Using pretend stories to make real points

[PhotonGuy]

It has been mentioned on this forum that I sometimes come across as not being able to distinguish fantasy from reality. Well the fact of the matter is that even from pretend stories we can sometimes learn real lessons that can be applied to real life. We do that with children all the time. Take for instance Aesop's Fables which are often told to children to teach them real life lessons. The Tortoise and the Hare is an example of one of those stories. Obviously the part about a tortoise and a hare running a race is pretend. But the lesson it teaches, that slow and steady wins the race is a lesson that can be applied to real life in the real world. So we can use those real life lessons that such stories teach us or we can just dismiss all those stories such as The Tortoise and the Hare as being purely make believe and having no use in real life or in the real world.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It has been mentioned on this forum that I sometimes come across as not being able to distinguish fantasy from reality. Well the fact of the matter is that even from pretend stories we can sometimes learn real lessons that can be applied to real life. We do that with children all the time. Take for instance Aesop's Fables which are often told to children to teach them real life lessons. The Tortoise and the Hare is an example of one of those stories. Obviously the part about a tortoise and a hare running a race is pretend. But the lesson it teaches, that slow and steady wins the race is a lesson that can be applied to real life in the real world. So we can use those real life lessons that such stories teach us or we can just dismiss all those stories such as The Tortoise and the Hare as being purely make believe and having no use in real life or in the real world.

Agreed. They can be used to teach, so long as we don't mistake them for evidence. The hare and the tortoise story is a good example. We can use it to communicate the principle, but we cannot use it as evidence in support of the principle. Even if there were a thousand similar stories, and none in the other direction, that still doesn't provide us any evidence of the truth of the lesson - just evidence of its belief being perhaps ubiquitous.

 

[DaveB]

It has been mentioned on this forum that I sometimes come across as not being able to distinguish fantasy from reality. Well the fact of the matter is that even from pretend stories we can sometimes learn real lessons that can be applied to real life. We do that with children all the time. Take for instance Aesop's Fables which are often told to children to teach them real life lessons. The Tortoise and the Hare is an example of one of those stories. Obviously the part about a tortoise and a hare running a race is pretend. But the lesson it teaches, that slow and steady wins the race is a lesson that can be applied to real life in the real world. So we can use those real life lessons that such stories teach us or we can just dismiss all those stories such as The Tortoise and the Hare as being purely make believe and having no use in real life or in the real world.

There's a reason fables are told to young children.

Adults use analogies.

 

[Martial D]

I prefer using real stories to make pretend points

 

[Danny T]

It has been mentioned on this forum that I sometimes come across as not being able to distinguish fantasy from reality. Well the fact of the matter is that even from pretend stories we can sometimes learn real lessons that can be applied to real life. We do that with children all the time. Take for instance Aesop's Fables which are often told to children to teach them real life lessons. The Tortoise and the Hare is an example of one of those stories. Obviously the part about a tortoise and a hare running a race is pretend. But the lesson it teaches, that slow and steady wins the race is a lesson that can be applied to real life in the real world. So we can use those real life lessons that such stories teach us or we can just dismiss all those stories such as The Tortoise and the Hare as being purely make believe and having no use in real life or in the real world.

The things is everyone knows they are fables or in some cases parables.
They know they are being told as teaching a lesson (usually a lesson on morals, ethics, or analogies)

 

[hoshin1600]

There are enough fables and pretend stories within martial arts that are being passes off as real. We really don't need to muddy the pool more.

 

[PhotonGuy]

There's a reason fables are told to young children.

Adults use analogies.

And there are also pretend stories that adults use to communicate real lessons to other adults.

 

[Tez3]

And there are also pretend stories that adults use to communicate real lessons to other adults

They are pretending to tell stories? I think you mean imaginary stories.

 

[PhotonGuy]

They are pretending to tell stories? I think you mean imaginary stories.

No what Im saying is that there are adults who tell pretend stories, or to put it more precisely, there is adult literature that tells pretend stories but that make real points. Aesop's fables were intended for children, but there are other stories that are intended for adults and while not being true stories, do make real points.

 

[Danny T]

PhotonGuy, pretend is a behavior. It is doing something to give a false appearance of being, possessing, or performing. A story can not pretend.
I believe Tez is saying you are using the word pretend incorrectly.

 

[Tez3]

No what Im saying is that there are adults who tell pretend stories, or to put it more precisely, there is adult literature that tells pretend stories but that make real points. Aesop's fables were intended for children, but there are other stories that are intended for adults and while not being true stories, do make real points.

What you are talking about is 'fictional' stories with a moral. These can be allegorical ( a general idea not specifically a lesson to learn more an illustration of something) or they can be fables or parables. Fables have animals etc in, parables have humans. You could also describe a fictional story as a morality tale.

If you are telling us these are pretend stories that means they don't actually exist but someone is pretending there is a story which is a totally different thing from telling fictional stories.

