| Author |
Message |
|
Hugh Knight
|
 Posted: Tue 25 Oct, 2011 1:33 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Patrick De Block wrote: | | As someone who mainly is an JMA practitioner, I do not believe there's much mysticism in Eastern Martial Arts. |
Patrick, there is something to what you say about inventing mystical-sounding ideas to explain good old physical actions, but there is a lot of mystical nonsense in the JMA, too. Consider the magic spells--nothing physical there at all--in Katori Shinto-ryu, just as one example. There's a lot of that sort of thing, especially in koryu.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
    |
 |
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Tue 25 Oct, 2011 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stephen Renico wrote: | | Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | Perhaps more to Stephen's point though - while there are connections, I've yet to come across any reference to the type of meditational or energy work aspects found in some Eastern arts. That's not to say there might not be any, of course. |
This is something which I find very interesting.
While we see the aspect of qi/chi (with cultural variations) in EMA, I know of nothing similar in WMA.. Qi seems to be a primarily internal way for people to do extraordinary things. I've never heard of any western version of it; western mysticism seems to involve more invocations/prayers to higher powers (God, saints) to achieve the same things. |
Depending on the particular work, qi is not always presented as anything mystical, or anything even extraordinary. Sometimes it's presented as very magical. Same thing is seen in Western medical theory, where the humours are viewed as nothing more magic than blood and bile are today, to where they reflect the macrocosm in the microcosm, with an "internal alchemist" digesting food, etc.
Also, no shortage of invocations/prayers to higher powers in EMA. Some of which is very focussed on getting the student to function in the stress of battle or real combat. Notable in some Japanese koryu (and historical samurai practice) is the cult of Marishiten/Marici. (For those who are interested, the works by D. A. Hall cited on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marici_%28Buddhism%29 are the best I've seen.)
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colt Reeves
|
| Posted: Tue 25 Oct, 2011 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Are you suggesting Musashi couldn't walk on water, fly, and kill people by sneezing at them? 
"Tears are for the craven, prayers are for the clown.
Halters for the silly neck that cannot keep a crown.
As my loss is grievous, so my hope is small.
For Iron, Cold Iron, must be master of men all..."
-Cold Iron, Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Tue 25 Oct, 2011 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | Patrick De Block wrote: | | As someone who mainly is an JMA practitioner, I do not believe there's much mysticism in Eastern Martial Arts. |
Patrick, there is something to what you say about inventing mystical-sounding ideas to explain good old physical actions, but there is a lot of mystical nonsense in the JMA, too. Consider the magic spells--nothing physical there at all--in Katori Shinto-ryu, just as one example. There's a lot of that sort of thing, especially in koryu. |
A lot of these " CHI " or " KY " things are visualizations and ways to focus the mind or at times calm the mind to a state where it is taking the conscious mind and putting it aside as conscious thought is too slow in a fight I believe: The old " Mind of no mind " thing that we might just call " being in the zone ".
Thoughts, fear, anger are almost always dangerous distractions.
How one achieves an empty mind ? Mantras are a way, concentrating on ones breathing, learning to stop the internal dialogue is the objective but methods are just tricks to achieve this.
Now, if we get back to the subject I don't think there was much of a tradition in WMA of putting emphasis on tricks to achieve the needed calm but maybe one gets there naturally with years of learning specific techniques that leads to actually integrating the base principles so that one transcend rote technique and can react and improvise: The specific techniques are just examples of the application of the base principles.
The mysticism is a way to try to explain and teach these internal mind processes that go beyond words, but bottom line, as Hugh said, one doesn't need the mumbo jumbo voodoo as it is all physics + mental process.
( No disrespect meant to the Eastern Martial Arts practitionners who have different methods or beliefs ).
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adam Bodorics
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Tue 25 Oct, 2011 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The existence of demons, witches and magic was pretty much written dogma for Christians of that time. Being a skeptic meant being a heretic for a good long time. Trying to equate our beliefs with theirs is an... interesting idea. They weren't us. This isn't to say they were right - this is to say they believed in this, whether we moderns like it or not.
...
