If the system we practice is baised on scientific principles, then does a personal opinion really exist?.. i say this is the contex of not weather somthing is “in my opinion”. But does the point of wrong or right exist in WC? ( for example in a movement or a structure)
Obviously some things are more right than others, but in relation to the end goal, is there really a perfection we can all aim for? I have heard that there are no limits in WC.
in my opinion… 
the way you fight is your opinion
the way you teach is your opinion.
WC is WC.
No Limits?
Does Wing Chun include “Afternoon Tea Form”? No.
Therefore there are some limits.
“Obviously some things are more right than others” – if the temperature outside my window is zero degrees Celsius, is the guy who says the temperature is 5 degrees “less right” than my thermometer, or is he wrong?
No offense, S.Teebas, but relative degrees of accuracy should always be subordinated to the principle, which is right, and not vice versa.
Cheers!
Yes ,Wing Chun is based on scientific principles.It could be called ;a science for that matter. But, as you know, scientists are always arguing!..
WCK is based more on common sense than “scientific principles”, or perhaps better said, it is based on lay “physics” and “science” rather than what a pure and applied physist or scientist might require to enter their realms (use of the scientific method).
Among the universal principles that apply, however, are “sensitivity to initial conditions” and “relativity”. You can undergo the same process and receive two different answers due to the accumulation of minute differences, or due to different frames of reference. “Fuzzy logic” is pretty good too.
True science, when involving systems as dynamic as the martial interaction of two (or more) sentient, ambulatory beings can reach levels of complexity so extreme they become virtually non-functional (just like trying to compute what the weather will be 100 days from now with 100% accurace when some d@mn butterfly is flapping its wings in Argentina).
Stuff like “shortest distance between two points”, “force equals mass times acceleration”, and the rest of the jargon (some real but misapplied, some pseudo or unreal) are probably still useful as metaphors to help provide a jist or idea of what’s going on, as long as they aren’t etched in stone or stretched to far.
The only thing really limited is human understanding. What was “science” before is not now nor will be in the future. (Flogistron, anyone?) Now they can slow and almost stop light. What’s next?
(I would have trademarked Chaos Fist but that d@mned Burnsypoo got it before me, so I’m stuck with Non-Linear Fu!)
Ahhh!..
If I could write like that!..
IMO the diversity of human shapes and sizes, and the differences in attitudes and aspirations makes perfection ultimately a personal thing.
Also, if science is applied, our understanding of the way things work is always changing with observation and experimentation, and that no one person has final authority or a monopoly on the truth.
To assume WC was conceived in final perfection by Ng Mui et al and must never change is to subscribe to fundamentalism or astrology, not science.
Hi Andrew,
Beautifully said! Henry Ford’s Model T existed in the physical world and operated according to the laws of “science” yet Ford Motor Co. has gone on to develp the 2002 Mustang. Nature is not static. Lots of “science” speaks to that as well.
RR
Everything is BEAU-tiful…
You guys need to re-read your Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
As they say in my land…
Let the elephant trunks do the talking…
They also say…
Re: Everything is BEAU-tiful…
Originally posted by Alpha Dog
You guys need to re-read your Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
It’s funny you should mention it - that’s pretty much what I thought of when I read Rene Ritchie’s post.
:rolleyes:
LOL! Check out Tao of Physics as well. But then go back and re-read the Sutra of Hui Neng and the Dao De Jing.
Layers upon layers. One layer. No layer.
RR
why?
Do they make any assertions as to the development of the internal combustion engine being inventive over innovative? Or is this just Yu2 Gong1 Yi2 Shan1 at work?
Not specifically but the former gives a grand view of eventual concordance in human development and the latter two will help you figure out if they were tricking you or not.
RR
So Aristotle and Plato are but frogs in the well? Ahh, so powerful to be Chinese!
No, they’re pretty cool too.
RR
hey rene
Looks like R’olling Hnad hasn’t had the chance to bite your ankles today so i’ll lighten his workload…
Stay home and fill up the tank. If you run with the other big cats, you may end up far behind in the dust. You’re stranded in the comfort of your desert island. If loved ones are with you, so much the better.
Don’t mention it!!!
The point was simply that while the two Greeks held opposing views on reality, both could be readily comprended with the average human intellect, and that even a synthesis of the two can be achieved without a lot of smoke and mirror nonsense or “you’ll understand when you get there” BS.
Cheers!
Sunkuen - My fortune today, like most days, is “You will be pestered by anonymous internet trolls.”
AD - Nicely said.
Rgds,
RR
Just Imagine the Future, RR
When computers are just chip embedded behind the ear, there will be no escape!! LOL