 

[PhotonGuy]

What you are talking about is 'fictional' stories with a moral. These can be allegorical ( a general idea not specifically a lesson to learn more an illustration of something) or they can be fables or parables. Fables have animals etc in, parables have humans. You could also describe a fictional story as a morality tale.

If you are telling us these are pretend stories that means they don't actually exist but someone is pretending there is a story which is a totally different thing from telling fictional stories.

Well take for instance Brave New World. The story is obviously pretend but Aldous Huxley was making some real points and sending some real messages when he wrote the story. So you could call it a fictional story with a moral. The point is that I find it much better to learn from the morals from a fictional story than to dismiss the whole thing as being make believe.

 

[Tez3]

Well take for instance Brave New World. The story is obviously pretend but Aldous Huxley was making some real points and sending some real messages when he wrote the story. So you could call it a fictional story with a moral. The point is that I find it much better to learn from the morals from a fictional story than to dismiss the whole thing as being make believe.

No, if the story was 'pretend' Huxley would be telling us he's written a book when he hadn't, that would be a pretend story. He wrote a book which is fiction, whether there are any lessons to be learned is questionable and in the mind of the reader. Many people would say there is nothing to be learnt from Brave New World, what you take from fiction is yours alone, it doesn't mean the same to everyone.

 

[DaveB]

And there are also pretend stories that adults use to communicate real lessons to other adults.

Yes, but literature is not discussion.

I suppose brief fictional tales inserted into a discussion can work but only if all of your premises match those of the discussion precisely. Otherwise you end up with a discussion about your story and it's flaws and not the original subject.

The problem you would have is that the reader takes your imagery and ideas to mean something basedonindividual experience, not necessarily what you want them to see.
In literature this is all part of the nature of the art form. In debate clear understanding is key.

It seems an unnecessarily indirect and subjective way to maķe a point. One that is as likely to obfuscate as illuminate.

 

[Kababayan]

As an English teacher (and one who teaches Brave New World) I am loving the previous responses. Back to the original topic...

Not being able to differentiate between fantasy and reality can be an issue with the martial arts because much of what is taught is based on theory. Theoretically the (insert random technique) should work in a fight but if you've never used it in a real situation you can't be completely sure. Reality can be further blurred by the popularity of MMA, as fans may think that a match between two highly skilled, well trained professional athletes is the same as an unsuspecting person being the victim of an attack on the street. Another issue with many high-ranking martial artists is that they come across as authority figures without ever having gone through actual self defense situations. The reality for some may not be the reality for others. BJJ grapplers will say that their art is the best for self defense, although many bouncers and security personnel will say that they would never want to fight on the ground. Many martial arts teach kicks but a police officer that I talk to says that he's never had an attacker try to kick him. His experience may be different than other police officer's experience, though, which shows that there isn't a "one true reality" for the street.

At times, as martial artists, we have to suspend reality (like when learning a cool new technique that may not be realistic for the street.) Some study martial arts for the "art" aspect and some study it for self defense. I love Tang Soo Do (my first Black Belt) but it has a completely different philosophy to self defense than Krav Maga (my most recent Black Belt.) There is a lot of "suspending reality" in the martial arts, which can include telling and listening to stories that may be embellished (or completely made up.) I remember hearing a story about a fight that my instructor was in, only to hear the same story from a guest instructor, and then the same story from other higher ranking Black Belts later on. Which instructor was actually involved in the encounter? Probably none of them, but they were trying to make a point with the story.

Imagine this scenario:
Instructor: "Here is a defense against a (insert attack here)"
Student: "Have you used it on the street?"
Instructor: "No."
Student: "Then how do I know it works?"
Instructor: "Um, because my instructor taught it to me."
Student: "So, he (or she) has used it on the street?"
Instructor: "Uh, I don't know."
Student: "So how do you know it really works?"
Instructor: "Um..."

My point is that, as martial artists, we belong to a group that is mostly built upon theory and fantasy...or at least the suspension of reality at times. If we relied completely on our own real experience as truth, most of us here wouldn't have enough truth to test out of white belt. I have been in three fights, which is three more than most, and I can confidently say that meeting your knee to an opponent's roundhouse kick will break his leg, headbutting from underneath someone's jaw can stop someone from continuing a fight, and parrying enough punches until someone gets frustrated and walks away can work. That's my reality. Other than that I have to rely on theory and stories that others have told me...many of which are fantasy but are used to teach a point.

I am curious what we'd get if we put together a thread that only included self defense moves that we've actually used ourselves in real encounters (and not is high intense sparring sessions and not ones we saw on Youtube.) I would imagine that we would still get fantasy because people, by nature, want to be included. If we were completely honest with ourselves, and don't work in the law enforcement or security field, I would imagine that the list would be very small.

