Martial arts as a metaphor for verbal conflicts

by Introspection 6 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • Introspection
    Introspection

    Let me know what you guys think of this.. If there isn't much response maybe I'll type a little less, don't want to be boring everyone if it's not of interest...

    Well, I was thinking about how arguments happen online on this board and elsewhere, and it occurred to me it has some things in common with some basic martial arts principles.. First of all, something very basic that nobody seems to think about is that you need to see what your opponent is doing. It seems that often people get upset and are more likely to be focused on that feeling, rather than how they will respond to the other person's argument or actions. (of course, a calm and collected fight probably doesn't make a good movie) In verbal arguments, this can take various forms. Look at it this way: when the same arguments are re-hashed from the two sides over and over again, it becomes old. If you were watching a movie where two guys are using the same moves over and over, would it be interesting to you? Besides, it doesn't get anywhere.

    Here's another scenario.. Sometimes people use arguments which are irrelevant, it may sound very good and could be very logical, but it may not address the points the other person is making. Well, it seems to me if you had this in a martial arts film it would be like someone showing off his form without laying a hand on the other guy, I mean it may be nice techniques but you're not responding to anything the other person is doing. I'm sure you'd agree that would be rather silly.

    A lot of schools of martial arts have sensitivity training. Wing chun, which is the style Bruce Lee was trained in has it, and Tai Chi which I do also has it in the form of push hands. They talk about sticking and listening energy in push hands, which is really pretty simple: by sticking and maintaining contact with your opponent and "listening" to their moves, you learn to feel what your opponent is doing and respond accordingly in real time rather than just getting caught up in what you're going to do.

    Now when it comes to talking or verbal communication, listening is certainly something you actually do, literally, when you talk or communicate with someone. But is it in practice? It seems like sometimes you see people argue, they don't really hear the points the other person is making, so they just go on with their own stuff - not unlike showing off your moves and not actually engaging in a fight. And then there are those occasions when people go over the same basic ideas over and over, not unlike little kids who fight with the same mechanical moves, the standard left-right punches, or maybe like the kid who just got out of Karate class kicking the doors at the mall. (the door is inanimate of course, but it does swing back)

    So looking at it that way, it seems rather comical to me. But of course people get hurt, both emotionally and physically. I think another similarity here is where flexibility comes in, as well as rooting. In martial arts, you want to have a low center of gravity and be rooted so you can use your weight in your favor, rather than throwing the four limbs about wildly in a fit of frenzy. You also want to be flexible and supple, that allows you to redirect the opponent's energy - otherwise you're using force against force. In a way a verbal conflict is similar, because your arguments should have some kind of solid foundation, and at the same time you want to be flexible instead of being rigid and stiffen up because that's tough, that's strength.. That may be true, but it may not get you anywhere, especially if you have no real foundation to rely on, and eventually you might end up hurting yourself by holding to such a rigid stance.

  • Teirce
    Teirce

    Nice. I looked up some links that might apply to the subject.

    http://deermoss.dhs.org/~nuthouse/eac/eac-logic.html - logical fallacies
    http://www.mtsu.edu/~jaeller/logic.html - other logical fallacies
    http://ksr.facade.com/essays/04b-art.html - martial arts and personal/individual observation (not groupthink)
    http://home.stny.rr.com/iama/elements.html - 5 martial elements (are also used in conversation)

    One thing about martial arts is that it doesn't appeal to mercy, just as science doesn't, although it does use elements of understanding one's own intrinsic advantages. Therefore, JWs, or other cult groups, lack both the benefit of using hard, merciless science And personal perspective.

  • Introspection
    Introspection

    Hi Teirce, thanks for those links. I don't know if I'm missing something, but I didn't see why you felt the need to say it's not groupthink. I read Larc's message and then this article below, the only thing I can think of is the first paragraph or two where it talks about the modern organization and history. Did I miss something from Larc's post? I suppose it may sound that way from the introduction, but I know the reason some in the Chinese martial traditions tend to keep things secret (or atleast advanced techniques/the real stuff) except for a few close students is simply because it's a trade secret. Other than that, it could also be used for great harm in the wrong hands. If nothing else it just doesn't look good that you're responsible for creating this monster by enabling them to do such effective violence, in addition to the ethical consideration on the part of the teacher.

    http://ksr.facade.com/essays/04b-art.html - martial arts and personal/individual observation (not groupthink)
  • Teirce
    Teirce

    Sorry, Intro. The relevant quotes I drew upon indicate that martial arts is based on sound knowledge of science and natural law, and on personal experience rather than on "others' experience". In this regard, those who debate with martial arts principles do not engage in groupthink. I wasn't referencing Lark's discussion..

    Quotes from that link - "Kashima-ShinryĆ» is martial "science" because mastery of its theoretical foundations and advanced principles must be based on scientific knowledge of the natural cosmos in which humans live." and "More important, in both cases it is not limited just to physical science but extends to human sciences, especially sciences of human relations and self-realization."
    But you do raise an interesting distinction: every level of JW heirarchy possesses secret techniques of debate which can be weilded over the group(s) under it. The rank-n-swiss weild powerful appeals to stupidity over the stupid, the Elders weild power appeals to guilt over the rank-n-swiss, the CO's weild powerful threats over the Elders, on up the line. All these techniques are kept secret from the lower echelons, and forsooth, "could also be used for great harm in the wrong hands."

  • Introspection
    Introspection
    But you do raise an interesting distinction: every level of JW heirarchy possesses secret techniques of debate which can be weilded over the group(s) under it.

    Ahh, good point. Of course, it seems to me the difference between the two is that the techniques are used to manipulate with such high control groups, atleast some of the actual content of the teachings is not the technique itself, (after all, that is only a matter of acceptance) not to mention it's not exactly natural.

    So, is that what you study?

  • Thomas Poole
    Thomas Poole

    Careful about this type "entertainment." It has ingrediences of spiritism and demonic influences along with it, a lot of new-age mentality also. Personal experience!!! Take time to study the personalities of the people drawn to this stuff. Note their attraction and fascitation with violence. Not good for a Christian developing the mind of Christ.

    Free In Christ Jesus our Lord & Savior, as the Father would have it.

  • Introspection
    Introspection

    Sorry Thomas, but that is neither a form of entertainment nor anywhere near what martial arts is about. You speak of people drawn to martial arts, but that is not the same as the art itself.

    Granted, there are different types of martial arts, and many modern styles are rather brutal. Spiritism and demonic influences would depend upon your own mind. The fact is from a psychological point of view, martial arts teaches you a measure of physical discipline, to act consciously rather than have a knee-jerk reaction to the physical threat. It's unfortunate that many have been brainwashed by Bruce Lee movies and such to think that it's all about being able to kick ass when you get mad. If you want to look at it for what it is, though, it's about self-defense. Of course, a lot of this depends on the practitioner, but just as you might not agree with how the witnesses or others use the bible or the name of Christ, individuals who practice the martial arts may misrepresent it. The martial artists of ancient times understood how to heal people as well as using the same knowledge to harm, and because they have this knowledge they were able to incapacitate a person without seriously hurting them. The fact that fights were private also shows that they do not take pleasure in harming others, and it is not for show.

    Since you brought it up though, what exactly is your personal experience?

    Incidentally, my friend who is also named Thomas, a theology student is a martial arts student. Another guy who's a minister and a PhD psychologist is an advanced student at our school.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit