[Tease T Tickle]

Although the topic header is quite vague (and purposefully so), this thread is meant for people to post any questions for intelligent discussion of the really strange things, like the ethics of practicing the martial arts, the paradigms that govern how we approach combat, or right down to the principles that goven technique execution and selection.

Although I started the thread, feel free to answer questions if you have another perspective or if a question has gone unanswered. All that is required is that you be respectful and approach all of this with an empty mind.

Also note that many of the positions I take may be technical true to some tradition or other, but not all. Do not mistake my individual stance for that of some other person, organization or ideology. Thank you.

P.S: somebody make this a sticky, I must be defective in my old age.

[Wilhelm von Wankenstein]

Stickied. Want to know how I did it?

Thing is, Des, aren't you a mod?

[bamboo]

A somewhat vague question of which I have my own opinion, but I would love to hear your opinion as a (student of psychology? psychologist?)?

Practitioners that follow a particular religion often use that system of beliefs to justify the use of violence in thier minds as either the "right" thing to do or in some cases of monism, that in the absense of a "true opponent", there is no right or wrong in terms of physical damage and /or use of violence (whew, that was a long sentence ).

Can you explain or discuss the differences of mindset during an actual fight between someone like those mentioned above and the combatant that suffers from ethical questions?

Thanks for your time.

-bamboo

[Tease T Tickle]

Originally Posted by Wilhelm von Wänkensteïn

Stickied. Want to know how I did it? Thing is, Des, aren't you a mod?

No.

Originally Posted by bamboo

Practitioners that follow a particular religion often use that system of beliefs to justify the use of violence in thier minds as either the "right" thing to do or in some cases of monism, that in the absense of a "true opponent", there is no right or wrong in terms of physical damage and /or use of violence.

Can you explain or discuss the differences of mindset during an actual fight between someone like those mentioned above and the combatant that suffers from ethical questions?

Well, their mindsets are different in that one has ethical questions and the other doesn't. Of course, I dodged the question there, but it illustrates a point, just about anything can be a difference of mindset.

If somebody is committed to physical violence - whether it be for religious conviction, sadism or simple amorality - they won't really think about the action, per se. Especially if you assume that both persons we're discussing here are trained martial artists, the one committed to violence will act instinctually in combat and therefore can be quite a ferocious opponent. The one who is ethically inclined to see violence as wrong, on the other hand, will be committed instead to avoiding pain, escaping the situation, or perhaps restraining his opponent so that he won't harm bystanders. Given that avoiding pain and escaping a hostile situation are both parts of the survival instinct, that should come fairly naturally and it should "work," within that sense. However, attempting to restrain somebody else who is violent and aggressive is not within our nature, does not fit within our schema for instinctual action and so requires much thought, and thus effort. It can be very difficult to do, even before you take into account the technical requirements.

So, basically, the mindsets of an ethical combatant and somebody who believes violence is all right are like the differences between a human and a tiger. The ethical fighter (human) is marked by higher thought processes, the other (tiger) is marked by a natural ferocity. The instrinsic problem is that thinking during a fight is bad, it causes hesitation, restraint in one's own techniques, etc.

What is the difference in mindset? One is committed to violence the other is committed to stopping violence, one acts naturally with the backing of billions of years worth of evolved instinct the other acts thoughtfully and with the backing of his own frontal lobe, one is ready to act and ferocious the other is hesitant and meek.

[bamboo]

Interesting.
Do you think that its possible to overcome this hesitation due to ethical considerations through training or will the "moral" (for lack of a better word) person always be doomed when meeting an opponent of equal skill and physical attributes yet no mental hesitation.

This leads me to another question: Would you consider the person with intention to cause violence different than that of someone simply defending themselves but with no moral convictions whatsoever in terms of capacity to triumph in a physical altercation?

Thank you for your time on these questions, I have never had the opportunity to pick the brain of a psychologist.

cheers,

bamboo

[setsu nin to]

DeStRuCtIkOn

P.S: somebody make this a sticky

Do it for yourself, you mod.

Nice to see you as mod again!

[Tease T Tickle]

Originally Posted by bamboo

Interesting.
Do you think that its possible to overcome this hesitation due to ethical considerations through training or will the "moral" (for lack of a better word) person always be doomed when meeting an opponent of equal skill and physical attributes yet no mental hesitation.

