Thoughts on the "what martial art should I take for self-defense" question

[dvcochran]

Yeah, I went back and read it and have no clue what you read but to say you are stretching my words is a gross understatement. I suggest you engage your brain before your fingers.
You have a distinct consistency in twisting what people write. Very bad form. I would say that another way but you would not approve.
Possibly you would feel better if I used a term other than mother nature?

 

[dvcochran]

we are not actually in a war with mother nature, nature is our mother too, every thing we do, is wwmhat nature gave us the ability to do, maybe we could be wiser about what we do, but thats only because nature gave us the ability to be wise

Oh, I am not saying we are in a war. I am just saying there are things way more complex than we can imagine. And I think (mother) nature is ever-changing.
I agree she has given much more than she has taken away.

 

[Steve]

Yeah, I went back and read it and have no clue what you read but to say you are stretching my words is a gross understatement. I suggest you engage your brain before your fingers.
You have a distinct consistency in twisting what people write. Very bad form. I would say that another way but you would not approve.
Possibly you would feel better if I used a term other than mother nature?

Are you talking to me? If so, I didn't twist your words. I pretty much quoted your words. If you think it was your use ofth phrase mother nature, boy do you not get it.

As I said before, I don't know what's in your heart. Only what you say. And you say some pretty messed up stuff. If you meant something else, please share it, instead of getting aggressive. Use your words.

If you're talking to someone else, the above still probably applies.

 

[Steve]

But you know. What I'd like to know is, what art should the OP train for self defense. I'm going with Ambojitsu.

 

[_Simon_]

if you take zen Buddhism and remove the religious aspects you get mindfulness, which has been subject to the scientific method and shown in studies to have much the same effect on depression/anxiety as drugs

which then supports my point of religion being a substitute for mood enhancing drugs,

i suspect you could do much the same with any aspect of prayer/incantations and get positive results with out the need to pollute it with superstition or you could just take drugs and save the bother, organised religions generally have a down on recreational drugs as it makes them redundant

There's much, much more to it than that. It isn't just some mindfulness tool to alter endorphins.

 

[jobo]

There's much, much more to it than that. It isn't just some mindfulness tool to alter endorphins.

well it definitely works for that, what else is it provably

 

[jobo]

Oh, I am not saying we are in a war. I am just saying there are things way more complex than we can imagine. And I think (mother) nature is ever-changing.
I agree she has given much more than she has taken away.

of course its complicated, but how can you say its more complicated than we can imagine ? you are clearly imagining how complicated it is, to make that statement ? thus disproving your own statement

 

[_Simon_]

I think maybe I don't understand your definition of spiritual. Do you think your definition is common?

You're probably right there! In terms of what I mean by it, and probably not the common or popular usage. I guess it's commonly thought of as something relating to 'supernatural' or 'beyond the senses' beliefs or occurrences, often involving manipulating energies, talking to those on the 'other side', rituals to gain outcomes etc.

The only similarity is that it refers to beyond mere physical appearance reality (of spirit one could say, but that's not really a good term which all its connotations..). I guess what I mean by it is more existential drive for truth, which requires rigorous honesty, inquiry and surrendering of positionalities. A spiritual path being relinquishing barriers to truth (which is a common element or essence of a great deal of spiritual traditions. Different methods or emphases between them).

Which isn't superstitious or supernatural at all, but the MOST natural. What's real at the core of existence, and bypassing alot of what is deemed as 'spiritual', but are often trappings which just create further delusion. My definition isn't about controlling things/energies, but letting go of control to see what's underneath our labels. I dunno if I made any sense there haha.

 

[_Simon_]

Agree with slight exception.

Trying to break it down into simplest terms, I understand the term 'natural' as the things we are aware of due our senses (see, hear, smell, touch). Being complex beings we are able to integrate our senses to further understand and use things in our natural world.
Throughout time there have been things beyond our grasp of understanding. Always have been, always will be. There is no argument that, over time, we have grown and figured out that some things once considered 'supernatural' really are not. However, there are 'things' beyond our grasp and understanding. As we know them today they are supernatural.
This has nothing to do with mysticism and such. It is simply the things beyond our understanding.

All that said, do I think there is a higher power? Yes. I will leave it right there.

Yeah well said, and that's what I meant too, supernatural not really being that, but just what our minds can't really grasp yet.

 

[_Simon_]

well it definitely works for that, what else is it provably

Yeah for sure. But that's more a byproduct. Proof? There is none . Proof refers to the linear domain of understanding, the mind's projected cause and effect. Things of this 'spiritual' nature for lack of a better word are in the nonlinear domain, but this doesn't require just random blind belief, but quite the opposite. Enquiring into beliefs and seeing what labels we cast on reality, including time, space, cause, effect, proof. It's where faith comes in, but faith not being related to belief. Sort of hard to explain but I can try if you want.

