- Thread Starter
- #21
bignick]Been out of the loop a while, and a bunch of you made good counter points, there are some I want to address below.
Exactly, my point, kicking is kicking...the fact that the instructor should help instill a moral code of conduct says that they cannot be gained simply from the activity of the martial arts.
Martial Arts are not exclusive, just as the physical and mental aspects are not esclusive. If there was no interaction inside the class then I guess kicking is just kicking. And if there is no interaction with others in the outside world then kicking is just kicking. If your brain had nothing to do with what your body does then kicking is just kicking. If your mind has no association with your body then why would you learn to kick anyway? I can tell a student to kick harder all day but until his brain tells his body to kick harder then it just aint gonna happen.
If we are going real traditional here, the respect and discipline were already part of the organization and culture that the martial art was found in. The samurai didn't show respect because he had learned the sword, he did so because there was a clear line of authority and class and he knew exactly where he stood. He showed the right people the right amount of respect and courtesy, and when he didn't have to, what then? That's when we get stories of samurai cutting down peasants for accidently bumping their sword or other various slight infractions. The aspects you refer to could be found in martial arts because they were inherently present in the culture and organizations those people belonged to. Not because they were necessarily martial artists.
You make it sound like the Samuri only respected those above them and despised everyone below them. They looked at it all as a way of life - "DO" Not seperate parts. Eastern style teaching can not be fitted into wester phylosophys, it just doesn't work.
So if you refuse to teach students that don't appear to make your criteria of capable or worthy, is your teaching actually instilling good values? Or are you merely choosing to teach people that already possess those values?
That is an extreemly overly simplified example of teaching and the decisions an instructor must make. In fact the oriental defition is not teacher/student, but more mentor/deciple.
A student through their physical performance shows what their mental understanding/capability is. For example: If a student does not understand a block, most of the time they don't tell you that they don't understand it, you see they don't understand a move by the wrong performance of the move. Physically they are showing you what their mind thinks.
So in your example I am just here to teach someone to kick, and in your definition, a kick is just a kick
So if a student hurts someone smaller then themselves in class due to a mental problem then I should teach them more harmful techniques even if their mind is not in the right place. This to me, seems like putting a gun in the hands of a fellon. Many times it is better when a student quits.
A mentors job is to place hurdles in front of the student that the mentor knows they can achieve but will test the student. (Do we not sometimes learn through mental problems? What about the mental process? Do you only learn by throwing more kicks or by mental instruction?)
In all aspects of learning the student always has free will. Quit, avoid, or succeed.
A good instructor can show the student the magic of the path in all areas from the begining physical, to mental, to teaching.
Yes, I make the decisions in class on:
That is fine but if you know better then me why should I waste my time trying to change your mind. Your cup is full.
Every instructor will tell you about the student that comes in, wants to join their class, and proceeds to tell you everything they know. HA
To sum up, in general, those that say things like instructors have a responsibility to instill proper values, discipline, etc because they teach martial arts are basically playing right into my argument.
What your basically saying is that martial arts are dangerous. And if we are teaching people these physical techniques, we need to teach proper use and the moral compass that will allow students to know when to use them.
If you say an instructor needs to teach these additional things, it basically implies that simply teaching the techniques of martial arts does not do anything of the sort.
This has been my argument all along. Learning the perfect jab doesn't make you a good person. How can learning how to break someone's wrist or cut of someone's blood flow until they are unconscious or even dead make you better at anything but hurting people? But, can you use the opportunity you have in teaching these things to someone to try to instill discipline and good morals? Absolutely. Martial Arts don't make good people. Good people sharing and instilling their views into others makes good people.
They are not mutually exclusive. Nor should they be. But neither is one actually required for the other.[/quote]
I feel like we are somewhat argueing confucianism vs. neo-confucianism
We have danced around the good and the bad of both sides and in many instances not addressing you point.
But where I feel your argument falls to the ground is that you are defining a "Martial Art" as a simple physical technique.
As stated above what is the core of a Martial Art. Even a boxer will tell you there is more to Boxing than just techniques.
And if you ask most Masters who have been in the martial arts they will thell you that fighting and Self Defense have very little to do with the Martial arts.
If this logic were used in other areas you could say things like, "Learning to say the perfect prayer makes you a priest".
Learning mindless movements of the body would never alow you to defend yourself.
(However there is the Yin-Yang factor of mind and mindlessness, but this is a mental theory on the connection of mind and physical, something that MA's learn, something you don't learn just by learning a technique or throwing a perfect punch, but by the journey of the physical and mental)
I agree, Martial Arts do not make good people as you say but it does strive to make people better. However by making people better this does not remove free will. And I have not found a way to seperate my brain from my body nor anything else I do.
Exactly, my point, kicking is kicking...the fact that the instructor should help instill a moral code of conduct says that they cannot be gained simply from the activity of the martial arts.
Martial Arts are not exclusive, just as the physical and mental aspects are not esclusive. If there was no interaction inside the class then I guess kicking is just kicking. And if there is no interaction with others in the outside world then kicking is just kicking. If your brain had nothing to do with what your body does then kicking is just kicking. If your mind has no association with your body then why would you learn to kick anyway? I can tell a student to kick harder all day but until his brain tells his body to kick harder then it just aint gonna happen.
If we are going real traditional here, the respect and discipline were already part of the organization and culture that the martial art was found in. The samurai didn't show respect because he had learned the sword, he did so because there was a clear line of authority and class and he knew exactly where he stood. He showed the right people the right amount of respect and courtesy, and when he didn't have to, what then? That's when we get stories of samurai cutting down peasants for accidently bumping their sword or other various slight infractions. The aspects you refer to could be found in martial arts because they were inherently present in the culture and organizations those people belonged to. Not because they were necessarily martial artists.
You make it sound like the Samuri only respected those above them and despised everyone below them. They looked at it all as a way of life - "DO" Not seperate parts. Eastern style teaching can not be fitted into wester phylosophys, it just doesn't work.
So if you refuse to teach students that don't appear to make your criteria of capable or worthy, is your teaching actually instilling good values? Or are you merely choosing to teach people that already possess those values?
That is an extreemly overly simplified example of teaching and the decisions an instructor must make. In fact the oriental defition is not teacher/student, but more mentor/deciple.
A student through their physical performance shows what their mental understanding/capability is. For example: If a student does not understand a block, most of the time they don't tell you that they don't understand it, you see they don't understand a move by the wrong performance of the move. Physically they are showing you what their mind thinks.
So in your example I am just here to teach someone to kick, and in your definition, a kick is just a kick
So if a student hurts someone smaller then themselves in class due to a mental problem then I should teach them more harmful techniques even if their mind is not in the right place. This to me, seems like putting a gun in the hands of a fellon. Many times it is better when a student quits.
A mentors job is to place hurdles in front of the student that the mentor knows they can achieve but will test the student. (Do we not sometimes learn through mental problems? What about the mental process? Do you only learn by throwing more kicks or by mental instruction?)
In all aspects of learning the student always has free will. Quit, avoid, or succeed.
A good instructor can show the student the magic of the path in all areas from the begining physical, to mental, to teaching.
Yes, I make the decisions in class on:
- who should learn what
- when should something be taught something
That is fine but if you know better then me why should I waste my time trying to change your mind. Your cup is full.
Every instructor will tell you about the student that comes in, wants to join their class, and proceeds to tell you everything they know. HA
To sum up, in general, those that say things like instructors have a responsibility to instill proper values, discipline, etc because they teach martial arts are basically playing right into my argument.
What your basically saying is that martial arts are dangerous. And if we are teaching people these physical techniques, we need to teach proper use and the moral compass that will allow students to know when to use them.
If you say an instructor needs to teach these additional things, it basically implies that simply teaching the techniques of martial arts does not do anything of the sort.
This has been my argument all along. Learning the perfect jab doesn't make you a good person. How can learning how to break someone's wrist or cut of someone's blood flow until they are unconscious or even dead make you better at anything but hurting people? But, can you use the opportunity you have in teaching these things to someone to try to instill discipline and good morals? Absolutely. Martial Arts don't make good people. Good people sharing and instilling their views into others makes good people.
They are not mutually exclusive. Nor should they be. But neither is one actually required for the other.[/quote]
I feel like we are somewhat argueing confucianism vs. neo-confucianism
We have danced around the good and the bad of both sides and in many instances not addressing you point.
But where I feel your argument falls to the ground is that you are defining a "Martial Art" as a simple physical technique.
As stated above what is the core of a Martial Art. Even a boxer will tell you there is more to Boxing than just techniques.
And if you ask most Masters who have been in the martial arts they will thell you that fighting and Self Defense have very little to do with the Martial arts.
If this logic were used in other areas you could say things like, "Learning to say the perfect prayer makes you a priest".
Learning mindless movements of the body would never alow you to defend yourself.
(However there is the Yin-Yang factor of mind and mindlessness, but this is a mental theory on the connection of mind and physical, something that MA's learn, something you don't learn just by learning a technique or throwing a perfect punch, but by the journey of the physical and mental)
I agree, Martial Arts do not make good people as you say but it does strive to make people better. However by making people better this does not remove free will. And I have not found a way to seperate my brain from my body nor anything else I do.
