Was -> Book me dudes! Now -> Martial Arts Discussion

[atreides]

I think what matters is the awareness the Martial Arts develop. For example, if you look at my Bruce Lee avatar you will see that he is not angry. He's just ready. In that picture he is in an 'inner state' of "egoless" awareness. That's what made him such a good fighter. He might have had a big ego in other ways but when he fought it was all about "egoless" awareness, timing and speed. His fought with emotion but not with anger. It's this aspect of the the "fighting arts" that I like.

Its interesting that 'ego' plays such a significant part in success or failure during a fight. One wonders if it doesn't play a large part in all forms of conflict and discord, both physical, verbal and spiritual? Maybe the ego is what keeps us firmly attached to the short wave cycle and all forms of 'trouble and strife'?

trouble and strife are manifestations of Yin and Yang, they are not out of natural order, they are the ebb and flow. It is not unnatural for waves to beat against rocks, nor for rocks to inhibit waves. The ego cannot have much more control over conflict than a costume designer has over a play, it only clothes what exists and must be expressed. Few plays are made historic only on the merit of their clothes, and even fewer still forgotten for the lack thereof.

 

[kenlee]

How good a fighter you are in relation to the other guy really is unimportant. It's the awareness that one develops which, I think, can make ones training so valuable. Some people are natural "physical fighters," as determined by genetics and others are less so but the more skillful one becomes then the more one can apply those principles into those things that one is really good at.

Of course it is important, and it is not beyond ones control. The samurai have a saying, "There is no honor in failure." If you set out to do something do it well, if you fail, acknowledge that you have failed and do better, don't try, don't whine about your best, do better. We always say it's okay to fail, well it's not, however we should forgive ourselves and others for failing, but it doesn't make failure okay, it just makes it forgiveable. You need to be honest with yourself, brutally honest. If you lose, you lost because you did not know enough, or train enough, and thats okay, next time do better. Like Yoda says, Do or Do Not, there is no try.

If you cannot apply what you know to combat, then applying it to other situations with any real success is unlikely. However if you are simply discussing the will developed by sticking to it and going everyday, or the strength gained from working out, why not just take an aerobics class? Hit the gym, martial arts is not an exercise routine, and there are many better ways to develop ones will. Those reasons I would list as the least important for studying the martial arts.

Bruce Lee was not really a martial artist, he was a pugilist, a Chinese Boxer, albeit the greatest that ever lived, and probably evetingr will.

It's not a failure to lose a contest or a fight. You could still fight well and lose the fight. It doesn't mean you are a failure. You lose when you think you are a failure because you lost. It's not about winning or losing. It's about learning. This applies to martial arts as well since you must learn the martial arts as anything else. Martial arts is not in some special category.

Also, I would have to disagree about Bruce Lee being a pugilist. A pugilist is more or less a prize fighter . Bruce Lee did not fight for sport. You would have to define the term "martial artist" here. I'm not sure what you mean by it.

 

[atreides]

It's not a failure to lose a contest or a fight.

fail

 

[Pierre]

Maybe that in this thread two similar but different concepts are treated. On one side, figth sports : activities based on external strength, technics, quickness, ... and on the other side martial arts based on a kind of body-mind harmony.

As far as appearances are concerned it looks the same, a fighter performing sequence of movements
during an interaction with another or some other fighter(s). The concepts are even more mixed up since often fight sports are labelled martial arts and usually real martial arts are unfindable.

Form this perspective, a fight can be a loss and a victory. In can be internally a loss because the warrior didn't manage his actions with what C. Castaneda calls "impeccability" at the same time it can be an external victory because the opponent was beaten.

 

[atreides]

In the words of Yoda, no, no different, only in your mind.

One should complete each action with "impeccability" in mind. We live in a world that worships mediocrity, but such ideas and thoughts while good for suppressing the masses, or in the sense from gnosis; however a warrior must aspire, if not then there is no point. You either begin the journey with the intent of succeeding and completing the task or you do not undertake it, there is no try, only do or do not do. The work is performed on a razor's edge, only a fool would treat it like a game or sport, it is not, on one side is the abyss on the other death, once you walk out onto the bridge you are obligated to reach the otherside.

 

[Novelis]

Excellent thread!
I have just a few points on top of which has already been said. Atreides, you have basically summed up my reasons for taking up martial arts, and why I think it's necessary to do it in splendid words. But you have put my thoughts that I find very hard to express into eloquent and rational words. For that, I am grateful that the legacy of martial arts has fallen into your hands, heart and mind. I liked this point especially:

Wouldn't martial arts become redundant if you were to find yourself in a 4th density environment? Or perhaps just the martial arts that focus only on the physical would be redundant?

Well, a few things come to mind when I hear this, the first... um, yeah, people still fight, still good vs. bad, this is the level of physical existence, you are supposed to master and fully understand the limits and advantages of physical form. What you are saying is tantamount to a 3rd grader wondering if they still use division and multiplication in 4th grade, the answer is yes. Variable physicality or know, if you don't have the will to accomplish something is physical form here, then you won't have the will to do it there. Nothing gets easier; it gets harder.

My body is pretty solid at the moment, no variability as of yet, your body is a tool for your mind and spirit to use. The way the body works is the same as it ever was (as far back as we know), so isn't it good to gain awareness and learn about your vessel? The fighting aspect is only one tiny piece of the whole. For the mind, martial arts can teach you focus concentration, intelligence, mental strength and agility etcetera... Aren't those mental skills applicable to just about EVERY endeavour and situation one might face?

I found a site about the internal schools of Chinese martial arts Ba1 gua4 and Tai4 Ji2, thought some articles were rather insightful:
http://www.taiji-qigong.co.uk/Articles/newarticles.html

The samurai have a saying: "There is no honour in failure." If you set out to does something do it well, if you fail, acknowledge that you have failed and do better, don't try, don't whine about your best, do better. We always say it's okay to fail, well it's not, however we should forgive ourselves and others for failing, but it doesn't make failure okay, it just makes it forgiveable. You need to be honest with yourself, brutally honest. If you lose, you lost because you did not know enough, or train enough, and thats okay, next time do better. Like Yoda says, Do or Do Not, there is no try.

I once read that there are 3 main purposes and stages of Tai chi Quan,
1. Attaining good health
2. Self defence
3. Enlightenment

I agree with you Atreides, One reason why I fail is because I aim too high without understanding the level of my skill in martial arts. When I set out to learn Tai chi, I at first wanted to know about how the movements applied to self defence, but I realised that until the first stage is reached and I'm in good health, it's pointless to think about fighting. In being honest with myself I realised that my body is in complete disorder, so I must start from the absolute beginning level I am at and practice. Many people get into martial arts for the fighting, they go through tons of reading about applications and how to become unbeatable, but for me, I think these people don't understand the true meaning of martial arts, it's not about "better than you", it's about a "better me".
Although I like to read about how the art I am learning can be used for self defence, my focus remains on learning how to heal myself until the first stage is complete. Only once I learn how to stop abusing myself can I think about how to defend against abuse from others. I don't realistically think I'll ever be able to reach mastery of the 2nd or 3rd stage, but if I can just understand my tool and bring myself to full health, then it's already worth it, since not only is a healthy mind from a healthy body, I can also share my knowledge of how to heal with others.
Fighting is horribly brutal, the highest level of Tai chi moves are merciless in application, if used, the opponent will die almost instantly, but these moves are not learned so that one can face any opponent while being safe in the knowledge that you can beat them, that isn't the main point. The most brutal moves are learned so that one can bear the responsibility of never using them, it is because these moves are so deadly that one will do everything possible to resolve the conflict without resorting to action, I would term this as a kind of compassion and respect for life.

On another note, I don't think Bruce Lee really "Walked the walk" in terms of applying what he said, when watching his movies, I found him very external and not "calm like water" at all. The way he used strength was through his bulky muscles, not flowing with "Qi". Even his violent facial expressions while demonstrating his physical prowess didn't show (to me at least) any real understanding of "flowing like water", I think he just looked into various internal martial arts systems and picked out words he thought sounded clever or philosophical.
But that said, I don't honestly know that much about him, except for a history of getting into fights as a macho display of dominance (An attitude I don't think he ever matured from) throughout his teens. Maybe I'm completely wrong about him, maybe he grew up, it's just the impression I get from his films and bits and bats I've heard about him, looks to me like the things he said was just a philosophical mask to make him feel good while underneath being pretty egotistical and shallow.

Lately I have been shopping around a lot for books, found some on ebay and amazon, but when it comes to books that are like actually important or useful, amazon is really lacking. Or at least as I have found.

Anyway, so the topic of interest for me is Martial Arts, I.E. war/strategy and pugilism, I have all the prerequisite translations of the Prince, Art of War (Sun Tzu and Machiavelli), the Bubishi etc. But some of these I would really like in the original language, I would so jones for Sun Tzu in Chinese, I can't really read Chinese, but it's you know...

Since we have readers and users from all over the world, I am wondering what books you know of in your native languages about all things martial, especially older texts of Jousting, Hand to Hand, Strategy etc, that I might be able to find translations of, or maybe a copy in the original language. I am not looking for anything about Karates or Jutsus, unless of course they are more than 70 years old. So maybe you can reply to this thread with book names, or if you are really super cool, you can send books to the QFG address and they'll get to me. What would be really cool is anything on jousting, or northern european martial arts. Greek martial arts are also super cool, and Russian. Non Japanese/Chinese martial arts philosophy is also cool, unless said stuff was written before the 20th century, in which case, book me.

Finally, Atreides, I just want to mention that I can and I'm keen on learning how to read Chinese, and so have a quite a few books in Chinese in my possession, I don't know if you'll be interested, but I do have Chinese books about Acupuncture, the Tao te Ching, Tai chi Spear (got them from Taiwan though) and a book about Xing2 Yi Quan2 by Dr Yang Jwing Ming which contains lots of Chinese passages. I got some books from Amazon that contains Chinese, I'll find them and post it later...

 

[StrangeCaptain]

Bruce Lee was not really a martial artist, he was a pugilist, a Chinese Boxer, albeit the greatest that ever lived, and probably ever will.

I also don't think I understand this statement. I was hoping you might elaborate on your definition of a martial artist. I think you might mean that a martial artist is someone who is complete in some sense or seeking completeness. Maybe developing all centers in a martial sense?

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

It's not a failure to lose a contest or a fight. You could still fight well and lose the fight.

But you failed to win.

It doesn't mean you are a failure.

Maybe not a failure at other things or other fights, but you are a failure in that particular fight at that particular time. You'd also be a loser, since you lost. How can you be a success if you did not succeed, or a winner if you did not win? I think you're talking about sort of a vague feel-good nonsense that kids are brainwashed with in American schools to "uplift" their self-esteem and self-worth - at the expensive of their ability to perceive reality. Basically no matter what they do, they are praised for it, told that they are bright and smart and have a lot of potential, and that everything is "ok" and the infamous "you did your best" as Atreides mentioned. Ironically, what seems to escape them is that this is actually utterly insulting - what they are saying is when you're at your BEST, you are an utter failure. How is that supposed to make you feel better about yourself? If anything, it conditions you to think that you cannot do any better, that this is indeed the best you can do, you've reached your limit and your potential and that this level is acceptable.

You lose when you think you are a failure because you lost. It's not about winning or losing. It's about learning.

I agree that learning is important but isn't it important so you can succeed at stuff by applying your knowledge successfully? I mean, losing can teach you what you did wrong, and so you can learn from your falls and losses, and then get better, and maybe win next time, osit. What's the point of learning to fight if you have no intention to win any fights? And how do you know that you really learned anything if you can't win? Maybe you're learning it wrong, or learning the wrong stuff?

This applies to martial arts as well since you must learn the martial arts as anything else. Martial arts is not in some special category.

