# The four levels of conflict



## Shidoshi0153 (May 8, 2007)

Hello all,
I wanted to introduce a philosophical foundation of bansenshukai ninjutsu and to get some feedback.  I believe in four fundamental levels of conflict.  Competition, fighting, self-defense, and combat.  I believe all four levels are uniquely different and should be addressed as such.  The basic differences comes from the attacker's motives and the legal responses allowed by the defender.  Are there any other thoughts out there on the subject?


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 8, 2007)

I'm not certain I'd include competition in that continuum at all.  The context and realities are so different from the other three.

If I were writing that into a thesis, I'd start it with aggression:  the clear intent to do harm without yet resorting to physical contact.  Then move on to fighting, self defense and combat.


----------



## arnisador (May 8, 2007)

Shidoshi0153 said:


> fighting, self-defense, and combat.



What's fighting if not one of the other two?


----------



## jks9199 (May 8, 2007)

Shidoshi0153 said:


> Hello all,
> I wanted to introduce a philosophical foundation of bansenshukai ninjutsu and to get some feedback.  I believe in four fundamental levels of conflict.  Competition, fighting, self-defense, and combat.  I believe all four levels are uniquely different and should be addressed as such.  The basic differences comes from the attacker's motives and the legal responses allowed by the defender.  Are there any other thoughts out there on the subject?


I'm confused... Your terms seem not to define what you mean.  What's the difference between fighting and self defense?  Or self defense and combat?  I can see that sport is different from combat/self defense/real fight...  but how are you saying they're all different from each other?


----------



## achilles95 (May 9, 2007)

What's the difference between fighting and combat??


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 9, 2007)

I'm not the OP, but from context I'm guessing he means 'fighting' like two guys getting stupid at a bar.  Where the point is to hit the dude a couple times and impress some bar hag, where one fighter is as likely as not to stop hitting if the other looks helpless or hollers 'uncle'.  Injury isn't really the goal.

You know...fighting.

As opposed to self defense and combat, in which at least one attacker intends serious bodily harm or death.


----------



## achilles95 (May 9, 2007)

I see. So, what's his point?


----------



## Shidoshi0153 (May 9, 2007)

Thanks for the feedback guys.  I will try and be brief with my definitions.

competition:  Conflict with clearly defined rules understood by both parties.  Intent is to win, not harm.  Probability of weapons and multiple attackers are minimal at best.  The odds of physical bodily injury are low.

fighting:  Conflict with loose, socially defined rules mostly understood by both participants.  (A dirty fighter is one who breaks one of these constructs.) Intent is ego based, not necessarily to do serious bodily injury.  Probability of weapons and multiple attackers are average, but weapons used are generally not deadly but rather blunt.  The odd of physical bodily injury are average.

self-defense:  Conflict with rules defined by the court system, defender is only allowed certain responses due to the circumstances.  The attacker is not following any rule set.  Intent is to exert attacker's will on the defender at any cost.  Probability of weapons and multiple attackers are high.  The odds of physical bodily injury and/or death is high.

combat:  All rules are out the window.  The intent is to do serious bodily injury.  Probability of weapons and multiple attackers are extremelly high.  Serious physical injury and/or death is immenent.

I use these when determining my martial arts program.  I becomes obvious that many styles focus on simply one or two of these areas.  These are loose definitions as a conflict may move between classes.  They become important since one must not only consider winning an altercation, but winning the legal battle that follows.

I include competition since many systems out these days are designed specifically for kumite yet claim they are self-defense schools.  Just some food for thought.


----------



## MBuzzy (May 9, 2007)

One edit that I would suggest...."Combat" is not, in fact, without rules.  Even for combat, rules exist.  They are the same as with self defense only greatly inflated.  The rules are determined by the "world court" and in some cases by the perpetrating country or party.  

In the American military, we are governed by the Geneva convention (detailing mainly how POWs are to behave and be treated) and "LOAC," the Law of Armed Conflict.  

LOAC is what details the actual rules of war.  We examine ideas such as proportionality, humane and justified death, etc.  In this case, the "dirty fighters" are those who violate the mostly agreed upon rules.  Those countries who use Chemical, Biological, or Nuclear warfare, or mistreat POWs, take hostages, etc.  

In the US military, we don't use a 5000 lb bomb when a grenade will do, and we don't slit someone's throat and leave them to bleed to death slowly, when they can be shot.  We also do not kill without necessity, i.e. the attacker must have motive and capability.

Based on your descriptions, I agree that this is a level of conflict, but in our society, it is governed by rules also. 

Other than that, based on your definitions, I believe these are good levels of conflict.  I'm not sure that competition is in the same class, but then you can redefine and rework almost any set of terms in multiple ways for the purposes of discussion.


----------



## Shidoshi0153 (May 9, 2007)

I agree.  I was in the military as well.  I did not mention the Geneva convention as it would gear someone to think of combat on simply military terms in war.  I was more referring to a gun battle in a school or a mugging in the street where the attacker's purpose is to kill.  But you are absolutely right, there really is no such thing, legally, as any type of conflict with absolutely no rules.


----------



## Darth F.Takeda (May 9, 2007)

IMO  ther  are only 2, duels and Combat.

   A  duel is what  the O.P  called fighting,  it's  usually  something you can (and should) walk away from, it's usually over ego, drunkiness  or a women. But it can degenerate  into cobat.

  Combat and SD are the same, robbers and muggers nowadays tend to assult  or  even kill people, where as it used to be, many times, he'd let you  go after he got your money. Yes laws  are a consideration,  but if your thinking 'section 2, 348  says I cant do.., while he's trying to take your head off, you might get  mauled  or die. If it's in Iraq, the Ghetto or in your home, dead is dead,  maimed  is maimed, being beaten retarded is being beaten retarded, so  it all falls  under combat.

 True there is a difference between Military combat and Civil Combat  (but not always), differnt weapons, numbers   and more than you  and yours at stake, but in a few conversations  I had with my  late  Semapi,  a former SF Officer,  he agreed  that there are alot of simularites  in outcome  and tactics, just on different scales.

We  talked of writting a book called  " 30 Second War-Military Concepts  and Tactics  Toward  Self Protection."

Competition IMO  can be considerd a  level  of  fighting, I  mean you fight in MMA, Boxing, Judo  ect ect.but there   is a clear set of rules, a set time and place  and  you  strat facing each other.
Not that I dont think it can help you  for  seld  protection, it  can.


----------



## thardey (May 9, 2007)

In the book "The Soul of the Sword" the author points out two types of fighting in nature: Inter-species fighting, and Intra-species fighting.

"Inter-Species" is the stuff where a cheetah stalks and hunts his prey, and the prey does what it takes to survive. No rules in the animal kingdom, and no ego to defend. Humans are one of the rare species that prey on each other. To me this the same as Darth's "Combat". You do what needs to be done, and walking away, or diffusing isn't a choice. (Taking the nike defense, on the other hand, is very common.)

If we have the opportunity to prevent one human from preying on another, weaker human, we have the duty (nods to Darth) to prevent that. We have to remember that we are working in a system that has very few (if any) rules, and that those rules are probably not the same for all parties involved.

"Intra-Species" is fighting for dominance with others of the same species. Deer fight over a doe, snakes wrestle for dominance, rams, well, ram. These fights are for "rank" and pride. They are usually between evenly-matched foes, killing moves are not allowed (Deer won't use their hooves, ratttlesnakes won't bite, horses wont' kick, etc), and it's usually for the benefit of an audience. (Females, usually) To me, this is the same as Darth's "Duels", or most bar fights. It's a challenge that is issued and accepted, usually to stroke someone's ego. This type of fighting is usually illegal, and for me personally, immoral and irresponsible, unless done in a sporting environment (which is primarily for training and testing, rather than conflict). 

