Maybe all the mumbo jumbo in the bible is just a long way of saying ‘Noah had alot of stuff on his boat, and it rained and flooded for many days…’
Humans gotta eat too.
extra yen kung
ej - Well, I’m studying Xingyi now, so maybe it’s leaking into my posts.
kl -
It’s only slander if you say it in public, if you write it, it’s libel.
Is that your new mantra? I like it.
yh - The whole Noah myth is pretty improbable. There was that whole Search for Noah’s ark thing going on for a while, sort of like the search for bigfoot. A church near Mount Ararat has a cross alledgedly carved from wood from Noah’s ark and there have been some blurry pictures of an ark-like structure there. But I just used Noah as an example, there are plenty of faith-based problems in any religion. It can be really troublesome for literalists and dogmatists in the scientific age.
GeneChing
“ego - If Noah is a myth, do we chuck out all the bible? The truly scientific mind does. The truly scientific mind is atheist. But that chucks out a lot of good books. Is the good book silly because of Noah?”
Hold your horses there! why would you assume that a truely scientific mind would chuck out the whole if only parts of it has been shown to be untrue.
Why do you assume a scientific mind would chuck out the bible anyway? Any sciuentist would know that science is emperical whereas religion is by faith. Doesn’t that stand to reason that one cannot be used to argue against the other? It is thosde scientist who do not understand science and the religious teachers who do not understand the meaning of faith that argue with one another. It’s like saying an apple is better than a car!
Do you know that it takes as much faith to believe there is no god as there is one god or many gods or different types of god? therefore athesism is as much a believe system as any! science cannot prove or disprove the existance of god. You’re absolutely wrong in assuming a scientific mind corresponds to an atheist believe!
Furthermore if you do a bit of research about Vulcan society, they have religious beliefs, they meditate, very analytical and base their actions on reasoning. Why would you assume that Vulcans would look at the face value without further research into the context why myths are written the way they are?
If i were a Vulcan, I would say that the Noah story shows the devastation of flood and is a warning for us of the possible consequences if we do not properly manage our ecosystems.
In contrast, a Klingon (who happens to be a religious nut) might preach a dogma of interpriting the story at face value.
Yes I agree that self defence encompasses other areas. but they are beyond the context of kung fu! Chemical attacks, bio terrorism, misuse of anitbiotics that lead to the resistance of infectious diseases etc… kung fu would do you no good. There is absolutely no way a sifu can be expert at all these preventive measures. Just as it is unreasonable to expect a sifu to be an expert in moral teachings. there are other avenues, such as universities etc.. where one can pursue these studies.
So I hope you’ll let kung fu be kung fu - there are limitations, but at least one can “tick the box” that defence against hand to hand encounters or against classical weapons is covered.
Let Kungfu be Kungfu
Yes I agree that self defence encompasses other areas. but they are beyond the context of kung fu! Chemical attacks, bio terrorism, misuse of anitbiotics that lead to the resistance of infectious diseases etc… kung fu would do you no good. There is absolutely no way a sifu can be expert at all these preventive measures. Just as it is unreasonable to expect a sifu to be an expert in moral teachings. there are other avenues, such as universities etc.. where one can pursue these studies.
In the past when there were no such things as machineguns, chemical weapons etc., martial arts were the Ways of Power. A man skilled in both armed and empty-handed combat could protect his country, help the poor and oppressed… but he could also use it for malevolent purposes. That’s why since ancient times, during the Warring States Period of China (403-221 BC) to be exact when the philosopher Mozi and his disciples (the first wandering heroes) roamed the realm, martial arts training and moral teachings went hand-in-hand. This was the origin of Wude: the Martial Artist’ Virtue. To quote Spiderman’s Uncle Ben: “With great power comes great responsibility.” In Traditional Chinese martial arts, it goes even further: Virtue dominates power, not the other way around. Martial arts excellence depends a greatly on talent and physique of the practitioner. Not everyone can become a superb martial artist, but at least we can try to become a better person. A mediocre martial artist with a righteous attitude and good character will be respected despite his poor skills, while a bully with great martial skills would be despised by his peers. Of course, training martial arts will not neccessary make one a good person, just like reading the Bible does not automatically make you a good Christian. But neither would a university course on ethics. These are only methods/ways to help a person to achieve these goals, but in the end it depends on the person’s own cultivation.
