tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14473417.post5602168848798440574..comments2024-03-28T03:31:42.278-07:00Comments on Chiron: Without ContentionRoryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08483616030072739190noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14473417.post-50185295175110204712008-03-11T16:37:00.000-07:002008-03-11T16:37:00.000-07:00Ah. Well, there we go. Nine pillow aardvark it is,...Ah. Well, there we go. Nine pillow aardvark it is, then.<BR/><BR/>I believe that just evoking an emotional response and not making sense kinda limits your communication possibilities, but that's just how many of us see it, here on our planet.<BR/><BR/>You seem to be able to make the Kessel run in twelve parsecs. Good luck with that. Stick a fork in us ...Steve Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12079658447270792228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14473417.post-4126071629760482002008-03-10T21:57:00.000-07:002008-03-10T21:57:00.000-07:00It is difficult to express emotions in a post, and...It is difficult to express emotions in a post, and inner truths are not, in my opinion, rational, but emotional. It is why so few people really understand zen, et al - because understanding is rational; true understanding is emotional; reality-understanding (if you accept a 'one-reality underlies all' concept) is knowing-ness, beyond knowing or feeling (I am not a 'religious' person, so will not address this deeply personal and divisive issue). Thus, trying to explain, let alone teach, the emotionality of violence is difficult. One can study and practice 'combat' for decades but until your life, and others' lives, are separated by a single moment, one can never truly know this aspect of 'reality'. So, I speak in 'conundrums' to evoke emotional responses in people; it is not even necessary for me to make 'sense' - if 'phonebooth nine pillow aardvark' gets an emotional reaction, my writing has done it's job. MacAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14473417.post-24729077700683864512008-03-09T17:34:00.000-07:002008-03-09T17:34:00.000-07:00The best writing is that which conveys the writer'...The best writing is that which conveys the writer's *meaning* the best. While it isn't good to use three words when one will better serve, neither is it good to use one when three are necessary.<BR/><BR/>If you want to say, "Life is like a hamburger." then I need a little more than that to get the drift.<BR/><BR/>Because I have found my inner truth doesn't mean that a reader has, and if I fail to put my truth into words she or he can relate to meaningfully, then I'm failing as a writer.<BR/><BR/>If they don't get it, it's either because I didn't say it right, they didn't understand it right, or some combination of the two. I can fix some of that by writing better. <BR/><BR/>Gobbledegook doesn't automatically equate to minimal, true enough. But the simple-is-complex-complex-is-simple argument leaves much about which reasonable men might argue. And I am disagreeing with it. <BR/><BR/>Yeah, zen is great, and sure, the post was tired, too, but not everybody gets to make that leap right out of the box. <BR/><BR/>No beating around the bush, I just think you are not getting across whatever it is you are trying to say. Could be my fault, I have to allow for that. <BR/><BR/>But where I come from, A is not non-A.Steve Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12079658447270792228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14473417.post-50330071446384232792008-03-09T12:30:00.000-07:002008-03-09T12:30:00.000-07:00"Share my perspective" - one of the greatest metap..."Share my perspective" - one of the greatest metaphors ever written for, "if you don't knock off the s@#t, I'll kick your a$$." <BR/><BR/>The best writing is the most minimal; the greatest content is in a single word. People blow off minimism as 'gobble-de-gook' (a great and very meaningful single word) or psychobabble because they haven't gotten to their own inner truths. Most writing then tends to be a method to try and get at one's own truth or convince others that (mostly oneself) that one has value. Or, to create an effect in others. Thus, the simplest is the most complex, but complexity, in writing, in fighting, in living is actually the simplest. Perspective. Mac<BR/><BR/>Thus:Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14473417.post-57676491798485974102008-03-07T21:21:00.000-08:002008-03-07T21:21:00.000-08:00I really like what you're talking about, essential...I really like what you're talking about, essentially maintaining a broad frame of reference (basically, what compassion is), but, how did/do you train to get there when violent situations rapidly narrow that frame? Is it just lots of practice?<BR/><BR/>Did you ever get emotionally traumatized from a violent encounter? Because that really locks a person into a certain magnification or frame of reference and keeps him from varying it, and I would imagine that then the reaction to any similar events would be the same again and again. How do you escape from that vicious cycle?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14473417.post-26087037925405622192008-03-07T09:18:00.000-08:002008-03-07T09:18:00.000-08:00Bobbe-If there is something I disagree with, it is...Bobbe-<BR/>If there is something I disagree with, it is this "The traditionalist will look to the narrow confines of his teachings and lineage for answers, the free thinker will look to his own heart." IME an individual heart is more likely to be limited than the accumulated perspectives of several people. A traditionalist who just blindly accepts and turns off his brain is just whistling in the dark, turning to something else for comfort from what scares him- the average is slightly pathetic and helpless, a follower; the extreme becomes a fanatic. Someone who automatically turns to his 'own heart' especially in the face of contradictory evidence can go just as wrong. The average for this is entitled, whiny and just as helpless. The extreme is an ego maniac bigotry.<BR/>Maybe it's not a disagreement so much as I've seen both paths go terribly wrong.