Martial artist classification?

[Last Fearner]

look at the men who founded the various arts. They were not pacifists! The sought combat to test and hone their skills.

I don't believe we can say with certainty, who was a pacifist or not. There are different levels of pacifism. Being a pacifist does not necessarily mean that the person won't fight - - it could mean that he just prefers not to fight. I do not agree that the original pioneers of the Martial Art (including most of the more recent founders of various schools) intentionally "sought combat" to test and hone their skills. Combat honed their skills, but the reason these historical figures were revered for being "Martial Artist" rather than blood-thirsty warriors was because of their respect for life, desire for peace, and the preference to avoid conflict rather than seek out combat just to become a better fighter.

If you cite me examples of past warriors who did seek combat for that purpose, then I would contend that they are not examples of true Martial Artists - - In my opinion

The mind may well be the best weapon, but when someone asks about techniques just answer them.

It is an individual choice to answer directly, answer in general terms, or pose a related question rather than answer. The fact is, I don't personally know most of the people who are using the internet. Not the person asking, nor the next 10,000 people who will read my replies. There might be gang-bangers, habitual criminals, terrorists, and all sorts who want to pick our brains and simply "get a straight answer."

What typically crosses my mind is, why does this person need to come on the internet to ask technical questions which should be resolved in class, with a certified instructor who can look at that person face-to-face, and have a better idea if they are going to misuse the knowledge. There are Martial Art wannabes who love to get answers from those who have spent their entire lives working to get this knowledge just so they can sound just as wise when they con everyone else into thinking they are the experts.

I like to share some things here on the internet, but not advance technical skill to people I don't even know. For this, I say join a school; get an instructor for detailed answers on "what is the best technique to kill a mugger if I ever meet one?" I figure that if a person is seeking violent solutions, they probably need to hear the advice of "just walk away." If they are truly an advanced practitioner who already knows this, then they should know what to do next, or go ask their real-life instructor.

Last Fearner made a good point with his riddle. There's a flaw, though - the man with the hiccups may actually be thirsty. The bartender made an assumption about what the man wanted that could be incorrect.

Very good Cory! You have made an excellent observation. Of course, after the hiccups were cured, if the man was really thirsty, he could have smiled, said "thank you," and then asked for the glass of water to quench his thirst. Looking at things from different perspectives is what is important. The riddle should simply remind us, first of all, that there are often more than one solution to problems, and more than one point of view to issues. Also, sometimes people ask for some things that might not be the best solution so it is good to understand why they are asking so that you might help them better.

One man asks the other if he has a match. The second man says "no, but I have a cigarette lighter." The first man replies, "don't be silly! How can I pick my teeth with a cigarette lighter?"

Last Fearner

 

[exile]

I I do not agree that the original pioneers of the Martial Art (including most of the more recent founders of various schools) intentionally "sought combat" to test and hone their skills. Combat honed their skills, but the reason these historical figures were revered for being "Martial Artist" rather than blood-thirsty warriors was because of their respect for life, desire for peace, and the preference to avoid conflict rather than seek out combat just to become a better fighter.

There is excellent documentation to the contrary, LF. Choki Motobu was probably the greatest of the expatriate Okinawan karateka who brought the very hard linear Shuri style to Japan; he was considered the best technician of his generation and was a feared fighter. We know from the work of Mark Bishop that, as he puts it, Motobu `entered Anko Itosu's dojo but was soon expelled because of his attitude of always wanting to prove himself.' (Okinawan Karate: Teachers, Styles and Secret Techniques, p. 68.) This is putting the matter rather delicately in fact: Bruce Clayton provides the revealing detail that `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—Egami, Mibuni, Toyama—who did not regard Motobu as a martial artist of the highest caliber. For them, the preservers of Matsumura's and Itosu's creation, a martial artist was one who practiced the martial arts to a high degree of proficiency, and by that standard, Motobu was in a class by himself. 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, [who]... combined China's vital-point strikes with Shuri's ruthless philosophy of ikken hisatsu. One strike, sudden death. He went for the eyes and throat first...' (p. 89). 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.

Let's pursue the point a little more broadly. These figures are to Okinawan karate what Titian and Leonardo were to Italian Renaissance painting; who would dare assert that neither of the latter were true masters of their art simply because they were hardly saints in their personal lives? For that matter, Wagner was a vicious anti-Semite who cruelly abused the women he was was involved with; Herbert Von Karajan was actually a Nazi party member. We may loathe both of them as ethical monsters—I certainly do—but exactly how much credibility would it have to say that neither of them were `true musical artists' simply because their political morality was loathsome? And if you grant that point, then where is it written that to be a martial artist—as opposed to a literary, musical or photographic artist—you have to be a moral paragon? If you impose that requirement, you are using the word `artist' in a private sense, much as if I were to insist that von Karajan was not a musical artist, and Heidegger was not a major philosopher, simply because both of them had been Nazis.

If you cite me examples of past warriors who did seek combat for that purpose, then I would contend that they are not examples of true Martial Artists - - In my opinion

What this does is, in effect, say that you personally do not use the term `martial artist' to mean `one highly proficient in the application of systematic combat arts', but rather `one highly proficient in the application of combat arts who does not deliberately seek out combat', which would be equivalent to my saying that von Karajan is not a musical artist because when I use the term `artist', what I mean is what other people mean by `artists' except with the additional condition that the person involved was not a Nazi. Well, no one can stop either of us from using the terms exactly the way we want to—we have the example of Humpty Dumpty, of whom Lewis Carroll reports that

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

I can also use the term `artist' to include only the subset of those whom other people call artists who are in addition vegetarians. Or do not speak Estonian. Or anything else. But that says virtually nothing about their skills and accomplishments; it says much more about me than it does about them. So I think, myself, that it's taking on a bit much, making such judgments about great masters of the past on the basis of our own insistance that the accolade `martial artist' only be bestowed on those who, in addition to their combat skills and knowledge, have certain personal qualities we personally happen to value...

 

[Last Fearner]

There is excellent documentation to the contrary, LF.

Your examples are not to the "contrary" of what I said, but fit into the description that I have clearly denoted removes these individuals from being true and complete Martial Artists.

Choki Motobu was probably the greatest of the expatriate Okinawan karateka who brought the very hard linear Shuri style to Japan; he was considered the best technician of his generation and was a feared fighter.

Then he was a great "technician" and a "feared fighter" but this does not qualify a person as being a Martial Artist by definition of those whom I believe truly are Martial Artist, and understand what it means to be one. I am not implying that you are not a Marital Artist, my friend, just that we disagree on terminology, and the source that I use are people whom I regard as being very legitimate.

We know from the work of Mark Bishop that, as he puts it, Motobu `entered Anko Itosu's dojo but was soon expelled because of his attitude of always wanting to prove himself.'

Prime example of a characteristic and conduct unbecoming of a Martial Artist.

Bruce Clayton provides the revealing detail that `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.'

As a Martial Artist, and a serious instructor, I would have expelled him as well, and further stated openly that he was no longer conducting himself as a Martial Artist should, thus he is not a Martial Artist but a skilled technician who likes to fight. Who was the student in this particular case, and who was the teacher? The student misbehaves, and the teacher expels him. They don't get to continue to claim the honorable status of a Martial Artist simply because they were once a student of the Martial Art under a true Martial Art Master who knows better - regardless of the former student's technical skills. He forfeits the right to be called a Martial Artist by the very behavior that got him expelled.

There is not a single great karate master of the era, however—Egami, Mibuni, Toyama—who did not regard Motobu as a martial artist of the highest caliber.

"Knowledge without justice ought to be called cunning rather than wisdom." ~ Plato

I don't really care what those other people regarded him as. How long were these other people training? What makes them and their assessment so much more valid than a Martial Art Master of today. People tend to hold these historical names in such high regard when they were no different than many of us instructors, and often much younger, with less time in the Martial Art, and even less of an understanding of true Martial Art philosophy.

This is why the true Masters of their time expelled people. If I were there then, I would do the same thing. I have known many characters who "train in the Martial Art" today, and might be good fighters, but they break the law, or they abuse their spouses, or they get into fights at the drop of a hat. Other so-called Martial Artist, who are their peers and juniors, are in awe of them and their skills. They regard these modern "bad boys" as "Martial Artists" today. Yet, I deny that, and state as a matter of fact that their actions, and behavior disqualify them for that title.

For them, the preservers of Matsumura's and Itosu's creation, a martial artist was one who practiced the martial arts to a high degree of proficiency, and by that standard, Motobu was in a class by himself.

Then he was in a "class by himself" - - a class of Non-Martial Artist who were skilled fighters.

And there are far worse stories about Chotoku Kyan,

Then Chotoku Kyan was far worse, and does not deserve to be labeled as anything other than a combatant or skilled fighter.

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.

This simply proves my point.

"The measure of a man is what he does with power." ~ Plato

I don't care who the person is, or what their historical reputation, or who places them on a pedestal. If they provoke fights, and kill their victims, they are bullies, thugs, and murderers - - but absolutely not Martial Artist. Sorry if you and others disagree, but there is no room for leeway on this issue in my training and teaching.

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.

Then those "accomplished students" were wrong, and blinded by the technical skills that impressed them so. "Humanitarianism" is defined as "the belief that the sole moral obligation of humankind is the improvement of human welfare." (Heritage Dictionary, 2000) A man who disregards the welfare of his neighbors, cheats people, and steps on others to get to the top himself can not truly claim to be a "Humanitarian." A person who seeks violence, provokes fights, and beats on people or kills them unnecessarily is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a true Martial Artist!

Titian and Leonardo were to Italian Renaissance painting; who would dare assert that neither of the latter were true masters of their art simply because they were hardly saints in their personal lives?

Apples to oranges! They were masters of their "art." They were not Martial Artists. Being a painter is a unique "art" and "talent" which does not include any training or teachings pertaining to moral conduct, legal behavior, nor the restraint of one's learned power to destroy another human being. Martial Artists do have that responsibility, and those lessons are part of the Martial Art education when it is taught correctly.

For that matter, Wagner was a vicious anti-Semite who cruelly abused the women he was was involved with;

Then he was not a Martial Artist. True Martial Artists do not abuse women.

Herbert Von Karajan was actually a Nazi party member. We may loathe both of them as ethical monsters—I certainly do—but exactly how much credibility would it have to say that neither of them were `true musical artists' simply because their political morality was loathsome?

Would you contend that a person, who most people consider to be "ethical monsters," and "loathsome" individuals should be regarded as "Martial Artists?"

Again - - apples to oranges! They were perhaps talented musicians, not humanitarians, and not Martial Artists. I can rightly, and justly say, by the evidence of their own actions, they were definitely not humanitarians. This does not detract from their talent as musicians. I can also say, with abosolute certainty that they, or anyone who conducts themselves in a similar fashion, would not be Martial Artists - - except by those who wish to twist and pervert the term Martial Artist to mean anything they want it to as long as the person can fight. If you take that stance, then we simply disagree, because I believe with all my heart and soul that this is wrong!

And if you grant that point, then where is it written that to be a martial artist—as opposed to a literary, musical or photographic artist—you have to be a moral paragon?

Not a "paragon" of flawless perfection, but certainly a model of excellence; one who obeys laws, respects life, and the rights of others, and sets a good example for children to follow.

"Knowledge becomes evil if the aim be not virtuous." ~ Plato

It is written in many books, by experts and Grandmasters of ancient and modern times, that this coduct is not acceptable behavior among Martial Artists. Not that others do not write books which claim otherwise, but their claims are based in denial of what they were once taught (or should have been taught) as students, lest they be ejected from their school by a genuine Master.

If you impose that requirement, you are using the word `artist' in a private sense,

"Private sense?" It is used in a specific sense. One unique to the "Martial Art. This is an "English" word which is used to give some meaning to the original concept of "Do." It does not mean the same as an "art" of talent in a particular field, or a skill to paint, or play music or the like. "Do" is understood by asians, and specifically by true Martial Artists as meaning "a way of life," and "a path of righteous behavior and moral conduct." It does not mean the "art of fighting skillfully," but rather the "art of living life the way a warrior who values life, and adheres to rules of moral conduct lives." This is the true "art form" - - not an art of "fighting," or "killing" or "violence." Where is it written, in any credible text, that the "Martial Art" is the "way of choosing violence over peace;" the "art of provoking fights and killing innocent victims just to test and hone our skills?"

What this does is, in effect, say that you personally do not use the term `martial artist' to mean `one highly proficient in the application of systematic combat arts', but rather `one highly proficient in the application of combat arts who does not deliberately seek out combat',

EXACTLY! Now you have it, my friend!

"I exhort you also to take part in the great combat, which is the combat of life, and greater than every other earthly conflict." ~ Plato

which would be equivalent to my saying that von Karajan is not a musical artist because when I use the term `artist', what I mean is what other people mean by `artists' except with the additional condition that the person involved was not a Nazi.

Again, Apples to oranges. The term "artist" when applied to painting and music is not a replacement for the term "Do" as in Budo, Bushido, Judo, Aikido, Hapkido, Hwarang-Do, Taekwondo. These were and are the Martial Art - - the "Do." None of them, in their philosophy or traditional curriculum, advocated seeking violence, hurting people unnecessarily, or killing without regard. If necessary, I can dig through all of my Martial Art texts, written by many famous authors and founders, and I will quote passages that denounce this kind of conduct, and specifically states that this kind of behavior is not that of a Martial Artist.

Well, no one can stop either of us from using the terms exactly the way we want to—we have the example of Humpty Dumpty, of whom Lewis Carroll reports that

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

And if Lewis Carroll had coined the term "Do" or "Budo," or "Bushido" or "Taekwondo," etc, then perhaps I would accept his definition of what he meant by the term. But he did not. Those who call these misguided individuals "great masters" did not create the term "Do" nor its translation to the English "art" which should hold the same meaning of the original context in the Martial Art, not in musical art. They were students who did not understand the meaning of the term anymore than many students today.

I do not mean to offend anyone (although I am sure there will be those who are offended), and I realize that my assertions are strong and unyielding, but this is the way I was taught, this is the way I read every interpretation by the true Great Masters, and this is the way I have come to understand the truth about the Martial Art. Anyone can be a student of the Martial Art. A teacher may choose to accept them, or reject them. However, if their conduct is unbecoming of a Martial Artist, then they shall remain a "student" until they learn the proper attitude. No matter how good their skills become, they are not a Martial Artist until their attitude changes.

You have probably heard of "conduct unbecoming an officer." A person can be a skilled soldier, but they are not an "officer" unless they meet certain requirements. An officer who acts in a manner which is not consistent with the rules of conduct set forth by senior officers, then they lose the title of "officer." Such rules of behavior exist for Martial Artists. I suggest students seek them out, study them, and act accordingly!

"The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance." ~ Aristotle

To be is to do.

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." ~ Aristotle

Having good fighting skills does not make you a Martial Artist. Good fighting skills are a by-product of good Martial Art training. It is what you do with those skills that makes you a Martial Artist.

Live your life as a Martial Artist, or you are not one.

CM D.J. Eisenhart