Discussion in 'Tae-Kwon-Do' started by puunui, Jan 4, 2011.
Speak for yourself.
Glenn, how much time did you spend training at the Chung Do Kwan circa 1944?
Like I said it is all up to what people want to believe and what sets of facts, puuniu and Karatemom have been going back in forth forever and both have there beliefs. Some believe the other knows nothing while some are trying to see outside there world.
Glen if you nnotice I was speaken for myself and making an observation of what I believe to be. Sorry if you are the only one that believes everything you have ever been told about TKD, it seems if anybody has a different opinion they are wrong and you are right, geez wonder how come you are the only one right? I enjoy listening and learninmg but there are way to many people that have a different view that you and they all cannot be wrong.
I for one am very thankful for what Puunui has shared with us via this forum & the work he has done with, for & behalf of TKD. All can benefit from this.
We do know that TKD, while it started from the same shared common roots, it has developed along different paths. Much of the discussion has been long 2 of the major paths, the ITF & KTA/KKW/WTF. Therefore it is logical & common sense to see that these respective developments will be different & not better. It is somewhat disappointing when we are to think that we are all TKD, we should all work together, but there is some animosity still held for the other side(s).
Many, many individuals have dome such great things over the years to give the world this wonderful thing we call TKD. I for one see no reason why credit should not be given to all. I certainly see no reason to put down anyone or any side.
Going back & forth can be very helpful, if the exchanges contain good info, & avoid negativity & becoming personal.
Quote:Originally Posted by terryl965
Nobody really knows anything except what they have been told, I guess it is all up to one's interpitation of things.
A very big part of evaluating info given or provided by a source, is to check its veracity against other sources. There are 3 sides to every story, Side "A"s & Side "Z"s that we are given & the all important "Side In Between". So it is also helpful to gather info from not just 1 side, but the other, along with as many others as you can, in putting the pieces of the puzzle together. We all know how confusing the history of TKD is & of the many reasons why it was not recorded properly & accurately. We can do something positive about that.
Sure, and that's very helpful when deciding on what to believe. But it's not the same thing as coming to knowledge about a particular person or event.
As I said before, there's nothing wrong with believeing something one doesn't (or can't) know for sure. We do it all the time. Sometimes our beliefs are later vindicated, sometimes they are shown to have been false, and very often we simply go through life never knowing one way or the other as to their truth or falsity. One of the problems, however, is when some people think they know something when they just believe it.
I understand you believe all of the above, but it doesn't mean you know it to be true.
Not the first part of your statement, where you make a generalized point applicable to everyone.
I don't believe everything that I have been told about Taekwondo.
If you have any facts to support your position, then I would like to hear them. But if all you are doing is voicing your "opinion", without supporting facts.... There is a difference between discussing facts and voicing opinion without facts. Please don't get upset with me because I support my position with facts, and the other side does not.
Yes, and the dynamic has been I present facts, Mr.Karatemom does not but instead misconstrues or misstates my facts, I then have to waste time correcting the misstatement, then Mr.Karatemom goes off on seven koreans, six kwans, giving credit to General Choi, nasty korean politics, etc. which had nothing to do with the original discussion. And if you had been following the discussion, you would see that.
Oh, that's odd. You were talking like you knew things from that era.
Since the things I stated are in no way controversial but are pretty basic elements of epistemology I'd be very interested in hearing what part of my post you think I don't have knowledge about but only belief. To make this easier for you, I will repost it. To wit:
Do you think I only believe but don't know that checking statements made by various people against others is a good thing but doesn't rise to the level of knowledge?
Do you think I only believe but don't know that there's nothing wrong with believing something even if you don't know it (provided you have a justified reason for doing so)?
Do you think I believe but don't know that sometimes we come to knowledge about a thing and then we gain knowledge about the thing in question which either vindicates or abrogates our previously held belief?
Do you think that I believe but don't know that sometimes we never come to knowledge abotu a thing we believe?
Do you think that I believe but don't know that sometimes people think they know something but really only believe it?
Thanks in advance for answering my questions.
Chris - side note... what does "Pax" mean in your sig?
Latin for "peace."
I do. Being there isn't the only way. There are for example, lots of photos from the era and even after which show what the training was like at the Chung Do Kwan.
I don't know what you believe. And I don't really care all that much, at least with respect to the above, since it has nothing to do with me and my path. I'm happy with my approach to research, and so are a lot of other people, even if you wish to concern yourself with the above. All that stuff above adds nothing to the conversation, except noise. People want to hear facts, not the above. I gave you a simple example, GM Son's stance. If you wish to characterize that as belief vs. knowledge, go ahead. But it doesn't change the fact that GM Son's stances are much wider than what was going on at the Chung Do Kwan during the 1940's.
Right, because photos are always totally clear about what they show.
I'll give you this, Glenn, people want to hear facts. But they also want to know what they're hearing is a fact. Despite your protestations to the contrary you haven't offered any proof that you've actually heard the things you say. Less so have you offered any proof that what you say is true. Your inability to answer my questions is telling, however.
I have noticed, too, that you do get a bit testy whenever someone disagrees with you. Perhaps this is because you view yourself as senior to everybody else here. You've already stated that juniors should respect their seniors and that it's not for the junior to determine whether a senior is worthy of respect or not. Which is odd given your disrespectful posts towards Gen. Choi. Maybe you hold yourself to a different standard; what's OK for you is not OK for others?
Ok. no problem. No one said you had to believe me or even read my posts. And by the way, what the pioneers have told me isn't the only basis for my "proof". I cite to many things that are easily available to others, including but not limited to General Choi's books. You read the parts that I quoted. Do you still think I offered no proof of what he said? But that's ok, like I said, no problem.
I don't know if I am the most senior here. I don't think so. I do "believe" that I am more senior that you though, right? Also, what you describe as "testy", others, such as the people who run MT, describe it as "passionate". They want me here, they like me here, MT Taekwondo section is very different since my arrival. But I don't really "know", that's just what they tell me.
As for your judgment of me as being disrespectful to General Choi, I asked my senior about that and their response was that I was not disrespecting General Choi, General Choi disrespected himself with his lies, and that I was showing respect to my seniors by calling him on his lies.123
Separate names with a comma.