I'm under the impression that if all there is is lessons, the whole point of those lessons is so we can learn them, and then get to the last level and fight the end boss and totally win. Of course if you get your butt kicked on level 3 (out of 7), you just get up, dust yourself off, and try again and hope you learn from your mistakes. Then you get to level 4, 5, 6, and 7, and when you do that last finishing move at level 7, assuming you get it right, you get to watch the ending credits. Then you reset the system and play again from level 1. I mean what good is a game if it has no replay value? But I've been wrong before :P

 

[Mr. Premise]

Don't forget, though, that games, contests, etc. are extremely artificial constructs. They are structured to deliver a loser and a winner and have agreed upon rules, etc. Life is not a game! 'All there is is lessons' means all there is is lessons, not 'learn your lessons and then have a light saber fight with some evil guy in black robes.' Games and movies have distorted peoples' minds too much, I think.

I'm under the impression that if all there is is lessons, the whole point of those lessons is so we can learn them, and then get to the last level and fight the end boss and totally win. Of course if you get your butt kicked on level 3 (out of 7), you just get up, dust yourself off, and try again and hope you learn from your mistakes. Then you get to level 4, 5, 6, and 7, and when you do that last finishing move at level 7, assuming you get it right, you get to watch the ending credits. Then you reset the system and play again from level 1. I mean what good is a game if it has no replay value? But I've been wrong before :P

 

[Pierre]

"Winning" a fight might have some interest for the ego, so it could be important or even an end in the fight sport realm but at internal work/martial art level it's not an essential point.

This idea is decribed in Musashi books "the stone and the sword" and "the perfect light". Initially Musashi was a great "external" fighter full of strength, quickness and courage. After killing dozen of skilled samurais he started to think behind this win/loss paradigm.

A fight sport remains in this dual vision of the world. The stronger/quicker/smarter usually wins. But it is an illusory quest. There will always been a smarter one, a stronger one, a quicker one.

Martial arts lead the practitioner to something else. From this perspective a martial art master can be considered as a "Nagual" because he shows the path and leads the disciple to impeccability. Not impeccability in an intellectual way, when we maintain the illusion that our action and our thoughts are not so much distorded. Impeccability on a very pratical level, where body and mind are really and fully one.

There's a lot of stories about those very old asian martial art master who seem virtually untouchable, fighting against 3, 7, 10 young strong quick and technical fighter. How would that be possible on a fight sport/external level.

So we could wonder why one should practice martial art, if the graal is reaching impeccability, why spend so much time learning how to fight.

There are probably many ways leading to impeccability. In a martial art school, fight is only a minor part of the teachings, a lot of time is spend on other things like breathing, meditating,... however fight is a necessary component (particularly fight involving weapons and one against several) because it helps the disciple to learn about essential factors : fear and death.

 

[StrangeCaptain]

Oh by the way... Pertaining to the original request of this thread...

http://www.thearma.org/manuals.htm

I looked around the above site just a bit in the past. At a glance, it looks like mostly fencing manuals, but I seem to remember that I found some wrestling manuals there with some interesting illustrations. Also, Atreides, a google search of "shillelagh" gives a bunch of sites discussing Irish martial arts, but I do not know how accurate it is. I think a "shillelagh" is basically a wooden mace. Not long like an Asian cane and not short like Kali sticks but about the length of a walking stick. Amongst all the hits of the google search I suggested is this page

http://johnwhurley.com/hurleyframeset-2.html

which lists the following as still existing books that describe to some degree or another Irish martial arts:

Traits and Stories of The Irish Peasantry, by William Carleton (1830);

Defensive Exercises, by Donald Walker (1840);

Broad-Sword and Single-Stick, by R.G. Allanson-Winn (1890);

The Irish Faction Fighters Of The 19th Century, by Patrick O'Donnell (1975).

Learning is fun (except when it causes bruising ;) (and sometimes even then ;) ))

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Don't forget, though, that games, contests, etc. are extremely artificial constructs.

I agree and I was being kinda humorous there. I think it's subjective just exactly what something is really "about" - depends on the aim of the individual. Even learning doesn't have to be about applying your knowledge, could be just for bragging rights. But for example if you take this group, are we not in a battle with the PTB? Can we win this battle, and what would constitute victory? I mean let's say the planet goes hardcore STS, and the majority of humankind is either wiped out or totally enslaved. Would this constitute a failure for this group? From the perspective of the STS PTB, it's a success - THEIR goals have been achieved. But are our goals contradictory to theirs? I don't think so, because in my understanding, the intention of this group or STO in general is not for a particular outcome, but the intention is for the maintenance of direction, and as long as we keep going in the direction we're going and taking the proper steps to make sure the direction is maintained, we did not "fail".

Here's what RA says about success:

RA: When an entire planetary system of peoples and cultures repeatedly experiences disharmony on a great scale, the earth under the feet of these entities shall begin to resonate with this disharmony. (B3, 68)

[Note: This has long been understood in the teachings of the Ancient East. Typhoons, hurricanes and earthquakes were seen as being caused by the disharmony of the people.]

RA: In the event of mixed harvest there is nearly always disharmony and therefore, added catalyst in the form of your so-called "Earth changes". It is the Confederation's desire to serve those who may indeed seek more intensely because of this added catalyst.

We do not seek for the success of added numbers to the harvest for this would not be appropriate. We are servants. If we are called, we shall serve with all our strength. To count the numbers is without virtue. (B3, 109) (i.e., remain detached from the outcome.)

So just thinking about this, I'm wondering though how can STO succeed and how can STO fail? I think we always succeed at what we do. We just do what we do. But we don't always succeed at accomplishing what we intend to do. So success or failure is defined only with respect to intention, it does not exist without intention. You cannot fail at what you never intended to do, otherwise you can say that I failed to go to the moon about 10 seconds ago, so I'm a failure at going to the moon - but that would make no sense since I never intended to go. Unless you define failure as simply not doing something.

And in that respect if you fight with no intentions to win, then truly if you lose you did not necessarily fail - you simply did not win the fight. You failed if your intentions were to win.

As far as I understand it, STO does not anticipate an outcome, it does not "intend" for things to happen or be a certain way. So they do not "intend" for anyone else to do anything, or for the universe to do anything in any particular way. But can STO even intend to do something themselves? They'd have to be careful to not anticipate that they WILL do it, that they will succeed. Just because you've succeeded before doesn't guarantee that some new variable won't come into play that will prevent you from doing it again. I think this is related to the "faith" that the C's talk about, having faith in your knowledge and ability, and so getting rid of irrational self-doubt. But I guess that faith is easy to confuse with wishful thinking, when you think you can do something just because you've done it before and end up closing your mind to the infinite possibilities, infinite things that can potentially occur and change the context of the situation the next time, which may interfere with you succeeding to accomplish what you intend.

And this group is open to all outcomes, all possibilities. So it doesn't make sense to me that we can "lose" or "fail" when there is a certain outcome. Our "intention" is to do with maintaining our direction towards truth and STO - not with achieving an outcome. I think that this group's direction allows us a greater possibility of achieving an outcome, and so we're enhancing the probability for a certain outcome - but enhancing a probability isn't the same as intending for it to actually happen. Just making it more likely than it was. And certainly if our chosen direction didn't make certain outcomes more likely, it wouldn't be our direction to begin with, but I don't think that we're anticipating that in the limited amount of time that we have, those things WILL, in fact, be achieved. So if the whole planet goes to hell, is this a "failure" of this group? I don't think so. But if our direction changes because we made assumptions, and unknowingly and ignorantly went in the opposite direction, since we're doing something we did not intend, that is when we actually begin to "fail", or so it seems.

All there is is lessons' means all there is is lessons, not 'learn your lessons and then have a light saber fight with some evil guy in black robes.'

Unless ignorance wears black robes, then learning lessons is a light saber fight with some evil guy in black robes :P

Games and movies have distorted peoples' minds too much, I think.

I think that good guys really always win though. If bad guys win, there are no good guys. If we were STO we wouldn't be dominated by STS. Since we are, we're STS. Or maybe like, bad guys can win or lose. Good guys can only win, they can't lose. Bad guys win when they get what they want. Good guys don't want, so they can't possibly not get what they want :O

 

[kenlee]

ScioAgapeOmnis wrote: But you failed to win.