So I hope you’ll let kung fu be kung fu - there are limitations, but at least one can “tick the box” that defence against hand to hand encounters or against classical weapons is covered.
In our modern world, the fighting aspects of kungfu become less important. Of course there’s still a need to defend oneself, but why train kungfu? Just take some kickboxing class with some wrestling and you’ll kick but all over town. You don’t need kungfu just for selfdefence, there are much faster ways. But the beauty of traditional Chinese martial arts lies within its’ combination of martial and moral teachings: while the need of fighting diminishes, the need for character development remains high. Ego, you say that we must let kungfu be kungfu, but you are the one who is trying to change kungfu. Kungfu has always been Martial arts PLUS Moral teachings. If we abandon the ethics, warrior code etc. we will surely lose a great amount of wisdom.
So please, let Kungfu be Kungfu…
Ming Fa
If moral teaching did indeed play such a large role in kung fu, why is it then kung fu tournaments only focus on the physical aspects. You cannot win a gold medal for taking part in a debate on morality against other schools because such events don’t even exist.
Kung fu players love to concentrate on the physical, self defence stuff - which is fine and good only if one remains consisent in comparing all other forms of hand to hand combat according to this yard stick. Some kung fu players however claim that their styles contains “morality teachings” when asked to compare against other styles they feel have a harder edge - like kick boxing.
Is it the case of if you can’t beat them in physical combat, you hold out an olive branch and hope for peace?
Are you seriously trying to say all martial arts in china were taught under the same moral and virture and wisdom randomness for all time, until now?
Cmon Ming Fai.
To EGO:
If moral teaching did indeed play such a large role in kung fu, why is it then kung fu tournaments only focus on the physical aspects. You cannot win a gold medal for taking part in a debate on morality against other schools because such events don’t even exist.
True, but the point is moral teachings should develop the right attitude of those who fight in tournaments: instead of badmouthing the opponent, rude behaviour, breaking the rules… we could also respect the other contestants and engage in combat with a attitude of “May the best man win”. It’s not competition that counts, but participation and experience, to test your skills and learn from others.
To yenhoi:
Are you seriously trying to say all martial arts in china were taught under the same moral and virture and wisdom randomness for all time, until now?
No, I’m not saying that. This is what I believe to be correct, things which I believe in. You can choose to believe in other things, it’s up to you. Many masters of the past were bound to have only concentrated on fighting and killing, that’s fine with me.
Ming Fa
Then what about boxing or BJJ or UFC. sure the contest are brutal for an on looker but it is participated by consneting adults who may have the “may the best man win attitude”. Moving outside contact sports, say in a game of squash tournament, one can also adopt the same attitude.
If kung fu espouses morality, one would be expecting that it’ll go beyond what you see in other activities anyway - which is called good sports manship. Is that all kung fu morality is about - good sportsmanship?
Your reply to Yenhoi shows that masters of kung fu can be immoral. Doesn’t this contradicts what you said earlier on that kung fu contains morality. If that were so, then those very efficient killers you speak of cannot be considered masters. If they are not masters then what are they?
If they had learned CLF and can fight very well with their style but are bad to the core, then doesn’t is show that one can learn chinese fighting styles without the moral teachings. You reference to history seems to suggest that.
Ego
Fair enough - I should have said agnostic, not atheist. My bad. I concede that fact, but persist with the point. Faith and science are at odds. True, the throw out the whole bible just because of Noah would be extreme, but being a martial arts forum, we have a tendancy of extrremity - take the ancestors slander bit on the last page. Anyway, my point is that even if Tamo wasn’t real, that doesn’t invalidate the myth, the metaphor and most important, the teachings. The same goes for the bible.
