput anything really, everything that could be said has been said. But I must say, between LF's pationate beliefs, Exile's amazing use of logic, and Shaderon's plain 'ol common sense (many pardons to those I left out), this is one of the most interesting threads I have read in quite a while.
I love MT


----------



## Last Fearner (Apr 29, 2007)

Martial artists and...04-23-2007 02:23 PMYou may not realize it, but you are making statements that would disqualify many of the people on this forum as martial artists. Your opinion is not the word of God, get over yourself. (No name given)




Martial artists and...04-23-2007 08:40 AMVery tastefully, honestly done LF. Hope you decide to stick around--we need you. (Name removed by LF)




Martial artists and...04-21-2007 09:42 PMIf I give a bad rep I always sign it and I rarely give them. And you certainly do not deserve them for this post. (Name removed by LF)




Martial artists and...04-21-2007 09:45 AMstand fast. THis post is beatiful and correct (IMHO)(Name removed by LF)




Martial artists and...04-21-2007 07:04 AMGood post and cleared up your position nicely. (Name removed by LF)




Martial artists and...04-20-2007 09:06 PMNo need to insult others with posts like this. Step down from the high horse please. (No name given)




Martial artists and...04-20-2007 07:31 AMYour post #33 is great (Name removed by LF)

I thank those for your kind remarks (I removed your names for your privacy), and pity the others for your cowardice and anonymous insults.

Ok....here it is. I have been giving this some thought, and I feel it is time to take a stand. I have stated a personal and professional opinion here which some people do not agree with. I can accept that. What I do not accept is the fact that there are those few here who have not conducted themselves in an honorable fashion, and abided by the rules of this forum.  I am not insulting any person here at MT!  I am just stating my view about a topic which some people are choosing to be insulted by.  Instead of debating the issue, and only the issue, they have resorted to insulting me personally. Instead of attacking the argument at hand, they have attacked me.

I was insulted, and backed down for a time. I nearly left completely, but then I realized that this is not why I study, and teach the Martial Art in the first place. I do not run from those who band together to tell me that un-ethical behavior is ok, and it is fine for Martial Artists to behave this way. I will not sit idly by while they freely try to convince others that this is an acceptable definition of the Martial Art or of a true Martial Artist.

They might say that I have insulted them personally, but I defy them to quote proof. Don't bother.... I will head you off by stating what you have already claimed, and proving you have made false claims. First, some say that I am being high handed or am on a "high horse." So what! That is an insult on me, not debating the issue. Some say I am &#8220;pontificating.&#8221; Again, so what. Sometimes people need to hear some pontification. If you don't want to participate, then don't. If you don't like long posts, then don't read them. If you don't want to be lectured to, then pretend I am talking to someone else who needs a good lecture!!!

It appears that a few people opposing me don't read my entire post anyhow. They skim for what they want, then ignore the core concepts, and my rebuttals where I have already given clear proof to deny their claims against me.

I believe that those who claim their own opposing view of defining the Martial Art are just as arrogant because they believe they are right as well. Who wouldn't ague a point without believing they are right, and most of us have legitimate sources to back up our viewpoints, on both sides of the issue - - we just interpret the evidence differently . What is worse, in my opinion, is that others are defending a position that is supporting un-ethical and even illegal behavior - - whether it's connected with the Martial Art or not.

Yes, I am taking a stand! I am drawing a line in the sand!! I realize there are many different &#8220;definitions&#8221; being applied to the terms &#8220;Martial Art&#8221; (or &#8220;Martial Arts&#8221; if you prefer), and &#8220;Martial Artist&#8221; in the world today. It is &#8220;logical&#8221; that an English speaking person would run to the English Dictionary to define what is the English interpretation of these terms. 

However, I submit that people who assemble dictionaries are not experts on most of the subjects that they are defining. They arrive at the most &#8220;accurate&#8221; definitions they can surmise by asking experts in each pertinent field, and then also taking surveys to find out what is the most &#8220;common usage&#8221; of that term. Dictionaries have been known to be inaccurate, incomplete, or giving superficial definitions to complex, technical terminology.

Fifty or one hundred years ago, many of the definitions we have in the English Dictionary, were defined much differently than today, and I wager that many will change in another hundred years - - including the term &#8220;Martial Art.&#8221; I have been in the profession of teaching the Martial Art long enough to know what the majority of qualified experts say about these terms. There will always be experts in every field that disagree and have dissenting views. 