Yes, but this does not mean that I failed as a fighter. The fighter remains. That was my point. If I lose then I simply continue practicing. It is knowledge and its application that will eventually defeat or neutralize my opponent.

Your desire to win over your opponent at all costs will defeat you. Winning is based on overcoming your opponent. However, neutralizing your opponent is based on knowledge and skill and it may not appear as a 'win.'

ScioAgapeOmnis wrote:
Maybe not a failure at other things or other fights, but you are a failure in that particular fight at that particular time. You'd also be a loser, since you lost. How can you be a success if you did not succeed, or a winner if you did not win? I think you're talking about sort of a vague feel-good nonsense that kids are brainwashed with in American schools to "uplift" their self-esteem and self-worth - at the expensive of their ability to perceive reality. Basically no matter what they do, they are praised for it, told that they are bright and smart and have a lot of potential, and that everything is "ok" and the infamous "you did your best" as Atreides mentioned. Ironically, what seems to escape them is that this is actually utterly insulting - what they are saying is when you're at your BEST, you are an utter failure. How is that supposed to make you feel better about yourself? If anything, it conditions you to think that you cannot do any better, that this is indeed the best you can do, you've reached your limit and your potential and that this level is acceptable.

No. Success is not "winning." Success is a learning process along with increasing one's skills. That is what one wishes to accomplish in the training. When we fail to keep learning and improving our skills then we have failed. The "feel good nonsense" that you speak of is simply a delusion for those who indulge in it. The learning process is enhanced by a realistic assessment of ones ability, much like one might appraise a gem stone.. The learning process is based on this realistic assessment.

ScioAgapeOmnis wrote: I agree that learning is important but isn't it important so you can succeed at stuff by applying your knowledge successfully? I mean, losing can teach you what you did wrong, and so you can learn from your falls and losses, and then get better, and maybe win next time, osit. What's the point of learning to fight if you have no intention to win any fights? And how do you know that you really learned anything if you can't win? Maybe you're learning it wrong, or learning the wrong stuff?

That depends on whether your concern is to fight to win or to fight to learn.The later will always be met with success if you keep learning, practicing, sparing, applying, etc. You don't improve by winning.

ScioAgapeOmnis wrote: I'm under the impression that if all there is is lessons, the whole point of those lessons is so we can learn them, and then get to the last level and fight the end boss and totally win. Of course if you get your butt kicked on level 3 (out of 7), you just get up, dust yourself off, and try again and hope you learn from your mistakes. Then you get to level 4, 5, 6, and 7, and when you do that last finishing move at level 7, assuming you get it right, you get to watch the ending credits. Then you reset the system and play again from level 1. I mean what good is a game if it has no replay value? But I've been wrong before :P

Sorta, but you analogy is a little "out there"! But that's OK because I think I see what you mean. However, the fight never ends as long as the learning process continues. If you get bogged down on only winning or losing then your learning will only be addressed to those ends. Every winner is a potential future loser and every loser is a potential future winner. To focus on this will lead you downwards. My point is that the gaining of knowledge and applying it is what only matters.

Your desire to win will not defeat (neutralize) the opponent. It's your applied knowledge that will eventually defeat him. If you know and apply what you know then your knowledge will defeat the opponent all by itself.

My older brother used to always beat me up when I was younger. It wasn't really violent, just humiliating. I always fought back but I always lost. I never won once! Then I started training in the martial arts. I didn't do it to kick my brothers butt but I did it because I thought it was a neat idea and I liked it. After a while my brother challenged me. So I gave him a pair of boxing gloves and we went at it. Without even trying I defeated him easily! I did not go to the marital arts class to beat up on my brother. But the knowledge and skill I gained there made it easy for me to defeat him. I was not even thinking "I will win this fight." It just so happened that I found myself defeating him as we were fighting. It was my knowledge and skill that defeated him all by itself, which surprised even me.

.

