[Tease T Tickle]

Originally Posted by Ninja Kl0wn

How did I miss this thread?

You were too busy looking at Vida's backyard. I know that's the case with me, at least.

Hengest: No worries, I always aim to please.

[Ninja Kl0wn]

At its heart though, the quintessential concept of martial arts - the idea that shaped the first arts and continues to color our modern world - is that combat is not something we love. That may be expressed, as it is today, as an imperative to not cause undue harm in Aikido. It may be found in sporting styles like boxing, in that we don't wish to see, suffer or cause undue harm hence the implementation of rules and equipment dedicated to the safety of fighters. Lastly, it can be seen in the hard-nosed battle ready systems that military organizations utilize, in that we want to end combat as quickly as possible. At our hearts, we want to live happy, lazy lives: that is the nature of man. When combat happens, we want the event done and over with, and we'd prefer it if everyone could go home afterwards.

Originally Posted by DeStRuCtIkOn

Humans hate combat, in that we aren't really very inclined to causing serious harm, we direly want to avoid harm to ourselves and it causes all sorts of stress that is not conducive to laying in the grass eating fruit and having sex with beautiful women. However, learning to fight seems like a very good idea in that we want to be able to kill the predator before it kills us and we want to be able to acheive the highest status in our community and get the best foods and women.

Just spouting out thoughts here to keep the conversation running. Rereading my own post, I can't tell if it's an arguement or an agreement here, or if it's even relevant to anythign that's been said so far lol.


At our core, humans are predatory pack animals. I'll draw my parallels here to wolves since they are the animal I'm most familiar with, though it applies to pretty much all pack predators.
That said, I would assume that violence would be something that we are very much inclined to. In the end, we all want to be the alpha male. That means ascending through the ranks by mental and physical superiority, displayed via acts of violence against your fellows. I do somewhat agree with your statement that we don't want cause serious harm, however I believe that applies specifically to one's own pack. Outside your pack is fair game. That's why the average soldier hesitates before shooting his own man under any circumstance, but doesn't even think twice about unloading a full clip into the enemy.
Your above mentioned safety regulations in sports echo this. We see our opponents in the ring as our fellows, our pack mates if you will. I don't think the hard-nosed military system is so much for not wishing to cause undo suffering, but for self-preservation. It's an entirely selfish reason. It's a go for the throat attitude because we don't want them to have time to injure us.

[Tease T Tickle]

Originally Posted by Ninja Kl0wn

Just spouting out thoughts here to keep the conversation running. Rereading my own post, I can't tell if it's an arguement or an agreement here, or if it's even relevant to anythign that's been said so far lol.


At our core, humans are predatory pack animals. I'll draw my parallels here to wolves since they are the animal I'm most familiar with, though it applies to pretty much all pack predators.
That said, I would assume that violence would be something that we are very much inclined to. In the end, we all want to be the alpha male. That means ascending through the ranks by mental and physical superiority, displayed via acts of violence against your fellows. I do somewhat agree with your statement that we don't want cause serious harm, however I believe that applies specifically to one's own pack. Outside your pack is fair game. That's why the average soldier hesitates before shooting his own man under any circumstance, but doesn't even think twice about unloading a full clip into the enemy.
Your above mentioned safety regulations in sports echo this. We see our opponents in the ring as our fellows, our pack mates if you will. I don't think the hard-nosed military system is so much for not wishing to cause undo suffering, but for self-preservation. It's an entirely selfish reason. It's a go for the throat attitude because we don't want them to have time to injure us.

This gets sticky. I am of the belief that an extent of our behavior that is greater than we would want to admit is dictated by evolved, instinctual drives. For instance, we all like sex, not because it is a novel thing and we intellectually declared that sex was keen, but because liking sex was once upon a time beneficial to the survival of our genes. That being said, we are much more complex than we think. Humans don't see a dog and think, "Hunting partner," especially because modern domestic dogs typically suck for hunting. Nor do we immediately look at every person outside of our 'pack' or family as an opponent. This is generalized of course, I'm sure some do think that way.