As for the vulcan/klingon tangent, I worked on this. - only a little mind you (the forward and the cover - it was a paid job and when you make you rliving in the martial arts like I do, you take such jobs.) Vulcans and Klingons have evolved a lot in the series. Didn’t Roddenberry once write “Klingons **** in airlocks”? Now would Worf do that to Picard? I miss those Kilngons. Of course, I’d take T’pol over Spock anyday…
The Sifu of old is quite the renaissance man, so a moral underpinning is expected. Of course, few real people meet up to the myth, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t aspire to goodness. In my mind, all teachers, whether it be teachers of kung fu, music, math, or tantric sex, should teach a moral underpinning. Knowledge is power, and power should be guided by wisdom.
mmmmm, T’Pol.
The singular reason I watch enterprise religiously 
heh heh, I hope I don’t get burned if my wife reads this. hahahaha.
cheers
If kung fu espouses morality, one would be expecting that it’ll go beyond what you see in other activities anyway - which is called good sports manship. Is that all kung fu morality is about - good sportsmanship?
That’s what I’m trying to say, but good sportmanship is the least we can do as a martial artist.
Your reply to Yenhoi shows that masters of kung fu can be immoral. Doesn’t this contradicts what you said earlier on that kung fu contains morality. If that were so, then those very efficient killers you speak of cannot be considered masters. If they are not masters then what are they?
OK OK, I should have said “very skilled fighters” instead of masters, my bad. But it does not contradict with what I said earlier, I already mentioned: “training martial arts will not neccessary make one a good person, just like reading the Bible does not automatically make you a good Christian. But neither would a university course on ethics. These are only methods/ways to help a person to achieve these goals, but in the end it depends on the person’s own cultivation.”
If they had learned CLF and can fight very well with their style but are bad to the core, then doesn’t is show that one can learn chinese fighting styles without the moral teachings. You reference to history seems to suggest that.
Of course that’s possible, I just don’t think it is something one must pursue and encourage. I agree with Gene’s last post.
Geneching:
I don’t think science and faith are at odds. Science provides answers to the what, where and how. It does not provide answers to the meaning of existance. Take a simple example of a poem (any poem) it’s meaning is more than what the chemical composition of the paper, or ink can provide. correct? science cannot explain the meaning within the verses eventhough it can explain the physical make up in terms of its molecules and componds the paper and ink was made of and even carbon date it to the time when it was written or verify it’s authenticity. Nevertheless meaning exist when a poet reads it but its beyond the reach of science.
However, the poet who has them meaning cannot decompose the physical attributes of the paper, ink etc… that is in the realm of science. Accordingly what is physical and meta-physical runs parallel rather than being at odds with one another. This was what I was saying before in short form.
Personally my favourite vulcan is the vulcan chic in Star Trek II - the wrath of Khan. Should have more of the likes of her. If I were the captain of the Enterprise, I would find her so much more persuasive. Probably would let her play captain from time to time.
Going one more step on the Star Trek theme, what about the Borg? Is it possible to be amoral as opposed to being moral or immoral. To them morality is not an issue - assimilation is a matter of survival for that specise. If one has to fights to survive and kills out of instinct wouldn’t that fall under the catagory of amoral? What has kung fu teaching got to say about that?
MingFa,
I agree, good sportsmanship is just the beginning of “morality”. What brings back the question as to wht (in tournamnets) do students only need to demonstrate the least when it comes to morality and physical fighting ability at the most?
If morality in kung fu did play such a large part, wouldn’t there have been tournaments that resemble say a question and answer session on how the student respond to statements about the affairs of this world such as global warming, depletion of fish stock, conservation of the Kakapo parrot in New Zealand, funding for space exploration and terrorism?
Taking your response to the last comment, would it not be a waste of time for a moral person who wants to learn kung fu for self defence to have to go through all the moral teaching before getting to the physical bits?
Given that you agree that the physical and the “spiritual” can be separated such that achievement of one is independent of the other, how have sifu’s steered the students to what they need most?
science vs. faith; t’pol vs. saavik
Science and Faith can coexist harmoniously until you get to the big questions, the ones that really matter - stuff origins (getting back to the origin of this thread, perhaps) and meaning. Obviously it has to coexist with some degree of harmony or most of us here would be insane. Well, wait a minute, most of us… oh nevermind.
