Agree with my definition of 'warrior spirit' or disagree....

[loki09789]

UpNorth

I reread your post about Buddhists, and I don't know if this is correct on my part but I always thought the goal of Buddhism was to not attach joy to earthly things, not necessarily 'detach' themselves from the world. I am thinking of the Four Noble Truths - which I will have to look up to double check myself on.

THis doens't take any steam off of your statements, just a tangent to see if I am mis interpreting.

Paul M

 

[loki09789]

In a nutshell:

4 noble truths

1. Suffering is a part of life
2. Desire is the root of suffering
3. Enlightenment begins with the rejection of Desire
4. The eight fold path is the way to walk the middle road

Just found it.

Paul M.

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by loki09789
In a nutshell:

4 noble truths

1. Suffering is a part of life
2. Desire is the root of suffering
3. Enlightenment begins with the rejection of Desire
4. The eight fold path is the way to walk the middle road

Just found it.

Paul M.

Protection of an item stems from desire. This is tangential, but I bring it up to show that definitions of WS are going to vary relatively with morals. They all have protection themes in common though. What are we protecting ourselves against? I would say anything not of our tribe. Difference has generally been stereotyped to mean danger so historically, the warrior spirit has been a reflection of xenophobia. As we build more connections as a species and we move closer to becoming one tribe, this old definition needs to change. Uyeshiba and Kano wrote much about this, yet even in their treatises, it is peppered with old predjudice.

 

[Black Bear]

Originally posted by Yari
Why?

I think it's more difficult to 100% follow rules, than make your own. But if you change your code in the same direction as the wind blows, there's no warrior code. You choose a code, and live by it.

If you choose the code to follow your leader (president, or what ever), you do it no matter what. Even if he tells you to jump in the lake or shoot your wife.

Now you can choose to say your code is only to serve yourself. And that's ok, but I dont think that's a high value code. THat's a code for only self preservation. You can give a code a higher value by following a bigger meaning, and sticking by it no matter what. And that's my point, a warrior is a person is a person who will stand by his code, even if everybody else doesn't. He'll be the last person standing for the code.

But we dont' have to agree, but calling it ridiculous, and not stating why, triggers me.

/Yari

Sorry about "ridiculous", that was probably unfair. Easy now, I never said that I don't highly regard anyone who adheres tenaciously to a code of ethics. I have had too much difficulty adhering to my own ethics to take that for granted.

What I said was that I don't see that as equating with warrior spirit. Now, remember, I do not pretend to know for a second what the expression "warrior spirit" ought to mean, I'm just along for the ride. But it just seems ridiculous to me. I mean, there's such a diversity of codes of ethics/conduct out there. A guy could be a pathetic sheep in a cult that professes unthinking obeisance to the leader ("The leader is great, the leader is good..."), but as long as he adheres to it faithfully, this means he has warrior spirit? Even when the compound gets raided and Mr. Leader's up on charges, Mr. sheep is going through his own version of Stockholm syndrome/cognitive dissonance, asserting the claims of the faith all the more diligently, both in word and deed? This would be warrior spirit? I dunno. But he's sure sticking to a code of ethics.

That would be an example of what I had in mind when "ridiculous" came out of my mouth.

 

[Yari]

Originally posted by Black Bear
Sorry about "ridiculous", that was probably unfair. Easy now, I never said that I don't highly regard anyone who adheres tenaciously to a code of ethics. I have had too much difficulty adhering to my own ethics to take that for granted.

What I said was that I don't see that as equating with warrior spirit. Now, remember, I do not pretend to know for a second what the expression "warrior spirit" ought to mean, I'm just along for the ride. But it just seems ridiculous to me. I mean, there's such a diversity of codes of ethics/conduct out there. A guy could be a pathetic sheep in a cult that professes unthinking obeisance to the leader ("The leader is great, the leader is good..."), but as long as he adheres to it faithfully, this means he has warrior spirit? Even when the compound gets raided and Mr. Leader's up on charges, Mr. sheep is going through his own version of Stockholm syndrome/cognitive dissonance, asserting the claims of the faith all the more diligently, both in word and deed? This would be warrior spirit? I dunno. But he's sure sticking to a code of ethics.

That would be an example of what I had in mind when "ridiculous" came out of my mouth.

Yes I do see that. Specially if the sheep just follows along, he doesn't choose anything. But I believe the difference to be that the warrior chooses his "path". As a sheep really doesn't choose. He's just picking something that fits his needs now. The warrior bases his choices on something external, like a code of ethics, and follows them, not a choice of a sheep.

But there's no question about that this is a grey area, and the exterms are easily accounted for. In the grey area some people may act as warriors, and some not. It's when the goings get tough that the warriors get going. You could say they follow through.

/Yari

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by Black Bear
That would be an example of what I had in mind when "ridiculous" came out of my mouth.

Is sanity statistical? Stockholm sydrome or not, a guy who sticks to his guns when all his buddies are dead or locked up is a little impressive.

 

[Cruentus]

Wow good discussion so far!

I'd like to refer you guys to this thread:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12992

I find that we have a major definition problem in martial arts in general.

But hey, if we can't agree on definitions, at least by the poll, we are all in agreement that Paul Janulis is a frickin' Genius!

:rofl:

 

[Black Bear]

Okay Yari. Explain to me the basic, essential difference between a warrior's choice and a sheep's choice (when he "picks" something, provided he sticks to it).

Perhaps whatever that difference is should be explicitly added into the definition.

upnorthkyosa, I agree it's "impressive", but if someone were to say it were warrior spirit, that would not click with me. Someone can be "impressive" in the degree to which they suck. "Warrior spirit" in my mind is supposed to connote a positive valence.

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by Black Bear
Okay Yari. Explain to me the basic, essential difference between a warrior's choice and a sheep's choice (when he "picks" something, provided he sticks to it).

Perhaps whatever that difference is should be explicitly added into the definition.

upnorthkyosa, I agree it's "impressive", but if someone were to say it were warrior spirit, that would not click with me. Someone can be "impressive" in the degree to which they suck. "Warrior spirit" in my mind is supposed to connote a positive valence.

What is positive and what is negative? It all depends on which side of the fence you grew up. I think when we are talking about warrior spirit, we need to slash away the mysticism and take a look at what it means to be a human animal. That is tribalism and fear of difference. All of our vaunted warrior archtypes are wrapped up in different cultural trappings, yet they all contain that nugget of xenophobia. The fear of difference because it is dangerous. The instinctual warrior spirit is a symbol of this fight.

 

[Yari]

Okay Yari. Explain to me the basic, essential difference between a warrior's choice and a sheep's choice (when he "picks" something, provided he sticks to it).

Perhaps whatever that difference is should be explicitly added into the definition.

The difference can be a grey area.

But let me try.

What is a sheep, has to be defined. A sheep is a person who blindly takes on the rules, and follows a leader, but deosn't take on any responsability. For example, they would say, "Our leader says do this or that, then do it". Everthing they do, they do basing there belief on the leader, and always following up what a great leader they have. Come to think of it, a sheep would almost always think that a leader is 100 % perfect. A sheep would never confront a leader if he felt he was wrong. Typicaly a sheeps "loves " the complicated rules.


While the warrior also chooses hos leader, it isn't as blind as the sheep. He would take the leaders rules and addopt them to what he does. Ever action he would stand his own ground, based on the leaders rules, but never taking away the responsability of the aciton , by saying" IT's because the leader says so and so". Also the warrior knows that the leader isn't 100% perfect, but also ack. that the leader has a higher view of things. A warrior would confront a leader if things didn't fit the "code" that the warrior felt he followed. A warrior loves the simple rules.....

Well, you had me thinking, but I think I got my words right.

/Yari

 

[Black Bear]

upnorth and yari, interesting posts. I'm digesting. yari, I have a FUZZY sense of what you mean, but I think I have SOME sense nonetheless.

 

[loki09789]

"All of our vaunted warrior archtypes are wrapped up in different cultural trappings, yet they all contain that nugget of xenophobia."

I don't know what message or statement you are trying to make with this line of thought on this thread. What I think you are saying is that WS is at least partly 'anti - human/humane' and therefore bad? I get what you are saying and definitely like the logic, source based discussion, and the point. It makes you really think about personal responsibility.

From what I have read, it seems that you are against the romanticising of the 'warrior' as the ideal man/woman because it is validating violence against a percieved 'them' But, is the violence and the WS the problem or the mental constructs that allow us to view a 'them' as less worthy to live than a percieve 'us?' Either way, I can see where WS/xenophobia could lead to things like KKK groups, Black Panthers, Nazism... and other anti-somebody groups - all the way up to nations.
I agree partly, which is why my definition:

Will to survive, thirst for challenge, stand for a cause.

would include those who have had the courage to stand in the face of violence and refuse to get sucked in - anti bullying techniques come to mind. Or those who fought for equality with intelligence/peace, such as Martin Luther King Jr. and others. They were attempting to remove the xenophobic restrictions.

My problem with a violence mandetory/only type of WS definition is because it doesn't acknowledge those who risk their reputations, credibility and livelyhood as well as their lives. WS is about determination and perseverance IMO, sometimes it has NOTHING about applying violence and everything about refusing to succumb to violent solutions.

I do think that we are justified in defending ourselves, family and others if the appropriate conditions are there. But even there the appropriate level of force/violence is also a necessity.

Check out the 'martial arts of everything' thread on the Modern Arnis page, some of this is presented there too.

Paul M.

 

[Makalakumu]

I seriously believe that humanity is in a state of punctuated equilibria. We are evolving as we speak. The old tribalism model is in direct competition with a collective global model - a humans as one species model, one tribe model. I don't know which one will win out, but I believe I know which one will remove us from this planet. Perhaps the new WS is survival, not just of the individual, but of the whole.

 

[loki09789]

Based on this global type of view, would you philosophically agree with Catholic/Buddhist/Muslim criteria for justified self defense -sanctioned violence, or do you feel it is still too selfish in motivation? I ask with an implied/understood agreement of appropriate levels of force fitting the context and goal of stopping the threat and escaping - not a stomping him/them into a bloody pulp to show them how much of a bad A** I am level.

Paul M

 

[Adept]

I think we need to define warrior before we become concerned with the warrior spirit.

To me, a warrior is someone who specifically uses violence to ensure an ethical code of his choosing is enforced. That code is up to them to choose.

A 'fighter' to me, is anyone who struggles, or is prepared to struggle (in any way) to attain a goal. A fighter could be someone working 60 hours a week to make ends meet, or studying for 16 hours a day to pass their exams, or anything else that is a struggle. But I would not call them warriors.