Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by xthinker88 10 years, 1 month ago
    I don't think the author gets Bruce Lee (or maybe AR either). The "feeling" he is talking about is not being ruled by one's emotions. In fact, the situation that comes to mind from Atlas Shrugged is when Hank Rearden and Francisco stop the molten metal breakout by plugging the furnace in Rearden's foundry. Neither man is "thinking" in the sense of sitting in one's chair and reasoning out a plan of action. Both are coolly applying their rational minds to the task at hand and exhilarating in the effort. In fact, it would almost be the experience of "no mind" that is found in Zen. Their minds are working clearly and focused on the task at hand with no extraneous distracting thoughts. Their minds are controlling their body's well practiced and remembered physical actions. They are in a sense being guided by their perceptions without a lot of intermediary "thought" resulting in fluid body mechanics in a time of crisis. This is what Bruce Lee was talking about as well. Look at him doing his art. He is not "feeling" in the sense of being ruled by emotion. But his mind is clear. He is focused. And his mind is allowing his body to perform its remembered actions in a way that is spontaneous and fluid.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 1 month ago
    Well, I can see that the author doesn't understand much about Martial Arts. Thinking in a fight can get you in a lot of trouble. The trick is to have thought out all the possibilities and responses before the fight, so that one's actions are more automatic when needed rather than thought out.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by evlwhtguy 10 years, 1 month ago
      I have a black belt in JKD. I agree, the author has never been in a fight. being in an actual fight with a real human is a lot different than an investment philosophy. This guy is just trying to fill column inches with text.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Thoritsu 10 years, 1 month ago
        Agreed. I am a long time Judo player. Real fights are unpredictable, and rarely go the way Lee's film fights do (standing) for long, unless one guy just gives up.
        also don't see anything about Ayn Rand in the text. He says Canada is more left, but also more free. Those two measures are almost the same but somehow he concluded disparity in the results.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by evlwhtguy 10 years, 1 month ago
          "..and rarely go the way Lee's film fights do (standing) for long"
          That is why you need to learn Jujitsu.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Thoritsu 10 years, 1 month ago
            Kano mastered 11 schools of Jujitsu and incorporated them into codified learning system he called Judo. Drawing a distinction between classical Judo (not the sport) and Jijitsu is a fine line. The distinction is largely only in naming and schools. There is essentially none in technique, unless you are comparing only to the sport of Judo and those safe/limited competitions.
            It is very common for people to hold ranks in both. My first instructor was 6th dan in two styles of jujitsu and 3rd dan (now 6th dan) in Judo.
            In 1886 the Japanese police held a competition to establish the superior martial art for their training. In 15 matches, Kano's Kodokan won 13 and 2 were draws.
            To your point, in 1900 the Kodokan suffered a defeat in Ne Waza (floor or grappling techniques) to a the Fusen Ryu jujitsu (which specialized in Ne Waza). Kano therefore redoubled his grappling regimen.
            In trying several styles of karate after being practiced in Judo, I had a very hard time with hard styles. I would assert a significant difference between Ju-do/jitsu (and perhaps Aikido and wrestling) and most other martial arts, but little difference between:
            Ju Do (gentle philosophy/way of life) and Ju Jutsu (also jitsu, gentle skills/techniques).
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 1 month ago
    Philosophically, of course, I agree with AR far more than Bruce Lee. However, there can be no denying that Bruce Lee was one of the all-time great martial artists and moviemakers. Bruce was biomechanically the most sound fighter I have seen in any wrestling or fighting sport. There is no question that he was able to use his opponent's momentum to his advantage better than anyone I have ever seen.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Thoritsu 10 years, 1 month ago
      He was quite and athlete and martial artist. However, I would not list his significant strength as the ability to manipulate his opponent's momentum. JKD does incorporate both hard and soft styles (soft being manipulative of the opponents momentum or energy and hard being direct or counter to the same). However, JKD is much "harder than say Aikido, Jujitsu or Judo.
      Not to suggest the greatness of the rather dull Steven Segal, but if you watch his movies, you will see significant redirection of momentum in practically all his techniques. Of course being 6'4" and 240 lbs doesn't hurt either.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 10 years, 1 month ago
    Most politicians are very bad investors. Using loot honestly earned by other people is just one reason.
    Yet, producers still produce despite them.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 1 month ago
      Are you sure? Politicians profit quite handsomely from their investments (er, payoffs). Hillary's cattle futures are a prime example. She just so happened to pick the best month for that in the history of the market...

      The game is rigged now.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Mimi 10 years, 1 month ago
    Good article.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 10 years, 1 month ago
      I had read once that Skousen is a fan of Ayn Rand. He claims to have read her books and called her one of the most influential writers of the 20th century. He is also very religious so he disagrees with her at times because of that. Sounds like a conflict.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 1 month ago
        Is there anything wrong with admiring someone's efforts even though you don't agree with them 100%? Does one have to be an Objectivist and follower of Rand to recognize her accomplishments? Please, let's be rational. ;)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 10 years, 1 month ago
          Hi Blarman. This is the article I was referring to. It sounds like Skouson is conflicted in his admiration for Ayn Rand and his own religious beliefs.
          http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Zant...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 1 month ago
            One can admire, but not 100% agree with someone, but I wouldn't think that intentionally alienating everyone who would side with you on the important political matters just because they don't abandon their own beliefs and become 100% Objectivist to be an effective strategy. Seems to me that partial agreement is better than nothing.

            I do take issue, however, with a third party determining whether or not someone is internally conflicted, however - especially in the realm of personal beliefs. The evaluation that one's belief set differs from another's is certainly open to evaluation by either party. There is no question whatsoever that Skousen and Rand differ in philosophy: the former being a Christian and the latter an atheist.

            However, the evaluation of whether one's personal beliefs conflict WITHIN one's self is entirely a personal evaluation. Any conclusion on such is purely speculative without confirmation from the individual and should be treated as such.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Mimi 10 years, 1 month ago
        Dialectic reasoning takes a bit of contrasting to make a point. I don’t think you can honestly say you are rationally-minded if you blindly follow a philosophy without questioning and probing. It was a well-written article which is always a plus. I like articles that I don’t necessarily agree with if they are intelligently written.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 1 month ago
    Spot on, Skousen; Krugman is a moron of the lowest order. His Nobel was for data ANALYSIS, not for any successful conclusions or realistic programs that came out of his work. Krugman is the leader of his own cult, as are many other economists, and he, especially, is a wonderful example of my claim that 'economics is NOT a "science" because economists never run real 'controlled experiments' to show that their theories are valid, and their theories and beliefs have negligible Predictive Value, which, to me, is one of the hallmarks of a 'science.'

    ... In My Never-So-Humble Opinion (imnsho)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 10 years, 1 month ago
    That comparative saying about "apples and oranges" very much applies here.
    So long, long ago, this old dino was trained to fight first by the Marines and secondly by the Alabama Department of Corrections at its Selma academy.
    When it comes down to the nitty gritty, you apply your training "with feeling."
    And you "with feeling" might want to make up something as you go along.
    Bruce Lee would not have become such a success if he did not know what he was talking about solely in regard to hand-to-hand combat.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo