Sloppy Zhang

Keep going

I believe so, yes.

My anthropology professor would constantly talk about how dominant discourses in society shaped the way we view "facts". On top of that, we have very few "facts" about many ancient societies. For instance, he talked about Mayan culture, and how many Mayan temples and cities were still in the jungle, hardly ever explored. We know they are there- pilots fly planes over them all the time. But nobody makes the trek out into the middle of nowhere to excavate these things. On top of that, Spanish conquerors came in and wiped out any traces of indigenous "heathen" culture- burning all texts they could find and destroying any remnants of the old culture they could find. He made this analogy- imagine every piece of paper in New York city was burned, it was left alone for hundreds or thousands of years, nature was in the middle of reclaiming it, and a culture from half a planet away, hundreds of years later, with little to no cultural or linguistic relation to us discovered the remnants of New York city, and tried to determine our culture based on the buildings, graffiti, and whatever other physical evidence they could find. There are HUNDREDS of ways to interpret that scant amount of information, constructing a view our society which would be, largely, wrong, but would be 100% according to the "facts" that were discovered. The ancient alien astronauts theory is, I think, interesting, if only because it is fun to think about. Really, given our facts, it's only more "far fetched" because our present society thinks the subjects of UFO's to be far fetched. We have interpreted what we know of some of those older cultures based on what we have. So take Stonehenge. One of my astronomy professors did a lot of research into Stonehenge, and found that it had developed over the years as an incredibly accurate calender device to predict when to start the planting and harvesting seasons- vital to the survival of those ancient peoples'. "Modern" European culture discovers this, and goes "wow, a big monument, what could it be? Why would they build a monument? Well we build monuments to religious deities, they must have done the same, but it's not like ours, so it must be part of some dark heathen rituals". And then everybody starts freaking about about who built it and how it got there. But if you separate yourself from your culture, and put yourself into the thought process of an ancient farmer- farming is important, it is the center of your society and is the center of your life, so of course you're going to put your resources into something that will help you continue to be prosperous. So, we have scant few "facts". A piece of writing here. An eyewitness story there. "Lights in the sky". That could be ANYTHING. I mean, think of all the natural reasons there could be lights in the sky- there are some very rare, physical phenomena which only occur every once in a while and are only witnessed by scant few. Until we had means of recording and replaying things, people who were eyewitness to these things were on their own. "Oh sure, you saw lights in the sky, pics or it didn't happen, joke's on you, we haven't invented the camera yet, loser". Then add in all the man-made reasons you might see lights in the sky. Then imagine what someone whose technology includes the wheel, the lever, and a sharp rock would think if they saw something, or someone, fly in the air. One episode talked about "angels", and how while in art angels are depicted with wings, they aren't really described as having wings. One person said "well think about it- you're an ancient, and you see somebody fly. What is the only thing you know of that can fly? A bird. The only means of flight you know of are wings. So naturally that person has the power of wings, even though you don't see it." Anyway, I think it is interesting to think about. We don't have enough "facts" to say completely one way or the other. We have several intermittent facts. How those facts get connected is largely based on the person connecting them.

Let's not forget that even "ancient" acting/production dynasties reaching as far back as silent, colorless films have impacts on the industry today. Famous actors get their "breaks" because a relative was a famous actor, director, producer, etc, and get them in the door at an early age. They receive the proper training and education from a young, impressionable age. They have the financing to keep trying even after many failed attempts, and they have the connections to know which events to attend, which things to audition for, and where. They have professional stylists, photographers make up artists, and posture coaches to make sure they can cultivate the right "look". Ever hear the phrase "be sure to get my good side"? Yeah, that's based in a very real practice of finding out what angles look best on you, and striking a certain pose every time someone wants to shoot a photo of you. So, hey, not to say that there aren't people out there getting breaks, having genuine talent, and doing good work. But it's always interesting to hear a tabloid news story, where you hear "famous actor/actress, relative of famous-movie-person, did yadda yadda".

Wow.

I took a random survey, and normally I don't fill out anything under "religion", but on a list of options "Taoism" was available, so I checked it. That was the first and only time I ever identified it as a "religion" of mine, and I mostly did it just to be cheeky I mostly follow the whole Buddhist thing of "direct experience". There's a lot I haven't experienced directly- origin of the universe, meaning of life, etc etc etc. So I don't really have any beliefs about that one way or the other. I keep up with the major theories/beliefs out there, and mostly just keep them in mind as viable options to take under consideration until I get some direct experience which tells me one way or the other.

Be around people you don't know more often. Chances are good, if it really is social anxiety, the reason you don't get the mental chatter around the family and people you know is because they are familiar to you, you aren't worrying about them so much, and you just do whatever is appropriate given the situation (which is usually familiar and already well rehearsed). Other people who can't be treated with the same old routine are new and unpredictable, and most people DO worry about things like that. But through experience they learn how to handle off the cuff situations, handle the nerves, etc etc etc. So at a point, those people can be relaxed around new people. So practice practice practice. Don't worry about it. You'll get better the more familiar you get with practice.

I know. Damn, forgot the extra Never been a fan of jing reductionism.

Win. Not if you want to conserve your jing, though

The only issue I have with this is a matter of "genuine"-ness. Are you a truly serene person if you are never around anything that bothers you? I can be relaxed on a quiet mountain all alone. Can I be relaxed in a crowded subway station? Can I be relaxed in an airport terminal, where my flight arrived late, and I have to run to get my connecting flight? If you can only be relaxed and serene when things are going for you, are you really relaxed and serene?

It's easy to be a sage up on the mountain (though being a sage is hard enough, so maybe that's not saying much). Rather than running from uncomfortable thoughts and emotions, I think we should embrace them. We should follow them, examine them. Find out where they come from. How do they effect us? How did we get there? Why do we think/feel what we do. Why do those thoughts/emotions bother us in such a way? I think a sage would be friends with everyone, on all walks of life, the sage will recognize "the way" in any shape and form, and would be able to recognize how someone is living their life based on their own "way". You would be surprised the lessons "non-cultivating" people can teach you. You would be surprised at the insights they can make, just from living life. In some instances, I think that can be even more pure than knowledge of "the way", because they are seeing it without knowing it, they aren't trying to interpret it through dogma. So I would try to see the value in both the sinner and the saint. I would use that emotion that you are feeling as a springboard to get to know someone REALLY well. Really know them. Let them really know you. And through that, learn to know yourself. And if it works out, great. If not, that happens. That too is a way to learn about them, to learn why they think that, etc etc.

Well that's quite reassuring

I'm Asian on the inside.

Huh.

Well I think there are still plenty of people out there who find training like that to be worthwhile and they stick to it. But I think just like finding a good master, finding a good student is hard. Well this happens a lot in other fields, the more mainstream it becomes, the more generic it becomes- to be accessible to as many people as possible. How many music fans thought their favorite band started sucking as soon as they become popular? It's not always about being counter-cultural, but these advertising guys conduct focus groups and whatever to find out what most people like. So most people aren't going to go through some of the more "unique" training aspects of some traditional styles. They'd much rather do the form and pretend like they are a kung fu master. Eh. Let people do what they want. And I wouldn't be so quick to write off MMAists or mainstream combat sport. Yes, their primary focus is sport. Yes, they do limit themselves to what techniques can and can't be used. But as far as training general attributes, many of them are top of the line, and I don't think their skills should be discounted. Some fighters like, I think, Anderson Silva, are quite good. Are they at the level of high level internal MA cultivation? Perhaps not. But I think they are discovering some of the same principles of Judo, Aikido, Wing Chun, and the like, about economy of motion, conserving energy, avoidance, converting an opponent's energy to use against them. But they learn it very much "the hard way", with someone trying to knock them out every time it doesn't work. And you can't get much harder than that.

I think leading the warm-up is about the extent that I'd go along with it. As soon as a 4 year old started talking to me about fighting, I'd slap him upside the head and say "oops, remember, hands up, kid" Hey, people did that to me, right? Better your friend hitting you than someone who wants to hurt, you, right? At least, that's what all the older students/guys told me

I guess it depends on the caliber of other people in the club. If you promote people who don't deserve it, well there you go, you've got a bunch of people with rank who can easily get defeated by people who might not deserve it either. But if you have a high quality of senior students, it can also drive down the rate of promotion. You've got really good people, and the only reason that they aren't a higher rank is their seniors are just so much better! So they put in a bunch of blood, sweat, and tears, but they STILL don't get a belt for it.

The only issue I have is moderator action becoming about making sure everyone is a friend or something. Okay, that sounds bad, but really, I mean, it's not like this is a cooking forum or a knitting forum. There are plenty of people here who have dedicated their lives to this stuff. So I consider it completely appropriate that people get ticked off at others. If it's contained to a thread, let it play. If it gets reasonably out of hand, move to the pit. If it's clear that one member is chasing down another person in a bunch of threads, and every time, say, Person A leaves a post, person B comes in and is all like "well it's not like you would know, person A, you are just a stupid head", well that's starting to get out of line in the sense that it's disruptive to everyone. If it starts to seem like someone has a real vendetta against someone (tracking down all their posts and harassing them over it), well that would be cause for action. If it seems like one or more members are looking like they are at risk beyond the scope of this forum, well that's also a time for action. It just seems too ambiguous to say "you are being disrespectful" and then suspend/ban someone for that, unless it can be show that it is systematic and disruptive.

Eh, just wondering. I remember watching one of his videos in which he talked about his past, training in Tae Kwon Do or something. A couple of these comments: Reminded me of his video.

People get fired up. Shit happens. I'm fine with taking a few insults. I try my best to word things as best I can, and make it about the arguments, but, you know, if someone is presenting a BS argument over and over again, it gets reaaaaaaaallllyy hard to not sprinkle in something like "you are full of it". [edit](I started typing up the post but had to leave, so didn't see the PM'd comment Mal just posted) Well that is certainly a part of it. Not everyone who comes to an open forum is going to necessarily be respectful, be worthy of respect, present an opinion that has integrity, whether personal or intellectual or otherwise, or is going to meet other opinions with respect. Should we stop that? I don't think so. I think we should keep it open. I think people should be allowed to talk and, yes, get a little angry. Because that's what happens when we get a bunch of people with not only mis-matching ideas, but also mis-matching ideas of how respect is granted or earned, what actions are respectable and which actions are not, how to present an opinion/argument and what to do with it. We aren't a university where everyone had to meet certain requirements to get in. We aren't some legal consulting firm where each of us have a laundry list of credentials. You need to have an e-mail and intelligence to leave a post in the intro forum, then move elsewhere (or the intelligence to create a program that can do that ) But beyond that... I mean, it's equal! I could be President Bush, or Mark Zuckerburg, or a schoolteacher, a security guard, a housewife, ANYTHING behind this screen- and so could any of you![/edit] Yeah, it's hard when people involved don't fundamentally respect each other, because when that happens it's never about the argument, it's always personal, or at least it can seem that way. You could present the best argument in the world, but if I don't respect you as a person, I'm never going to listen to it. And vice versa. It's what people do, and, well, we ARE people. I'm not a fan of instituting a bunch of rules that would make us "pretend" to get along. If people get suspended or banned or threads locked for someone saying "you are full of it", or an equivalent, I'm not for that in the slightest. Isn't that what the pit is for? Are these rules going to extend to the pit? I don't know. I don't think the pit should be moderated, except for potentially legally actionable acts (threats, endangerment to forum members, the posting of copyright or otherwise illegal material, etc). And I think those rules should be pinned to the pit. I also think that people should be given a lot of leeway (and I think in general (hehe) they are, so props for that) for comments which seem to be a little bit too personal. Because we're people and that will happen, especially in important topics. If it is demonstrably disruptive, or repeatedly unfounded and personal, move to the pit. I think it's different, in Sean's examples, when you say "so-and-so is a complete moron" or "XYZ sexual practice is abominable", and when, after a long back and forth argument, where people have exchanged a lot of posts and have gotten to know the behavior of the person rather well, to say "you keep dodging" or "you keep misrepresenting my position" or "you are misquoting me" or "that isn't what I said". I think that was the source of a LOT of problems in some of the more recent hot threads. People would come in and say one thing, then another person would come in and say that person said another thing, and the first person would say "no, that's not what I said, this is what I said" and the second person would say "no, that is what you said" and back and forth. So by the end, you've got a long trail of posts which point to how someone handles a debate/argument- be that good or bad, maturely or immaturely. If it is legally actionable even in the pit, move from there. If not, just leave it be.

templetao, are you Gary J. Clyman?

Hell no! I wouldn't even know where to start even if I wanted to. Anyone with a chip on their shoulder, with an axe to grind, or half a mind to play word games can warp it into something that it isn't, causing reverberations which could destroy this very forum!!!!! I'm about to add it to the list, along with "politics" and "religion", that you shouldn't bring up if you want peaceful dinner conversation

But if you keep picking it up, she'll have to keep laying it down

Sorry I think the key phrase is "not necessarily". "X in general CAN = the majority of X" There are cases in which it does, but there are also cases when it doesn't necessarily mean that. So as far as I understand center/scotty, he's saying that yes, you are right, ""X in general = the majority of X" IS valid. But it is not the ONLY valid option out there. So if he was meaning another option, then in his statement, "X in general does NOT = the majority of X". He's not claiming your equation invalid period. He's claiming your equation invalid in this situation.

I refer back to my "getting stoned" argument. If I said "I saw someone getting stoned this past weekend, it was hilarious" And someone was like "hey, if you saw someone getting beaten to death with stones and laughed, you are a dick". And I say "no, I meant someone who just got really high off marijuana. They were so out of it. They said some really funny stuff!" Well, they would be incorrect in their definition. It may have been logically consistent that they took one meaning of "getting stoned". But "getting stoned" is also a pretty prevalent colloquialism. It's not that you necessarily have to prove they are "wrong", so much as you are more right and they are less right.