poetic comparisons -- Martial Arts Discussion Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 15:26:47 12/20/02 Fri
Author: Goktimus Prime
Subject: poetic comparisons
In reply to: OneDragons 's message, "Re: You missed my point..." on 04:12:59 12/19/02 Thu

>If an artist (doesnt matter of what) describes things
>in a poetic way, does it not hold that his/her thought
>process itself may also work in a poetic way? Would it
>not therefore hold that they may reason, criticise and
>create in an equally poetic way if that is "their way
>or personality". You come across as a very scientific
>person who reasons things by what you can see and
>prove in a rational manner- which is your
>way/personality. I would expect your kind of mentality
>to come up with the four sroke engine or the telescope
>for instance; whereas the previous personality would
>come up with the works of Divinchy, tapestry or
>'cough' Kung Fu.
>

It's not merely a matter of personality type -- it's also a matter of social and cultural programming. Having been raised in a modern Western society, I tend to see things through more rational, scientific and academic means --- as this is the peak of our culmination of human knowledge.

If I'd been born and raised in ancient China, then I'm certain that I would see the world in a more poetic sense.

>So now cast your mind back before the age of reason,
>you have a problem with no idea how to solve it,

I would argue that there was never an age before "reason" -- people have always had the ability to reason. After all, it is this ability that makes us the unique and dominant species that we are today. However, human reasoning has been something that has is in constant flux and is always changing and correcting itself as we make new discoveries etc. The way we see the universe today is far from complete or even correct. We still haven't conclusively decided whether the universe is expanding or contracting -- there are vehement arguments on both sides. But one day we might come to know.

>their

there

>are no high rise buildings or cars. You look for
>inspiration in what is around you in ways you can
>understand, when you see a tiger take down a huge
>animal with a single stroke! Can you mimic this? Can
>you adapt it to work for a human? This kind of thought
>process is what led to the animal styles. The
>creastors did not want to fight "like a tiger" they
>simply took inspiration from that animal and gave them
>credit for it.
>

I've yet to come across any conclusive historic evidence that proves that ancient Chinese fighters ever did this. Sure, there are many stories and legends, but let's talk about historical facts here. Have you come across any historical texts that document monks or soldiers having made extensive studies of animal behaviour and then developed moves on it? Have there ever been any journals written by monks or commanders hinting that they developed a certain battlefield tactic or move based on an animal they observed during their travel? If so, please provide me with a bibliography, cos I'd sure like to see it.

In our quest for the truth, we need to be careful in separating historical myth and historical facts.

e.g.: Some people believe that Shorinji Kempo was derived by people who had studied Xiaolin Kung Fu, but historical evidence and modern comparisons between the styles suggests that original Shorinji texts were based on the fresco paintings on the walls of the Xiaolin temple, as opposed to anyone having done any actual Xiaolin training and then evolving it to Kempo.

>
>I often use snake like movements to achieve armlocks
>on a resisting opponent, does this mean I wriggle on
>my belly and hiss - NO. You mimic and adapt what you
>learn (at least I hope you do),

Oh, I can understand the logic behind a poetic comparison during training -- just as Praying Mantis fighters often poetically imagine/compare themselves to the Praying Mantid insect, regardless of whether or not you believe the style was derived from someone imitating a mantid.

I still refer to moves such as "Mantis takes the Cicada" as that and when I show it to people, I tell them that it's called so because it looks like a mantis reeling in a cicada. Just as the Seahorse isn't really a horse, but sort of resembles a horse's head. It's all very subjective, but you can see the poetic resemblance. I have no qualms about that at all.

>P.M. Kung Fu dont tend
>to chew on peoples heads as the heman mouth doesnt
>really allow for it too well,
>but the same principle
>works very well if the chew is replaced with a punch.

Actually, some rare styles of Praying Mantis do use the teeth and have multiple gnawing attacks. Human teeth do have limited abilities in tearing flesh -- primarily the neck moreso than the head though.

>Also humans dont have hooks on their arms but they do
>have fingers on their hands.
>

That is true -- and I would say that this is where the comparison with the praying mantis insect came from.

Think of Ian Thorpe. The media often call him "Thorpedo" because he swims so fast and in his black body suit, he resembles a torpedo. But naturally he didn't learn to swim by watching torpedoes -- he may imagine himself as a torpedo when he swims, and certainly many of his fans think of him as swimming "like a torpedo", but we know that he learnt to swim through coaches and swim schools, not by trying to imitate torpedos.

I agree that people often look at things -- such as sports or martial arts -- then become so inspired by them that they make some kind of poetic comparison (e.g."Thorpedo"). But what I am arguing is that I've come across no evidence that suggests that it ever works the other way around -- that people look at the source of inspiration first and then study and adapt it. In the case of aviation, people who tried to fly like birds (e.g.: flapping wings) failed miserably. It became clear that any successful aircraft would have to be based on basic principles of flight rather than by simple direct imitation of birds. And naturally there are some similarities between birds and planes, since both are designed for flight -- but how each achieves flight is a very different issue. But after planes were invented, the engineers who designed the planes themselves, having always been inspired by certain animals of flight, poetically attached names to them. E.g.: F-15 Eagle, F-18 Hornet, F-22 Raptor etc. But we know that an F-22 does not fly like a Raptor. Doesn't even look like a raptor -- but like a raptor, it is poetically considered to be a spectacular bird of prey and the creators hope that the jet will strike fear in the hearts of its enemies just as the raptor strikes fear in the hearts of its prey.

It is in my opinion that when someone develops a style like Tiger Fist, legend would have us believe this:

(1) Creator goes to jungle and spends time watching tigers. (2) Tries to mimic moves.
(3) Modifies mimicked moves and creates martial art based on tiger movements, hence style is called Tiger Fist.

From what historical evidence I've looked at, I believe the following is more likely:

(1) Creator(s) develop new style either by trial and error in training or in battle, or by ecclectically merging elements from forerunning styles.
(2) Creator(s) realise that the new style they have developed has the ferocity of a tiger. Certain hand techniques remind them of the claws of a tiger. Consequently, style is called "Tiger Fist."

>The Monk who came up with Praying Mantis was already a
>highly trained martial artist, their were better but
>supposedly he wasnt bad. So his influences would have
>been from styles which were already in use hence their
>inclusion in the praying mantis style (PM was the last
>animal style developed in Shaolin). The point was that
>grabbing movements had not been used, so it is
>plausable that a monk who spends a lot of time in
>reflective moods could have been inspired by the
>grabbing movements of a mantid, which due to its
>revolutionary direction would have been a very excited
>discovery. There are different versions of the story
>which I have not gone in to but all generally agree
>with what I wrote above, are they literally true?

Does evidence exist to support these stories? If not, then one cannot consider them as being facts. Yes, I realise that a lot of historical evidence was destroyed during the Cultural Revolution, which is very unfortunate, but from a research POV, we cannot accept something as truth if it cannot be proven.

At best we pay consider it as a theory (which happens a lot in ancient historical research where written documentation is lacking).

>Well
>maybe they are and maybe they arent, but it is
>perfectly concievable as so much of Chinese life and
>religion was linked so closely to their surrounding
>nature. You have to try to understand the mentality of
>those who developed something to understand their
>creation.

Oh, I understand the mentality -- and as you've seen, I've made comparisons with modern day sports (e.g.: Ian "Thorpedo" Thorpe). The poetic mentality is not something that I am questioning or even denouncing -- merely stating that it is an intrinsic part of Chinese literature and hence must be taken into consideration when we use ancient Chinese texts as sources of historical evidence.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: poetic comparisons -- OneDragons, 18:31:30 12/20/02 Fri