I pretty much sum all fighting by those two models. There are wars and battles that follow the interspecies model (defense), and there are some that follow the intraspecies model (dueling). Some people do competitions for training on how to defend, and some are in it for ego.


----------



## Darth F.Takeda (May 9, 2007)

Allthough  I think it would be pretty cool, that  if the cops roll up on a  Duel (not an assult) , then they should put both parties  in the back of the squad car and drive them down to a PAL, make them lace up some gloves and let them have a go till they are both wasted. Honor is satisfied, no one dies ( well) and both parties  will probably  respect each other afterwards.

The guy I fought the most in middle and High School became one of my best freinds later on. We have  all seen heated cometitors, who  before the fight, seemed to hate each other, embrace each other as brothers  after the match.

  But that's just Darth's Utopia=)


----------



## thardey (May 9, 2007)

Darth F.Takeda said:


> Allthough  I think it would be pretty cool, that  if the cops roll up on a  Duel (not an assult) , then they should put both parties  in the back of the squad car and drive them down to a PAL, make them lace up some gloves and let them have a go till they are both wasted. Honor is satisfied, no one dies ( well) and both parties  will probably  respect each other afterwards.
> 
> The guy I fought the most in middle and High School became one of my best freinds later on. We have  all seen heated cometitors, who  before the fight, seemed to hate each other, embrace each other as brothers  after the match.
> 
> But that's just Darth's Utopia=)



In my high school, the wresting and football coaches wanted to put a boxing ring in for just that purpose


----------



## Em MacIntosh (May 22, 2007)

How many duels vs. do-or-die scenarios have you guys been in?  I definitely feel this is one of those theory vs. application things.  Any "duel" I've been involved in it was made clear to me I wouldn't have a choice not to fight.  Sure we would all like to walk away (right?) but do you get the chance?  To me, I can't duel.  I don'y "play-fight".  I didn't grow up with brothers.  I beleive in combat, that you are trying to kill me, and I must stop you.  Not to say I'm a good fighter, I'd just hate for someone to pick an honest "50's style" fight with me, for me to consent, then proceed to deprive him of his eyes, groin and life, or hit him in the face with a brick.  Maybe for you guys, but I don't bother with a "duel".  I believe fighting is barbaric.  When it happens, hopefully you're enough of a barbarian to defend yourself.  I see no reason to debase myself unless it is completely necessary.  Not saying anything about anybody but myself.  Just explaining my perspective.  I believe there is one form of combat.


----------



## zDom (May 22, 2007)

To me, one of the benefits in becoming more and more proficient in martial art techniques is the ability to scale my response to an appropriate level.

It doesn't always have to be eye-gouging, throat ripping, pluck their heart out combat.

It gives me the ability to never maim when to hurt is enough, never cripple when to maim is enough, never kill when to cripple is enough (to paraphrase an oft-quoted philosophy) while ensuring my family, friends and self are also not harmed.


----------



## Em MacIntosh (May 22, 2007)

That is what I consider to be excellence, expertise and true skill.  That's exactly why I'm not very good.  Control, in a crazy situation is not my strongest suit.  Much of this stems from my lack of confidence in defending myself, therefore, overdrive.  I run if I can, if not I'm in for a fight.  Fear sets in heavy.  That's why I need practice.  People should not fight.  That's how people get hurt.  I don't want to get hurt.  What if you only get one shot?  If he doesn't want to kill you but droppes your head on the concrete or you get tripped and bash your head on the curb, intended or not.  What if you can't really take him unless you make sure immediately.  I don't know how good he is.  Sometimes you get creeped on.  I insist not to duel.  My lack of fighting confidence and perception of violent, agressive, possibly insane and above all UNKNOWN characters leaves me one thought: I don't duel.  You catch me when I have no choice, we'll see what happens.  In the ring they sign waivers.  To me, that's closer to a duel.


----------