What is really striking, especially when one examines human evolution is that we weren't primarily predators. For the majority of human history, hunting has been secondary to other practices. Prehistoric humans were more likely to forage for fruits, nuts and berries and scavange meat left after some other critter's kill. Hunting only really came to the forefront with the Ice Age when foraging and scavenging weren't getting the results we needed. Of course, after the last Ice Age ended, we started seeing the first steps towards agricultural societies forming, so examining human life as a whole, predation is not really that popular.

But, we do also have the will to power, we all do want to be the alpha male. However, this applies ONLY to our own pack. As people in our day to day lives, we don't care who the king of Brunei is, just so long as he doesn't try to dick with us. The dominance we seek is over our family and friends, in fact, because these are the people that impact our lives. We want the choice of food, the choice of breeding stock, the ability to enjoy leisure, etc. Thus, we have conflicts: brothers fighting over toys, friends fighting over a girl, internet trolls whipping their dicks out to try to prove who is the better human being by asserting their own intelligence, fighting ability, penis size, whatever. That being said, though, there is much evidence that man hates serious harm befalling other men. In studies involving World War Two and Vietnam veterans, more people developed Shell Shock or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder because they had to kill another person than from being wounded or seeing people they cared for die. In fact, being forced to do harm to another person even a person you don't know, is a really good way to fuck yourself up for the rest of your life. We can punch and kick all we like and call it sport, but we all know that if the UFC involved pikes and dismemberment, we'd vomit our lunch watching it, if we brought ourselves to watching it at all.

[zefff]

To an extent I agree with both accounts. But Im unsure about the pack predator thing.

We naturally fear death but I dont think we are afraid of all combat. Im sure most people feel comfortable with combat when they know they can easily dominate the opponent. All things that fight naturally seek out weaker opponents, even heavy weight boxers.

It may be our culture that gives us a regard for human life. Its definately the case that there is a lower regard for life and a tolerance for violence in cultures as opposed to others. It may be the customs and laws in our society that have instilled a fear of combat over time. Im not sure. Why do people still physically attack others?

Do we actually have a true, ingrained dislike of combat or is it a result of conditioning due to the fact that we all live within societies that promote other means of settling disputes? ....actually thinking about it as I type, we probably do fear physical combat but only because we fear harm (or ultimately death). Its interesting though because we combat each other through none physical means constantly - at work, in the street, in our cars and on the internet.

But when people do violently attack one another how do they do it? Meaning, do we always use the most violent methods we are master of, or are we afraid to use the most extreme methods because of fear or reprisal from the society that nurtures us?

I understand that members of a society all have different levels of inhibitions, tolerances and experiences of violence but what do you think about the mismatches in expression of violence? Before an attack we cant guess the level of violence thats coming at us so should Martial artists train to apply maximum effect techinque with immediacy or minimum requirement techniques that follow the course of the attack?

[Tease T Tickle]

Originally Posted by zefff

It may be our culture that gives us a regard for human life. Its definately the case that there is a lower regard for life and a tolerance for violence in cultures as opposed to others. It may be the customs and laws in our society that have instilled a fear of combat over time. Im not sure. Why do people still physically attack others?

I'm not aware of any single society that ever celebrated death and destruction. The closest I can think of is Rome with the gladiatorial combat, but until the era of Christian persecution, the level of blood was actually lower than most people think. Also, in regards to other forms of aggression, such as internet arguments and the like, we can enjoy those exercises of anger because no one suffers. Imagine small children in a shoving match, they display power and try to intimidate one another into submission but they aren't even causing pain let alone damage.

[zefff]

I didnt mean to say certain cultures celebrated death and destruction. I meant that for example, in England it may be that there is a higher regard for life than in Honduras.

The bit about the internet is funny because it seems we were thinking alike. I was actually typing my response as you were typing yours so please dont take my post as a jibe at you in anyway....maybe Im paranoid?

So why do we fight so much if we dont like it? (we meaning all human beings)

[Wilhelm von Wankenstein]

Originally Posted by DeStRuCtIkOn

I'm not aware of any single society that ever celebrated death and destruction. The closest I can think of is Rome with the gladiatorial combat, but until the era of Christian persecution, the level of blood was actually lower than most people think. Also, in regards to other forms of aggression, such as internet arguments and the like, we can enjoy those exercises of anger because no one suffers. Imagine small children in a shoving match, they display power and try to intimidate one another into submission but they aren't even causing pain let alone damage.

Actually, that's a good point, Des, because, if one were to observe contests between parties seeking dominance in other species, one would observe the same phenomenon of (relatively) harmless shows of force, even among the carnivores and other species carrying pointy bits capable of doing a fair bit of harm. Wolves will tussle and wrestle until one party or the other submits, deer lock horns and wrestle until the loser backs down. Fights to the death are aberrant and uncommon during contests of dominance in nature.

My two cents way too late into the night

[Tease T Tickle]

Originally Posted by zefff

I didnt mean to say certain cultures celebrated death and destruction. I meant that for example, in England it may be that there is a higher regard for life than in Honduras.

The bit about the internet is funny because it seems we were thinking alike. I was actually typing my response as you were typing yours so please dont take my post as a jibe at you in anyway....maybe Im paranoid?

So why do we fight so much if we dont like it? (we meaning all human beings)

Why do we like the scent of roses and not the scent of skunk? Asking why we like something is, at best, a matter of opinion, at worst, futile.

[zefff]

yeah, you are right. I guess we should just do it if we have to and be ready to do it well.

One more question about MA practice. I have been thinking for a longtime that its a selfish thing and/or that the intent behind practice is selfish. What do you think? Is it even a bad thing and is there a way one can practice in an unselfish manner if it is?

thanks.

[Tease T Tickle]

Originally Posted by zefff

One more question about MA practice. I have been thinking for a longtime that its a selfish thing and/or that the intent behind practice is selfish. What do you think? Is it even a bad thing and is there a way one can practice in an unselfish manner if it is?

Wow. Determining whether or not something is genuinely not selfish is actually a VERY difficult thing to do. For example, do people donate to charity because they are truly altruistic, OR do they do it because it fulfills some spiritual or ethical sense of morality, because they get tax cuts, because they emotionally feel better about it, etc.? Just about any action or motivation for action can be 'reduced' in a sense to some sort of selfishness and altruism seems either nonexistent or rare.

That being said, I believe in altruism. I believe that people can and will act with others' interests at heart before their own, and for reasons that aren't selfish when you boil them down. Of course, all of this has been about actions in general and not specifically about the martial arts, so I haven't REALLY answered your question.

What does one do with martial arts? You fight people. How can fighting somebody be altruistic? If you do so for the benefit of others and if you do not harm the person(s) you fight. If you harm them, how can you say you took others' interests to heart, how can you say you fought for the benefit for others'? Generosity is only genorosity if you give to everyone, not if only give to a certain group of people and the same is true of altruism. If you fight so that you, your loved ones, your property or anything else connected to you is not harmed, you not altruistic because you have a vested interested in what you fight for. So, just like you cannot harm anyone, you must fight for everyone.

Altrusistic martial arts is obviously quite difficult to follow, and like any other system of ethics you might read, no one is really expected to follow it. All that matters is that the system is acknowledged as true and the logic that produced it as flawless. That's what philosophy is about. So, are you selfish if you practice the martial arts, not necessarily, but pragmatically speaking you probably are. Does being selfish with the martial arts matter? That depends on you, personally, to decide, and in a twist of irony, if you begin to practice altruistic martial arts BECAUSE you believe you should not be selfish in any actions you do, then you are being selfish because you are only being altruistic to satisfy an internal need for altruism. Ethics is quite possibly the strangest form of philosophy, wouldn't you agree?