Also, anyone can isolate any given part of history, and study "only" that part - there's nothing wrong with that as long as it is made clear that it's a limited research, and the other fields not researched by the person/organization aren't belittled. I don't care about a huge deal of history, but I won't say that, for example, trying to understand how they organized their finances is nonsense, they should've used our methods.
Disclaimer: I do not mean to offend anyone. To make it clear, I don't worship their god nor do I believe in their religious system as they did. I also didn't want to imply that their fighting arts were full of this stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Tue 25 Oct, 2011 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's good to remember too that some practices that exist in a 'mystic' context do have tangible benefit, with the ritualistic overtones simply acting as window dressing to create a state of mind. The benefit just doesn't happen for the reasons originally ascribed to it.
Meditation is such an example. It derives from religious practices, but has benefits. It's also now practiced in a completely secular context, in addition to its ongoing religious ones. At the end of the day though, it's simply a ritualized way to clear and focus the mind. And that is indeed useful to the martial artist.
Is it 'mystical'? That depends on how it's practiced, I suppose.
All the best,
Christian
Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar
Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship
Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
|
|
 |
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Tue 25 Oct, 2011 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | It's good to remember too that some practices that exist in a 'mystic' context do have tangible benefit, with the ritualistic overtones simply acting as window dressing to create a state of mind. The benefit just doesn't happen for the reasons originally ascribed to it.
|
I think this is basically matches my point of view expressed with less verbiage.  
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Tue 25 Oct, 2011 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Colt Reeves wrote: | Human beings love order and ritual. I myself do things I consider stupid or... "mystical." I know they don't mean anything, but I do them anyway. I'm sure everyone else does too, even if they don't realize it. There's a difference being doing and believing. Throw some salt over your shoulder, don't walk under ladders (hey, things could fall on your head, practical reasons not to), and avoid them there black cats.
Not saying I do those things, but they're the classic examples. I'm more a OCD "I rubbed the tip of my right index finger fifteen times, I'd better do the left now to keep things even" or "cross your fingers when getting your exam grades" kind of guy. Regardless, they are things that are basically mysticism and I acknowledge they don't do a thing.
Maybe that should be "Humans are just plain strange..." |
Colt
My anthrpology career is now many years in my past so bear with me if I get some of this wrong. You normally see "magic" among people who have little actual control over their situration. For example, baseball pitchers often have a ritual of how they dress for a game, wear lucky socks, etc., because regardless of their skill and their performace in a game they can still give up a number of home-runs. Even if a pitcher could throw a 120 mile-per-hour pitch the batter could sill hit it for a home run. The pitcher loses all control once the ball leaves his hand. On the other hand, outfielders almost never engage in any rituals or lucky charms since they have much more control over their situation, ie their performace is tied directly to their skill. I think a highly skilled knight who faced a duel the next day would probably pray some during the night. I think pikemen facing cannon fire and gun fire the next day would pray, doe rituals, wear lucky charms, etc. Standing in a formation you have little control over what comes your way. Magic is an attempt to control the uncontrollable. Remember the old joke from WWII, soldiers didn't fear the bullet with their name on it, they feared the bullet marked "To whom it might concern...". I hope that makes sense.
Ran
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Mele
Industry Professional
Location: Chicago, IL USA Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 356
|
| Posted: Wed 26 Oct, 2011 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I realize you're an atheist Hugh, but since everyone else has been careful to provide analysis without imposing their own beliefs (or lack thereof) onto other people, maybe we could keep the Christopher Hitchens side comments out of this and just answer the question?
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | Because I have grown so fond of Talhoffer I rather hope he was this latter sort, because a con man selling unicorn farts to the gullible is less offensive to me than someone so lost to reason as to actually believe in this stuff. |
You mean like most of pre-18th century mankind?
Likewise, arts like Katori Shinto Ryu and their "mystical junk", practice esoteric Buddhism: a living faith with quite a few adherents. You may find their beliefs absurd, and they might say the same of your materialism. None of that helps answer the question, though, which is what THIS forum is for..