 

[atreides]

Bruce Lee was not really a martial artist, he was a pugilist, a Chinese Boxer, albeit the greatest that ever lived, and probably ever will.

I also don't think I understand this statement. I was hoping you might elaborate on your definition of a martial artist. I think you might mean that a martial artist is someone who is complete in some sense or seeking completeness. Maybe developing all centers in a martial sense?

You nailed it on the head, it's semantics really, he was a martial artist and wasn't. He was one side of a two sided coin.

Games and movies have distorted peoples' minds too much, I think.

Trying to fight redefinition is a losing battle, you must bend as the reed to the raging river. Sorry to be all tao about this, but you are splitting hairs, a hair that has been split a thousand times over. Sorry, but the redefinition has stuck and we must build on the foundation provided. It's a waste of time to pull up flowers already planted.

"Winning" a fight might have some interest for the ego, so it could be important or even an end in the fight sport realm but at internal work/martial art level it's not an essential point.

There are probably many ways leading to impeccability. In a martial art school, fight is only a minor part of the teachings, a lot of time is spend on other things like breathing, meditating,... however fight is a necessary component (particularly fight involving weapons and one against several) because it helps the disciple to learn about essential factors : fear and death.

Don't see the differences, see how it is all the same. As for musashi, he was the greatest swordsman who ever lived and he was a great philosopher, a sort of Diogenes of the Japanese.

As far as I understand it, STO does not anticipate an outcome, it does not "intend" for things to happen or be a certain way. So they do not "intend" for anyone else to do anything, or for the universe to do anything in any particular way. But can STO even intend to do something themselves? They'd have to be careful to not anticipate that they WILL do it, that they will succeed. Just because you've succeeded before doesn't guarantee that some new variable won't come into play that will prevent you from doing it again. I think this is related to the "faith" that the C's talk about, having faith in your knowledge and ability, and so getting rid of irrational self-doubt. But I guess that faith is easy to confuse with wishful thinking, when you think you can do something just because you've done it before and end up closing your mind to the infinite possibilities, infinite things that can potentially occur and change the context of the situation the next time, which may interfere with you succeeding to accomplish what you intend.

You are getting into wishy washy territory here, you cannot do something without intent. Having goals and having expectations are not necessarily the same. Anticipation blinds you to extraneous occurences and affects the way you perceive, martial arts deals with this extensively, intent is what gets you started in a certain course of action. Whether or not intent is sts or sto is moot at this stage, without intent you cannot become a bene gesserit.

Also, no one ever seems to consider ststo... strange.

My older brother used to always beat me up when I was younger. It wasn't really violent, just humiliating. I always fought back but I always lost. I never won once! Then I started training in the martial arts. I didn't do it to kick my brothers butt but I did it because I thought it was a neat idea and I liked it. After a while my brother challenged me. So I gave him a pair of boxing gloves and we went at it. Without even trying I defeated him easily! I did not go to the marital arts class to beat up on my brother. But the knowledge and skill I gained there made it easy for me to defeat him. I was not even thinking "I will win this fight." It just so happened that I found myself defeating him as we were fighting. It was my knowledge and skill that defeated him all by itself, which surprised even me.

You cannot hide behind this my friend. In the words of Obi Wan, be mindful of your thoughts, they betray you.

 

[Mr. Premise]

Nope. I wasn't splitting hairs or talking about definition at all. What I said was this:

Don't forget, though, that games, contests, etc. are extremely artificial constructs. They are structured to deliver a loser and a winner and have agreed upon rules, etc. Life is not a game! 'All there is is lessons' means all there is is lessons, not 'learn your lessons and then have a light saber fight with some evil guy in black robes.' Games and movies have distorted peoples' minds too much, I think.

Games and movies have distorted peoples' minds too much, I think.

Trying to fight redefinition is a losing battle, you must bend as the reed to the raging river. Sorry to be all tao about this, but you are splitting hairs, a hair that has been split a thousand times over. Sorry, but the redefinition has stuck and we must build on the foundation provided. It's a waste of time to pull up flowers already planted.