Conversely, the &#8220;common usage&#8221; by the average person to any word in the dictionary will eventually have an impact on what is written as the &#8220;official definition.&#8221; When enough people mispronounce, and misspell words due to being uneducated and making errors (happens all the time), these mistakes become accepted as &#8220;alternative&#8221; spellings and pronunciations. Eventually, they might even become labeled as the most &#8220;common&#8221; or &#8220;correct&#8221; spelling and pronunciation. Definitions do the same thing.

I acknowledge that the average person has come to know these terms of &#8220;Martial Art&#8221; and &#8220;Martial Artist&#8221; as meaning a variety of things, and I can accept variations of their application. However, I draw the line in the sand when it come to the exclusion of ethical behavior as a distinct, integral, and mandatory part of Martial Art education, regardless of what that Martial Art variation is called, or where and when it originated. If you do not agree with this definition, then fine! I am not alone in this interpretation (as I have proven).

Those who wish to stand with me on the side of the line that says a person who misuses their &#8221;Fighting skills&#8221; is not adhering to the Martial Art code of conduct that ALL Martial Artists MUST abide by in order to be considered a true Martial Artist, and therefore they deny themselves the right to be called Martial Artists, then we stand together against this assault on the integrity of the Art. Those who choose to stand on the other side of the line, then you make your choice.

Am I being pompous, or pious for saying so - - perhaps! But that is not the issue (unless you want to continue personal attacks). I am not attacking anyone in particular. I am stating a personal and professional opinion about what I believe is the only acceptable behavior for Martial Artists. Obey the law. Respect the rights of others. Do not use physical force on others just because you can. The knowledge of the Martial Art is a privilege! Those who abuse the privilege dishonor themselves, and the Art, and while I would be ashamed to be associated with such people, I am not ashamed to state that they are not Martial Artists.

There are those who think, &#8220;Hey, I know how to fight, and I am good at it. I can beat up anyone I want, and if you look at me wrong, I'm going to take you out. I am a warrior, and I train for combat, and that's all it takes to be a Martial Artist.&#8221; I understand that position clearly, and I stand with any number of people who agree that this interpretation is dead wrong. If you uphold the belief that you can strike someone down just to improve your skills, then you stand on the other side of the line, and I am not concerned one bit if you choose to be offended because I say that these kind of a people are not &#8220;true Martial Artists.&#8221;

If you are not one of them, but you are defending their attitude toward un-ethical behavior in the name of Martial Art training and application, then you choose to stand on that side of the line. In most cases, there is a clear difference between right and wrong. Those who abuse others, and fight for no just cause, are quite simply wrong. If you believe that people can intentionally behave wrong and still be Martial Artists, then we differ in the most polarized way. If you believe this behavior is not wrong, then may God have mercy on you, because our justice system will not - - nor will I.

I am not labeling you, I am stating what a &#8220;true Martial Artist&#8221; is. You can choose to behave in an un-ethical way if you want. You can choose to behave ethically, but honor those who have gained reputations by un-ethical behavior, and you can choose to defend their actions. You can choose to be offended about my definition. You can choose to deny my definition (and those experts, and amateurs who agree with me), and make up your own definition, but I am not siding with anyone who condones breaking the law, or using unnecessary physical force for their own pride, egotistical pleasure, or simply to hone their skills.

Like myself, there are many Masters of the Martial Art who have honed our skills without resorting to un-ethical practices and misuse of our knowledge, and I deny that those who do are any better technicians. You might hear about, or read about alleged &#8220;masters&#8221; of the past who behaved in such a way, and how &#8220;great&#8221; others said they were, but I tell you that you will never hear about the ones even greater who never promote themselves in such a way, and do not misuse the skills. Such behavior will never prevail, and those who think they are great because they have honed their skills in such a way, might some day meet with a true Master.

I will tell you there is a larger reason for siding with righteous and just behavior, and some day those who deny it might well learn a lesson of life. If I am with friends at a social gathering, and one sexually assaults a passing female by grabbing her behind or her breasts, and she slaps him so he slaps her back, I will step in and put a stop to his behavior. If he says he will do as he pleases, and if I don't like it I can leave, he is barking up the wrong tree.

I will stand for what is right, regardless of those who claim they can do what they want. If he says that he will not be my friend because I oppose him, it is not sooner said than it is done. I do not keep friends who clearly choose to stand on the other side of the line of ethical, moral, and just behavior. If a fellow "Martial Artist" were with me in public, and decided to attack someone just to hone his skills, I will knock him to the ground, and tell him that with behavior like that, he is not a true Martial Artist, then walk away without shame.

If you want to separate ethics from Martial Art, I believe this is a grave mistake for the good of everyone - - Martial Artists, and non-Martial Artists - - for society in general - - for this generation and each that follows.

If you choose to apply &#8220;fighting skills&#8221; unethically and illegally under the guise of the label of Martial Art, then you are choosing to be a criminal and a person of poor character.

If you do not behave in such a way, but are supporting that behavior, then you are part of the problem.

Perhaps there are two groups of so-called Martial Artists: "Ethical Martial Artists," and "Un-ethical Martial Artists." I contend that the latter is a contradiction in terms, but my choice is clear. I choose to be an Ethical Martial Artist. If you choose to be an &#8220;Un-ethical Martial Artist than so be it. I am not implying that eveyone has to study the Martail Art to attain ethical behavior. Many learn it elsewhere, but to apply Martial Skills to unjustly hurt people is unethical and is wrong. Some here are trying to make me out to be the &#8220;bad guy&#8221; because I hold such a strict view, but I am not the bad guy in this scenario.

I draw a line in the sand. I might stand alone on this side, but I don't think so. However, there is one thing for sure. I would not want to stand on the other side of the line no matter what anyone says.

Last Fearner



Tez3 said:


> Sukerkin, I think LF's posts hit a nerve in a few of us in that he was posting in such a way that made us feel he was belittling us and/or the martial arts we did. He posted his arguments up which is a reasonable thing to do but when questioned on his posts, again a reasonable thing to expect, he said he didn't want opinions from amateurs or wannabes only established masters he named.


This is entirely untrue, and even after I took time to correct this misconception, someone repeats the same false accusation. If you felt "belittled" that is your perception. I did not belittle anyone here. My statement is that I stand opposed to those who act un-ethically. In my view, they are not Martial Artists because of their "un-ethical" behavior. If you feel "belittled" by this I must wonder why. There is room for discussion over who is right or wrong, but I stand firm that "misuse" of the technical skills is "wrong" and firmly oppose anyone who says it is "right" for Martial Artists to attack without provocation, hurt without reason, or kill without a just cause.

Furthermore, I NEVER stated that I only want the opinions of the established masters "I named." I merely conveyed the position that when experts of any field disagree about the advanced concepts and specific terminology, who else would they consult but more well renowned experts. Why would medical doctors who disagreed on a diagnosis go to their waiting room to ask the input of patients reading the latest medical journals the doctors have laying around?

And For The Last Time, Tez, why do some of you keep hounding on the terms "amateurs" and "wannabes." When you, or the Black Belts at your academy have a highly philosophical discussion about the Martial Art, do you seek out "wannabes" to settle the question? Who does? With a discussion among professional instructors in the Martial Art, why would professionals seek out amateurs to explain to the experts what the terminology in their profession means?

There is nothing wrong with being an "amateur" in a field. It just means you are not a "professional." Professionals are not necessarily the most "expert" people, but they tend to know more than amateurs. Everyone has opinions and can offer input, but when professionals have a disagreement, it is logical that they would go up-line to established "experts" rather than to amateurs for the answers. I can not imagine anyone arguing that point.

And, if it wasn't clear before, I NEVER, EVER even implied that anyone here was either an amateur or a wannabe. If you are an amateur, I have said nothing bad about you personally. If you are a wannabe, then that is your choice, but I am not seeking answers from wannabes. However, I have not labeled anyone here anything. My statement was that if the "general consensus" of the definition of a Martial Artist" were to include the opinions of all amateurs and wannabes then you would get a wide variety of answers which might differ completely than if you were to only consult experts in the field (not just my experts, but any group of experts).



Tez3 said:


> I don't think he was treated like a troll rather as one who was high handed in his assumptions *of us*... the amatuers and wannabees.


 [emphasis added]
Do you see where *YOU* are one who is twisting my words, and saying he called "*us*... the amatuers and wannabees." I did no such thing - and if you are going to make such repeated accusations to insult me, and try and make me look bad, then quote where I specifically called anyone here those names. Exile was the one who insisted upon "outside authority" to back up my statements about the definitions. Do amateurs and wannabes sound like "outside authority" to you? He knocked down every one of my "experts" because they did not speak English, or were not Lexicologist.

Lexicologists derive their answers from consulting with experts in the field where the terms are applied, or they obtain the "common usage" by the general public. Should I consult every English speaking person to determine what they believe "Martial Art" means so that I can know how to define it. Perhaps I should consult "Lexicologists," who assemble dictionaries based on either the experts that I would have already consulted, or the general public for "common usage." Talk about your circular logic. The general public goes to dictionaries to find the definitions recorded by lexicologists who obtain their definitions by asking experts, who are supposed to be, in turn, asking the general public for their opinion!



Tez3 said:


> My point all the way through this debate is that LF uses only the singular for 'martial art', never martial arts.In fact he calls it THE martial art and several times talks as if there were only one, Japanese 'style' or 'art'.