To that end, there are elements of what medievals would have called science and "natural magic" that we would now call occultism: astrology, alchemy and herbalism, as well as theurgy - angelic charms, that have some connection to the surviving arts, based on the predilection of a given author, such as Talhoffer, or the audience he was writing for (such as the person who ordered the compilation of 3227a). This is more "practical" occultism than mysticism, in the sense of disciplines meant to enter altered states of consciousness or knowledge of the divine. Such practices also existed in the cultures in question, but I have seen no real effort by an author to link them to martial practice. In this sense, WMA's are grounded in the mechanics and tactics of what they do, and seek to explain things in terms of the science of their day (Aristotle).
So it all depends on how one defines "mysticism", what is present *at all*, but in either case, there is nothing that suggests specific practices linked to a given art, as is particularly common in some Chinese traditions for example.
Greg Mele
Chicago Swordplay Guild
www.chicagoswordplayguild.com
www.freelanceacademypress.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Wed 26 Oct, 2011 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Greg Mele wrote: | | I realize you're an atheist Hugh, but since everyone else has been careful to provide analysis without imposing their own beliefs (or lack thereof) onto other people, maybe we could keep the Christopher Hitchens side comments out of this and just answer the question? |
I did answer the question. The fact that you dislike the rest of what I had to say is immaterial--it was valid and relevent. As to my beliefs, they're demonstrable, and that makes them valid.
| Greg Mele wrote: | | Hugh Knight wrote: | | Because I have grown so fond of Talhoffer I rather hope he was this latter sort, because a con man selling unicorn farts to the gullible is less offensive to me than someone so lost to reason as to actually believe in this stuff. |
You mean like most of pre-18th century mankind? |
Like some of them, perhaps, but medieval people were not all that blind. Chaucer, for example, is well known for his detestation of alchemists, writing that they were con men. His "Canon's Yeoman's Tale" explores this, as do some of his other writings. Thus, it is not too much to hope that Talhoffer also knew that the magic he was peddling was nonsense, especially since so many people (presumably including Talhoffer) knew that divine intervention and magic had no effect whatsoever on judicial combat--which is one reason so many people argued against it. In the Kleines Kaiserrecht, an anonymous legal code from 1300, judicial combat was banned because the emperor saw too many men die because of weakness rather than justice. The fact that the ban didn't prevent judicial combat has less to do with a belief in actual divine intervention than it does in peoples' desire to kill their enemies under an umbrella of specious justification. So I think we may say that some of the most ignorant and gullible people of the period may have believed in this sort of thing, but many of the more practical and better educated knew it for nonsense.
| Quote: | | Likewise, arts like Katori Shinto Ryu and their "mystical junk", is esoteric Buddhism: a living faith with quite a few adherents. You may find their beliefs absurd, and they might say the same of your materialism. None of that helps answer the question. |
It does help answer the question when we are discussing the differences between Western and Eastern martial arts by showing those differences. As for my materialism, it has the advantage of being provable in a laboratory, and thus cannot be labeled "absurd."
| Quote: | To that end, there are elements of what medievals would have called science and "natural magic" that we would now call occultism: astrology, alchemy and herbalism, as well as theurgy - angelic charms, that have some connection to the surviving arts, based on the predilection of a given author, such as Talhoffer, or the audience he was writing for (such as the person who ordered the compilation of 3227a). This is more "practical" occultism than mysticism, in the sense of disciplines meant to enter altered states of consciousness or knowledge of the divine. Such practices also existed in the cultures in question, but I have seen no real effort by an author to link them to martial practice. In this sense, WMA's are grounded in the mechanics and tactics of what they do, and seek to explain things in terms of the science of their day (Aristotle).
So it all depends on how one defines "mysticism", what is present *at all*, but in either case, there is nothing that suggests specific practices linked to a given art, as is particularly common in some Chinese traditions for example. |
To the extent a study is based on reality it has value: Some herbalism, for example, is perfectly valid, such as that which teaches us to extract aspirin from willow bark. Some "astrology" (or what would have been called such in the Middle Ages) gives real information about the motion of celestial objects, and was useful in planning agriculture. That is not mysticism, but proto-science. Any "study" based on supernatural forces is, obviously and demonstrably, nonsense, and is only worth studying to the extent that we need to know how these beliefs effected the people who lived in the Middle Ages. Thus, the distinction is not as unclear as you pretend it to be. If you can prove it in a lab it's a fact. If you can't, it's a con intended to fleece the gullible. Simple.