Proof requires objectivity, whereas this is within subjectivity of consciousness. So it's confirmable, but not provable. So I can't give you anything

 

[_Simon_]

in a thread about arts for self defense, I guess the question I have is WWJT? What would Jesus train? I think aikido, but I don’t think it would have helped him much.

Hahahaha.. love it XD

 

[_Simon_]

But you know. What I'd like to know is, what art should the OP train for self defense. I'm going with Ambojitsu.

Something that incorporates pre, during, and post-fight... probably something like the Anchorman (and 2) fight scene.

 

[jobo]

Yeah for sure. But that's more a byproduct. Proof? There is none . Proof refers to the linear domain of understanding, the mind's projected cause and effect. Things of this 'spiritual' nature for lack of a better word are in the nonlinear domain, but this doesn't require just random blind belief, but quite the opposite. Enquiring into beliefs and seeing what labels we cast on reality, including time, space, cause, effect, proof. It's where faith comes in, but faith not being related to belief. Sort of hard to explain but I can try if you want.

Proof requires objectivity, whereas this is within subjectivity of consciousness. So it's confirmable, but not provable. So I can't give you anything

if you are genuinely in a search for '' truth'' you have to set of from a neutral point, that is nothing is proved till you prove it or have it proved to you.

at the moment you seem to be using a belief in spirituality to prove spirituality

there are people who are currently using the scientific method to probe the nature of reality, and its reasonably clear that it is not as our senses perceive it. the whole concept of time, space,matter, number of dimensions even existence are up for grabs, they are not investigating a linear cause and effect universe

for instance theres a credible theory that we live in a deterministic universe, that is not only are you powerless to change anything, your life, in fact the whole course of the universe has already happened, your just experiencing it a second at a time, both the past and the future exist and are as real as the present, ( I was watching a lecture on this very topic last night)

thats a really, liberating idea, your just along for the ride, but you cant accept that as your life is all ready written and you have no choice, but to cling to primitive models of the universe

existentialism works both ways

 

[_Simon_]

if you are genuinely in a search for '' truth'' you have to set of from a neutral point, that is nothing is proved till you prove it or have it proved to you.

at the moment you seem to be using a belief in spirituality to prove spirituality

Yeah. This is quite difficult to explain. But not at all. Once you see through that logic simply can't get to any semblance of truth beyond causality, that it's a circuitous process that reinforces itself, breaking out of that is not taking on some belief about spirituality. That's what I'm saying.

And it's not to deny science or the scientific method, but that has its limitations and just isn't applicable to this sort of endeavour. The intellect hits its limits.

Yeah so the process reveals itself, if you want to call it proof then that's fine, but it's not objectively provable to others as that would make it some objective linear 'thing' to replicate. It is literally a stepping into the unknown, which is coming from a neutral place. You can't have something proved to you BEFORE you realise it. That doesn't really make sense.

There are texts and writings, but in the end they're only guideposts, words to point the way, but you've gotta travel it yourself.

there are people who are currently using the scientific method to probe the nature of reality, and its reasonably clear that it is not as our senses perceive it. the whole concept of time, space,matter, number of dimensions even existence are up for grabs, they are not investigating a linear cause and effect universe

for instance theres a credible theory that we live in a deterministic universe, that is not only are you powerless to change anything, your life, in fact the whole course of the universe has already happened, your just experiencing it a second at a time

thats a really, liberating idea, your just along for the ride, but you cant accept that as your life is all ready written and you have no choice, but to cling to primitive models of the universe

Yeah exactly, well said. There's more to everything than we thought, and it certainly isn't as clear cut. And yeah that is a teaching I've come across many times, and it is incredibly liberating. To the ego who needs control, its terrifying, but to really see what that means is to be able to let go of control, worry, anxiety etc, as there's nothing any effort will do. Of course, it can be a dangerous teaching in the wrong hands of someone doesn't really understand it, and uses it for their own agendas.

Edit: saw the additions. Yeah it trips you out considering that the past, present and future are all happening at the same time. Even the idea that we're not driven by our past as previously thought, but that where being pulled by the future, our potential is actually what's driving us forward..

 

[jobo]

Yeah. This is quite difficult to explain. But not at all. Once you see through that logic simply can't get to any semblance of truth beyond causality, that it's a circuitous process that reinforces itself, breaking out of that is not taking on some belief about spirituality. That's what I'm saying.

And it's not to deny science or the scientific method, but that has its limitations and just isn't applicable to this sort of endeavour. The intellect hits its limits.

Yeah so the process reveals itself, if you want to call it proof then that's fine, but it's not objectively provable to others as that would make it some objective linear 'thing' to replicate. It is literally a stepping into the unknown, which is coming from a neutral place. You can't have something proved to you BEFORE you realise it. That doesn't really make sense.

There are texts and writings, but in the end they're only guideposts, words to point the way, but you've gotta travel it yourself.



Yeah exactly, well said. There's more to everything than we thought, and it certainly isn't as clear cut. And yeah that is a teaching I've come across many times, and it is incredibly liberating. To the ego who needs control, its terrifying, but to really see what that means is to be able to let go of control, worry, anxiety etc, as there's nothing any effort will do. Of course, it can be a dangerous teaching in the wrong hands of someone doesn't really understand it, and uses it for their own agendas.

Edit: saw the additions. Yeah it trips you out considering that the past, present and future are all happening at the same time. Even the idea that we're not driven by our past as previously thought, but that where being pulled by the future, our potential is actually what's driving us forward..

so now we have arrived at a contradiction in your logic

theoretical physicists have using the scientific method, in this case mathematics have arrive at the same conclusion as you that reality as we perceive is not an accurate representation of the universe

that sort of undermines your objection to the scientific method as only being linear and cause and effect.

the difference then only arises that you have jumped to a conclusion about what reality is and they are carrying on trying to uncover what is actually real, which maybe very very different to what you decided it was based on your predetermined goal of proving spirituality

why not expand your search for truth from holy books to quantum mechanics, so your at least fully informed

 

[_Simon_]

so now we have arrived at a contrition in your logic

theoretical physicists have using the scientific method, in this case mathematics have arrive at the same conclusion as you that reality as we perceive is not an accurate representation of the universe

that sort of undermines your objection to the scientific method as only being linear and cause and effect.

the differance then only arises that you have jumped to a conclusion about what reality is and they are carrying on trying to uncover what is actually real, which maybe very very different to what you decided it was based on your predetermined goal of proving spirituality

....I didn't see this as a contest of me trying to prove spirituality to you... ? If that's how you're choosing to see it have fun with that XD.

Okay maybe I don't understand the scientific method as you do.. ? Just a quick wiki page definition: "It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings."

At some point in the testing, when you get down to the nitty gritty subatomic world, measurement breaks down. They use scientific method to GET there, but then things look very confusing and the tools of hypothesis, measurement etc become not so relevant, as consciousness itself now becomes an unknown factor. You'd see this is quantum experiments etc. They bump against the nonlinear but can't put it in a box as such.

Dunno how YOU reached the conclusion that I've reaches a conclusion about reality, I did no such thing, nor defined it. And you've decided that I'm trying to "prove" spirituality?? What are you on about? Use some self-reflection. This isn't the first time I've said this to you.

I always enjoy being challenged, but it just looks like you're trying to prove me wrong, and look for loopholes, rather than learning from my experience, as I'm trying to learn from yours.

 

[jobo]

....I didn't see this as a contest of me trying to prove spirituality to you... ? If that's how you're choosing to see it have fun with that XD.

Okay maybe I don't understand the scientific method as you do.. ? Just a quick wiki page definition: "It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings."

At some point in the testing, when you get down to the nitty gritty subatomic world, measurement breaks down. They use scientific method to GET there, but then things look very confusing and the tools of hypothesis, measurement etc become not so relevant, as consciousness itself now becomes an unknown factor. You'd see this is quantum experiments etc. They bump against the nonlinear but can't put it in a box as such.

Dunno how YOU reached the conclusion that I've reaches a conclusion about reality, I did no such thing, nor defined it. And you've decided that I'm trying to "prove" spirituality?? What are you on about? Use some self-reflection. This isn't the first time I've said this to you.

I always enjoy being challenged, but it just looks like you're trying to prove me wrong, and look for loopholes, rather than learning from my experience, as I'm trying to learn from yours.

if we chop that down a bit, its about making testable predictions, you can test it in maths, the universe most definitely works by mathematics, which is a philosophical point in its own right of if maths was invented of discovered

but then eventually you need to test it by observation/experiment

quantum mechanics is one of the most successful theories in physics, it makes predictions that regularly are proved in the ladb the higgs boson for instance was predicted and found, then suddenly the nature of reality is a lot clearer
string theory and it prediction of 12 or even 13 dimensions only exists in maths, they have as yet found no way of testing it, perhaps they never will, detecting dimensions we cant perceive is tricky to say the least, but until they do, most scientists wont accept it

but thats the difference, you only need to persuade yourself its true, which obviously have a certain selection bias, they need to get a few thousand very sceptical people to also agree its true. then we are one small step further in our search for truth

 

[_Simon_]

why not expand your search for truth from holy books to quantum mechanics, so your at least fully informed

And to this quote, I have indeed studied from both.

 

[jobo]

And to this quote, I have indeed studied from both.

but yet you concluded that subjective spiritually was the course of discovery you were going with, that to be honest seems an unlikely outcome if you even began to understand quantum mechanics, its certainly the easiest option as what ever you imagine to be true, becomes true as it has no powers of prediction to test it

 

[_Simon_]

but yet you concluded that subjective spiritually was the course of discovery you were going with, that to be honest seems an unlikely outcome if you even began to understand quantum mechanics

No. Quantum mechanics does indeed recognise consciousness as a key factor in all this. THAT'S what I mean. By 'subjective' I don't mean relating to opinions, beliefs etc, but the very substrate of consciousness itself. You're twisting things to suit your agenda.