Sei Ging....the "Four Energies" and Wing Chun
- Thread starter KPM
- Start date
dudewingchun
Blue Belt
I have to be honest I dont really care if the Tun Tou concepts are from somewhere else. It works quite good for me and I finally have strength in my stance. Iv been feeling wing chun gets too restricted sometimes and people become robotic because they are scared of violating principles and so focused on " been wing chun". I just feel like wing chun is my guide and I do as much as possible when fighting.. but been locked up like that and feeling like certain movements are "bad" can hinder been a good fighter. Idk just a thought.
I mean just go look at most the wing chun vs xxxx videos on youtube and most the time its a wc guy standing in bai jong with his hands up and then they just get wrecked and dont even parry a single punch. I bet alot of them have trained for a while doing drills and learning some principles but then it just falls apart. They are so restricted and " stuck in the mud"
Actually sparring alot ( and getting hit) and getting into fights makes you think alot and some of these principles arent as effective against certain styles of fighting. From what iv seen from the "Loi Lau Hoi Sung, Lat Sau Jik Chung" applications from WSL , doing it against a good kickboxer/boxer might make them change angles and get your from the outside with a good hook. Its happened to me a few times when trying to apply it in sparring ( maybe im just doing it wrong/misinterpreting). But then in a street altercation against a adrenaline/anger fueled swing I think its good and overwhelming. Guy b/LFJ thoughts on that ?
In Alans book there is a quite interesting interview with a Lun Kai WC Sifu Mark Hobbs who says Ip taught Lun Kai a very specific methodology about structure that seems to be missing in most HK WC. Ill type out one paragraph from it.
" Creating structure is about aligning the ( Gwot Kwa) skeletal system to be able to structurally maintain posture when a force is been exerted against you. This allows you to ( Tun) absorb the pressure by transferring the pressure against you into the ground- ( Ma) to root. "
Thats written word for word and is part of Mark hobbs reply about Lun Kai Foshan Ip man wc
I mean just go look at most the wing chun vs xxxx videos on youtube and most the time its a wc guy standing in bai jong with his hands up and then they just get wrecked and dont even parry a single punch. I bet alot of them have trained for a while doing drills and learning some principles but then it just falls apart. They are so restricted and " stuck in the mud"
Actually sparring alot ( and getting hit) and getting into fights makes you think alot and some of these principles arent as effective against certain styles of fighting. From what iv seen from the "Loi Lau Hoi Sung, Lat Sau Jik Chung" applications from WSL , doing it against a good kickboxer/boxer might make them change angles and get your from the outside with a good hook. Its happened to me a few times when trying to apply it in sparring ( maybe im just doing it wrong/misinterpreting). But then in a street altercation against a adrenaline/anger fueled swing I think its good and overwhelming. Guy b/LFJ thoughts on that ?
In Alans book there is a quite interesting interview with a Lun Kai WC Sifu Mark Hobbs who says Ip taught Lun Kai a very specific methodology about structure that seems to be missing in most HK WC. Ill type out one paragraph from it.
" Creating structure is about aligning the ( Gwot Kwa) skeletal system to be able to structurally maintain posture when a force is been exerted against you. This allows you to ( Tun) absorb the pressure by transferring the pressure against you into the ground- ( Ma) to root. "
Thats written word for word and is part of Mark hobbs reply about Lun Kai Foshan Ip man wc
Last edited:
What you've been told doesn't mean anything to me (no offence). There are a lot of people saying a lot of things lately - without knowing motives, it's all just hear-say. And, what was part of general 'martial culture' still doesn't really mean anything in regards to the WC system except for some very general and surface-level similarities.
It's simple, looking at Weng Chun, White Crane or anything else has little-to-nothing to do with the WC system except to compare differences and see some surface-level similarities. If these 4 ideas were an essential part of 'older' WC as you say, we would see it in more than this one small sub-branch LJ passed on at the end of his career (that's if he truely passed on these 4 energetics in his teaching).But if he did, and they are only fraction of the 18 Weng Chun had, why weren't all the concepts passed on? Why only 4, were the Gulo people cheated? (not saying they were/weren't just a thought) And, LJ did a lot of teaching prior to Pin Sun - these basic ideas aren't seen in anything he passed on prior to Pin Sun (more on that in a minute)
So talking about these other arts really only leans towards validating than it's more likely that someone borrowed from one of these others arts to add to this one single line you see these things in (whether in was LJ himself or someone later). Which is fine if it helps make sense of what they were doing. But I don't see any need to look to other arts to know what WC has. I've studied 2 lineages of WC (one from Red Boat/Ip Man and one from Boxer Society) and been exposed to many others and in none of them were these 4 descriptors present (or needed IMO). If they help someone make sense of their WC fine, but LLHS/LSJC is all I've seen WC to need.