<BR/><BR/>David- If both things in the paradox are real it's not a paradox. It doesn't take focus to see them, it takes focus to choose to be willfully blind to one of them. Yu can look at things from the universal perspective or the big picture or smaller and smaller degrees of magnification. At each stage you see different things. If you take any technique and break it down far enough, it's impossible- an infinitely complex array of energy and molecules and micromuscles and ... if you look at it too big, it's irrelevant: "what is a simple foot sweep in the interplay of galaxies and suns?" I like to look at things in roughly human-sized chunks, but often just a bit broader: what will beating him do to his mind and heart? Can I defeat (cuff) him in such a way that he is grateful? It works! That's the biggest argument I can make for it. Try to figure out what level of magnification you look at things and then play with adjust ing it a few notches. I considered it here:<BR/>http://chirontraining.blogspot.com/2006/12/complexity.html<BR/><BR/>Hope that helps a bit. It's valuable, but seeing things in a new way is hard.Roryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08483616030072739190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14473417.post-8642055408989499262008-03-07T07:25:00.000-08:002008-03-07T07:25:00.000-08:00How do you hold the mental space of seeming parado...How do you hold the mental space of seeming paradox, i.e. vicious criminal and respectable person, simultaneously? How do you maintain a centered stance and not get drawn into the game he plays which is the same game that maybe a lot of people on your own team play? It seems like it takes a certain kind of focus to be able to encompass all of that in a violent moment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14473417.post-74370910367506486072008-03-06T09:59:00.000-08:002008-03-06T09:59:00.000-08:00And, of course, Rory is right. We can agree about ...And, of course, Rory is right. We can agree about nine things and not the tenth, which in our case is usually true. The reason the tenth becomes the point of discussion is because there's not much point in preaching to the choir.<BR/><BR/>If you make a comment and I think it's valid, then what you get is an "Amen," or a silent nod. Most of what Rory says most of the time resonates with me that way.<BR/><BR/>Shoot, even some of what Bobbe says does, too.<BR/><BR/>Where I pipe up is usually because what got said wasn't said clearly and it raises a question, or I think I do understand and I simply disagree. This goes to both style and substance.<BR/><BR/>I got nothing against Mac. I simply don't agree with how he presents his view of the world. If I ask for clarity, it's because I'm no sure he's saying what I think he's saying. If I think it's gobbledegook, then that's what I'll call it. No hidden agenda here.<BR/><BR/>Rory and Bobbe are writers. They don't get as much slack when they say something; I expect better of them than I do somebody who isn't a writer. Yeah, it's an imperfect medium, but it is what it is, and writers need to be closer to the limits of the envelope than non-writers. <BR/><BR/>In workshops, when stories go around the circle, the newbies tend to get strokes and gentle encouragement from anybody with half a brai; the pros get whacked pretty good. I can usually tell by the end of the first paragraph with what level of writer I'm dealing, and I tailor my comments accordingly. If you are a professional-class writer, you get professional-level criticism. I don't pull the punches, because you are better served by this than by the strokes. Hard love ...<BR/><BR/>Plus I am a lifelong iconoclast, and anytime somebody throws out something that is claimed as fact, I want to see evidence. Worse than being from Missouri, where you just have to show them. I'm from Louisiana, you have to show it, I need to smell it, touch it, grok it. <BR/><BR/>If you are a good writer, that's your job. As a fellow writer and editor, making sure you do that is part of my job.Steve Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12079658447270792228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14473417.post-37664804341458273412008-03-06T04:29:00.000-08:002008-03-06T04:29:00.000-08:00I was gonna comment on the last post, but this one...I was gonna comment on the last post, but this one is more relevant. Also, Steve beat me to the punch.<BR/><BR/>My first inclination was to say "Rory, your post started on the same mine did, but you went off on a tangent."<BR/><BR/>(For those unaware, a tangent is NOT a rant...It's the point a straight line intersects with a circle. Like going down another path at a crossroads. I could have just let it go with that, but "tangent" is fun to say, plus I enjoy throwing my vocabulary in everyones face.)<BR/><BR/>Then I realized what I said had actually inspired a new path altogether. Which is what you said here.<BR/><BR/>My whole point in the first place was simply stated in the middle of my blog post: "Habit and tradition should not be above criticism, nor should the dead rule the living." Everything I wrote before and after was pretty much a supporting argument. <BR/><BR/>Your post here on the consequences of publicly agreeing or disagreeing does happen to tie in with that: The people who instantly turn to the "This means war!" frame of mind are often from the crowd who tend to follow tradition. I say that because a free thinker looks at each individual and occurrence objectively, as a single entity of happenstance. The traditionalist comes with pre-programmed instructions on how to handle things, and must return to the higher source (Martial Arts teacher, mystic Guru, commanding officer, etc) for the answers he doesn't posses. <BR/><BR/>The traditionalist will look to the narrow confines of his teachings and lineage for answers, the free thinker will look to his own heart.<BR/><BR/>This isn't carved in stone of course, there are exceptions to every rule, but I have seen the phenomenon over and again too often to disregard it.Bobbe Edmondshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14346040017021718774noreply@blogger.com