The bottom line, however, is that we are fortunate in being able to ignore mystical mumbo jumbo (again, except insofar as we want to understand the culture of the day) in our techniques. We don't need ki, we have physics. Moreover, it is important to point out that these things are nonsense in order to prevent those who like the mystical aura of Eastern martial arts from trying to impose that kind of belief on what we do (and I've read of people trying to do so).
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Wed 26 Oct, 2011 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Of all the medieval masters, Talhoffer is clearly the most esoterically and religiously minded:
- He's the only one to include name-related magic regarding fighting.
- He's the only one to include the Planetenkinder (Children of the Planets) lore.
- He makes use of religious imagery on a level not even approached by any of the other masters. Not only does he include many images of combatants praying before and after combat, there are numerous images of saints, the Virgin, and Christ answering those prayers.
- In the Thott manuscript a demonic imp-like figure is crawling on the face of a dead combatant.
While some of his texts, such as those on the internal organs, might be viewed as precursors to science, things like the Planetenkinder are clearly not: they define personality types by what planet is associated with the individual. That's a 'belief system', pure and simple.
No master comes remotely close to the preponderance of supernaturally-oriented material presented in Talhoffer's works. In particular, the 1443 Gotha and 1459 Thott codices, contain the bulk of this, though they all feature the devotional and thanksgiving interactions with Heaven I describe above.
Now, the question of the original poster remains the same: is there EMA-like mysticism in historic European arts? That gets trickier, because first we have to ask: do we mean 'mysticism' in the strict or broad sense?
Strictly speaking, mysticism is any form of practice with the intent to directly experience the divine. To my (current) knowledge, no - there is no surviving material wherein the study of the sword is said to accomplish that. The closest we come is where the value of swordsmanship is coupled with the love of God, as in "Young knight learn to love God..."
Once we move to a broader definition of 'mystic', which is how most moderns use it - as a general term for the mysterious, occult, or esoteric - things become more complex. I've mentioned some of this earlier, wherein the concepts of planetary astrology, elemental and humoral theory, charms, herbalism, meditation, and internalization models inform the general context for medieval and Renaissance arts (of all kinds, not just fighting).
Beyond this, masters such as Filippo Vadi frequently thank the "help and grace of God" for their accomplishments in their art. Given the warrior's profession is one of the three estates ordained by God, this is hardly surprising. While not a technical author on fighting, Ramon Lull, a veteran knight, courtier, and mystic, is effusive in describing the flow of all knightly virtue and skill from God.
It's impossible to separate out the technical material we've inherited completely and divorce it from the holistic, very spiritually-minded, context in which it was created. Such attempts be alien (and anathema) to the masters of the time.
The late medieval period was one where proto-sciences, labeled as 'arts', were mere preparatory work for the real study: philosophy and theology. Attempting to tease out a purely mechanistic approach to fencing is missing the whole spirit of the age.
Cheers,
Christian
Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar
Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship
Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Mele
Industry Professional
Location: Chicago, IL USA Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 356
|
| Posted: Wed 26 Oct, 2011 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: |
I did answer the question. The fact that you dislike the rest of what I had to say is immaterial--it was valid and relevent. As to my beliefs, they're demonstrable |
No, they aren't. Atheism is not "provable" anymore than theism is. That is why it is labeled as a system of "belief".
Here is what the National Academy of Science, an organization that in 2008 listed its membership as about 9% believers, 21% agnostics and 70% atheists wrote in "Science, Evolution, and Creationism," the guidebook for the public on the teaching of evolution in U.S. public schools, (page 12):
Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways.Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.
