Chi-Sau from lineage to lineage....

[Phobius]

Then them getting punched by me is a bridge too, and they're asking for it by "seeking the bridge".

A fight does not end when being punched, and not all punches are damaging.

Besides, seeking the bridge does not mean you seek ANY bridge.

Oh btw it is the name of the second form that does also teach what should be if getting punched.

 

[geezer]

I don't really care too much about the semantics involved. So if somebody else means something different by the term "bridge", hopefully they will explain their thinking so we can have a meaningful conversation. It really doesn't matter if I normally use the term differently in my lineage.

So to continue with the "bridge" example, we just use the term to describe when our arm(s) touch our opponent's arm(s) creating contact. The bridge may be open or closed. Since the general idea is to hit the other guy, being able to cross the bridge is obviously important. Having them cross it and hit us is important to avoid.

Anyway that's about it. Pretty basic and definitely not worth arguing about. If others have a different, deeper meaning, that's great. We are here to share, right?

 

[Phobius]

I don't really care too much about the semantics involved. So if somebody else means something different by the term "bridge", hopefully they will explain their thinking so we can have a meaningful conversation. It really doesn't matter if I normally use the term differently in my lineage.

So to continue with the "bridge" example, we just use the term to describe when our arm(s) touch our opponent's arm(s) creating contact. The bridge may be open or closed. Since the general idea is to hit the other guy, being able to cross the bridge is obviously important. Having them cross it and hit us is important to avoid.

Anyway that's about it. Pretty basic and definitely not worth arguing about. If others have a different, deeper meaning, that's great. We are here to share, right?

Pretty much sums it up well how much I care about the definition of bridge. Which is why I am open to change my definition if I find something better... and if it will at some point matter.

 

[guy b.]

If you truly believe this is true, then you lack personal insight and you really should take a step back and examine how you post in this forum.

I think that basically I annoy people because I do not take a relativist aproach to conversation. I don't generally say things just to make people feel better, and I try not to hold conradictory beliefs for the sake of politeness. I don't think that truth is subjective and that "it's all good". I think that some people perceive the resulting lack of personal validation I tend to give as a direct attack on them and what they believe. It isn't.

I am agnostic about other people's VT. I don't assume it is funtional, but neither do I assume it is not. All I can do to find out about it is converse with them.

 

[guy b.]

Why do you think that the only threads here that degenerate to a "slugfest" of some sort are the ones that you and LFJ participate in?

I believe I understand why people hate detailed questioning without the safety net of friendship or mutual validation beforehand. They are worried that it is a personal attack and that the intention is to make them look stupid or otherwise hurt their reputation. The problem is that with the validation comes an avoidance of truth and a lack of willingness to press issues that are difficult. Since you all just words on a page to me I really don't care about this kind of thing. I have no real life here. But for some of you I understand that this is not the case. I do understand the problem, but I think the best solution is to convince you that there is no harm in anonymous talking about what you really believe, rather than compromising the quality of discussion and avoiding questions that might offend

 

[Phobius]

We can not find out what works and what does not over a forum. Those of us who might think so need probably to fight more. And it is not intended to be offensive, just my side of the truth. Text has never taught anyone to fight.

Only thing the forum can give us is areas for which we can explore ourselves within our own terms.

 

[KPM]

I believe I understand why people hate detailed questioning without the safety net of friendship or mutual validation beforehand. They are worried that it is a personal attack and that the intention is to make them look stupid or otherwise hurt their reputation. The problem is that with the validation comes an avoidance of truth and a lack of willingness to press issues that are difficult. Since you all just words on a page to me I really don't care about this kind of thing. I have no real life here. But for some of you I understand that this is not the case. I do understand the problem, but I think the best solution is to convince you that there is no harm in anonymous talking about what you really believe, rather than compromising the quality of discussion and avoiding questions that might offend

Utter and total BS!

 

[guy b.]

We can not find out what works and what does not over a forum.

We can certainly test which ideas are consistent and non contradictory by talking about them. I am not trying to learn how to fight here.

 

[guy b.]

Utter and total BS!

Why would you say that?

 

[LFJ]

So if somebody else means something different by the term "bridge", hopefully they will explain their thinking so we can have a meaningful conversation.

Right, so, that was attempted in the past... When trying to get a clear explanation we kept chasing around a moving goal post.

In the end the term referred to two utterly opposite things; landing a punch and having a punch blocked, both hit and miss, which reduces it to a meaningless WC buzz word.

It appears some people using it aren't even sure what it means.

Like the statement below. Well, what does your system say? If it is clearly defined by your system and matches the fighting strategy, why would you change it? Unless you are unclear yourself...

I am open to change my definition if I find something better...

 

[Phobius]

Like the statement below. Well, what does your system say? If it is clearly defined by your system and matches the fighting strategy, why would you change it? Unless you are unclear yourself...

