I think you do not understand what you are talking about.
The system no more dictates what is possible or allowed than a physics textbook is the sum total of what a physicist can do in his/her profession. The textbook provides a framework for learning how to approach a problem and examples of the kinds of problems that a physicist may deal with. It teaches concepts through practical examples, but does not place limits on what is possible with that education. But if you cannot go beyond the textbook and apply what you have learned creatively to solve unique problems, then you are not a physicist, even though you passed the class.
I dont understand how this is a rebuttal to any points i made, and i dont really understand the refrence or the greater point here. It looks like more of a strawman as im having a hard time finding where it attached to.
I do take issue with the science anaology though, as thats not very good. A better refrence is "if you are in a physics class, you dont learn biology" . Or to textbook it, a physics textbook is about physics not biology.
Now i will highlight the second part and reply to that with hopes it makes my point clear to clear up any poteional confustion and straw manning.
Using martial arts in an actual encounter is about applying your training to a unique situation.* That often means creative application and even doing things that are not part of the codified/formalized curriculum. That in no way means you are outside the system or are no longer using your training.**
*I only disagree with your choice of words here. A combat system would teach you what ever is in its currcilem and you would apply it to come to a combat solution when needed.
Now, the second half** of this is where a contradiction comes up.
"That often means creative application and even doing things that are not part of the codified/formalized curriculum. That in no way means you are outside the system or are no longer using your training."
I have rewritten the above to better illistrate my point and remove what i view as a strawman.
"That often means creative application and even doing things that are not part of the System. That in no way means you are outside the system"
As you can see, i changed "codified/formalized curriculum" to "system" as i belive we agreed or i stated i support that as the definition of system. And i removed "or are no longer using your training.", as i view this as a strawman. I never said you wouldnt be using your training if you weere trained in something and used it.
In short, those words are a contradiction, you have stated you can go beyond your system and still be using your system as that makes no sense in a limited system. Unless you mean a unlimited which i did not think you meant and dont support in this context. I have no evidence that Wing chun is a unlimited system, it has a specfic area of combat it explores and stays in. Among other reasons i find that point silly.
Addendum:
I think you do not understand what you are talking about.
There was abolutely no need for that statement, i did not place any blame on anyone for any mis understandings. I accepted you could have mis read something or i could have mis worded something that lead to confusion.
As i do belive there is a legitimate misunderstanding here. I dont really see how this leads off each other, other than some word and definiton issues which indicates potetionally some mis understanding.
this is where i think you didnt understand my point correctly (who evers fault not relivent).
That would be the quote, thats diffrent in tone to the above quote.