Actually your borg point of amoral vs. immoral is well taken. Many gun enthusiastics often cite that guns are not evil, it’s the people that use them. Nature is cruel, amoral, but is it evil? Now the borg is a symbol of the machine, ultimately amoral. Is it evil? I guess it’s a matter of perspective. Most of us accept the cruelty of nature, but we are still adjusting to the cruelty of the machine. Anyway, I still stand by my point that martial arts teachers, or any teachers, should propound morality. Otherwise, what are we in it for?
As for the Wrath of Khan vulcan, Saavik, she went on to replace Shelley Long in Cheers, then to sell stuff at Cost Plus. I think she had a comedy series as a lingerie designer, or something like that. That kinda lost my interest over the years. Hopefully Jolene Blalock will have a better future. She’s been doing spreads in Men’s mags and is one step away from a nude spread if Paramount doesn’t have under some kind of binding contract. Nude vulcans? Fascinating.
Gene Ching:
You asked a very good question, what are we in it for? so far from discussions with you and others on this forum, I would say there are probably more perceptions of kung fu then there are kung fu styles.
I don’t disagree that morality is an important issue, but it involves a higher level of reasoning that in the midst of self defence it is non existant. Your actions may be considered amoral but this may not have anything to do with whether it is legal or illigal. what do you think?
You sure know your star trek history well. are you sure you just did the “front and back cover” as opposed to cover to cover? I think star trek is losing its bite. sure it was a good thing they brought in Seven of Nine. I much prefer the series Andromeda. It’s less sterotypical of how machines try to be humans - the episode The Mathemathics of Tears is a good contrast against Data. The guest star was also very very talented much like Seven of Nine is.
To EGO:
What brings back the question as to wht (in tournamnets) do students only need to demonstrate the least when it comes to morality and physical fighting ability at the most? If morality in kung fu did play such a large part, wouldn’t there have been tournaments that resemble say a question and answer session on how the student respond to statements about the affairs of this world such as global warming, depletion of fish stock, conservation of the Kakapo parrot in New Zealand, funding for space exploration and terrorism?
Well, the thing is: in a fight, you can easily see who is victorious, but in a debate on ethics no one knows who is the winner. Even if you can convince everyone with your words, it doesn’t make you a morally better person, you might just be very eloquent.
Taking your response to the last comment, would it not be a waste of time for a moral person who wants to learn kung fu for self defence to have to go through all the moral teaching before getting to the physical bits?
Two possibilities:
- The moral person would be attracted to the moral teachings immediately because he/she feels an affinity with these ideas.
- The person would waste time, he/she should talk to the instructor about his/her needs OR should consider switching to another style/school which concentrate solely self-defence.
But this brings us to more questions: What is a MORAL person like? Who can be considered moral? What are the criteria? And who are we to decide about someone’s morality?
But to return to the aspect of self-defence: if that’s your goal then of course you should learn practical things instead of wasting time on ethics. But self-defence is not the same as martial arts. Self-defence is only one aspect of kungfu. If you only want to learn to defend yourself, do not waste time on philosophy and ethics. Don’t train forms. Do not participate in competitions. Heck, don’t train in kungfu! Just take up kickboxing and jujitsu and concentrate on hard-core self-defence.
But if you want to become a martial artist, well, that’s a whole other story. I just can’t imagine kungfu without forms, philosophy, ethics (competitions are not really necessary IMO)… But of course, you also have to know how to fight. Martial art without fighting skills is not a martial art, if you train kungfu but you can’t fight the kungfu way, then it is not good kungfu.
Given that you agree that the physical and the “spiritual” can be separated such that achievement of one is independent of the other, how have sifu’s steered the students to what they need most?
I can only give my own personal experience: when I was a kid, I always got into trouble. I was the only Chinese kid in my neighbourhood, and I always got into fights. One day I got beaten up so bad, police got involved and everything… I then decided to train kungfu so I would kick everybody’s ass. That was my only intention. My first teachers did not teach me anything ethical, only physical aspects. But through the physical training my way of thinking also started to change: “Why should I train so hard only to hurt other people? That’s not worth it. I should train hard to better myself.” My last two sifu’s do teach me ethics, but in a very down-to-earth way: Work hard, be kind and respect your fellow man. I do not consider myself to be a very good person, far from that, but martial arts training did help me to develop in a good way and made me become a better person than I was before. Sounds corny, huh? 
live long & prosper
Does perception of a style make a style? I can think of a lot of MA who think their doing something (when really it’s crap 
) But definately there are a lot of different perceptions. I think this is a result of having an ‘art’ that has a highly practical function that is almost never used by the bulk of its practitioners.