Denigrating others' views is unnecessary to answer the question, which is all I was objecting to - what you believe personally is your own affair.
| Quote: |
Like some of them, perhaps, but medieval people were not all that blind. Chaucer, for example, is well known for his detestation of alchemists, writing that they were con men. His "Canon's Yeoman's Tale" explores this, as do some of his other writings. |
Let's not create an idea that the "intelligentsia" were closet atheists. Chaucer was skeptical of *everyone* - clergy, nobility, alchemists. He was a gadfly; a 14th c combination of P J O'Rourke and Mike Royko. His being skeptical of alchemists doesn't mean he was skeptical of the medieval understanding of natural philosophy, from which alchemy is derived. His criticism of corrupt churchmen doesn't mean he was an atheist.
But men like Rudolph II of Bohemia, Federigo da Montefeltro of Urbino, Christian I of Denmark and Dom Duarte of Portugal don't have personal alchemists and astrologers as "metaphysical beards". They had them there because these schools of thought and occult sciences were a part of the intellectual current of the time, and these men were multi-lingual, highly educated intellectuals.
Marsillio Ficino and Pico della Mirandola were two of the most regarded thinkers and writers of the 15th century, and they wrote on alchemy and the cabala, as well as ethics, moral philosophy and rational science. They are some of the great thinkers of the Italian Renaissance and were both devout Christians and the driving force behind the Neoplatonism of the period.
Giordano Bruno did an excellent job of intuitively postulating an early form of atomic theory - based on the study of the Hermetica which had been rediscovered and was extremely influential in the highest circles of learning in Renaissance Europe. Certainly, important enough to have influenced Galileo.
The work of Dame Francis Yates ( "Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition," and the "Art of Memory") are immediately relevant to this discussion and helps show just how much things that we might now call "magic" were simply considered elements of science, folk religion, "natural magic" or all three. For a simple look at the medieval mindset, the best introduction still remains "The Discarded Image" by Lewis.
| Quote: | | Thus, it is not too much to hope that Talhoffer also knew that the magic he was peddling was nonsense, especially since so many people (presumably including Talhoffer) knew that divine intervention and magic had no effect whatsoever on judicial combat--which is one reason so many people argued against it. |
Actually, members of the CHURCH argued against trial by combat the most vociferously, based on *scripture*. We should recall that trial by ordeal and trial by battle both were introduced from outside of the Christian Church and coexisted with it in a very uneasy way for a millennium. So you see, much as the National Academy notes, the same conclusion can be reached from two different sets of data:
1) Practical observation - "the little guy always seems to lose to the big guy";
2) Spiritual belief - the nature and method of the duel is not supported by scripture, so there is nothing that says God will fight for someone. (Indeed, that could be argued to be an abrogation of the Second Commandment.) Therefore, the duel will be determined by natural phenomena.
Again, I'm not stating my personal beliefs here, I am saying that we cannot project a post-modern, secular rationalism onto medieval people, and assume that when they agree with us, they thought like us and believed as we do.
But back to Talhoffer.... Believing that Talhoffer was a ‘secret rationalist’ is hard to reconcile against the evidence, which suggests that he was the most superstitious of the historic masters.
Let’s review:
1. He has astrology, spells, name magic and geomancy in at least two treatises.
2. Demons and other elements of Christian supernatural belief are shown in his illustrations.
3. Planetary lore is given a large exposition in the Thott manuscript.
This isn’t the allegory of Fiore or Kal’s figures – it’s magic, pure and simple, in a way that does not appear in most texts.
Compare that to someone like Kal or Falkner, who have the obligatory praise to the Virgin and a patron saint in their work, but is otherwise all business.
I said:
Likewise, arts like Katori Shinto Ryu and their "mystical junk", is esoteric Buddhism: a living faith with quite a few adherents. You may find their beliefs absurd, and they might say the same of your materialism. None of that helps answer the question.
You wrote:
| Quote: |
It does help answer the question when we are discussing the differences between Western and Eastern martial arts by showing those differences. |
No, Hugh. Showing that they have esoteric teachings as specific part of their system is relevant. Labeling it dismissively as "junk" does not - it is just baiting people.
| Quote: | | As for my materialism, it has the advantage of being provable in a laboratory, and thus cannot be labeled "absurd." |
That is what in philosophy is called "Positive Rationalism", making it interesting that in "A Different Department" one of its adherents would write:
Each field, each discipline, contains its assumptions, its criteria,its methodologies, its interpretive apparatus. These, in effect,constitute the "philosophy" or "philosophical matrix" of each discipline. Such considerations determine what is to count as being a portion of the discipline, what are to count as its valid procedures, what may be taken as evidence, what may be taken as having been established. The answers provided by any discipline presuppose a criterion as to what will count as an answer, how answers are to be sought, and when answers are to be accepted or rejected. Such fundamental questions, or metaquestions, are incapable of being resolved by the tools of the discipline, for the tools of the discipline presuppose them. These metaquestions are conceptually prior to the specialized questions, the answers to which depend in part upon them. Consider the following question: "What are the criteria of an acceptable scientific explanation?" That is not a question in science, but a question in the philosophy of science. Thermometers, balances
and microscopes do not suffice to respond.
In other words, we create our own laboratories. You are not a member of Katori Shinto Ryu, nor a student of esoteric buddhism. Neither am I. I personally, therefore, do not feel qualified to quantify it. Labeling something from the outside as "junk", because you *believe* that inherently, only shows your disdain and dismissal for something that was never even a part of this discussion until you made it so, and which to defend or refute is inherently off-topic. That's no different than someone saying that "which is as ridiculous as believing George Bush won Florida in 2000" or "as ridiculous as believing that Barack Hussein Obama was born on US soil", depending on your political slant - it has nothing to do with the discussion, but is included as a way to editorialize.
| Quote: |
To the extent a study is based on reality it has value: Some herbalism, for example, is perfectly valid, such as that which teaches us to extract aspirin from willow bark. Some "astrology" (or what would have been called such in the Middle Ages) gives real information about the motion of celestial objects, and was useful in planning agriculture. That is not mysticism, but proto-science. Any "study" based on supernatural forces is, obviously and demonstrably, nonsense, and is only worth studying to the extent that we need to know how these beliefs effected the people who lived in the Middle Ages. Thus, the distinction is not as unclear as you pretend it to be. If you can prove it in a lab it's a fact. If you can't, it's a con intended to fleece the gullible. Simple. |
I am afraid that the largest body of professional scientists in this country, most of whom are atheists, disagree with you. As I noted above:
Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that
conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways.Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.
You are "creating controversy where none needs to exist," because you *believe* it to be nonsense, and you *want* to make it an issue:
| Quote: | | The bottom line, however, is that we are fortunate in being able to ignore mystical mumbo jumbo (again, except insofar as we want to understand the culture of the day) in our techniques. We don't need ki, we have physics. Moreover, it is important to point out that these things are nonsense in order to prevent those who like the mystical aura of Eastern martial arts from trying to impose that kind of belief on what we do (and I've read of people trying to do so). |
You could simply have said, "whatever mysticism was attached to Western martial arts is not requisite to its study, except insofar as we want to understand the culture of the day". The comments "mumbo jumbo", "nonsense" and the idea that you have a mission to prove such things to be untrue, belies a specific desire to deride and denigrate anyone who thinks contrary. That would be fine on a skeptics or comparative religion forum, and there are areas where we'd agree and disagree.
But all the poster on a forum about swords, armour and their use wanted to know was what was present *historically*. Everyone else has done their best to answer that without personal commentary.
Greg Mele
Chicago Swordplay Guild
www.chicagoswordplayguild.com
www.freelanceacademypress.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Wed 26 Oct, 2011 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | Of all the medieval masters, Talhoffer is clearly the most esoterically and religiously minded:
- He's the only one to include name-related magic regarding fighting.
- He's the only one to include the Planetenkinder (Children of the Planets) lore.
- He makes use of religious imagery on a level not even approached by any of the other masters. Not only does he include many images of combatants praying before and after combat, there are numerous images of saints, the Virgin, and Christ answering those prayers.
