- Thread Starter
- #21
They come up with new titles or new belts or stories of how they can kill someone without ever touching them. All to feed their ego.
Humility, honesty, integrity and moral character is something that escapes these people and no one calls them on it.
The MA's is full of these false masters and it only hurts the arts as a whole.
See, what I find hard to get my mind around is this: looking at themselves in the mirror, first thing in the morning, do any of the kind of people we've been talking about really believe that the titles, belts and so on actually make them better even as MAists? I'm not saying that people don't improve, and as they do, getting better and better over time, they will accumulate advanced rank; but the satisfaction comes, surely, from knowing inwardly how much better at doing your MA you are now than you were a year ago. It's like in sports: yes, the 'most improved player' award must be nice to win—but only because the improvement it commemorates is something which can be itemized in terms of real, tangible achievements: more runs batted in, more touchdowns or completed passes scored, more saves or interceptions on the ice. That's what the player is getting satisfaction from: the looks of admiration and appreciation s/he gets, from fans and especially teammates, after actually doing something great. Not the award itself, or the trophy...
I mean, consider this scenario: someone gets some performance award, and later on discovers that the reason they got it over their chief rivals was because of an arithmetic error on the award committee's report—or, say, leaving out a whole category of achievement where other people massively outdid you. Or someone writing down your batting average as .378 instead of .178 for whatever reason of momentary mind-loss. How many people would still feel as good about their award after learning this information as they had felt before learning it? Wouldn't most people feel bloody awful? Would people actually say, 'Hell, doesn't bother me: I was awarded the trophy/prize/award and that's what counts—that's what I based my great feelings about myself on'? Hard for me to imagine...
So I keep wondering how advancing to a belt rank two higher than what you were wearing yesterday as a result of tit-for-tat promotions involving a pal in another association, or any of the zillion other kinds of similar things, could make you feel good about yourself. Ego, definitely; but what I don't see is, why would unmerited status, something not backed up by actual performance, feed anyone's ego? Is it a matter of people being so deluded that they believe that if they got the award or promotion or whatever in question, they must have done something tangible and real to earn it, regardless of the fact that they can't actually say what it was? To me, that sounds too weird for words, but what other explanation is there?
Last edited: