The Jook Lum Hertiage foundation was really not a very big deal. It amounted to nothing more than a discussion group.
Discussion is all that took place.
I was one of the two founding members.
There was some differences of opinion between most of the members so we all decided that it was probably not a good time to form an alliance.
The foundation wasn’t much to begin with.
It’s been over for quite a while.
Let’s let it rest.
Rich
Opinion?
Well of course there was going to be different opinions. That is what a discussion is all about. And you left this break it up. I guess when you thought this up you must have thought everyone was going to agree with you. If so? Why didnt you just have it that your group was involved. Then you would all get along. But your not going to learn anything from that type of group. So, this was not a disscussion group? It was a group to find out how many people aggree with what you said? Or your opinion. Rich? Your not one of these guys that thinks his branch has the whole system? Are you? Because that is impossible? If that is so? Then the system can never evolve? Get back together, and talk. Learn. You dont no everthing, and cant learn it from one person.
Pecks
Richard Mantis
Rich,
I have asked Barefoot - my student to not post here for a while. he is very loyal to me and his Si-Gung’s, but I feel that his loyalty may be exploited by some who might wish to make trouble.
That said, I have been put in a difficult position, whereas you know full well the regard that I hold you and Grandmaster Mark Foon in, your post together with that Fukien fellow may give the overall impression that I was somehow to blame for that Foundation folding. So, I’ll take this oportunity to set the record straight.
(A) I introduced a certain person into the Foundation who subsequently took issue with my book (as pointed out by Fukien).
(B) That same person also started to undermine the free and open constitution of the Foundation and introduced an element of divisiveness by attempting to place his own version of Jook-Lum history and the status of his particular Pai above all the rest.This was against the whole egalitarian ethos of the Foundation.
(C) I oferred to resign from the Foundation in order to allow this person to remain inside it - as at least then there would be a rep from his particular lineage. There were others from my lineage so my loss to the Foundation would not have been serious.The response from all other members except the person in question was to ask me to stay on.
(D) There were no diagrements between Foundation members other than the purely personal one raised about my book - and that could easily have been dealt with under the Constitution - or as I had offered by my resignation for the sake of unity between the Pai representatives.
(E) The decision to shut the Foundation down was not taken unanimously or democratically but unilaterally.
(F) It was closed down because the same fellow who attacked me in the unwarranted and highly (irrelevant to the Foundation) personal way, and also attempted to increase his own status to an inaccurate degree - doctored e-mails (from me) and postings on the Foundations Ez Board account and posted them to a third party who is within another branch of Jook-Lum not represented on the Foundation with the intent of causing as much inflamatory trouble as possible.
It was then that YOU made the decision to close it down.
(G) Notwithstanding the above, I understand fully your delicate political situation and that you made that decision in the best interests of your Pai and so for that I make no criticism of you whatsoever.
However, reciprocally, in the best interests of my own pai, I have decided to make this statement to correct any misunderstandings or misrepresentations that may have occured or may occur in the future.
(H) Barefoot Mantis will not post under political headings again, but I support his right of free speech, provided that he accepts the responsibilities that come with that right. I know that he is a good person and that he understands. It was right of me to step in now as he cannot be expected to speak on my behalf.
TO FUKIEN:
If your information has come indirectly from a third party then you are merely misinformed and your ignorance can be forgiven. If your posting was malicious then you are a liar and know best your own motives for your post.
as for my being ‘opinionated’ if in your book that means being open to debate and to learning from whatever source: and requiring claims for ‘certain truth’ of ANY dogma to be tested objectively, then I am opinionated and proud of it.
If you know anything about me from other forums you will know that I champion the right to question beliefs of any kind and that I am not at all impressed by ‘claims’ to superior insight or knowledge that may be made purely on the basis of
‘authority’ or mysticism.
Finally Rich, I hope that we can all move on together as friends, after all it was you who approached me in friendship when I was being attacked on another forum and made the promise of friendship between us as individuals and more broadly between our respective Pai.
Steve Richards.
Rich,
I have posyted a response under the ‘Politics of Jook-Lum’ thread.
Steve Richards
Steve Richards.
Steve
I posted about the foundation becuase I was hoping to avoid a flame war. I really did want to let it rest.
I apologize if anything that I said offended you in any way. I have always respected you and Lee Wing Sing Pai.
I did approach you in friendship and still do.
I have not changed my position.
Respect to Lee Wing Sing Pai.
I blame no one for the foundation breaking up.
Rich
Buch
In response to buch
Quote:
"Well of course there was going to be different opinions. That is what a discussion is all about. And you
left this break it up."
I did not let anything break up. It was not my decision to break up. I was never in a position to make a decision like that. I only shut down the ez board we were posting on becuase all the other members had already backed out.
Quote:
“I guess when you thought this up you must have thought everyone was going to
agree with you.”
The alliance was not my idea alone. There were many members involved and they all supported it for a while.
If you had been a member perhaps you would understand that. I WAS NOT THE LEADER! We had no leader.
Quote:
“If so? Why didnt you just have it that your group was involved. Then you would all get
along.”
Again I was not the leader. We had no leader.
What makes you think that I made all the descisions?
Quote:
“But your not going to learn anything from that type of group. So, this was not a disscussion
group?”
It was in fact not that kind of group. If you had been part of it you would know that. But you were not part of it.
Quote:
“It was a group to find out how many people aggree with what you said? Or your opinion. Rich?”
No it was not. If you had been a member in it you would understand that. But in fact you were not a member.
Quote:
"Your not one of these guys that thinks his branch has the whole system? Are you?"
No, I am not.
Quote:
“Because that is impossible?”
Yes, I would say so.
Quote:
“If that is so? Then the system can never evolve?”
I agree.
Quote:
“Get back together, and talk. Learn.”
If you like the idea so much and you are so wise then perhaps you could reassemble it yourself. All the members names are in the public domain.
Go for it. I will gladly rejoin the group once you have reconstructed it.
Quote:
“You dont no everthing”
And you do?
I never said or thought that I knew everything.
Quote:
“and cant learn it from one person.”
By “it” do you mean everything?
I never said a single word to anyone about learning “everything” from one person. I do not understand what you are talking about.
Well anyway buch, since I do not know you, where you are from, what you study if anything, and you were not a member of the alliance you are commenting about, please do not feel offended if I reguard your opinion as worthless.
Rich
[This message was edited by Richard mantis on 08-24-01 at 03:09 PM.
[This message was edited by Richard mantis on 08-24-01 at 03:10 PM.]
Steve
Steve,
Just because I never posted on the “Heritage Board” does not mean that I did not read
(and save) every single post put up there.
You wrote: “If your posting was malicious then you are a liar.”
You cannot imply that the mere motive of my post effects the truthfulness therein.
Because if that were so, by your own logic, if my posting was NOT malicious, what I said IS the truth!
What it is or is not the truth cannot be determined by the intent of the author.
The truth is the truth.
Also, if you truly “champion the right to question beliefs of any kind”, you should know that it is a
two way street, and not have so thin a skin.
Your student opened the door, we both said our piece, now we can close the door and move on.
Agreed??
Fukien
There are ‘doctored’ versions of those Ez board postings floating around as the individual referred to in my posts was busying himself with the most destructive fabrications and malicious lies. As you haven’t identified yourself I have no idea if you have copies or not of the real posts. If you were a memeber and are just posting anonymously then you will have. If you were not a memeber then chances are you have the doctored versions. As for your motives as I said only you know them.
If you know anything about me, and remember you referred to me in ways that suggested that you at least thought that you did (or maybe you simply picked up on third party distortions and malicious gossip) then you will know that as a practicing dialectician I am more than happy to engage in ‘two-way street’ debate. It is that which irks some people - as very few people who can claim lineage holder status would ever risk being found to be wrong or needing to appologise (as I have done many many times publicaly on forums).
You are right that ‘intent’ is independent of truth, however, intent can delete and distort truth: as in particular, when intent is malicious - that is exactly what it intends to do. That is another good reason for opennness.
If all ‘lineage Holders’ were open it would go a long way towards eliminating BS and malicious gossip and provide a true forum for people to learn from.
BTW despite the above, I support your free right as an individual (should you choose in this way to exercise same - to delete, distort and lie away to your hearts content) After all, such things are fully ‘human’.
Rich
Rich,
Thank you for your sentiment: as a respectful friend I can say that no appology is needed. You acted in the best interests of your Pai. One thing that has survived the (hopefully temporary suspension of the Foundation) - at least for me- is the sense of friendship between the represenatives which I hope will continue on into the far future.
Best Regards to You and GM Mark.
Steve.
Rich?
I did not mean to make you angry at me. I guess I did, but I do this kind of thing without trying and I am sorry. You are right I was, and am not part of any foundation. You didnt have to keep saying that. You sounded much like Gary Condit.I Dont no much about your foundation, only rumor. It was some kind of a secret. But as secrets go, they mostly are not. I did think it was and is a good idea. I dont think many would listen to me as for I am only a student of the arts and not loyal to one system. I have studied many, with no regrets. As I understand the foundation, it was for unity of one system (SPM)? And again I thought the getting together of this system would only help the future students. In short, your idea, his idea, groups idea, it was a good one.Having said that. I can see how it didnt work? You for one are a little thined skined. You get offended easily. When i said; you dont no everything, I only meant there is much to learn, and not one person has the answer. And as a group you may come closer to the meaning. I didnt mean it personally. Much can be learned though group discussion.
Any way, “It was a good idea”
Pecks
The Foundation
It could re-form, it only takes the will to do it.
It was a VERY good idea, it had a constitution, egalitarianism and no LEADER. Maybe that was why it fell at its first crisis? Who knows… If it re-forms I think it should be managed by someone or some-group who have nothing political either to gain or to fear from the success or otherwise of the project. That way, lineage holders can get on with their responsibilities to posterity without understandable worries about being perceived as ambitious for control, or, of being vulnerable to factions either inside or outside of their own branch of the Pai.
In my view, there is nothing wrong with ‘students’ being members, or even there being elected managers from outside of the Pai, provided that all behave constitutionally it will run effectively.
If a Pai wishes to make a stand against bigotry and internecine strife then ultimately it is better to be open and allow the ‘debate’ to be seen and heard publicly. That way those who may wish to be destructibve will be forced out from their black shadows and revealed for who and what they are. In the long run, this will best serve the art.
I’m up for starting it again, if enough representatives of the other Pai are. As above I want no executive position, only a fair and democratic constitution. Transparent and open…