Now, as far as claiming Pin Sin as 'older version of Wing Chun' that is rather silly and makes little sense. First, all WC is the really same age having come from the same source.
Second, older that what? WSL lineage? LT Lineage? Ok, maybe. But not older that what LJ passed on earlier in his career, all of which has LLHS concept.. Either way, saying something is 'older' still doesn't validate your theory.
Finally, just knowing that Pin Sun was a creation to simplify teaching of the art in LJ's final years as he was winding down/retired tells me, if anything, it's more of a 'newer art' relative to what was passed on previously by LJ (all of which has LLHS) - as well as what was taught before and outside of what LJ did (as there were many other teachers of WC before and during his time). Heck, wasn't what Ip Man taught from LJ's earlier teachings before he created the simplified Gulo sets? I guess in a round-about way, what WSL, LT, William Cheung, etc teach IS technically 'older' than Pin Sun, even if they are named for people that were born after LJ passed away since the come from LJ's earlier teaching....
Last edited:
dudewingchun
Blue Belt
I dont agree that LLHS/LSJC is all you need. Its only one concept. Its is not the end all be all imo.
Weng chun and Wing chun both have Fung Siu Ching as someone in the family tree. Fung siu ching apparently taught Yuen Kay San from Wing chun. Just saying.
Weng chun and Wing chun both have Fung Siu Ching as someone in the family tree. Fung siu ching apparently taught Yuen Kay San from Wing chun. Just saying.
What you've been told doesn't mean anything to me (no offence).
---Likewise. But when my Sifu shows me a hand-written document passed down from Tang Yik that outlines the "18 Kiu Sau Principles", including the "four energies" noted here....I tend to believe him.
And, what was part of general 'martial culture' still doesn't really mean anything in regards to the WC system except for some very general and surface-level similarities.
---Now you are sounding like our resident "True Believers." I've already pointed out that some current Ip Man lines still have these "four energies".....some using or emphasizing them more than others. If you see it as "surface level" then that's likely because it has been a bit deemphasized or even lost over time. In the mainland systems I have mentioned, It may not be a central focus like it is in the Hakka systems, suggesting only that these systems may be a bit more diverse and make use of multiple concepts other than these 4. They use more keywords that these "four energies." That isn't "surface level", that's simply a matter of how much emphasis something gets.
If these 4 ideas were an essential part of 'older' WC as you say, we would see it in more than this one small sub-branch LJ passed on at the end of his career
---What makes you think we don't? And what makes you think it was LJ that came up with it? I've already pointed out it is part of Tang Yik Weng Chun. Yuen Kay Shan/Sum Nun Wing Chun has this as well. So it very likely preceded LJ.
why weren't all the concepts passed on? Why only 4, were the Gulo people cheated?
---Who said the Ku Lo people only got these 4???
And, LJ did a lot of teaching prior to Pin Sun - these basic ideas aren't seen in anything he passed on prior to Pin Sun (more on that in a minute)
---How do you know what LJ passed on prior to Pin Sun?
So talking about these other arts really only leans towards validating than it's more likely that someone borrowed from one of these others arts to add to this one single line you see these things in (whether in was LJ himself or someone later).
---I don't follow your logic. If these concepts were "borrowed", then it happened pretty early on in Wing Chun's history and has been taught as part of Wing Chun for multiple generations. Nothing evolves in a vacuum. Everything gets influenced by what's going on around it. I'm sure that there are many aspects of Wing Chun that were "borrowed"....uh...like the knives....and the pole!! Does that make then any less "Wing Chun"???
Which is fine if it helps make sense of what they were doing. But I don't see any need to look to other arts to know what WC has.
---No one is "looking to other arts." I'm not the one comparing it to SPM's ideas of these concepts. I have talked about and described everything from a Wing Chun perspective.
Now, as far as claiming Pin Sin as 'older version of Wing Chun' that is rather silly and makes little sense. First, all WC is the really same age having come from the same source.
---Uh. No. Some Wing Chun systems are actually fairly modern creations. But this is not the place to go into that.
Finally, just knowing that Pin Sun was a creation to simplify teaching of the art in LJ's final years as he was winding down/retired tells me, if anything, it's more of a 'newer art' relative to what was passed on previously by LJ (all of which has LLHS) -
---Again, how do you know what LJ passed down prior to Pin Sun? Chan Yiu Min's art is certainly not representative. How do YOU know that LLHS was there from the beginning and was not a later refinement of some of these other concepts?
Heck, wasn't what Ip Man taught from LJ's earlier teachings before he created the simplified Gulo sets?
---Now I think you are confused. Ip Man learned from Chan Wah Shun and Ng Chun So. Chan Wah Shun learned from Leung Jan. But it is hard to really know what Leung Jan was teaching because there are not independent lines from Leung Jan to compare. We don't even really have independent lines from Chan Wah Shun to compare. CWS's son carried on his lineage, but added a lot of stuff and changed things around. Ip Man also learned a bit from Yuen Kay Shan and adapted and changed things around. Fung Chun taught the same thing in Ku Lo village for over 60 years. He learned from Wong Wah Sam, who learned from Leung Jan. That's probably as close as anyone can come to forming an idea of what Leung Jan's Wing Chun was like. He may have changed the curriculum to teach the method in the form of short sets, but he wouldn't have changed the basic frame and concepts.
I guess in a round-about way, what WSL, LT, William Cheung, etc teach IS technically 'older' than Pin Sun, even if they are named for people that were born after LJ passed away since the come from LJ's earlier teaching....
---Now there's some twisted logic! ;-)
---Likewise. But when my Sifu shows me a hand-written document passed down from Tang Yik that outlines the "18 Kiu Sau Principles", including the "four energies" noted here....I tend to believe him.
And, what was part of general 'martial culture' still doesn't really mean anything in regards to the WC system except for some very general and surface-level similarities.
---Now you are sounding like our resident "True Believers." I've already pointed out that some current Ip Man lines still have these "four energies".....some using or emphasizing them more than others. If you see it as "surface level" then that's likely because it has been a bit deemphasized or even lost over time. In the mainland systems I have mentioned, It may not be a central focus like it is in the Hakka systems, suggesting only that these systems may be a bit more diverse and make use of multiple concepts other than these 4. They use more keywords that these "four energies." That isn't "surface level", that's simply a matter of how much emphasis something gets.
If these 4 ideas were an essential part of 'older' WC as you say, we would see it in more than this one small sub-branch LJ passed on at the end of his career
---What makes you think we don't? And what makes you think it was LJ that came up with it? I've already pointed out it is part of Tang Yik Weng Chun. Yuen Kay Shan/Sum Nun Wing Chun has this as well. So it very likely preceded LJ.
why weren't all the concepts passed on? Why only 4, were the Gulo people cheated?
---Who said the Ku Lo people only got these 4???
And, LJ did a lot of teaching prior to Pin Sun - these basic ideas aren't seen in anything he passed on prior to Pin Sun (more on that in a minute)
---How do you know what LJ passed on prior to Pin Sun?
So talking about these other arts really only leans towards validating than it's more likely that someone borrowed from one of these others arts to add to this one single line you see these things in (whether in was LJ himself or someone later).
---I don't follow your logic. If these concepts were "borrowed", then it happened pretty early on in Wing Chun's history and has been taught as part of Wing Chun for multiple generations. Nothing evolves in a vacuum. Everything gets influenced by what's going on around it. I'm sure that there are many aspects of Wing Chun that were "borrowed"....uh...like the knives....and the pole!! Does that make then any less "Wing Chun"???
Which is fine if it helps make sense of what they were doing. But I don't see any need to look to other arts to know what WC has.
---No one is "looking to other arts." I'm not the one comparing it to SPM's ideas of these concepts. I have talked about and described everything from a Wing Chun perspective.
Now, as far as claiming Pin Sin as 'older version of Wing Chun' that is rather silly and makes little sense. First, all WC is the really same age having come from the same source.
---Uh. No. Some Wing Chun systems are actually fairly modern creations. But this is not the place to go into that.
Finally, just knowing that Pin Sun was a creation to simplify teaching of the art in LJ's final years as he was winding down/retired tells me, if anything, it's more of a 'newer art' relative to what was passed on previously by LJ (all of which has LLHS) -
---Again, how do you know what LJ passed down prior to Pin Sun? Chan Yiu Min's art is certainly not representative. How do YOU know that LLHS was there from the beginning and was not a later refinement of some of these other concepts?
Heck, wasn't what Ip Man taught from LJ's earlier teachings before he created the simplified Gulo sets?
---Now I think you are confused. Ip Man learned from Chan Wah Shun and Ng Chun So. Chan Wah Shun learned from Leung Jan. But it is hard to really know what Leung Jan was teaching because there are not independent lines from Leung Jan to compare. We don't even really have independent lines from Chan Wah Shun to compare. CWS's son carried on his lineage, but added a lot of stuff and changed things around. Ip Man also learned a bit from Yuen Kay Shan and adapted and changed things around. Fung Chun taught the same thing in Ku Lo village for over 60 years. He learned from Wong Wah Sam, who learned from Leung Jan. That's probably as close as anyone can come to forming an idea of what Leung Jan's Wing Chun was like. He may have changed the curriculum to teach the method in the form of short sets, but he wouldn't have changed the basic frame and concepts.
I guess in a round-about way, what WSL, LT, William Cheung, etc teach IS technically 'older' than Pin Sun, even if they are named for people that were born after LJ passed away since the come from LJ's earlier teaching....
---Now there's some twisted logic! ;-)
Last edited:
Last edited:
How does swallow allow one to attack when the way is free?
Without that forward intent it would be hard in some scenarios to find an opening when it pops up...
Of course there is the need perhaps to do a swallow with forward intent but sounds like this is not part of what you are describing.
Without that forward intent it would be hard in some scenarios to find an opening when it pops up...
Of course there is the need perhaps to do a swallow with forward intent but sounds like this is not part of what you are describing.
Fine. Because you weren't making sense, and you were coming across negative yourself. Maybe you don't see it. But your tone in your responses on this thread were not exactly of the "friendly discussion" type.
How does swallow allow one to attack when the way is free?
----Maybe the way is not free until you use something with the "swallow" concept that creates an opening. A very simple example is Lop Da. Someone punches at you and you respond with Bong Sau. But the "way is not free" yet! So you do a Lop Sau that brings their arm down and creates the opening for your return punch. Technically the Lop motion is using the "swallow" concept by going with the energy of the oncoming punch and "sucking the opponent in." The magnitude of the Lop Sau can vary, and therefore use the "swallow" concept to varying degrees.
Of course there is the need perhaps to do a swallow with forward intent but sounds like this is not part of what you are describing.
---I think there is a difference between forward "intent" and forward "pressure." My intent can be to go forward...as a strategy, but my pressure may not be constantly forward. "Swallow" does not have forward pressure, but it can be part of forward "intent." Watch one of Alan Orr's videos of him doing free Chi Sau and you will see a perfect example. Alan uses a lot of forward pressure. Some have even accused him of "leaning" (which isn't true.) But he is also sensitive to the opponent's pressure. If he presses in and the opponent overreacts, he will de-link and suddenly reverse his press (suddenly "swallow") so that the opponent finds himself lurching forward under his own steam. That's why it looks like Alan is "rag-dolling" someone around the floor, constantly keeping them off-balance. He is using his skill at knowing when to press forward, and when to "absorb" or "swallow"....all the while having forward "intent." Does that make sense? It isn't a matter of ALWAYS pressing forward. You have to know when to de-link and actually NOT press forward in order to suddenly have the opponent off-balance and at a disadvantage. This can be coupled with a small pivot and a sudden "lift" to effectively make the opponent feel like he is momentarily "floating". This is using the concept of "rise" or "float."
----Maybe the way is not free until you use something with the "swallow" concept that creates an opening. A very simple example is Lop Da. Someone punches at you and you respond with Bong Sau. But the "way is not free" yet! So you do a Lop Sau that brings their arm down and creates the opening for your return punch. Technically the Lop motion is using the "swallow" concept by going with the energy of the oncoming punch and "sucking the opponent in." The magnitude of the Lop Sau can vary, and therefore use the "swallow" concept to varying degrees.
Of course there is the need perhaps to do a swallow with forward intent but sounds like this is not part of what you are describing.
---I think there is a difference between forward "intent" and forward "pressure." My intent can be to go forward...as a strategy, but my pressure may not be constantly forward. "Swallow" does not have forward pressure, but it can be part of forward "intent." Watch one of Alan Orr's videos of him doing free Chi Sau and you will see a perfect example. Alan uses a lot of forward pressure. Some have even accused him of "leaning" (which isn't true.) But he is also sensitive to the opponent's pressure. If he presses in and the opponent overreacts, he will de-link and suddenly reverse his press (suddenly "swallow") so that the opponent finds himself lurching forward under his own steam. That's why it looks like Alan is "rag-dolling" someone around the floor, constantly keeping them off-balance. He is using his skill at knowing when to press forward, and when to "absorb" or "swallow"....all the while having forward "intent." Does that make sense? It isn't a matter of ALWAYS pressing forward. You have to know when to de-link and actually NOT press forward in order to suddenly have the opponent off-balance and at a disadvantage. This can be coupled with a small pivot and a sudden "lift" to effectively make the opponent feel like he is momentarily "floating". This is using the concept of "rise" or "float."
A friend just sent me an additional data point. Lo Kwai was an early student of Leung Jan while he was teaching in Foshan prior to his retirement to Ku Lo village. His line is preserved and contains the following keywords or Sup Bot Fatt (18 Methods) / Sup Bot Ging (18 Energies): Tao - spit Tun - swallow Fao - raise Chum - sink Mo - touch Dong - swing Na - adhere Kum - grasp Lao - leak Tong - press Biu - thrust Zhan - vibrate, Huai - spiral Juan - roll Shuai - throw Zhi - straight Darp - join Jui - follow.
Note the first 4 are the "four energies." I don't know how legitimate this line from Leung Jan is, but here at least is a suggestion that LJ himself taught the "four energies" as part of his system early on, and taught them to more people than just Wong Wah Sam. So again, even if you consider these concepts to be an "add on" to the system, it would have happened very early in Wing Chun's history. Knives and pole were also both an "add on" early in Wing Chun history. So at what point then would you consider these things as part of Wing Chun and not just an "add on"???? Personally I think that referring to them as an "add on" just because you don't find them in your own version of Wing Chun is a bit off.
Note the first 4 are the "four energies." I don't know how legitimate this line from Leung Jan is, but here at least is a suggestion that LJ himself taught the "four energies" as part of his system early on, and taught them to more people than just Wong Wah Sam. So again, even if you consider these concepts to be an "add on" to the system, it would have happened very early in Wing Chun's history. Knives and pole were also both an "add on" early in Wing Chun history. So at what point then would you consider these things as part of Wing Chun and not just an "add on"???? Personally I think that referring to them as an "add on" just because you don't find them in your own version of Wing Chun is a bit off.
wckf92
Master of Arts
Because you have two hands/arms, two legs, and two sides of your horse. One swallows, while simultaneously the other spits (strikes)..
one side of your body enhancing the swallow with properly trained "yin" mechanics...while simultaneously the other side of your body enhancing the spit (strike) with "yang". Same for your feet. Properly trained, these various elements combine and work together quite nicely. Just my opinion
In my lineage when a certain level of force is passed, you may release the force with a bong, tan, turn, etc. It timed right, it can definitely cause your opponent to lurch forward and practically fall onto your attack. This does not seem so very different from the linking and unlinking I've seen Alan Orr demonstrate on his videos.
In my lineage, this is accomplished without abandoning forward intent. I can see how it could be called "swallowing". But do you really need to complicate things by listing "18 energies". I like to keep things simple. I just see it as dissolving and attack.
In my lineage, this is accomplished without abandoning forward intent. I can see how it could be called "swallowing". But do you really need to complicate things by listing "18 energies". I like to keep things simple. I just see it as dissolving and attack.
Vajramusti
Master Black Belt
-----------------------------------------------
Blind Men & Elephant parable
The parable of the blind men and the elephant is used to illustrate how biases can blind us, preventing us from seeking a more complete understanding on the nature of things. It is often used as a warning against the promotion of absolute truths.
The story of the blind men and an elephant originated in India (Pali Buddhist Udana) from where it is widely diffused. Made famous by the great Sufi master Jalal ud-din-i Rumi (1207-1273 c.e.) in his Mathnawi of Jalaluâ ddin Rumi, the parable has been used to illustrate a range of truths and fallacies.
âBlind monks examining an elephantâ by Itcho Hanabusa 1888
The parable went something like this:
In a distant village, a long time ago, there lived six blind men. One day the villagers announced, âHey, there is an elephant in the village today.â
They had never seen or felt an elephant before and so decided, âEven though we would not be able to see it, let us go and feel it anyway.â And thus they went down to the village to touch and feel the elephant to learn what animal this was and they described it as follows:
âHey, the elephant is a pillar,â said the first man who touched his leg.
âOh, no! it is like a rope,â argued the second after touching the tail.
âOh, no! it is like a thick branch of a tree,â the third man spouted after touching the trunk.
âIt is like a big hand fanâ said the fourth man feeling the ear.
âIt is like a huge wall,â sounded the fifth man who groped the belly .
âIt is like a solid pipe,â Said the sixth man with the tuskin his hand.
They all fell into heated argument as to who was right in describing the big beast, all sticking to their own perception. A wise sage happened to hear the argument, stopped and asked them âWhat is the matter?â They said, âWe cannot agree to what the elephant is like.â
The wise man then calmly said, âEach one of you is correct; and each one of you is wrong. Because each one of you had only touched a part of the elephantâs body. Thus you only have a partial view of the animal. If you put your partial views together, you will get an idea of what an elephant looks like.â
At various times it has provided insight into the relativity, opaqueness or inexpressible nature of truth, the behaviour of experts in fields where there is a defecit or inaccessibility of information, the need for communication, and respect for different perspectives.
Although the parableâs function is to call attention to a lack of objectivity and consideration of other approaches and perspectives when trying to understand the nature of things, we do have to warn that not all perspectives are equally valid, and even valid arguments are not necessarily equally sound. I would like to thank Dr. Peter Kabai for this reminder.
Each of us lives in our own world, with our own life experiences and sensory perceptions, which often lead us to biases characterized by a lack of general objectivity, open-mindedness or the consideration of the points of view of others.
In a world where issues are usually and uncritically two sided: black or white: good or bad; ethical or unethical, it is easy to fall into heated debates, each defending a point of view often times equated to truths.
Tun tou is sequential, it has to be to work. It is not half body. Splitting is not tun tou.
-----------------------------------------------
Blind Men & Elephant parable
The parable of the blind men and the elephant is used to illustrate how biases can blind us, preventing us from seeking a more complete understanding on the nature of things. It is often used as a warning against the promotion of absolute truths.
The story of the blind men and an elephant originated in India (Pali Buddhist Udana) from where it is widely diffused. Made famous by the great Sufi master Jalal ud-din-i Rumi (1207-1273 c.e.) in his Mathnawi of Jalaluâ ddin Rumi, the parable has been used to illustrate a range of truths and fallacies.
âBlind monks examining an elephantâ by Itcho Hanabusa 1888
The parable went something like this:
In a distant village, a long time ago, there lived six blind men. One day the villagers announced, âHey, there is an elephant in the village today.â
They had never seen or felt an elephant before and so decided, âEven though we would not be able to see it, let us go and feel it anyway.â And thus they went down to the village to touch and feel the elephant to learn what animal this was and they described it as follows:
âHey, the elephant is a pillar,â said the first man who touched his leg.
âOh, no! it is like a rope,â argued the second after touching the tail.
âOh, no! it is like a thick branch of a tree,â the third man spouted after touching the trunk.
âIt is like a big hand fanâ said the fourth man feeling the ear.
âIt is like a huge wall,â sounded the fifth man who groped the belly .
âIt is like a solid pipe,â Said the sixth man with the tuskin his hand.
They all fell into heated argument as to who was right in describing the big beast, all sticking to their own perception. A wise sage happened to hear the argument, stopped and asked them âWhat is the matter?â They said, âWe cannot agree to what the elephant is like.â
The wise man then calmly said, âEach one of you is correct; and each one of you is wrong. Because each one of you had only touched a part of the elephantâs body. Thus you only have a partial view of the animal. If you put your partial views together, you will get an idea of what an elephant looks like.â
At various times it has provided insight into the relativity, opaqueness or inexpressible nature of truth, the behaviour of experts in fields where there is a defecit or inaccessibility of information, the need for communication, and respect for different perspectives.
Although the parableâs function is to call attention to a lack of objectivity and consideration of other approaches and perspectives when trying to understand the nature of things, we do have to warn that not all perspectives are equally valid, and even valid arguments are not necessarily equally sound. I would like to thank Dr. Peter Kabai for this reminder.
Each of us lives in our own world, with our own life experiences and sensory perceptions, which often lead us to biases characterized by a lack of general objectivity, open-mindedness or the consideration of the points of view of others.
In a world where issues are usually and uncritically two sided: black or white: good or bad; ethical or unethical, it is easy to fall into heated debates, each defending a point of view often times equated to truths.
Truth in everything is also a way to no truth at all. Some things are either just wrong or just different
Last edited:
The problem with tun tou is that it is actively contradictory in terms of certain other wing chun concepts. So the question is, does Mainland wing chun have the same conceptual base as YM wing chun? If it does then how does it resolve the contradiction that is inherent from a YM wing chun perspective?