As for the morality in combat, well, once you’re in combat, there are no rules. But hopefully people don’t enter that zone until the last resort. Hopefully, that combat zone is couched between good judgement and right action. That’s the morality I speak of and I think it’s a critical part of it all. Be good people.
It’s funny, I had a big disagreement with one of my Sifus about this. He believed that the art would, through it’s hardship, naturally weed out the bad elements. I don’t think he really understood bad elements, so he openly taught anyone. Bad elements can be tenacious. So it’s up to the teachers to do some weeding, now and then. Support the good, vanquish the evil. Sure, these are subjective measures, but we got to do what we can.
The maching vs. human metaphor is Star Trek’s forte. You can see a direct evolution - Spock (the original) to Data (the nerd) to 7 of 9 (the nerd’s sexual fantasy) skip deep space (becuase that didn’t really fly) to T’pol (a very sexy spock.) I though last night’s episode on T’pol’s vulcan aids was great, so to me, they still got it. Although I didn’t like the notion that mind melding was genetic (ala the meta-whatever-rons behind the force in star wars.) I’m still hoping that T’pol figures out how to mind meld. Also the metaphor between mind melding and gays was hilarious, especially when you think back to old Spock.
Midichlorians. Oohhhhh don’t get me started!
:mad:
Right midicholorians…
What’s the problem Serpent? Can’t find a good rhyme with it? Don’t get your silks in a bunch now.
Ming Fa:
In your response to the debate about ethics, how about this. As long as the debate sets the mind of the audience and the participants thinking about difficult issues where there is no such a thing as a universal right or wrong, everyone has won to a certain degree.
I see your point about the differences you percieve between kung fu and other stlyes which I throughly respect. On the issue of forms which is an aspect of training that is not pertaining to morality, would you not think it should be discarded because you feel that it does not add to self defence?
Geneching:
Ok the ‘big question’ where you say science and religion might differ. say there is this religion that believes there is only one God whose name is Bllah who created life in 7 days and rested on the 8th. The religion also tells his believers to go on a holy rampage against non believers resulting in wonton property distruction. Now an evolutionary scientist who has scientific evidence that the earth was 4 billion years old had a potato stuck up the exhaust of his car by one of the religous zealots for daring to propose the idea. The scientist was furious.
Some would say that it is a conflict between science and religion but I say not. The issue here is infringing on another’s rights which need not have nay thing to do with religion. Could have been a street punk or a forum troll and the scientist would still be furious.
I agree bad elements can be tenacious. successful criminals can be very intelligent people. they may also be quite gifted in kung fu. Like I said earlier, morality is independent of fighting skills.
I tend to find star trek steotyping alien races. For example the vulcan is clearly analytical, the Klingon - hardened warriors, the Farangi- pure capatilist etc. all of them express a facit of human nature to the extreme. Humans as a result appear to be the most balanced creatures.
It is interesting that for all the imagination about warp drive and interstellar travel, we still put ourselves “in the centre of the universe” or should I say “as ego maximus”?
where no man has gone before…
Ultimately both religion and science are on the same quest - the search for truth. The conflict arises from spiritual vs. analytical. Some people can resolve it for their individual personalities but that can only be done with internal compromise. Not that this is a bad thing, it is just so.
The freedom of inquiry is a completely different issue. Both science and religion can be fairly dogmatic. Science may deny this, but episodes like piltdown man continue to support the attachment of science to the dominant paradigm.
Morality is independant of fighting skills, but that’s only because good people do nothing. Therein lies the real problem of being a true warrior today.
Star Trek has always been a metaphor for racism. By characaturing differences as aliens, they can examine human nature. Alien Nation tried to do the same thing but more literally. We’re a little to emic to do much else. I suppose Planet of the Apes was closer in that regard. It would be hard to really do something more alien, more Lovecraftian perhaps.