 

[DaveB]

As an English teacher (and one who teaches Brave New World) I am loving the previous responses. Back to the original topic...

Not being able to differentiate between fantasy and reality can be an issue with the martial arts because much of what is taught is based on theory. Theoretically the (insert random technique) should work in a fight but if you've never used it in a real situation you can't be completely sure. Reality can be further blurred by the popularity of MMA, as fans may think that a match between two highly skilled, well trained professional athletes is the same as an unsuspecting person being the victim of an attack on the street. Another issue with many high-ranking martial artists is that they come across as authority figures without ever having gone through actual self defense situations. The reality for some may not be the reality for others. BJJ grapplers will say that their art is the best for self defense, although many bouncers and security personnel will say that they would never want to fight on the ground. Many martial arts teach kicks but a police officer that I talk to says that he's never had an attacker try to kick him. His experience may be different than other police officer's experience, though, which shows that there isn't a "one true reality" for the street.

At times, as martial artists, we have to suspend reality (like when learning a cool new technique that may not be realistic for the street.) Some study martial arts for the "art" aspect and some study it for self defense. I love Tang Soo Do (my first Black Belt) but it has a completely different philosophy to self defense than Krav Maga (my most recent Black Belt.) There is a lot of "suspending reality" in the martial arts, which can include telling and listening to stories that may be embellished (or completely made up.) I remember hearing a story about a fight that my instructor was in, only to hear the same story from a guest instructor, and then the same story from other higher ranking Black Belts later on. Which instructor was actually involved in the encounter? Probably none of them, but they were trying to make a point with the story.

Imagine this scenario:
Instructor: "Here is a defense against a (insert attack here)"
Student: "Have you used it on the street?"
Instructor: "No."
Student: "Then how do I know it works?"
Instructor: "Um, because my instructor taught it to me."
Student: "So, he (or she) has used it on the street?"
Instructor: "Uh, I don't know."
Student: "So how do you know it really works?"
Instructor: "Um..."

My point is that, as martial artists, we belong to a group that is mostly built upon theory and fantasy...or at least the suspension of reality at times. If we relied completely on our own real experience as truth, most of us here wouldn't have enough truth to test out of white belt. I have been in three fights, which is three more than most, and I can confidently say that meeting your knee to an opponent's roundhouse kick will break his leg, headbutting from underneath someone's jaw can stop someone from continuing a fight, and parrying enough punches until someone gets frustrated and walks away can work. That's my reality. Other than that I have to rely on theory and stories that others have told me...many of which are fantasy but are used to teach a point.

I am curious what we'd get if we put together a thread that only included self defense moves that we've actually used ourselves in real encounters (and not is high intense sparring sessions and not ones we saw on Youtube.) I would imagine that we would still get fantasy because people, by nature, want to be included. If we were completely honest with ourselves, and don't work in the law enforcement or security field, I would imagine that the list would be very small.

1. The laws of physics don't change when you leave the dojo.

2. All techniques need to be adapted either in setup or execution for the circumstances you want to use them in.

Therefore as long as your technique and it's effects conform to the laws of physics and you make the appropriate adaptations then your technique will work at as well as it does in the dojo.

The only limit to this are the toughness/resistivity of the opponent, and the limits of the adjustments you can make in the situation.

 

[Kababayan]

The only limit to this are the toughness/resistivity of the opponent

I think this point is so true. My best example is that many students are taught punches to the face with a non-resistant opponent. They don't realize how easy it is to miss the face and hit the person in the head because their opponent moved. This leads to the boxer's break. As a former kickboxer, I have seen many people break their hands in a fight because they never trained with a moving opponent or they never realized how much it hurts hitting someone in the face. Plus most boxers and kickboxers train exclusively with gloves so they get a false reality about hitting someone in the head. I think the one "truth" that I wish every martial artist knew is how much it can hurt hitting someone in the face (or most likely the head).

 

[JowGaWolf]

Agreed. They can be used to teach, so long as we don't mistake them for evidence. The hare and the tortoise story is a good example. We can use it to communicate the principle, but we cannot use it as evidence in support of the principle. Even if there were a thousand similar stories, and none in the other direction, that still doesn't provide us any evidence of the truth of the lesson - just evidence of its belief being perhaps ubiquitous.

I'm with you. Stories like that help simply concepts that people normally over-complicate. People will insert additional "what if's" that have nothing to do with the concept or principle that the story covers. With a story they focus on one thing.

No one listens to the story "The boy who cried wolf" and start stating "what if's" in the middle of the story. They listen to the story without injecting their own assumptions about "how the world works." Often times, once the story is told the, the story teller will bring it back to real world scenarios and examples that highlight the concept or principles that the story covered. Stories like that were never told to prove something. They are also told with the understanding that story being told is not real, but the lesson in the story may be.

 

[PhotonGuy]

Well also the cartoonist Charles Schultz, he uses fictional characters and fictional stories to make real points.