Here is a valid question - but do you simply ask me why I use the singular term - - no. You simply seem to just take offense to it, and draw false conclusions that I am talking about only one "style" such as Japanese Karate or Shotokan. Just a reminder, I teach Korean Taekwondo, to which I believe every principle of ethics, morality, and justice apply the same as any other variation of Martial Art (even if the "modern warrior" claims it does not).

My use of the single term is open-minded philosophical one rather than the narrow-minded viewpoint that you seem to suggest I am taking. It is like one drop of water. It can be held up separately, but when added to the ocean, it becomes one with the whole. All knowledge of scientific principles, and ideal action to achieve desired results comes from nature (in my view, from God). All various applications of the Martial Art come from one body of knowledge in the universe.

Various interpretations, or "styles" are either parts of the whole, or different aspects of the same thing. Thus, in my view, there are not multiple "Martial Arts" but one "Art" from which we all draw our interpretation and individual applications. It is not Japanese, Chinese, or Korean. It is not even Asian alone (and I have made no such assertion). 

It is natures truth which reveals itself to humans in different ways, at different times throughout history. Like the oceans, lakes, and rivers it flows with the environment. Like the solid, liquid, and gaseous states of water, it changes, but the core elements of H2O remains constant no matter where you find water, or how it is applied. Water can be useful, or destructive; nourishing or devastating. It can sustain life, or it can take life. However, if you were to hold a person's head under water and drown them for no just reason, the water is not evil, it is the misuse of the water that is evil. Of course, I am sure that there are those now, that will attempt to prove to me that there are circumstances where it is ok to drown a person, and you are still a Martial Artist if you do - - don't waste your time!


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 29, 2007)

Again I point out the problems of debating on the internet. When I say that your use of certain phrases or words comes across as hurtful it's because to me and others it was, to some others it meant something else. It's a collection of words that when written by one person, there's no tone of voice or facial expression to help us understand what the argument is about. It's frustrating for a poster sometimes to argue their point across. What someone means as an instructional post can come across to others as patronising. Many misunderstandings happen this way.

If you note I have tried not to make things sound like accusations but I have tried to show how they could be interpreted. In post 13 I did actually ask you what art you were talking about.However again what I've said has been miscontrued so we end up like a snake biting it's tail.

I don't argue from an intellectual stand point nor an academic point ( I can as I have an academic background with a 1.1 in English from Aberdeen University, just so you don't think I'm stupid as well as naive), I argue from my heart and try to make my posts short and simple with as much common sense as I can muster. I think LF's posts are so involved and complicated that they tend to be almost untelligible to me. 

I print off long posts and read them carefully, sometimes they can be too over intellectulised and need the poster to makes copious notes before we can understand them. I think you should understand LF that what you write, what you have in your head and understand perfectly well may not be what the rest of us read. If we were face to face discussing this I am very sure there would be no misunderstandings, we may not agree but we would understand where we are each coming from. 

In my club there is only myself and the chief instructor who are blackbelts, we are both ex military and have seen and done perhaps things only other ex service perople understand. Our students are mostly in Iraq, the children we teach have parents in Iraq ( mums and dads) it colours our everyday lives as well as our martial art lives. On discussions involving ethics, martial arts and suchlike we involve everyone even the children, _there is a lot to learned from everyone perhaps especially children. Children keep things simple. _


----------



## Kacey (Apr 29, 2007)

From Merriam-Webster:



> Main Entry:	*eth·ic*
> 
> 
> Pronunciation:	'e-thik
> ...



I have bolded several areas in this definition of "ethics", as I feel they are related to the discussion (I could have bolded the entire definition, but chose not to).  The thing to remember as people debate whether or not a martial art must include, and/or a martial artist must follow, a set of ethical principles - and more, what those ethical principles are - is not a black and white issue.  Each person brings his/her own background knowledge, experiences, and training to the table - and no two people are going to have identical opinions.  Even people who share some, or even most, of their knowledge, experiences, and training will have differences, because that is the way people are.  

Ethics are closely related to morality, and morality is often (although certainly not always) tied into religion and/or early childhood training - this tends to make discussions of ethics (and thus morality) rather emotional - and when people begin to think about their ethics and morality, rather than _just_ responding as they've been trained, they often cannot easily explain _why_ they hold a certain opinion, because until you start thinking about it, it tends to be below the level of thought.  One reacts a certain way - refraining from hitting people, being polite to elders, placing a napkin on one's lap, etc. - because one was trained to do so.  Once a person begins to _think_ about the reasons _why_ his/her training included or excluded certain concepts, s/he generally begins to question the set rules (e.g. "what do you mean, she can't come over to play because her skin is darker than mine?") - sometimes the rules change, either situationally (e.g. "well, then, I'll play with her at school... I just won't tell my parents, and she can't come over to my house") or completely (e.g. "I'm in college now, and I don't live under your roof - you can't tell me who I can be friends with, and I don't _care_ what color her skin is").  

I chose childhood wonderings about racism quite deliberately, because it is a very emotional issue that has plenty of good people on both sides of the discussion... even if I find those on the other side to be pitiable (in case you couldn't tell, that would be the one that says it is correct to judge someone "unacceptable" solely based on the amount of pigment in their skin).  People on both sides of this debate have put a great deal of time and effort into proving to others that their opinion is correct - because it _must_ be, to support their own opinion of themselves.

Likewise, many martial artists have put a great deal of time and effort into proving that how they were trained as martial artists is the correct way - because that justifies the amount of time and effort put into the training itself.  Add to that the emotional component that comprises many (most?) people's response to discussion of ethics and morality, and you have many people who respond emotionally to this discussion - and therefore, as Tez so rightfully pointed out, read emotions that are not present, or are different than those intended, into others' statements.

Do I think that I, as a TaeKwon-Do instructor, have a responsibility to teach my students when and how to use the skills I teach them?  Yes, I do - and that is based as much on those I have seen who use those skills in a manner I consider to be incorrect as on the training I have received over the years from my sahbum and other seniors... but at its base, my understanding of ethics and morality comes from what I was taught as a child, and then _thought about _and _reworked for myself _as a teen and adult, as I continue to do - and no matter what I've been taught by others, in the end, I teach what _I_ consider to be ethical use.  There are other instructors I know who feel that it is ethically wrong to teach their own ethical/moral values to their students; I know yet others who feel it is more important to teach the ethical/moral values than the art itself.

_There is no one, absolute, *right* answer to this debate._  This is why I have stayed out this debate to this point, and will likely not re-enter it.  There are as many opinions on this debate as there are people on the planet, and no two will ever agree totally and completely.  Decrying others' opinions as _wrong_ because they don't believe that your opinion is _right_ serves, IMHO, only to shut down discussion or cause dissension rather than discussion, and is, therefore, counterproductive.  People are different, their reactions to identical stimuli are different, and their opinions about those reactions are, perforce, different.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 29, 2007)

Kacey, you put things in a nutshell! I think when someone believes passionately in something there is a tendency to want to point out to everyone else where they are wrong. Of course those to whom this is pointed out then want to say why they are right! Emotive and generalised statements don't help, it gets peoples hackles up and starts a very heated debate. I don't think LF realised how some of his statements came across, I don't think I'm the only one who didn't understand a majority of what he was saying as it was written in a style better suited perhaps to high minded philosphers in lofty towers rather than 'normal' people like me who go out to work, bring up kids, cope with the trails and tribulations of normal life. I don't have the luxury of time to cloud gaze into esoteric arguments of the 'how many angels scan sit on the head of a pin' type. I have ironng, washing and housework to do etc. That doesn't mean I don't think about things but just not in LF style which I consider, to be honest, pilpul.

I think from what I've read on here and from people I've meet in martial arts ( and yes that does include MMA fighters) that we are moral and ethical people. We have different beliefs of course, for me that's what's so interesting. My martial arts training is ruled by what I believe in anyway and what i try to do and be in 'everyday' life. I don't have one set of morals for martial arts and one for life. My basic overiding thought behind what I try to do is 'treat everyone as you wish to be treated yourself'.


----------



## exile (Apr 29, 2007)

Kacey said:


> Do I think that I, as a TaeKwon-Do instructor, have a responsibility to teach my students when and how to use the skills I teach them?  Yes, I do - and that is based as much on those I have seen who use those skills in a manner I consider to be incorrect as on the training I have received over the years from my sahbum and other seniors... but at its base, my understanding of ethics and morality comes from what I was taught as a child, and then _thought about _and _reworked for myself _as a teen and adult, as I continue to do - and no matter what I've been taught by others, in the end, I teach what _I_ consider to be ethical use.  There are other instructors I know who feel that it is ethically wrong to teach their own ethical/moral values to their students; I know yet others who feel it is more important to teach the ethical/moral values than the art itself.
> 
> _There is no one, absolute, *right* answer to this debate._... Decrying others' opinions as _wrong_ because they don't believe that your opinion is _right_ serves, IMHO, only to shut down discussion or cause dissension rather than discussion, and is, therefore, counterproductive.



I think this point of Kacey's gets at the problem with the way the discussion in this thread has been framed, and bears in a major way on the extended straw-man argument that Last Fearner's most recent post largely consists. In that post, we repeatedly encounter statements of the following sort:



			
				Last Fearner said:
			
		

> If you want to separate ethics from Martial Art, I believe this is a grave mistake for the good of everyone - - Martial Artists, and non-Martial Artists - - for society in general - - for this generation and each that follows.
> 
> If you choose to apply fighting skills unethically and illegally under the guise of the label of Martial Art, then you are choosing to be a criminal and a person of poor character.
> 
> If you do not behave in such a way, but are supporting that behavior, then you are part of the problem.



But in fact, of course, there is no logical connection whatever believing, on the one hand, that the term`martial artist' does not incorporate an ethical criterion as part of its definition, and believing on the other that martial artists have no ethical obligations to use their skills `virtuously'. LF's posts imply, over and over again, that the first entails the second. But as Kacey notes, our ethical view of MAists and their behavior is part of our general view of the ethical obligations that human beings have to each other (and very possibly to the rest of nature; but that's a separate issue). What people are in part objecting to in LF's posts, if I'm not mistaken, is the instistence there that you cannot impose ethical constraints on MAists unless you build those contraints into the very definition of the notions martial art/martial artists. This is, of course, without any rational foundation at all: it should be evident that one can believe that law enforcement officers should apply force only justly and virtuously without believing that only those who apply force in that manner actually _are_ law enforcement officers. The persistence of the `no true Scotsman' fallacy I alluded to in a couple of earlier posts is, of course, relevant here.

Another odd feature of LF's post is his instistance that lexicographers consult experts in framing their definitions. They indeed may in giving a definition of trinitrotoluene or the Queen's Indian Defense, but of course plenty of people talk about and use the term martial artist simply by virtue of the fact that they speak English and know the relationship between English word-formation rules on the one hand and the denotation of those terms on the other. But let's assume that, contrary to fact, lexicographers did frame their definitions of martial arts by consulting only `experts'. I can't think of a _worse_ basis of support for LF's argument, because, as I noted earlier with a small but representative sample, _not one dictionary definition of `martial art/artists' makes reference to a canon of virtuous application_. The definitions invariably refer to combat skills, and practitioners of those skills, period (with maybe some further comments aobut why people study martial arts; but martial arts themselves, and martial artists, are never defined in reference dictionaries in terms of an ethical criterion). So if LF is right about who is consulted in framing dictionary definitions, it would seem the bulk of the experts disagree with him on how inherent that criterion is in the definition of `martial art(ist)'


----------



## IWishToLearn (Apr 29, 2007)

*RUNS IN WITH A FIRE HOSE AND SPRAYS DOWN THE FIRES*

Ok. You can all return to your polite conversations now.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 29, 2007)

Just as a matter of interest, has there been any post on any forum on MT where a martial artist has said that ethics and martial arts is  
mutually exclusive? How many posts have there been where martial artists have extolled ethical behavior in the dojo and outside?


LF "Some say I am pontificating. Again, so what. Sometimes people need to hear some pontification. If you don't want to participate, then don't. If you don't like long posts, then don't read them. If you don't want to be lectured to, then pretend I am talking to someone else who needs a good lecture!!!"
 
Who are we to decide any one needs lecturing or pontificating to? And that we should be the ones doing it? No, what we should be doing is engaging in frank, open and respectful discussions with each other. 

LF "Those who wish to stand with me on the side of the line that says a person who misuses their Fighting skills is not adhering to the Martial Art code of conduct that ALL Martial Artists MUST abide by in order to be considered a true Martial Artist, and therefore they deny themselves the right to be called Martial Artists, then we stand together against this assault on the integrity of the Art. Those who choose to stand on the other side of the line, then you make your choice"

I have never read a thread on this forum that has advocated anything other than using martial arts in a responsible and ethical manner so we aren't disputing ethics or morals here, we are merely arguing over the English defininition of the words 'martial arts'. As they say, that's a whole different ball game!


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 29, 2007)

I think *Kacey* made a very good stab at encapsulating how difficult and fractious this topic can prove to be :applause:.  Given that the thread is notionally about ethics, I think we need to reference another dictionary defiition, the one for _irony_ :lol:.

I also think that it is (sadly) true that a definite conclusion cannot be reached or an accomodational compromise settled upon when a discussion devolves into an argument with a bipolar division, however mistakenly or unintentionally that division arises.  If one side feels insulted/belittled and the other side feels affronted/embattled then you have no chance at all of a satisfactory outcome.

