PDA

View Full Version : So what does your Kiai sound like then?



Tripitaka of AA
9th October 2002, 08:10
I digress;

I used to make a good old "Aaaarghhh" sound, mixed with the odd "Eee" and serious-looking "Humph!" to signal Kamae changes.

I heard quite a few variations in my time. Notable examples would have to include Judith from Poole, whose "Hoooaaahhh!" sounded like a Bull Seal getting horny. Six-foot-tall Paul Henderson used to go for the high-pitched squeak "Eeeep!" (particularly when receiving the Kenteki-Geri practice strikes):eek:

I still smile when I think of the number of beginners who earnestly cry out "Kiai" with every strike, or the Junior Kenshi who would alternate between "Ichi" and "Ni".


Do you still think about it before you make your kiai? Do you ever suffer from a sore throat after a good night's practice? Does your Dojo get complaints from neighbours? If not, why not?

Kimpatsu
9th October 2002, 15:56
Gassho.
Much like the letter "A" (viz., "Aagghh"); this was how Jeremy Shackleton Sensei advised me to make it. I still miss him.
Kesshu.

Sammy Briggs
9th October 2002, 16:05
Like Xena, the warrior princess...aiyaiyaiyaiyai!

Sammy Briggs

luar
9th October 2002, 17:21
Throaty and loud

Eastwood
9th October 2002, 23:06
When I first started training, one of my fellow new guys was a taxi driver in Kyoto, and his company used to put all their new emploees out on the street and have them yell out the company's name and message on the street at the top of their lungs. They would all eventually get laryngitis and fall silent. :( Then they learned how to talk and yell without hurting their voices.

I'm sure this works, but I've taken a different approach. Voice instructors can teach you how to relax your throat and how to open your jaw, and I've had one teach me. The result was a surprisingly clear, painless, and piercing kiai. Interestingly, I still forget and return to my early strained yell. I think the taxi drivers don't backslide because they learned so thoroughly the first time. But I intend to put some of my private training time into working on the kiai, and once I do that for 3 weeks running, I hope not to backslide either.

BTW, my voice instructor taught me that the "AH" sound is easier to do without straining the throat, so I've settled on that. However, there are different chakras associated with different sounds, so I expect that eventually I'll use different sounds for different purposes.

Kimpatsu
9th October 2002, 23:53
Originally posted by Eastwood
However, there are different chakras associated with different sounds,
??? :confused:

Eastwood
10th October 2002, 02:10
Tony,

This chakra thing is something I'm just learning about recently. A healer pointed out to me things about the way I use my body and how the idea of people as "energy bodies" could help me work on my practice. She recommended a CD that had 7 different sounds chanted, one for each of the 7 chakras. I tried listening to it, and discovered that for most of the sounds I could actually notice a response in the region associated with each chakra. So i believe that different sounds affect one's partners/opponents differently, and I'm still exploring what different sounds do. Like seiho, I do it both on myself and on others in order to learn more.

I'm not an expert on chakras, so I won't try to explain about chakras. Does anyone know of MA oriented chakra materials?

Kimpatsu
10th October 2002, 03:00
Sounds like pseudoscience to me. If chakras are real, I have some questions:
Of what are they made? How do we measure them? What are their functions, vestigial or otherwise?
If you can prove the existence of chakras under scientific conditions, James Randi will give you $1 million. Sounds like its worth trying to me.

Eastwood
10th October 2002, 05:50
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Sounds like pseudoscience to me.

I do not expect chakras to be scientifically proven ever. Neither do I expect science ever to prove that smoking CAUSES cancer. I'm glad that science is finally beginning to acknowledge kyusho - the old denials were embarassing. :rolleyes:

Seriously, chakra is a term to be defined experientially. If I could feel a specific part of my body brought into my attention while a specific sound was filling the air, and more so when it resonated in my lungs, then that is a beginning from which I can make sense of "chakra." If my attention is caught in certain ways, then it makes sense to expect that other people/bodies might work the same way. If I were to do this scientifically, I would line up test subjects and control subjects etc., but none of us practice physical disciplines that way. I see no benefit in closing my mind to valuable concepts and images because Western science pretends to be the only certain knowledge. Practice, not peer-reviewed studies, is one vital way we open our minds and gain understanding in SK. If nothing else, the idea of chakras has helped me be better aware of how my attention shifts from place to place within me. And if it did that, it's real.

What are chakras? I don't know, but I am learning. Ask me again in a few years.:cool:

Kimpatsu
10th October 2002, 06:25
What do you mean by "smoking causes cancer"? I think you're confusing two concepts: Medical certainty and legal burden of proof, but I'd like verification before launching into another sermon. ;)
You still didn't answer my questions. That's OK; I'll just ask them again.
Of what are chakras made? How do we measure them? What are their functions, vestigial or otherwise?
Like I said, your mind shouldn't be so open that your brains fall out. It's not incumbent on me to disprove chakras (how do you prove a negative?); it's up to you to offer evidence for their existence. I can help you design a test protocol if you like. But to believe in the existence of something without proof is sloppy thinking at least, and au fond, rather daft, don't you think? It may be comforting to wish that chakras exist, but as Bertrand Russell said, what we should have is not the wish to believe, but the will to find out. That's what I want to do. Will you help me experimentally?
Kesshu.

red_fists
10th October 2002, 06:37
Tony.

Here is some info:

http://healing.about.com/library/uc_chakras_0106.htm

Chakra are also used in Yoga, Qi-Gong, mediation, and a few other systems.

Nothing new about them.

Have fun.

Kimpatsu
10th October 2002, 07:22
Peter,
You're right that there's nothing new about chakras; pseudoscientific garbage is as old as the hills. The article to which you referred me is a crock of $***, and indicative of the problem. The author offers no evidence for the existence of chakras; she just assumes that they exist, and blithely continues from there. Her opening sentence condemns her:
If we were able to see the chakras (as many psychics, in fact, do)...
What is a psychic? What evidence does she have for their supernatural powers? None. (Because none has ever been found, despite years of research.) Consequently, everything she writes about chakras should be prefaced with the condition, "If chakras exist, then this is what they would be like...", but instead, she writes about the hypothesis of their existence as fact. Does she not know the difference between the subjunctive and indicative mood? The woman clearly wouldn't recognise the scientific method if it jumped up and bit her. So, no go there. I'm still waiting for evidence, please. Surely, if chakras exist, and we know what they "look" like, courtesy of Ms. Kellie Jo Conn, they should be easy to find. So, offer me proof that they've been found. I'm still waiting.
Hello? Operator? I think this line's gone dead...

red_fists
10th October 2002, 07:34
Tony.

You wanted to know "what a chakra" is, I simply gave you a link detailing what they are.

I am not trying to proof their existence to you.
Neither would I ask you to believe in the Qi-Gong that we do in TJQ, you would simply dismiss it as "pseudo-science".

Or why we make certain sounds during certain strikes, punches.

Seeya.

Kimpatsu
10th October 2002, 07:49
Kiai has been scientifically proven to tighten muscles and improve focus at the moment of impact. It also has the psycological aspect of momentarily disorienting an opponent. It is merely a louder version of the sounds of exhalation made when lifting a heavy object. Check out "The Science of the Strongest Martial Art" to see what I mean.
Chakras, on the other hand, are claimed to be "wheels of energy". If they are energy, they can be measured. If they are spinning, they will be shedding their energy, and that can also be measured. A protocol to test this hypothesis would be easy to create. Any takers?

Kikazaru
10th October 2002, 13:09
The cup metaphor

There's really not much to be gained by demanding that people prove things scientifically, with the threat of ridicule as their motivation. People sometimes have an admirable natural motivation to explain things they have discovered, but if one only listens to other people when they are forced to prove everything they say, a lot can be lost.
:cry:

Scientific method

It's hard to define exactly what the "scientific method" really is. For the purpose of investigation one might reasonably assert that the "scientific method" is a process of postulating and testing hypotheses aiming to explain given phenomena -by repeatedly refining and rejecting these hypotheses one can whittle away until a suitably accurate approximation to the "truth" is obtained. There's certainly no "false until proven true" about science, but rather "possible until proven impossible".

When it comes to proof all we really have is this rejection of absurdities. This can be useful in deriving models of the universe but does not reveal the true nature of what remains. Do our models really exist?
:confused:

Do you believe in gravity, or numbers?

Experience and the immersurable

On a more pragmatic level, holistic techniques and concepts that are defined in terms of our own experiences are too hard to measure and thus difficult to proove. In the case of Chakras for example, we might feel our throat, lungs, sinuses or skull resonating when we make certain noises and we can call those places Chakras. We can develop a sensitivity to sensations in those areas and use them for various purposes. We can model them with terms like "energy" that correlate with and help us relate our experiences. That in itself is enough to justify their validity and value, and may lead us to discover more about ourselves or our world.
:idea:

David Dunn
10th October 2002, 14:08
Hello Josh,
I have to take a few issues here:


Originally posted by Kikazaru

There's really not much to be gained by demanding that people prove things scientifically, with the threat of ridicule as their motivation.


There is an awful lot to be gained by demanding rationality. There is no virtue in living in the ignorance of a theistic or other irrational belief system. It is fair to say that rationalism=progress. The proof is in the pudding: humans have progressed in terms of industry and knowledge in the past 300 years, probably more than the rest of history put together. Some theories do deserve ridicule, such as perpetual motion machines or cold fusion.


Originally posted by Kikazaru

It's hard to define exactly what the "scientific method" really is.


It isn't difficult to understand that rational enquiry is epistemologically more sound than mumbo-jumbo. We assume that that matter is subject to physical laws, which in principle are knowable to the conscious subject (i.e. us). That is the only real assumption (you might say it is mono-ism). Then by reductionism we can start to understand these physical laws.

Perpetual motion and cold fusion are not possible because they violate the laws of thermodynamics (if you want to dispute the laws of thermodynamics then good luck). Electromagnetic waves do not have enough energy to break a bond in DNA, therefore they do not cause cancer.

This last one is important, because people fear mobile 'phone masts. We are asked to 'prove they're not dangerous'. As Tony said you cannot prove a negative. It is the irrational in this argument that demands unattainable proof.


Originally posted by Kikazaru

Do our models really exist?

Er, unequivocally yes. They are constructed through the interaction of human beings, and tested against the external universe. Superior explanation=superior model.


Originally posted by Kikazaru

On a more pragmatic level, holistic techniques and concepts that are defined in terms of our own experiences are too hard to measure and thus difficult to proove. In the case of Chakras for example, we might feel our throat, lungs, sinuses or skull resonating when we make certain noises and we can call those places Chakras. We can develop a sensitivity to sensations in those areas and use them for various purposes. We can model them with terms like "energy" that correlate with and help us relate our experiences. That in itself is enough to justify their validity and value, and may lead us to discover more about ourselves or our world.


Please explain 'holism'. As far as I can make out it doesn't mean anything. Scientists are mono-ists. Holism is often invoked when the practice of reductionism is about to be slated.

We can call those places `chakras', but why bother? The reductionist sciences of anatomy, physiology, epidemiology etc have given us a far greater understanding of the throat and lungs, and moreover given us treatments for them, and ideas of how to prevent disease in them. I prefer to say 'throat' because at least that alludes to the great body of knowledge about them. To call them energy is in one sense a truism (Einstein demonstrated that matter and energy are the same thing), but is a mis-use of a very well understood characteristic of nature.

Tony is right to call it 'pseudoscience'. If the chakras are measurable, then why haven't they been detected? If they are not measureable then they cannot be the subject of rational inquiry and belong in the realm of theism. Does discovering more about the world or ourselves include increasing our store of false ideas?

Eastwood
10th October 2002, 14:17
Kiai is something that does far more than tense muscles and deliver efficient strikes, although it also does those things. It changes the entire atmosphere of practice. I was amazed when I first realized that when I actually succeeded in getting kids to kiai with abandon, they just wouldn't quit Shorinji Kempo. Chakra, shmakra, whatever vocabulary and conceptual structure satisfies you, people really do come alive through sound. So it's worth exploring in training.

As for proof, I enjoyed Kikazaru's post (and his monkeys), but I'd like to continue that whole discussion on another thread that seems more sutable for the conversation - the intuition thread. Seeya there.

Kikazaru
10th October 2002, 15:23
There's really not much to be gained by demanding that people prove things scientifically, with the threat of ridicule as their motivation.

You were certainly right to disagree with this statement. We have developed a great deal according to the principles of logical hypothesis, experiment and debate.

I should have qualified my message. I intended to offer an opinion more to do with communication and self-development than with the abstract body of human knowledge. What I meant is that you can't always expect people to have the motivation or perseverance to teach you about something, especially if you criticise and demand material proof. Furthermore, some concepts and experiences of great value cannot be proven, and will only be revealed by personal investigation. Other people may offer clues and encouragement but if you criticise and ridicule them, they have no motivation to share their insights.


Some theories do deserve ridicule, such as perpetual motion machines or cold fusion.

I'm sorry to use this example directly, but I do disagree that some theories deserve ridicule. I don't think anybody's theories deserve ridicule, since even if they are false, they may offer intellectual provocation, or hint at further discovery. Is it ridiculous to ask, "Is 1 and 1 always 2?", and would I deserve ridicule if I proposed that "The universe is constantly expanding, and thus represents the largest perpetual motion machine?".


We assume that that matter is subject to physical laws...

As you say, that is an assumption. We are prepared to make this assumption because it allows us to reason about our models of the universe, but it does not mean that those models are the universe. Indeed, we have found it impossible so far, to make a model that describes exactly the behaviour of anything physical. Quantum physics for example, accounts for this problem statistically, so that we can make reasonable predictions but always qualified by a probability.

Regarding this discussion of rather abstract ideas, all I really wanted to point out, is that we don't have any knowledge about the universe besides our own experiences. Our scientific developments have revealed better models of the universe, where "better" refers to usefulness: range of applicability, probabilistic accuracy, simplicity of understanding, intuitive links to further discoveries etc.

Chakras are therefore scientific theories. They may be used predictively regarding the effects of certain noises one may generate, they may lead to further exploration of oneself physically, psychologically and spiritually, and that knowledge may lead to practical techniques for managing one's physical and mental condition.


If the chakras are measurable, then why haven't they been detected?

Firstly, they might be imeasurable because they are dependent upon personal interpretation of ones own sensations. Secondly, they have been detected by many people using the measurements of their own sensations. Some concepts that don't expand well to measurement with some external physical device are still of value. One might say that because they can neither be proven nor disproven to the rest of the world they are unscientific, but to regard them as meaningless would be to overlook their potential value.


If they are not measureable then they cannot be the subject of rational inquiry and belong in the realm of theism.

I disagree because I don't think all immeasurable things are in the realm of theism. To argue about that it would be necessary to define theism a bit more rigidly. In drawing up such a definition I suppose one would have to be very careful that things like numbers, flavours and emotions didn't end up being merely theistic.



Kiai

Returning to the original thread, my kiai usually feels like it's resonating with my sternum. If I roar I end up resonating in my throat and I go hoarse. Sometimes it's fun to resonate around the back of the sinuses and produce a high pitched Bruce Lee type noise. For some reason it always cracks me up and I feel energised and relaxed.

I suppose I could say I am using the heart chakra to express my confidence :mst: and the throat chakra to express myself creatively.:kiss:

tony leith
10th October 2002, 16:09
I think we could be throwing useful concepts out with empirical/epistemoligical bathwater here. It seems to me that we're talking about different categories of knowledge here -chakras may well not be useful in terms of explication or explanation in a scientific sense, but might have utility as a form of visualisation exercise or metaphor.

You might well regard meditation techniques which have evolved in a number of different cultures as simply a means of self inducing particular states of brain wave activity - however the knowledge and its conceptual underpinnings embodied in these techniques antedated EKGs. Granted, these techniques have a demonstrable and measureable physical effect, and to that extent would probably withstand even the scrutiny which Dave and Tony K. would subject them to.

There was an (apparently authenticated) instance of a tai Chi master being attacked in Glasgow by machete wielding Triads. He defended himself successfully, but received horrednous wounds in the process. When the ambulance crew saw the stare he was in, and that he was still conscious, they asked 'Why aren't you dead?' His response was the he was using his chi to slow down his blood flow. His comprehension of what he was doing was couched in those terms - a scientist would probably see things differently. Neverthless, I think in that particular instance I think I'm at least as impressed by the body of knowledge which enables somebody to do that as I am by the science which might explain it in physiological terms.

Just a thought ( I await the bracing douche of rationalism doubtless headed my way, Messrs Dunn and Keyhoe..)

Tony Leith

George Hyde
10th October 2002, 16:46
Originally posted by tony leith
Just a thought ( I await the bracing douche of rationalism doubtless headed my way, Messrs Dunn and Keyhoe..)

...and I'll see if I can sneak in before them, but not being a scientist or a student of the philosophy of science, the nature of truth, etc.. I expect an equally severe battering...

Much of what is argued against the 'existence' or 'provability' of chakras can and has been said about 'ki' and it's attendant subjects and theories. For my money, these are all 'conceptual devices' - abstract concepts which allow us to engage with phenomena which has as yet not been blessed by the all pervading clarity of clinical definition. They represent a conduit between the intuitive perception and the conveyance of that perception to another sentient being in an effort to share that intuition. From thence we can have discussion, investigation, experimentation, and learning.

If we put the "what's IT made of, how is IT measured" argument to another abstract concept such a physical object's centre of gravity we find ourselves in similar waters. The centre of gravity can be localised and utilised - does the fact that it is not 'made of' anything, cannot be measured, etc.. mean that it does not exist? Of course, 'the thing itself' does not exist - it's an abstract concept - yet it's utility in our everyday lives is unquestionable.

OK - let rip...

Later,

David Dunn
10th October 2002, 17:36
Heh heh. I'll try to reply to all at once, in an indirect way. First here are some points.

Cashing in on anti-rationalism (http://website.lineone.net/~cornerstone/chopra5.htm)

bankrupting gullible investors with pseudoscience. (http://www.phact.org/e/dennis.html)

Class action lawyers cashing in on pseudoscience. (http://www.aps.org/WN/index.html)

Giving people false hope while ripping them off with pseudoscience. (http://www.positivehealth.com/permit/Articles/Energy%20Medicine/lester41.htm)

Killing people with 'natural' medicines. (http://www.aps.org/WN/WN02/wn082302.html#3)

Okay, so I'm showing extreme examples, but I think these ideas have to be robustly countered, and anti-rationality often goes with anti-humanism of one variety or another.

There is a key distinction that has to be made in this debate. Science studies the objective universe, i.e. each question has an object of study. Human beings are subjects in that they are autonomous agents that can act individually and collectively in ways that are determined by themselves. Hence what science can tell us about human 'nature', society and history is very limited.

'Human spirit', determination, inspriration, whatever you want to call it is clearly tangible, and can be discussed rationally, so long as the subjective element is understood to exist. That you can even ask a question such as, is 1+1 always 2, is a very human question, since 1 and 2 are human inventions (albeit intellectual ones), as George would call them 'conceptual devices'. In this case you would have to ask what the definition of '1' is, and apply reasoning to discover the answer.

Do we have chakras which control energy flow through our bodies is a medical question, and can be subjected to scientific rigour since there is no subjective factor. If it turns out that no one can even define them (but a 'psychic' can see them!) then how can they be studied? If they are not measurable because they are dependent on personal experience then they are subjective and not in the realm of scientific reasoning. Whether or not they exist is up to you, like whether or not God exists, but then you cannot argue their objective existence.

Whether a question is scientific or not is important. "Does god exist?" [I]is[\I] a scientific question. "Should humans have democratic forms of society?" is not. If you make a scientific statement you should expect to defend it.

Visualisation techniques are used to improve athletes performances. You may (or may not) be surprised to find out that Alan Shearer meditates before games, on the advice of his coaches, because visualising scoring over and over again can be shown to improve performance. In essence I agree with Tony, George and Josh that if a concept is personally useful then why not use it. However if we can generalise into objective statements we can pass on the knowledge.

A final example, and one reason that I think Shorinji Kempo is cutting edge: the computer graphics for kuzushi, hazushi, otoshi. As I understand hombu wanted to find out what various masters have in common, even though they explain their techniques in different manners. Displacing the centre of gravity and turning the body over it is objective knowledge and it makes it much easier for us to learn.

tony leith
10th October 2002, 17:58
Your point is well made, dave, and I'd agree that where it's possible to show scientifcally what's going on that this is preferable. I think though we have to be slightly cautious about scientifc paradigms constituting eternal verities - I incline more to Thomas Kuhn's view of the scientific endeavour than Karl Popper's i.e that science can't be viewed in isolation from its societal/cultural context, and has a culture/politics all its own.

Tony Leith

George Hyde
10th October 2002, 18:02
Originally posted by David - brain the size of a planet - Dunn
"Does god exist?" is a scientific question. "Should humans have democratic forms of society?" is not. If you make a scientific statement you should expect to defend it.

I agree with Dave (and I hate it when that happens).

I said... "They represent a conduit between the intuitive perception and the conveyance of that perception to another sentient being in an effort to share that intuition. From thence we can have discussion, investigation, experimentation, and learning."

I should have noted that from thence we can also have endless droves of people who, having had some experience of the intuition, take the conceptual device to be an objective fact rather than a tool for looking at, thinking about and hopefully utilising that which (in the absence of objective proof) it struggles to explain.


Originally posted by David - brain the size of a planet - Dunn
However if we can generalise into objective statements we can pass on the knowledge.
...which is what we should endeavour to do. However, if in the absence of objective statements the utility remains, surely the abstract - as the only means of conveying that knowledge - should be maintained.

Later,

Kimpatsu
11th October 2002, 01:33
Originally posted by tony leith
It seems to me that we're talking about different categories of knowledge here -chakras may well not be useful in terms of explication or explanation in a scientific sense, but might have utility as a form of visualisation exercise or metaphor.
If that's the case, why won't the believers in chakras admit it? That article to which Red Fists referred me assumes the objective existence of chakras, and refers to them as real things. Nowhere do chakra believers talk of chakras as metaphor. Visualisation can indeed help in training, but to talk of chakras as scientific fact is to open the very concept of chakras to scientific scrutiny.
Tony, you mention the tale of the Tai Chi master, which I personally find apocryphal, but if it was documented, can you supply your sources so we can all peruse them? TIA.
Oh, and Thomas Kuhn is wrong. Science is amoral. To force mores upon scientific truth is a non-sequitur, as it presupposes that "Science" can have a conscience.
Just my 2-yen worth.

Indar
11th October 2002, 10:12
Hi Dave,

I've been following your arguments with interest; however there is an example that is closer to home. In the shinjo we say 'we are grateful that we are endowed with our souls from dharma'
so what is a soul? is there any rational evidence that they exist?
Is this something that we can investigate scientifically?

Indar Picton-Howell

tony leith
11th October 2002, 12:05
Er, sorry Indar, I know this question wasn't addressed to me, but I couldn't help myself. In the context of the Dokun, I think 'soul' means the fact that as humans we have reasoning abilities and thus the opportunity/obligation to make moral choices about our lives and their meaning, and that we've been endowed with these abilities by evolution/the Universe at large or however you might want to conceive the larger forces which shape our natures. I think to posit a 'soul' which exist independent of the physical universe is to fall into the mind/body dualism trap - ken zen ichiyno and all that.

Incidentally, my own views on 'New Ageism' are fairly close to Dave Dunn's position - I was described by a university tutors as a 'child of the Enlightenment to my fingertips': I belive in the power and value of rationality. I just think scientists should be aware that in a sense it is an ideology, albeit a useful one which seems to map on to the physical universe quite well..

Sorry Tony, can't quote you any documentary sourcves on the story I related; I was told about this by somebody who apparently knew the chap, so feel absolutely free to discount it. Still think the point is valid though,e.g. the knowledge of how to apply appo/kappo techniques is useful however it is systematised - in terms of interrupting chi flows etc.

Tony Leith

David Dunn
11th October 2002, 12:16
Hi Indar,
when Sensei describes his view of engi it sounds in no way mystical or irrational: effect can't precede cause and you ought to be aware that actions will have outcomes. As I said, I do think that there is a human spirit or essence, without which we would just be dull automatons. We say 'that was a spirited performance', 'the atmosphere was charged', 'you could hear a pin drop', 'that was heartless'. We all know what they mean, but the whole concept is subjective. If by soul you mean this sort of 'humanity', then probably what you can investigate through physical science is limited. If you mean that the soul is something that precedes our physical existence, and continues to exist after we die, then yes that is a scientific question, and I'd say there is pretty scant evidence for it.

I wonder what the actual Japanese word that is translated as 'soul' actually is...

To some of the other points. Tony (Leith) I agree with you about eternal truths, as I suspect most scientists would. The point Kuhn made is that there is culture and politics attaced to the scientific community, which is self-evident. It can even go as far as fraud for kudos: there is a case at the moment where results have been falsified. See Schoen and Bell labs (http://www.aps.org/WN/WN02/wn092702.html)

Kimpatsu is right. Science and ethics are separate. This example demonstrates this well, since results are published and reviewed, and that process has uncovered the fraud. A scientific statement can be tested for veracity regardless of who made it, for what reason (and indeed who paid for the research). If you keep subjective statements out of the work there is no problem.

What is worrying is that the postmodernists have taken a much stronger interpretation of Kuhn, and suggested that scientists construct a myth through their own prejudices and label it 'truth'. There is a wide body of opinion that alleges that 'science' is just another 'narrative', as valid as any other. That kind of nonsense means that creation myths are given equal (or even more) weight than evolution in American schools.

A couple of examples of this. Luce Irigary wrote that E=mc2 is a "sexed equation", since "it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us". Irigary's position on Fluid Mechanics was summed up:


The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men
have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings
that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids... From this perspective
it is no wonder that science has not been able to arrive at a
successful model for turbulence. The problem of turbulent flow cannot
be solved because the conceptions of fluids (and of women) have been
formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders.


Unbelievable. It seems a lot of people are interested in this debate, which is actually taking off between scientists and humanities people. If you want to know more start with Alan Sokal, Richard Dawkins, or more simply "the science wars" and see where it all leads:
Alan Sokal (http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/)
A very funny review by Dawkins (http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/vjs/www/hri/3-30)

David Dunn
11th October 2002, 12:20
Originally posted by tony leith

Incidentally, my own views on 'New Ageism' are fairly close to Dave Dunn's position - I was described by a university tutors as a 'child of the Enlightenment to my fingertips'.


Hahaha. There should be far more children of the Enlightenment. I think it is our greatest achievement so far :D

tony leith
11th October 2002, 14:54
Hi again Dave

We've probably wandered a fair distance from the core subject of this forum, but just to clarify: I am NOT asserting that science is just another narrative - the ability of science, for example, to make nuclear weapons is a pretty conclusive demonstration that this way of viewing the universe is powerful. I'm probably going to be told that no 'New Ager' ever built a nuclear weapon - the point I'm making here is about the potency of the knowledge and the fact that it is demonstrably telling us more about the universe than we knew in previous generations, not abouthow that knowledge might be (mis)applied. Partly, I'm saying that scientists of our generation should be aware that some of our current ideas might look quaint in several hundred years time. This does not mean that we have to make peace with blatant idiocy in the name of fair mindedness (there, that's me come out of the closet as a nuckle headed rationalist..)

Tony Leith

David Dunn
11th October 2002, 16:17
Sorry Tony, wasn't suggesting you were. I was trying to explain why I get on my soap box about this particular subject. Scientists come in for some of the most bizarre criticisms. In my experience scientific researchers just enjoy their fields and like to try to figure things out.

Anyway, I'm off for the weekend. Have a good one.

Tripitaka of AA
15th October 2002, 06:39
Next time I start a thread on something, remind me to get the beers and popcorn in first :D

This simple bit of nonsense developed beyond all recognition into a fascinating debate on the finer points of philosophy, science and bleeding Tai Chi Masters ;) . I had taken a few days away from the forum and was taken aback by the breadth and depth of the contributions to my silly post. Thank you all for the highly informative and entertaining thread that arose.

Out of curiosity, has it been proved that Kiai focusses energy, tenses muscles, etc? That's a bit of research I'd like to see. As Kenshi, didn't we just accept the teachings of our Masters on this one?

David Dunn
15th October 2002, 10:48
David,
'proof' is a difficult thing, and largely reserved for mathematics. You can demonstrate the existence of something physical, and make empirical observations about its properties, but it is with the models that you make 'proofs'.

Concrete example; Newton's laws of motion are empirical. They can be written down into a mathematical form and applied to a particular idealisation of a physical system, say the Navier-Stokes equations for the flow of liquids and gases.

Maths is tautological. You can prove things from the mathematical model, simply because when you wrote it down you already had that information implicit in the model. Mathematical proof or solution is simply rewriting what you already have. That's the power of it, for if you are justified in saying that the Navier-Stokes equations do describe fluid motions, then you can predict one heck of a lot of things about fluids, which you can then test against nature.

I don't know where to find sources to answer your question. Tony Kehoe may do - I'd be interested if you do Tony. Most sportspeople use ki-ai of a sort at certain stages, and since they are heavily advised by sports scientists I would assume that they are advised that way. The original bone of contention was 'chakras', something which is not a Shorinji concept.

btw, Sanada Sensei at Tokyo University is a scientist, and explains Shorinji Waza on the basis of his science. The result is something else ;)

Tripitaka of AA
16th October 2002, 00:33
Thanks DD

I just felt my Spidey Sense tingle when I read Tony K dismiss Chakras as "Pseudoscience" then go on to mention the proven effectiveness of Kiai. I don't doubt the effect of Kiai, based on my own observations, but I wondered just how someone had been able to detect proof of the claimed properties .

Kimpatsu
16th October 2002, 06:51
Gassho.
I'm back from my Bank Holiday weekend break... (I can hear you all groaning now!)
Kiai functions on many levels, such as tightening the muscles at the moment it is performed. (This mechanism is the same as the one used when people exhale or grunt whilst lifting a heavy object.) It can also frighten or surprise an opponent for a split-second, which should be ample time for us as Shorinji Kenshi to utilise. The various mechanisms of kiai are described well in the book, "The Science of the Strongest Martial Art", which, unfortunately, is now out of print. (Mizuno Sensei, however, has a copy, so all you British Kenshi: Beg, steal, or borrow it. Highly recommended.) There is nothing mysterious about kiai, as anyone who's ever done any heavy lifting (which is all of us at some time or other) will attest. There is no conflict between "belief" in the effectiveness of kiai, and modern medicine.
Chakras, however, are an ancient Indian attempt to explain human biology. In the absence of modern knowledge of anatomy, people attempted to explain illnesses in terms of "unbalanced energy" and "wheels of energy". Note that chakras were not considered to be metaphors or aids to visualisation--this is a modern attempt to rationalise belief in them. Chakras were considered as fact. Well, modern medicine has disproven this belief, so to cling to such in the face of the evidence is clearly psuedoscience. I hope that clarifies my position somewhat.
David: What does that do to your Spider Sense? ;)
Kesshu.

tony leith
16th October 2002, 12:08
Kimpatsu's observations about chakras seem fair enough to me, but I think he slightly missed the point about what I was saying regarding their continuing utility, and by analogy related ideas like chi meridians etc. I was suggesting that however mistaken the actual hypothesis, it might have a connection with a useful body of knowledge, for example meditation techniques or atemi waza etc. Now, we as Westerners might very well feel able to discard these models for explanatory purposes, but the useful component might still be systematised in these terms, and I contend, still possibily useful for purposes of visualisation.
Science as an intellectual enterprise is reductive - this is a very powerful way of looking at the world, but is not necessarily the only way. Fritjof Capra (cited in the Fukodukonhon as an authority on subatomic physics, no less) has written an interesting discussion of living things in terms of emergent properties and cybernetics theory, arguing that not all phenomena are susceptible to reductive analysis. I'm not competent to dissect the mathematical basis of his arguments (over to you, Mr. Dunn), but they are suggestive..