- In the Thott manuscript a demonic imp-like figure is crawling on the face of a dead combatant. |
What you say is, obviously, very true (except point 3--more below), and is stipulated. But did he publish these things because he, himself, believed in them, or because he was trying to sucker in gullible fools? I don't know the answer for certain, so I'm not arguing either way, but the fact is that what he did would have looked the same whether he was devoutly superstitious and a great believer in the supernatural (as I believe you're implying) or if he was trying to con people. Frankly, modern religious con men go out of their way to be more apparently devout than those who seem to actually believe in their cant. The issue must, at best, be called undecided. As for why we don't see these kinds of things in other sources, that's obvious: The other masters were more honest.
As for point 3, Kal shows the same kind of prayer after fights, and Wilhalm shows demons and angels, so I don't think we can say he uses all that much more superstition than other sources with the exception of the astrological and numerological stuff in his 1443 and 1459 books--and it is as easy to believe those were intended to fool a credulous patron as it is to believe he included them because he believed them himself. Let's face it, the person least likely to believe in mumbo jumbo is the person using it every day, because he sees that it actually doesn't work day in and day out, whereas a gullible client probably only sees a single example of it. That's what drives my hope that Talhoffer, like Chaucer, knew this stuff to be fake. Otherwise, we must consider him a monumental idiot for believing in something which *obviously* didn't work, and which he must have seen not work over and over.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Mele
Industry Professional
Location: Chicago, IL USA Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 356
|
| Posted: Wed 26 Oct, 2011 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hugh,
You can't say:
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | I don't know the answer for certain, so I'm not arguing either way, but the fact is that what he did would have looked the same whether he was devoutly superstitious and a great believer in the supernatural (as I believe you're implying) or if he was trying to con people. ... The issue must, at best, be called undecided. |
And then say:
| Quote: | | As for why we don't see these kinds of things in other sources, that's obvious: The other masters were more honest. |
Because you are stating that you *do* know. I think Christian's point, as is mine, is that these are laboriously produced works, for educated men, and like it or not, a lot of what Talhoffer is including is being done at great expense *and* is not the superstition of folk magic, it is often a mix of standard Christian superstition (as opposed to actual dogma) and the esoterica of the educated classes.
Greg Mele
Chicago Swordplay Guild
www.chicagoswordplayguild.com
www.freelanceacademypress.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Wed 26 Oct, 2011 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Greg Mele wrote: | | No, they aren't. Atheism is not "provable" anymore than theism is. That is why it is labeled as a system of "belief". |
Greg, now you're going too far afield, and running into issues I don't want to have to answer because I wouldn't be able to be as positive and non-confronational as I have tried to be thus far (as hard to believe as that may seem to you, it's true); most of the issues you raise simply aren't relevent to this thread. If you would really like to have me explain to you why you are mistaken, please feel free to contact me offline and I will happily do so, but I refuse to get drawn into another of your abusive online flame wars. If you want to think that's because I can't easily disprove your arguments, you go right ahead, I shan't contradict you. Have fun!
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Renico
Location: Detroit Joined: 01 Feb 2009
Posts: 51
|
| Posted: Wed 26 Oct, 2011 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | (as hard to believe as that may seem to you, it's true) |
Pardon me, but he wouldn't be the only one. 
Seriously, the tone of this thread changed a bit once you started posting. Your messages have good information, but they take some effort to digest with their current flavor.
I'm hoping that things lighten up a little, as I was enjoying reading all of this and I'd like the thread to remain open.
"The state that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting by fools." -Thucydides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Wed 26 Oct, 2011 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Greg Mele wrote: | Hugh,
You can't say:
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | I don't know the answer for certain, so I'm not arguing either way, but the fact is that what he did would have looked the same whether he was devoutly superstitious and a great believer in the supernatural (as I believe you're implying) or if he was trying to con people. ... The issue must, at best, be called undecided. |
And then say:
| Quote: | | As for why we don't see these kinds of things in other sources, that's obvious: The other masters were more honest. |
Because you are stating that you *do* know. I think Christian's point, as is mine, is that these are laboriously produced works, for educated men, and like it or not, a lot of what Talhoffer is including is being done at great expense *and* is not the superstition of folk magic, it is often a mix of standard Christian superstition (as opposed to actual dogma) and the esoterica of the educated classes. |
You are absolutely right, I didn't put that as well as I should have, and for that I apologize. What I was trying to do is to offer a possible explanation as to why the other masters didn't include these kinds of materials. I was not asserting that the question on Talhoffer was decided, merely showing a possible reason why the others might not publish these kinds of superstitious nonsense when Talhoffer did. I realize I wrote that clumsily and made it sound as though the issue about Talhoffer was clear, but that was not my intent.
I say it again: I do *not* know whether Talhoffer was stupid enough to believe in the superstition he published or if he was a con man selling a bundle of goods to gullible fools. I firmly believe the issue must be considered undecided. I will only say that the obvious fact that he *must* have seen it fail over and over again makes me *hope* the latter is true, and gives me some reason to believe it might be, especially since we have sources like Chaucer that show medieval people understood that many such men were crooks.
As for saying that these works were intended for educated people, that's beside the point. There are plenty of well educated people today who still believe in all sorts of superstitious nonsense, education notwithstanding (you can lead a horse to water...), even though any reasonable person does not. The fact that *most* educated people see through a thing does not prove that *all* educated people do, and a con man lives on that percentage of difference.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Wed 26 Oct, 2011 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stephen Renico wrote: | | Hugh Knight wrote: | | (as hard to believe as that may seem to you, it's true) |
Pardon me, but he wouldn't be the only one.
Seriously, the tone of this thread changed a bit once you started posting. Your messages have good information, but they take some effort to digest with their current flavor.
I'm hoping that things lighten up a little, as I was enjoying reading all of this and I'd like the thread to remain open. |
So, in other words, when I refer to the belief that you can determine where someone will be wounded based upon his name and the time of day as "mystical nonsense" and "mumbo jumbo" you find that offensive? How could it be offensive to anyone except someone so lost to reason as to believe it? It *is* nonsense, and it *is* meaningless mumbo jumbo. I'm sorry, that just isn't open to debate. Am I scornful about it? Sure. So should we all be.
I have not directed a single perjorative term toward anyone on this list, not even by implication, and I've gone out of my way not to connect modern superstitions with medieval ones, just so as to avoid hurting anyone's feelings (and I only hint at this here to show you what I've avoided discussing, both to keep from hurting people's feelings and to avoid a subject which is simply not relevent to this thread). So yes, I've worked very hard to be positive and considerate. I'm disappointed that this isn't clear because I'm trying very hard not to be offensive--which is why I refused to follow Greg into his side discussion.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Renico
Location: Detroit Joined: 01 Feb 2009
Posts: 51
|
| Posted: Wed 26 Oct, 2011 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | someone will be wounded ... "mystical nonsense"... "mumbo jumbo" ... It *is* nonsense.. meaningless mumbo jumbo... that just isn't open to debate. |
Um... okay. 
Your Honor, the Defense rests. (sigh)
"The state that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting by fools." -Thucydides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Mele
Industry Professional
Location: Chicago, IL USA Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 356
|
| Posted: Wed 26 Oct, 2011 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hugh,
All I am trying to do is ask you to quit imposing your religious beliefs onto medieval people and to use them denigrate living beliefs because they don't jell with your own. We can disagree with the former, the latter is just courtesy - the original poster himself indicated that my concerns were correct. When you are lumping in Buddhism as Buddhist beliefs you know little about as 'mumbo jumbo we should all be scornful of', then that *is* beyond the discussion of the thread.
You won't address the points I made because it is "too far afield". Well, my point was that editorializing that a belief in the supernatural, be that astrology or God, is the trope of fools and rubes, and insisting that we have an obligation to protect WMA from belief is *too far afield* for this thread and this forum. I'm not flaming you, I'm asking you not to be needlessly inflammatory.
Greg
Greg Mele
Chicago Swordplay Guild
www.chicagoswordplayguild.com
www.freelanceacademypress.com
Last edited by Greg Mele on Wed 26 Oct, 2011 5:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic