Unreality Based Self Defense

[Phil Elmore]

Unreality Based Self Defense

These systems have many more adherents than you might expect. We talk to them every day.

 

[kenpo_cory]

Great article as usual Phil, thanks for sharing.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, some I buy, some I don't.

What I bought--putting up that "fence;" never letting anybody close and then trying to react like greased lightning;the idea of "fighting unfairly." I mean, I don't think of self-defense as fighting at all--why the hell would I fight somebody I can run over with a truck? And, I liked reading somebody who thinks (as I do) that these martial art types who fancy themselves invulnerable need to check the planet--rule 1 with a knife, "Never fight a knife. Are you nuts? rule 2, "If you fight a knife, you're gonna get cut--question is, how much and how bad?; rule 3, "rules 1 & 2 being true, if you fight a knife, fight damn hard and use a weapon if possible...long range air support, preferably."

But Ayn Rand is a big fat doodyhead. Her kind of arrogant selfishness, her "objectivist," philosophy all predicated upon utter nonnses and sheer arrorange (not to mention racism) just as stupid as the last three Maoists' in the CPUSA.

It might be argued that self-defense once they're anywhere near you is way too late. For example--we know that poverty "causes," criminal behavior ("causes," is of course inaccurate--it's not direct, billiard-ball causality by any means) and violence, so a martial artist who was really on the ball might advocate decent schools, jobs, communities precisely as a "first line of defense," against being attacked...it's "situational awareness," on a social/cultural level.

 

[sercuerdasfigther]

phil i find you post always well thought out. sometimes i agree and sometimes i don't, but i respect that you logically support your statements. just remeber that everyones truth is there own. if a person can use the polar oppisite of what i believe and make it work , i can't argue it's wrong. debating philosophy is as futile as debating religion, you can't change peoples mind and i wouldn't even try.

 

[Ceicei]

I like your analysis. Excellent assessment. Thank you.

- Ceicei

 

[Phil Elmore]

Originally posted by sercuerdasfigther
phil i find you post always well thought out. sometimes i agree and sometimes i don't, but i respect that you logically support your statements.

Thank you.

just remeber that everyones truth is there own.

I don't agree. Truth is, by definition, the state of corresponding to reality. Reality is objective; it is not a creation of our perception or our feelings or our desires. If you and I hold diametrically opposed opinions on the same topic in the same context, we cannot both be correct.

 

[Nightingale]

MOD NOTE-

please keep the discussion on topic... if you like, I can split the Ayn Rand posts into the study so you can continue that discussion there.

-Nightingale
MT MODERATOR

 

[MA-Caver]

Originally posted by Nightingale
MOD NOTE-

please keep the discussion on topic... if you like, I can split the Ayn Rand posts into the study so you can continue that discussion there.

-Nightingale
MT MODERATOR

I'd appreciate it if you would... I found the article originally submitted to be interersting... this Ayn Rand stuff is way OT

Ralph

 

[Nightingale]

MOD NOTE-

Thread split. Please take any further Ayn Rand discussion to The Study. Thank you.

-Nightingale
MT Moderator

 

[theletch1]

Phil, as usual, very good article. I've always adopted much of the mindset that you put forth in your article...."Stay out of my bubble" is often heard from me. I've been labeled as stand-offish, and even anti-social. I tend to take my personal space a bit seriously. I don't think that you are suggesting that we go through life viewing everyone we come into contact with as a knife wielding psycho, but rather we at least realize that these type people do indeed exist and that it isn't always going to happen to "someone else". No, everyone is not a threat but everyone should be evaluated for threat value at least on a cursory basis.

The Ausitn Powers comment is interesting as I was discussing how SD should look with a classmate on wednesday night. He is fairly young and hasn't quite grasped the idea that SD is by nature an ugly thing. There is no place in defending yourself for looking "cool". Put the hands up.....you just don't have to say "Yeah, baby! Yeah" everytime you do.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Nice censorship, guys. If you will look through the Gen. Martial Arts threads--and this one--you will see all sorts of political/philosophical statements that seem to be perfectly OK.

I wouldn't usually complain about this--by and large, the mods seem to be doing a great job--but this is a bad decision. I object to it.

But then, I've posted my last posts on the matter.

 

[Nightingale]

your post wasn't censored. it was moved to the study to be joined with the Ayn Rand thread.

 

[rmcrobertson]

While I appreciate your argument, removing the post from its context is in fact a form of censorship in this case. Particularly since any number of what I would consider to be political/philosophical statements on this forum have been left right where they were, and indeed not recognized as poltical/philosophical statements at all.

Again: in this case, a claim was made about realistic self-defense (as opposed to undrealistic), and in part based upon Rand's philosophical and political ideas. Her ideas were in fact absolutely essential to the claim, which did not--however many times the word, "objectivist," got thrown around--rest unpon unmediated reality.

Another direct application to martial arts training: we often encounter the claim of "absolute realism," in the arts, the claim that this tech or that tech, "won't work on the street," the claim that forms are useless because, "that's not the way a real fight works." In all such cases, the person making the claim tries to slip their definition--based on a set of more-or-less conscious political and philosophical ideas, or ideologies--past their audience, to get their construction of reality passed off as reality itself.

It happens all the time. But I am arguing that ALL "reality-based" systems are
based on constructions of reality, on--if you like--more or less useful fictions.
And why should that be here? Please look at the title of the thread.

 

[kenpo_cory]

Originally posted by Nightingale
your post wasn't censored. it was moved to the study to be joined with the Ayn Rand thread.

Which I agree with. I wanted to hear others opinions on the article itself, not ranting on Ayn Rand and all that other stuff connected to her.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
I'm going to let this go now, because there simply isn't any point in discussing 'objectivist,' 'philosophy.'

I'm going to drop this discussion now...

But then, I've posted my last posts on the matter.

How many times are you going to vow not to respond again to this topic?

Again: in this case, a claim was made about realistic self-defense (as opposed to undrealistic), and in part based upon Rand's philosophical and political ideas. Her ideas were in fact absolutely essential to the claim, which did not--however many times the word, "objectivist," got thrown around--rest unpon unmediated reality.

You are again invited, despite your repeated statements that you are done with the topic, to construct a substantive argument in which you demonstrate, logically, that your feelings have bearing on whether any individual approaching you is a potential threat to your person.

Comments like "constructions of reality" are just so much pseudo-intellectual drivel. Perceptions may vary, but the perceived exists regardless of our whims and desires. A brick is a brick regardless of your knowledge of it. It will concuss you regardless of whether you know it is flying towards the back of your head.

That is a salient point from the article.

 

[rmcrobertson]

And here's a salient point from my posts--I mostly agreed with you about the pragmatics of self-defense. And here's another--would you like a response, or would you like to be able again to post about my whiningly taking my football and going home 'cause I couldn't stand the heat?

You are offended because you did not care for my attack on the philosohpy you cited. OK; I should've been politer. Got it. However, rather than responding to the reality of writing on the Internet and attempting to show me where I was wrong, you've engaged in a long chain of insults, grounded on the fantasy that I am somehow right there in front of you...and screw it. This is pointless--especially if you're one of the last twelve Rand adherents.

So here's the deal: I liked much of your article. I thought it made sense in terms of my training. I utterly reject the idea of a "reality," filled with threat, in which we are powerless to change the conditions that create real threats--if for no other reason than that this version of reality rests upon projecting humaan fears onto a Nature that is--as you correctly point out--utterly disinterested in our feelings.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
And here's a salient point from my posts--I mostly agreed with you about the pragmatics of self-defense.

I have not disputed that.

And here's another--would you like a response, or would you like to be able again to post about my whiningly taking my football and going home 'cause I couldn't stand the heat?

Do you really believe your feelings alter the threat potential of a given stranger approaching you?

You are offended because you did not care for my attack on the philosohpy you cited. OK; I should've been politer. Got it.

I am not offended. I simply cannot stand idly by while ignorance is proffered as informed opinion.

However, rather than responding to the reality of writing on the Internet and attempting to show me where I was wrong, you've engaged in a long chain of insults, grounded on the fantasy that I am somehow right there in front of you...and screw it.

That is a fundamental and intellectually dishonest mischaracterization of the arguments I have offered. I have refuted your assertions in a substantive fashion, citing examples and drawing conclusions from the work in question. I have also criticized the manner in which you approached the discussion -- a manner you admit was not polite and for which you have apologized. You've admitted wrongdoing; to now incorrectly describe my posts as a "chain of insults" threatens to render insincere the apology you've offered.

This is pointless--especially if you're one of the last twelve Rand adherents.

You were speaking of a "chain of insults" ...?

So here's the deal: I liked much of your article. I thought it made sense in terms of my training. I utterly reject the idea of a "reality," filled with threat, in which we are powerless to change the conditions that create real threats--

That, too, is a mischaracterization of what I've said. No one has told you that you are powerless to affect change through meaningful physical action. However, merely wishing will not make it so.

if for no other reason than that this version of reality rests upon projecting humaan fears onto a Nature that is--as you correctly point out--utterly disinterested in our feelings.

Irrational threat assessments out of all proportion to real threats are "projecting fear." Actively worrying that you will be killed by a falling chunk of frozen blue airline waste absorbent, while theoretically a possibility, would be "projecting fear" because it is not a realistic assessment. This is not the same as recognizing the physical danger in which you place yourself when you allow strangers to approach within your personal space.

Recognition of a real potential threat is not the projection of anything; it is the acknowledgment of a real probability.

 

[SenseiBear]

I'm almost afraid to interject an opinion, but here goes.

Yes, anyone who is encroaching on my personal space is a potential threat. When on the street, my awareness is greater than when I am in my living room. However, when approached, I don't always assume a defensive posture, though I recognize the possibility that they may attack me. Danger is everywhere in our society. A chunk of blue airline waste my strike me on the head. A jet plane may crash into the office building I work in. A crazed co worker may open fire in the cafeteria. A drunk driver may cruise through a stop sign/light and total my car. A group of masked men may kick in my door, pistol whip me at gunpoint in my living room, tie me up and rob my house (a rash of these in my neighborhood last month - perps have been caught now). Or a homeless person may ask me what time it is and use the moment of distraction to tackle/rob/stab/shoot me.

So I wear my seat belt, lock my door, drive defensively, and train as hard and as realistically as I can... Then I forget about it. I choose not to live life feeling as if I am always under attack. Does this increase the chance that I may be unprepared for an attack or may fail to see one in time to prevent it before hand? Yeah, probably a bit. But each of us must assess the chance of attack with the level of insecurity and fear we are able to live with. Nothing I can do will make me safe. I live in a free society, and the amount of freedom I have is exchanged for safety. The more safe we insist on being, the less free we are, and I choose freedom

I agree that the decision to commit violence is one that individuals are personally responsible for, and that their decision is influenced by their environment, upbringing, biology, and morals. That said, I think it is a socially responsible thing to do to work toward eliminating poverty and increasing education, for while the root cause of crime is not poverty, poverty forces many people to face the choice of crime or not, violence or not. (this chunck may have been moved with the Ayn Rand stuff). And if I were in the most severe of situations, I may choose survival, even if it meant crime... does that make me a bad person? Maybe, but what does it make the person who daily drives by the starving, the suffering without caring, but made a million last year. 10 million? Cleared 100's of millions while bankrupting thousands of peoples retirements?

Easy answers are usually incomplete, consequences are longer reaching than most peoples vision...

Ok guys, give me a minute to duck here...

 

[ZIM]

Let the Ayn Rand arguments go, willya? It ain't worth pursuing.

Good article! Why bog it down with ephemera?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Nope, leaving now. It would've been more realistic for me never to've posted, since it's only led to a silly argument I don't need, and in which I have no real interest. Apologies all around; feel free to take that as a victory for whatever.