How many of you believe we must always be the man at all times? No sign of weakness or your school will loose students? Students must be the toughest or else you are a failure withen the MA world?
Certainly you're not equating being tough with the totality of being a man?
In Japanese there is a term,
igen, which denotes the dignity a person has which is demonstrated through a certain reserve. I suppose it could be thought of as being "polite," or more to the point in a KMA context, demonstrating courtesy (ye ui). There are simply certain things a courteous man will not do or say because a polite person doesn't do them. One doesn't need to prove themselves or challenege someone to be a man.
Conversely, the stoicism that many martial artists cultivate isn't - or shouldn't be IMNSHO - a sign of someone being "manly" if by that you mean macho. It should be a natural result of one's training in self-control, courtesy, perserverence, etc. On a superficial level these things will appear similar but upon further reflection one can see a difference, I think.
Decorum, perhaps that's the word I'm looking for. It's not something that many people value these days, less still is it something one sees demonstrated often.
I have been watching a few threads and I get the inpression that if you do not stand up and beat someone down you are a sissy and a weak MA'ist. What are your thought on this subject, me I am a Lover and violence is a last resort. I f I can convince someone to have a beer and talk, that is always better than beating the crap out of someone.
Well, let me just say this, martial artists are in no way required to be pacifists (and I don't think you're implying
that). The phrase "I'm a lover not a fighter" which you seem to be referencing here isn't all it's cracked up to be when taken that way. St. Thomas Aquinas, after all, put his explanation of the Just War Principle in his treatise on
Love in the Summa Theologiae. Likewise, G. K. Chesterton once said that "the true soldier fights not because he hates what's in front of him but becaise he loves what's behind him." It is love which can motivate one to fight at times because the things you love, if you really love them, will be worth fighting for.
That being said, violence should be a last result. I will not say avoided at
all costs because pacifism is ultimately a form of despair, it seems to me. It should also be wielded only when circumstances dictate. That would include defending oneself against physical harm, defending one's friends or family, etc.
I do not see how challenging someone over an insult would really qualify as being a legitimate use of force.
Like I said above, it's a matter of decorum. It's quite obvious that none of us are perfect and that there will be times when we don't exhibit behavior worthy of a martial artist simply due to human nature. But the question then becomes, was it excusable behavior? Sometimes, judging by the behavior I have seen first hand by people senior to me in rank and years training one would get the idea that there are few times when one can look to their seniors for a model to emulate when the doboks come off and the street clothes come on. But that just demonstrates that martial artists aren't perfect and many will often be lacking in dignity. Emulating the
imperfections of the saints will still lead one to hell. In other words, simply because a high ranking martial artist does something or approves of something doesn't mean it's worth doing yourself.
Pax,
Chris
ha.ha.ha.