You are talking nonsense now. I know what it means to me. But I have been taught it in mind and body. I feel the concepts and forms, expressing them in English I can leave to forum warriors and philosophers.

Bridge is a name that can change definition in text without changing meaning.

Now you may continue to freely think you can grasp how things work by reading a forum post and visualizing in your mind but personally I find that to be fooling oneself or similar to fairytale.

 

[Phobius]

We can certainly test which ideas are consistent and non contradictory by talking about them. I am not trying to learn how to fight here.

Actually you are. You want to grasp how well they would feel in a fight.

If you can't know that you don't even know if you are capable of understanding what was written.

I should not have to have this conversation with you, you should know this by now.

 

[Phobius]

Oh and if moderators are reading this. The thread is now so derailed it can't even possibly get back on track.

Just so you know.

 

[guy b.]

Actually you are. You want to grasp how well they would feel in a fight.

If you can't know that you don't even know if you are capable of understanding what was written.

I should not have to have this conversation with you, you should know this by now.

You have taken the wrong meaning from my post. I do not wish to understand how (for example) your idea of bridging would feel in a fight, whatever that means. I am interested in discussing the system of VT. Systems are by definition systematised approached to fighting, and can therefore be discussed in terms of coherence, contradiction, meaning, intention and other abstract ideas

 

[Phobius]

You have taken the wrong meaning from my post. I do not wish to understand how (for example) your idea of bridging would feel in a fight, whatever that means. I am interested in discussing the system of VT. Systems are by definition systematised approached to fighting, and can therefore be discussed in terms of coherence, contradiction, meaning, intention and other abstract ideas

And you are missing my point. You want to discuss something in English which is trained and spoken about in native languages.

Besides, the coherent system is not trained or learnt from a book. It is taught using words mixed with drills and feeling. You believe to judge a lineage based on how you do your WSLPBVT mixed with text you read on forum. No wonder fighting like that stops being coherent, anyone training a while would quickly realize what you do wrong there.

 

[guy b.]

And you are missing my point. You want to discuss something in English which is trained and spoken about in native languages

You didn't say anything about native languages in your last post so hard to see how I would have understood this point, if it was the one you intended to make. But anyway, if you find it hard to discuss your system in English then sure that is a problem which might hinder understanding.

Besides, the coherent system is not trained or learnt from a book. It is taught using words mixed with drills and feeling. You believe to judge a lineage based on how you do your WSLPBVT mixed with text you read on forum. No wonder fighting like that stops being coherent, anyone training a while would quickly realize what you do wrong there.

I am not seeking to judge, merely to understand. It is quite possible to discuss many things about a coherent MA system without training together. Especially if all participants in the discussion train in similar systems. I am interested in ideas which can be communicated by words.

 

[Phobius]

You didn't say anything about native languages in your last post so hard to see how I would have understood this point, if it was the one you intended to make. But anyway, if you find it hard to discuss your system in English then sure that is a problem which might hinder understanding.

I just said my definition is open to change, and I replied as an agreement to geezer.

I do not have a hard time expressing myself in English. But I do have a philosophical mind which means that I can get almost any definition to work with or opposite to my belief. Got my philosophy teacher hating me and giving me highest grade in pure disbelief.

So I put little effort in finding a good way to explain abstract terms. My sifu can but I do not wish to share his definition nor is it in English.

I am not seeking to judge, merely to understand. It is quite possible to discuss many things about a coherent MA system without training together. Especially if all participants in the discussion train in similar systems. I am interested in ideas which can be communicated by words.

That is the problem, we can't know if we train in similar systems yet because none of us can communicate well enough.

 

[LFJ]

That is the problem, we can't know if we train in similar systems yet because none of us can communicate well enough.

Thing is they should be similar enough if they are what YM taught. They are supposed to be the same system.

I met with a Leung Sheung lineage guy today. That has got to be one of the least similar systems to what I train that I've ever seen. Very far removed in concept and application. Neat what they do when someone is cooperating... I would be shocked if YM was teaching that stuff though.

 

[guy b.]

Thing is they should be similar enough if they are what YM taught. They are supposed to be the same system.

I met with a Leung Sheung lineage guy today. That has got to be one of the least similar systems to what I train that I've ever seen. Very far removed in concept and application. Neat what they do when someone is cooperating... I would be shocked if YM was teaching that stuff though.

I have never seen Leung Sheung system. What are the main differences?

 

[guy b.]

I just said my definition is open to change, and I replied as an agreement to geezer.

I do not have a hard time expressing myself in English. But I do have a philosophical mind which means that I can get almost any definition to work with or opposite to my belief. Got my philosophy teacher hating me and giving me highest grade in pure disbelief.

So I put little effort in finding a good way to explain abstract terms. My sifu can but I do not wish to share his definition nor is it in English.

I don't really understand what you are talking about here, sorry.