Tony Leith

David Dunn
16th October 2002, 12:42
A very interesting read on the reaction of the physics community to quantum mechanics in the 20s and 30s is Science and the retreat from reason. (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0853459878/ref=sr_aps_books_1_1/026-2971672-6954842)
Particularly striking is Einstein's continued insistence on rationality in the face of physicists freaking out over their wierd, and apparently useful theories (that reminds me to post in the intuition thread).

I think 'emergent' is a useful concept. To continue the fluid dynamics example, molecular theories tell us about the thermodynamics of fluids, but are not much use when we discuss the bulk properties of fluids in motion. The 'emergent' properties on larger scales are better described by continuum (Newtonian) mechanics. Another example I suppose is that you can look at the physiology of a tiger, but that won't tell you too much about the behaviour of a group of tigers in a particular place.

Kimpatsu
16th October 2002, 12:52
Gassho.
Tony-san, David-san (Dr. David?),
Very good points. This post is just to say, Tony, it wasn't your post, which defined chakras as metaphor, with which I took issue; it was Red Fists's original post decribing them as real "energy fields". Next Tokyo e-budo drinkup, I'll raise that with him.
BTW, Tony: Do you know how to contact Alan McHardy, or does he no longer practice? I'd like to send him an e-mail if I can. (The b****** got me drunk last time I was in Glasgow, and I owe him a return on the favour... ;)
:beer: :toast: :beer: :toast:

tony leith
16th October 2002, 16:02
Unfortunately Alan isn't training at the moment due to a recurrence of problems with his knee (the one that had to be surgically rebuilt after a skiing accident). It basically gave way on him out running (which just goes to show what a bad idea that is), and it's a moot point right now whether he'll be able to come back to Kempo.

I don't have his contact details off hand, but I should be able to get them for you. Actually should get in touch with him myself to see how he's doing... we graded to 2nd dan under the watchful gaze of his wife Caroline, which I found a lot more intimidating than even Mizuno Sensei's scrutiny.

Tony leith

Kimpatsu
16th October 2002, 16:50
Thank you, Tony.
This has been another two-Tone effort, brought to you by the Tone-Deafs. :D

David Dunn
16th October 2002, 17:07
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
David-san (Dr. David?)
Only if you're my bank manager, or selling me an airline ticket :)

shugyosha
18th October 2002, 08:45
i dont want to comment on this talk about shakra, but please, please,
please read this book:

Tao of health sex and longevity / Daniel reid

and this one

Kundalini / gopi krishna

also if you can, please ask about yoga master (tantra or kundalini)
about this things.

you can look at the water, or dive into it


ps: hmmm feeling that was a useless comment afterall....

tony leith
18th October 2002, 11:39
I haven't read the books cited, but any belief system looks different from the inside, and this isn't necessarily an endorsement. I do think there is a difference between a mindset that reserves the right to be sceptical, and anybody actively endorsing a set of propositions. The onus is one the person making the proposition to demonstrate there is some basis for their claim - this is why creationism for example is blatant nonsense because it amounts to saying 'a big boy (god) did it, and then ran away', whereas there is actual evidence down to the genetic level for the alternative. This may seem like it contradicts my earlier posts on this thread - not really, because, as I've said, I'm prepared to be open minded about the value of these beliefs as visualisation techniques, and to take on board the posibility that there may be some emergent properties of humans and other organisms that science hasn't pegged down yet..

One of the things that appeals to me about Kempo as a philosophy is that no leap of faith is required, except perhaps for believing that human life has intrinsic value and meaning. I'm not required to believe that Kaiso was some kind of semi divine being, or that his daughter is mandated by heaven as his succesor, or that human beings can make their lives meaningful and worthwhile by anything other than their combined efforts right here in this world. For me (Zen)Buddhism is actually an antimetaphysical philosophy; it's about coming to terms with the way the world is, as well as our own natures - what I particularly like about Kongo Zen is that it seems less inclined to resigned fatalism than some other schools of Buddhism.

Incidentally from what I've seen of Buddhism practicised as a religion as distinct from a philosophy, it's not vastly different in terms of the sociological functions it serves from religions in the West. This is why fo me martial arts are an ideal vehicle for these kind of teachings - the fact that so much of our time is spent engaged in the actual physical activity rather than contemplating the infinite will hopefully prevent the kind of mystical accretion that tends to coalesce round any kernel of truth.

Tony leith

Kimpatsu
18th October 2002, 12:54
Great post, Tony. The only thing I can offer is to stress the fact that visualisation (which is a technique for training the mind) is very different from claiming chakras, or whatever, to be literally true.
I thought creationism wasn't a big deal on the European side of the Pond (unlike in America), so what made you pick it as an example? I'm curious to know.
Kesshu.

David Dunn
18th October 2002, 13:05
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
I thought creationism wasn't a big deal on the European side of the Pond (unlike in America), so what made you pick it as an example? I'm curious to know.
Unfortunately Tony, it is gaining some headway here too.
An example (http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,5500,680792,00.html)
Another (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A734302)

David

Kimpatsu
18th October 2002, 13:59
Thank you, David. I had heard of the Emmanuel College affair, but this is just too silly for words. In the 21st century, people are teaching myths as science? Personally, I've always preferred the Inca creation myth, about how the world was vomited out of the mouth of a giant jaguar...
Kesshu.

David Dunn
18th October 2002, 14:09
Hopefully it is an isolated affair, but the government endorsed their right to teach myth as science, which is toothless in my opinion.

Tripitaka of AA
19th October 2002, 06:03
Originally posted by tony leith
the fact that so much of our time is spent engaged in the actual physical activity rather than contemplating the infinite will hopefully prevent the kind of mystical accretion that tends to coalesce round any kernel of truth.

Tony Leith


I thought that one was worth repeating. It has sentiments akin to my personal favourite theology speech... the one from "Life of Brian" where Brian tries to remind the throng that they are all "individuals"
to which they reply in perfect unison;
Yes! We are all individuals!


Really, I feel my mental capacity and academic education failing me among the posts on this thread. But I am enjoying it nonetheless :)


I take it that you chaps get time do a bit of Kempo, in between all that reading :cool: , you're not letting this "thinking men's martial art" go to your heads, are you?

Kimpatsu
19th October 2002, 06:08
Originally posted by Tripitaka of AA
I take it that you chaps get time do a bit of Kempo, in between all that reading :cool: , you're not letting this "thinking men's martial art" go to your heads, are you?
The answer to that one, David, is to balance the physical and the mental aspects... But I bet you knew that already, right? ;)

Tripitaka of AA
19th October 2002, 06:38
I have no doubt, that the standard of Kempo in Great Britain has continued to rise to new heights since I last attended a Dojo (some 15 years ago, by my calculations). To imagine the technical excellence in the physical discipline matching the erudite and intellectual worthiness that I find on this forum is quite frightening :D .

I reckon I need to see some evidence. When is the next Taikai? Where did I bury my copy of the BSKF video that I bought a couple of years ago... you lot might be a load of rubbish for all I know ;)

just kidding, of course

Kimpatsu
19th October 2002, 06:47
Originally posted by Tripitaka of AA
you lot might be a load of rubbish for all I know
Curses! Rumbled!

Tripitaka of AA
19th October 2002, 06:56
:D

False modesty, I'm sure.

tony leith
22nd October 2002, 10:19
For me, I'm perfectly willing to concede that my technical competence at kempo more or less my levels of 'erudition' - I wouldn't profess to have made a serious study of the philosophy of science, or of anything else to be honest. I am however interested in almost everything, so I'm condemned by my nature to be a dilettante. In fact the higher degrees I have are more orles an accidental byproduct of doing Kempo in various locations...

Tony leith

David Dunn
22nd October 2002, 10:53
I'm condemned by my nature to be a dilettante. In fact the higher degrees I have are more orles an accidental byproduct of doing Kempo in various locations...
That made me laugh. Science is about the only thing I've made a serious study of. I only wish I could contribute to the proper philosophy thread :look:

tony leith
22nd October 2002, 12:11
Dave, I seriously envy you your gift of being conversant with mathematics. If I'd had such a gift, I think I'd have been perfectly content to spend my existence working away on minutely expanding the sum total of real human knowledge. That kind of satisfaction is less readily available to any of us whose inclination is towards the 'softer' sciences. When all you've got to test truth is dialectic, reaching any sort of a conclusion is problematic.

The truth is I think that in consideration of existential, moral and ethical issues rationality and logic only take you so far. For me the basis of all morality is ultimately empathy, an emotional ability which we admittedly have to be taught to recognise the social significance of. This is why I tend to be more impressed by moral philosophers like Kaiso who actually go out and do something positive, than genuises like Heidigger who produce great dense slabs of Teutonic prose on the moral meaning of existence then go and report colleagues to the Gestapo.

I'm not dissing logic and rationality. 'Life of brian' I think is a great work of art as well as howlingly funny - a lot of uncomfortable truths about human beings are in there - not least that they'll believe ANYTHING with alarmingly little provocation. Logic and rationality are the only defences we have against this kind of thing. having heard Mizuno Sensei expound on the subject of the Moonies on occasion, I'm inclined to think that Kongo Zen is one the side of logic and rationality as well as compassion..

Tony leith

Tripitaka of AA
22nd October 2002, 14:42
This thread may well be the first to break the 1000 Views barrier. All it is crying out for is a controversial comment from someone, to generate some frenzied key-tapping. Tony K?....;)

George Hyde
22nd October 2002, 15:39
Hi Tony,


Originally posted by tony leith
'Life of brian' I think is a great work of art as well as howlingly funny - a lot of uncomfortable truths about human beings are in there - not least that they'll believe ANYTHING with alarmingly little provocation.

If you haven't already, you should try "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds". It tells of the many instances throughout history when masses of people have voluntarily thrown themselves headlong into the most absurd beliefs with drastic consequences. The scary thing is that despite being written over a century ago, there are modern day parallels for every example, thereby proving that the only thing we learn from history is that history teaches us nothing.

Later,

David Dunn
22nd October 2002, 15:49
Originally posted by tony leith
That kind of satisfaction is less readily available to any of us whose inclination is towards the 'softer' sciences. When all you've got to test truth is dialectic, reaching any sort of a conclusion is problematic.

Agreed, but it makes for interesting study. Isn't it down to the dual nature of humans as subjects and objects that dialectic is the only way to (attempt to) understand human history and society? This is one of the best books I've read in a while:Man, beast and zombie: what science can and cannot tell us about human nature (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0753812959/qid=1035297457/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_2_1/026-2971672-6954842) A very cogent and compelling argument.

A joke. The head of the physics faculty complains to his staff. "Why do you always need so much money for your equipment? Why can't you be more like the maths department - they only need money for pencils, paper and a wastebasket? Or even the postmodernist faculty - they only need pencils and paper"

tony leith
24th October 2002, 12:34
Sound like interesting books - can you remmber the authors? Group dynamics are a fascinating aspect of the study of politics (and the other social sciences - even if you assume that human beings are rational actors (which they pretty blatantly aren't), group behaviour is still unpredictable because you just don't know what is going to trip the threshold that will spur any given individual to act. The classic example of this is the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe - which very few academic experts saw coming. The timing of the collapse (I'm oversimplifying horrifically here) depended to a large extent on when millions of individuals made their individual transitions from sullen obedience to overt resistance to the regimes.

The problem is that they don't know if they do go out on the streets whther they'll be part of a thronging irresistible multitude or a minor problem for the secret police, so their initial decison is based more on their own moral compass and on the basis of what they personally are willing to take. As the head of the East German Stasi remarked to his boss when confronted by half a million demonstrators "Erich, we can't shoot all these people". This was not a moral objection - it was a question of having the bullets. I remember the first howa talk I heard Mizuno Sensei give about (my god) 11 years ago concerning East German border guards who had shot people trying to escape to the west - their defence was that they'd had no choice. Sensaei's comment on this was that we always have a choice. Everything depends on the quality of the person (now, where have I heard that before..)