Such a state of affairs has the tendency of excluding other points of view, which don't fit into either camp neatly, from the discourse and both entrenched postions then proceed to exhange fire until, in the real world, war is declared or, in the on-line world, the thread is locked.

I know that it sounds 'preachy' but sometimes the best weapon, for settling arguments of a fundamental nature, is silence.

Time for me to go and follow my own advice ... and probably go and open a nice bottle of chardonnay ... anyone fancy a drink?


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 29, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> I think *Kacey* made a very good stab at encapsulating how difficult and fractious this topic can prove to be :applause:. Given that the thread is notionally about ethics, I think we need to reference another dictionary defiition, the one for _irony_ :lol:.
> 
> I also think that it is (sadly) true that a definite conclusion cannot be reached or an accomodational compromise settled upon when a discussion devolves into an argument with a bipolar division, however mistakenly or unintentionally that division arises. If one side feels insulted/belittled and the other side feels affronted/embattled then you have no chance at all of a satisfactory outcome.
> 
> ...


 
Yes please! You say just the right things!:angel: 

I'm not sure the thread is about ethics at all really as it was split off from another thread when the argument took the route of being about the meaning of the words martial artist!


----------



## exile (Apr 30, 2007)

There's one small clarification I wanted to make concerning my comments on Last Fearner's most recent post. In responding to LF's apparent belief that excluding an ethical litmust test from the definition of the term `martial artist' necessarily means you place no ethical demands on the behavior of martial artists, I gave the example of LEOs: does anyone really think that it is part of the _definition_ of `law enforcement officer' that someone who merits that description only use force justly and judiciously? But in fact, most of us believe that there is an ethical imperative on LEOs to use force justly and judiciously. I just want to point out that this is only a single example of a much broader generalization: excluding requirement X from the definition of Y _in no way_ entails that those who satisfy the definition of Y should be exempt from X:

I can define `artist' in a way which does not in itself impose a requirement to seek out beauty as a criterion for satisfying the description `artist', but I can still believe that all artists _should_ (as an ethical obligation, possibly) seek out beauty in their creation.

I can define `clergy' in a way which does not impose a prohibition on sexual exploitation of children as a criterion for satisfying the description `clergy', while still believing that clergy _should not_ sexually exploit children. 

I can define `scientist' in a way which does not stipulate that only a desire for knowledge for its own sake, with no thought of financial gain, allows you to describe someone as a scientist, yet still believe that scientists should only pursue knowledge for its own sake.

And so on forever: the point is, _there is no logical connection between omitting requirement X from the definition of Y, and assuming that Ys are exempt from X._

LF's posts consistently equate, with no justification,  these  two logically independent states of affairs; his constant message is that if you do not accept that X is part of being Y, then you are allowing, or even encouraging, Y to act in a non-X fashion. Specifically, if you don't believe that MAists must satisfy some canon of virtuous application of force to qualify for the description `martial artist', then (as per the part of his post I cited in my own earlier post), you are at least allowing, and possibly advocating, an absence of ethical standards in the behavior of MAists. But this statement is, logically speaking, complete rubbish:  as Kacey, Tez and others have pointed out, ethical judgments are things we apply on the basis of general moral principles about how human beings should behave with respect to each other. We believe that MAists should be virtuous in their application of force because we believe that human beings, regardless of what they know or do, should be virtuous in their application of force. We have ethical codes we live by (and judge others by), and these apply to the butcher, the bake, the candlestick maker and the martial artist simply because we have ethical criteria _in the first place!_

When various dramatic gestures and posturings are removed from the discussion (`I'm drawing a line in the sand'??? ), the crucial point is just what Tez says:



> Just as a matter of interest, has there been any post on any forum on MT where a martial artist has said that ethics and martial arts is
> mutually exclusive? How many posts have there been where martial artists have extolled ethical behavior in the dojo and outside?...I have never read a thread on this forum that has advocated anything other than using martial arts in a responsible and ethical manner so we aren't disputing ethics or morals here, we are merely arguing over the English defininition of the words 'martial arts'. As they say, that's a whole different ball game!



Simply put: lexicographers, who amass many tokens of a the word being defined from text corpora (specialist and nonspecialist texts alike), from informants and from philological research, use the method Shaderon walked us through earlier in this thread. This method allows them to identify the necessary and sufficient conditions for the application of a given word X by speakers of some language in which X occurs (if you don't speak that language, then X is not in your vocabulary and your input does not enter into lexicographer's calculations, a point I would have thought required little further comment). Lexicographers are as a rule very good at their jobs, which is why people go to the dictionary confidently to look up the meaning of words they don't know: because they recognize how accurate the dictionary's definition is of words whose meanings they _do_ know. 

But given that a word X identifies a certain class of entities, it is then possible to seek to impose certain conditions on X, along the lines illustrated earlier. And as Kacey has observed rather pointedly, not all people will necessarily agree on these conditions. They may well disagree, but even so will probably be glad to get to argue with each other ad infinitem about their reasons for taking the positions they defend.

What they will not be glad of is to be presented with straw-man arguments, circular reasoning and assumptions of greater _knowledge_ in an area in which what is at issue is a matter of _judgment_ and _opinion._ They willI think quite correctlyview these things as evidence of arrogance, and react accordingly.


----------



## Shaderon (Apr 30, 2007)

Kacey:  Fantastic post, you explained what I was thinking exactly at that point when your post came up, I was reading the post above, (was it Tez's?) and it occured to me that we are discussing ethics when ethics is a fuzzy thing, it's based on culture, preconceptions and experience amongst other things and the defination is fuzzier than our "labels".  I won't expand on that because you did it so well and I'd only be re-writing what you said. 

Last: No one is saying that to be unethical is ok, but we are talking about the definition of a label, as said above. 

Everyone: We still call any other position in society by it's name regardless of the person's ethics.  Myself I would choose to say that child molesters and rapists aren't human beings, but they are genetically so even though with my opinion, I would have them destroyed when proved guilty after having thier status as human stripped.  
Policemen have a badge, they are employed and trained. Unethical policemen (by the opinions of their peers and seniors) are berated and eventually stripped of rank, position and sometimes job.  At that point they are no longer policemen.     My OPINION says that Martial Artists have a licence, they are registered (apologies if this isn't everyone but I think it is) and unethical Martial Artists are warned, berated and eventually if they continue to be bad examples, are stripped of licence and status.  At that point they are no longer a martial artist (even though they would probably call themselves so but that's THIER opinion), but this depends on their seniors and thier ethics and morals.   If the rot goes right up the chain, we can't say none of them are martial artists because we don't agree with their ethics or morals.   As pointed out, ethics and morals are cultural as well as other things, and we can't say who is right on the whole, only by pour own standards.

A wise man doesn't judge others because he doesn't know them and their circumstances, he can't, he only judges himself, it's all he's equipped to morally do.


----------



## Cirdan (Apr 30, 2007)

I suppose we all have thoughts about what a "true" martial artist should be. However there is no need to disqualify the garden variety even if they don`t meet that high standard now is there? The arts might be suited as a veichle for enlightemnent, but so can flower arrangement. Now how many of you have taken lessons in ethics from your gardener? Oh I guess he wasn`t worthy of the title then.  

*"When pure knuckles meet pure flesh, that's pure Karate, no matter who executes its or whatever style is involed."(Ed Parker)*

.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 30, 2007)

Last Fearner said:


> Martial artists and...04-23-2007 02:23 PMYou may not realize it, but you are making statements that would disqualify many of the people on this forum as martial artists. Your opinion is not the word of God, get over yourself. (No name given)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
My original response was to your original posts (not the above most recent) on the subject that was defining martial arts in terms that were very stilted towards Japanese culture and excluding Chinese and Korean culture. Also you were attempting to use a historical basis for your claims that in some cases were right on and in other you were not. Sorry Im a stickler for historical fact, if it exists, and in many cases it really doesnt (example  not all CMA masters of the past were undefeated, even though many stories from the past tell you they were not, same goes for Japan by the way).

If you wish to believe all that you have stated as what is a martial art then I support your right to believe in that way. But I ask you not to judge me by your standard that is all. 

My feelings on this are do what you want tell me how you feel if you must, judge me if you will but in reality it matters little to me. I have after many years of training MA learned, rather recently and by emulatinog the Chinese CMA people I have come into contact with and learned from) that I cannot change someones mind and if I let everyones opinion get to me I would spend most of my time arguing and fighting than training. So in a real world face to face situation similar to this I would likely tell you that you believe what you will smile and go back to training, if I responded at all. Which is something I am trying to do more of on MT, but occasionally my past wins and I respond. 

My only real concern for you and your definition is that you may be putting people on a pedestal that really do not belong there. Other than that if you live by and teach the standards you profess to, more power to you, just do not judge me if I do not agree. 

If anything I have said made you feel that I was judging you I apologize, it was not my intent, it was just the old angrier Xue responding.


----------



## Langenschwert (Apr 30, 2007)

As has been usual of late, Exile is posting spot-on IMO.  However, for those who haven't had much exposure to the definitions logical fallacies (or just sucked at logic, like me), this may help:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Pay special note to appeal to "appeal to tradition" and "straw man".

Best regards,

-Mark


----------

