Thinking Practitioners

I read something a while back on a forum that was discussing an encounter between some guy and another, one of whom practices YSB. I guess they decided to play patty-cake and see who would come out on top, and YSB guy: not so much. Based on the kinds of things I wrote in my recent post: The Best Martial Art, I'm comfortable saying that I don't really give a crap about how things went there, though to the author's credit, he seems to have run into his own share of "our art is better then the rest" from the guy labeled "not so much." So why am I writing this?

Well, the dude that won this game of tag was the poster on said forum, and he carried an attitude that kind of irked me (as folks on such forums tend to do, hence that being about the fifth time in my life to have been on one). Moreover, he said something that I've been chewing on for a while about the type of folks that seem attracted to Yin Style, at least in the study group that he interacted with. I don't recall the exact wording and kind of refuse to look it up (because its ridiculous), but it goes something like this: "...with a white, middle-class, Nietzsche-reading philosophy major flair." He went on to say that he met He Jinbao one time and that he was thereupon "complimented on his Chinese" (and nothing more about the meeting). That amounts to a rhetorical slap (via a form of paralipsis) at the entire style that's hardly warranted, particularly considering how Jinbao probably acted in the actual meeting: cordial if not friendly.

This is strange to me. It's pretty clear that the guy's tone is pejorative in accusing these folks of being of the "middle-class, Nietzsche-reading philosophy major" ilk, not that this particular group of people is usually associated with fighting prowess. Still... I would guess it's fair to assume he means a particular kind of person by this description, that, devoid of other characteristics or demographics, I can't help but guess includes the descriptor: "intelligent."

But isn't that what one might want in a martial artist?

Though controversial enough in its own right, B.K. Frantzis (who also looks a bit like a white, middle-class, Nietzsche-reading philosopher kind), who is considered an authority on (internal) martial arts would argue so. His basic premise (as I read it in the book in the previous link) is that a big part of the idea of an internal art is to take fighting man as animal and elevate him to fighting man as human and then to fighting man as thinker. I think fairly he points out that while animals have a significant number of advantages in fighting, humans uniquely possess a degree of intelligence that grants us access to a sort of superiority. Furthermore, I tend to agree that by training an internal martial art, we connect that intellect with the fighter and grant him access to that superiority. I've heard a number of respectable folks say, "B.K. Frantzis... don't get me started on that guy," in tones that suggest that maybe I shouldn't read too much into what he has to say, but I've heard the same number of respectable folks, in virtue of those being the same respectable folks, say similar-sounding things to what I just attributed to Frantzis.

That leads me, as things often will, to a ponderance: Is being the thinking type really a negative in the martial arts world? and if so, why? I too frequently hear people talking about the virtues of being a "smart fighter," though a good bit of the time I wouldn't describe the person in question as being an intellectual. Maybe it's a matter of pragmatism: less theorizing and more acting because all the theory in the world isn't worth even a little bit of developed skill. In addition, there are a few too many white, middle-class, Neitzsche-reading, philosophy-major types out there that get into the esoterica of "internal martial arts" (typefaced as hoo-doo to illustrate their greater interest in the mystery of the Far Eastern occult than in anything concrete, particularly when "concrete" means difficult but worthwhile to train). Of course, I label those people as "kung-fu tards" and seriously wish they'd get real and stop giving the rest of us a bad image.

Ah well... I suppose this post was a rant as much as anything. Being an intellectual that enjoys martial arts (and white and middle-class, though not so much into Neitzsche but well-read enough to be able to say that), maybe I just had a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to reading that, or maybe it ate at insecurities that I have thanks to growing up a bit nerdy. On the other hand, I see direct value in chewing on (mulling over) what I'm training as well as the potential end result of that approach. Perhaps having seen that end result explains the apophatic rhetorical style of the author of the post that prompted mine. As a number of respectable folks would say: "Whatever gets you to sleep at night," I guess.