Tony leith

David Dunn
24th October 2002, 13:30
If you click the link you'll be taken to the book :) It's by Kenan Malik. He treats the old 'nature or nuture' debate, and argues that both positions are determinist ones, which consider humans as objects to external factors (upbringing or genes). He only puts his own position after discussing the two trends. His position is that consciousness is not individual and not simply given by objective factors, but rather that humans construct consciousness through socially (i.e. agency or subjectiveness) within a particular objective setting. Sounds like dialectical materialism to me :D

Hillel Ticktin (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0873328884/ref=sr_aps_books_1_2/026-4818437-2054047) foresaw the collapse of the Soviet Union in the late sixties and argued that Stalinism was a system in perpetual crisis, characterised by waste, fragmentation and ideological incoherence. The last point is interesting; the elite regime spoke in the language of Marxism (that is, in the language used to study society), but it was blatent gobbledegook to everybody, not least because it was clearly a lie. Hence there was no language within which to develop a critique of their own society.

I guess one of the reasons that no one else predicted the collapse was because most of the left saw the Soviet Union as something progressive, albeit in a grotesque form. Degenerate workers state, state capitalism etc, hence the wrong assumptions from the outset. I'm not sure the right actually had anything resembling an analysis, preferring to just wage war on it.

Do you think it beyond the state in the west to attack, even with bullets, oppositional crowds?

tony leith
24th October 2002, 15:46
Yes, I know about Ticktin, but the point is that his was definitely a minority view in the acdemic community engaged with the Communist political systems. I was about to say this misconception was shared by the Western intelligence community, but then it occured to me this might not exactly be coincidental - these agencies had a definite interest in portraying the Soviet system as a robust antagonist (as I suppose did the academics, in terms of validating their area of study). I think it's important to be aware that one of the things that Gorbachev's generation of Soviet leaders had increasingly come to be aware of was the bankruptcy of official Marxist-Leninist discourse, and the impssibility of even articulating the problems that were afflicting the late period Soviet bloc in those terms.

As to whether Western states would use lethal force to suppress dissent, I'm afraid there is a superabundance of evidence answering that in the affirmative ( e.g. Bloody Sunday in the UK, the civil rights and anti Vietnam protests in the US). It might be argued that orders weren't necessarily issued to shoot civilians from on high, but the point is that these acts were perpetrated by agents of the state explicitly to suppress those contesting its will. These events might only be sporadic in the 'developed' West, but arguably we've just exported most of the more extreme manifestations of oppression to the Third World (witness the predations of the state in Latin America, many acts of military authoritarian regimes being propped up by the US in the name of democracy and freedom - if any Americans are reading this and spluttering, go look at the evidence. Don't get me wrong, the British were responsible for just as many heinous acts in our time as world hegemon - the problem is the kind of things you have to do to sustain that position, not any inherent moral deficiency of the country involved)

I wondered about the relevance of this lengthy post, but then I thought, bugger it, isn't this exactly the kind of thing Kaiso wanted kenshi to be thinking about?

Tony leith

David Dunn
24th October 2002, 17:26
Originally posted by tony leith
...these agencies had a definite interest in portraying the Soviet system as a robust antagonist
Interesting that the Western and Soviet elites, as well as the Trots all had an interest in portraying the Soviet system as robust. I remember an article called "The West will miss the Cold War" in the late eighties. Robust dangers to society were hard to find for a while, that is until one of our own client states filled the gap.


Originally posted by tony leith
As to whether Western states would use lethal force to suppress dissent, I'm afraid there is a superabundance of evidence answering that in the affirmative.
A rhetorical question ;)


I wondered about the relevance of this lengthy post, but then I thought, bugger it, isn't this exactly the kind of thing Kaiso wanted kenshi to be thinking about?
I guess so. From ki-ai, to chakras, science and philosophy. Not bad work.

George Hyde
24th October 2002, 18:04
Hi Tony,

As for the author of "Extraordinary..." it's Charles MacKay, a countryman of yours - you'll find what appears to be the entire book here (http://www.litrix.com/madraven/madne001.htm)


Originally posted by tony leith
Don't get me wrong, the British were responsible for just as many heinous acts in our time as world hegemon - the problem is the kind of things you have to do to sustain that position, not any inherent moral deficiency of the country involved)Tony leith

I was asked by one of my students recently why Tony Blair seemed so adamant, despite the rise (though not so obvious recently) in public opposition, to side with the US on the Iraq issue. The uncomfortable reality is that social and economic stability, peace and prosperity tend not to happen by accident - but we as the benefactors tend not to want to know what goes into the maintenance of our easy lives. As far as the love affair between Blair and Bush is concerned, the rhetoric is all about "those filthy terrorists threatening democracy and our western way of life" and since the UK and the US have both those things in common, then an attack on one is an attack on the other. What goes on behind the scenes on other matters of foreign and economic policy (trade tariffs, etc..) is an entirely different matter.

BTW: My kiai sounds like a goose giving birth to a bowling ball.Later,

Kimpatsu
25th October 2002, 01:19
Originally posted by George Hyde
BTW: My kiai sounds like a goose giving birth to a bowling ball.
I always said you were quackers, George. :D

tony leith
29th October 2002, 15:57
Don't know if anybody is still interested in this subject, but maybe we should hive it off into a new thread. This is (sort of - my excuse and I'm sticking to it) by George's ruminatons on the things which are done in our name but to which we are cheerfully oblivious. Couple of points - 1)I'm not sure that people are so much oblivious as apathetic/indifferent - there tends to be a fairly close correspondence between Western public opinion being averse to military action and the prospect of significant casualties on 'our' side - as long as it's happening to some other poor bugger frankly we don't care all that much as long as it's not on our TVs in living colour every night (reminds me of Bismarck's comment that the Balkans weren't worth the bones of a single pomeranian Grendadier).

2) I'm always struck when listening to Mizuno Sensei's howa that he sees the world always in terms which are susceptible to moral analysis. Machiavelli argued that those with responsibility for the safety of the polity as a whole cannot always enact those responsibilities within the limits of even their own personal ethical standards. Now obviously we are stribving to create an ideal world in which this distinction between private and public virtue would be abolished, but we ain't there yet - would taking the tenets of Kongo Zen seriously oblige us to behave as if we already were if we were in such a position of responsibility, and expect the same of our current leaders?

Believe it or not, this is my idea of light relief (explained by the fact that my main reading material at the moment is a statistics textbook...)

Tony Leith

Steve Williams
30th October 2002, 22:08
Tony you are a very sad man..... ;)

Steve Williams
30th October 2002, 22:10
That last comment could apply to either of the "Tonys" posting at the moment...... :D

Kimpatsu
30th October 2002, 23:12
Originally posted by Steve Williams
That last comment could apply to either of the "Tonys" posting at the moment...... :D
Thank you, Steve. It's called a Two-Tone effort... :p