Yes, by training diligently and essentially rerouting the neural networks so that the instincts are different.

This leads me to another question: Would you consider the person with intention to cause violence different than that of someone simply defending themselves but with no moral convictions whatsoever in terms of capacity to triumph in a physical altercation?

If two warriors meet on the field of battle, there are three outcomes: one dies, the other dies, they both die. Generally speaking, the one with greater committment and less hesitation will kill the opponent, but he may still be killed by an opponent if said opponent was equally committed. So, those without some sort of conviction run a greater risk of failure, regardless of whether they are the aggressor or not. As you no doubt sense, I read into a lot of bushido.

Thank you for your time on these questions, I have never had the opportunity to pick the brain of a psychologist.

no problem. shrinks are usually very forthcoming if you approach them. unfortunately, they might charge you

[zefff]

Oh so this is where all the mods hang out!

When re-routing the neural networks should we take into account and adapt our responses to the social norms of right and wrong?

Can we still develop a certain conviction in our responses or is it possible that this limiting of response not only denies us of total flexibility but also cuts us off from the root of our combative nature? Basically, does fighting with limits and a mind full of regard keep us from understanding our true nature?

Is fighting in defence with a sense of justice a delusion?

[bamboo]

Wow, Des, I didn't think I'd have so many questions but......

My next one is much more general: Which philosophical influences do you think helped shape and continue to shape the martial arts today?

cheers

bamboo

[Tease T Tickle]

Originally Posted by zefff

Oh so this is where all the mods hang out!

When re-routing the neural networks should we take into account and adapt our responses to the social norms of right and wrong?

Can we still develop a certain conviction in our responses or is it possible that this limiting of response not only denies us of total flexibility but also cuts us off from the root of our combative nature? Basically, does fighting with limits and a mind full of regard keep us from understanding our true nature?

I think that first I should clarify what exactly conviction or instinct is in terms of brain functions. You walk to the fridge, open it up and reach in to grab the bottle of orange juice or beer or what have you. Simple enough, right? Now, try doing that wearing goggles that use mirrors to invert your visual field. A British psychologist did just that, to try to simulate how infants develop motor skills and hand-eye coordination. In a nutshell, when you grab for that bottle, your sensory input goes directly to the motor control, you don't have to think about acting. However, if your senses were drastically changes, or simply unformed like that of a baby's, you would have to think about it and thus the sensory impulses go to your frontal lobe and then to your motor areas. So, even if you were very bright and could think things out in short order, it would take longer simply due to the time it requires for the synapses to fire along the pathway through your frontal lobe.

So, with a complete and utter commitment to a certain direction of action, less thought is involved, and actions are initiated more quickly. That being said, it is still possibly to bypass the frontal lobe altogether by training the action so much that it becomes a natural reaction, you see the bottle of OJ you grab it, you see the face of an enemy you punch it, etc.

So, if one was inclined to be ethical and upright in all things, one could and should train that action diligently so that the action overrides more natural instincts. The British psychologist got used to the goggles after about a week and could catch a thrown ball as well as throw it with typical accuracy, he could ride a bike down a path, etc. But he wore the goggles constantly for that period of time. We're not always fighting, so of course it will take much longer to properly train oneself to not be brutish in combat.

We are slaves to nothing because the mind is malleable.

Is fighting in defence with a sense of justice a delusion?

Well, that's a bit stickier. First, in who's defense are we fighting? If the answer is our own defense, the only way that is just is if we are currently being treated with injustice, i.e. a mugger is trying to rob us. If somebody attacks us as retaliation, then we have enacted injustice, are receiving justice and therefore defending ourselves from this attack is not just because we should accept our punishment. The same theory applies if we fight on behalf of others. BUT, and notice the capitals, justice is an abstract idea conjoured by humans who are upset that the stronger, faster, smarter, etc. receive more benefit than they do. Justice is itself a delusion, based on man's need to feel that the world is fair, balanced and individual differences don't matter. In the words of Nietzsche, it is slave morality because the weak or unfortunate will use the concept of justice to advance their own causes which take what the strong have gained through their own superior abilities. So, first justice is a delusion because we made it up and secondly it is a lie because it was made up to assault the naturally greater humans and take what they earned.