Skip to main content

Dialog vs. Fighting

Just a quick thought before I go to bed so all my muscles can seize up before morning... karate tonight was a bear. Or I suppose it was a dragon. Our school does animal forms, soft style katas that are performed with one or two other people doing one or two other forms. Tonight I worked on dragon. On the first posture of dragon. And then I did the first posture again. And again. And again. It's sort of hard to adjust your balance to take into account a "tail" that isn't there and I kept settling forward too much. So I did the first posture again.

Anyhow...

I was surfing through blogs a bit and a couple of references to dialog, or promoting dialog, stuck in my head just in a general way related to martial arts.

Simply put... dialog and fighting aren't and should never be considered opposites or in conflict with each other. Being willing to fight and being willing to talk are entirely compatible.

In fact, I'd say that was the only really healthy way to look at the two things. My teacher is clear that fights should be avoided, that our sense of our own dignity should never be allowed to be an issue. As he says, we aren't responsible for the other person's insecurities.

I've had higher level students ask the "trick" question, if so-and-so fought so-and-so, who would win? The right answer is "no one."

But I disagree. We don't train to fight if fighting is losing. Otherwise we'd have the same result as no training at all... if a fight started we'd lose. We could do some other activity to hone our bodies and enrich our minds and discipline. But we train to fight. There must be value in it.

It's just that the value isn't in hurting other people. We are trained to prefer dialog, to use our skill to avoid hostile situations and diffuse hostile situations. Nothing about learning physical self-defense takes away from a quick mind and an ability to talk our way out of problems, to calm a situation... because it's *all* self-defense. The talking and the fighting are THE VERY SAME THING. The same purpose and the same value.

Consider the limits if someone allowed herself only one of those options. How foolish that would be.

Comments

Ymarsakar said…
Without balance, everything is harder and more foolish.

Popular posts from this blog

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...

Some times some people.

 

What Cancel Culture is NOT

  Maybe we should talk about what cancel culture isn't. It's not a boycott.  It's not deciding to no longer go to a business. It's not giving a bad review for bad service. It generally involves two things. First, the offense is a matter of opinion. Second, secondary or even tertiary targets are threatened. Cancellation does not need to be successful, and often with very famous and wealthy people it is not successful. But it serves as a warning to vulnerable people who are not in a position to weather that kind of attack. The goal is terroristic in that it's about forcing social behavior in people who are not currently the subject of the attack. The message is always, this could happen to you. And the tactic invariably includes seeking out vulnerable people to threaten in order to put pressure on businesses or on the target of the attack. So it works like this: JK Rowling is invulnerable. But they can try, right? So what they do is they find out who works for the pub...