"Which of you by taking thought....?"

[exile]

The Nobels for physics have been announced, and I thought the story had some interesting implications for us MAists. Look at the reaction of the three Japanese physicists who shared the prize. One says, he had pretty much given up any hope of it, by this point. One says, hey, I was just doing what I like to do. And the third one says... "Big deal!!" Different reactions, but all three illustrate the point of one of my favorite quotations from the New Testament: "Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?"

The prize was awarded for one of the most profound insights, and surprising followups, in all science: the concept of physical symmetries (which is kind of the norm, since all conserved quantities in nature are associated with a symmetry), and the fact that there are spectacular examples where those symmetries are broken, even thought the laws of physics themselves are symmetrical—the idea is, yes, the laws, expressed by certain equations, are symmetrical, but particular solutions are not. This discovery of 'broken symmetry' has been the foundation of modern physics, and note that these discoveries were made just shy of half a century ago, and only twelve years later, amongst the three winners. It took the Nobel Committee in the vicinity of 36 to 48 years to get around to honoring these guys. Did their colleagues need to wait till this year to recognize how outstanding their achievements were? Did it suddenly make them great, in their own or anyone else's eyes, when they got The Phone Call from Stockholm? Pretty bloody unlikely—this stuff is the theoretical lifeblood of every working physicist in high-energy/fundamental physics. The late hour of the award, especially for Nambu at 87 years old, might be a reflection on the wisdom of the Nobel Committee (and there's plenty of grounds to question that wisdom, or even their good intentions), but never on what these guys did.

Now look at the rank-hogging, posturing and pretense that we see so often in the MAs, with people strutting around at way-inflated belt levels, or arguing bitterly who was the designated lineage-carrier, or who was so-and-so's favorite student or got the Good Stuff that so-and-so reserved only for an elite in-group, or stuff like that... it's not a MA thing exclusively, but we do see an awful lot of it in the MAs. And it makes me wonder, does anyone think that in reality they've added one tiny little bit to their stature when they get an extra bit of paper distinction? The physicists who won the prize this year pretty much knew who, and how good, they were, and their fellow physicists knew who and how good they were, without the Nobel. That's pretty much true for all of us, I think—you get to a certain point and people know just what you have (and haven't) done, and 'taking thought' (i.e., worrying, fretting, rationalizing) isn't going to change it one bit. I just wonder why so many people in our neck of the woods seem not to recognize that... :idunno:

 

[terryl965]

Exile we have talked about this so much and I agree 100%, so many people have so many diferent views and some feel the need to boost there own ego's so much.

 

[jarrod]

like many things, it comes down to feelings of insecurity. i have a friend who was very skinny, then got into bodybuilding. he made the observation that a lot of people get into bodybuilding because they feel insecure. then they end up insecure, but with really big muscles.

i think this is probably the same for many martial artists.

jf

 

[celtic_crippler]

like many things, it comes down to feelings of insecurity. i have a friend who was very skinny, then got into bodybuilding. he made the observation that a lot of people get into bodybuilding because they feel insecure. then they end up insecure, but with really big muscles.

i think this is probably the same for many martial artists.

jf

Which tells me that lack faith in their art...... maybe they should try a different art? LOL

 

[Sukerkin]

Or most certainly a different approach to their art .

For me, rank is irrelevant to my enjoyment of what I practise.

It's only utility is when it comes to discussing interpretation of technique with others or passing on technique during instruction. Then it accrues a certain degree of gravitas amongst those that don't know you personally.

 

[exile]

Good and correct observations, folks—I like that comment from jarrod's friend, about being insecure vs. being insecure with big muscles. It reminds me of an old joke: give coffee to a drunk and all you get is a wide-awake drunk.

The thing about that kind of insecurity is it's never satisfied. No matter how many honors or how much rank you throw at it, it is never quite convinced that it's up to standard... it must be hard to live like that. I've got colleagues who are the same way. They're very senior, they're going to retire in anywhere from five to ten years at most... and they still do everything they can to rack up honors and distinctions that, so far as I can see, don't connect with the really important stuff: how good was your work really? How much did it influence ongoing work in the field? Will people still be citing what you did twenty years from now? And so on.

So much of the time, the people whose work really counts are the ones who go their own sweet way following a particular intuition about how nature works. Sometimes the importance of their life's work isn't really fully appreciated till long after their deaths. In his own lifetime, Telemann, who is now considered mostly pleasant Baroque background music, was far more popular than Bach, who many regard as the most profound figure in the history of Western music, its greatest genius. This whole business of external honors vs. the judgment of history... there's such a huge mismatch, so many times. We know this. It's too bad that people are so insecure, but the truth is, all the anxious worrying about how people see you is not going to actually make you better, or more important really, than your own efforts make you.

So much needless strife in the MAs comes about because people are more worried about how others see them than how good they are in actuality.

 

[MBuzzy]

Unfortunately, I think that in the Martial Arts, we build this into our own students. We are so rank conscious and yet we don't do anything to prepare people for their ranks. It is inevitable that people will behave how they saw those above them behave. So if the ranks above are validated by their ranks and don't show the responsibility required, the lower ranks will do the same.

The realization that your rank is nothing more than a piece of paper, is unfortunately a revelation that many don't reach until they are much older and up into the very high ranks. To most people, every rank is just another step towards outranking more people - and much of this need for validation comes directly from the power that you have over people.

 

[exile]

Unfortunately, I think that in the Martial Arts, we build this into our own students. We are so rank conscious and yet we don't do anything to prepare people for their ranks. It is inevitable that people will behave how they saw those above them behave. So if the ranks above are validated by their ranks and don't show the responsibility required, the lower ranks will do the same.

The realization that your rank is nothing more than a piece of paper, is unfortunately a revelation that many don't reach until they are much older and up into the very high ranks. To most people, every rank is just another step towards outranking more people - and much of this need for validation comes directly from the power that you have over people.

Very good point, Craig.

That realization that you talk about—what people sometime call the 'small still voice within', usually meaning moral conscience, but which I think extends further than that—is I think a hard one to accept. I agree: a lot of people's sense of the importance of rank is tangled up with this idea of power, authority and control—yours over other people, and theirs over you. I'm very lucky: my own instructor has no interest at all in domination or control of anyone. He loves TKD, he's a technical perfectionist who subjects himself to constant correction, along with his students, and whose great satisfaction comes from getting those students to reach the next level of their own potential. A man like that has no need, or desire, to make others look small relative to himself in order to feel good about himself. But we all know plenty of people in the MAs, some very senior, who are quite different from that description; and we also know a lot of people who need to be seen as very senior. I see it enough in the academic world as well that I've come to think it may represent a kind of universal dark side of the Force in any activity where difference in power is connected to difference in presumed level of knowledge.

Is this kind of thing inevitable, do you think? Is it something we just have to live with?

 

[kidswarrior]

So much of the time, the people whose work really counts are the ones who go their own sweet way following a particular intuition about how nature works. Sometimes the importance of their life's work isn't really fully appreciated till long after their deaths....This whole business of external honors vs. the judgment of history... there's such a huge mismatch, so many times. We know this. It's too bad that people are so insecure, but the truth is, all the anxious worrying about how people see you is not going to actually make you better, or more important really, than your own efforts make you.

So much needless strife in the MAs comes about because people are more worried about how others see them than how good they are in actuality.

Well, exile, as usual I can't think of anything to add to what you've said, at least not on the philosophical level. Maybe just my own wrestling match with this idea.

Misspent my 30s chasing--and finding some--*success*. Fortunately, that turned out to be smoke and mirrors, and through the gift of a bankruptcy, came to see that 'success' and 'meaning' were, for me at least, diametrically opposed.

I'll also tell on myself that even though discovering this at around 40, it took another 10 years to truly let go of chasing success (no longer used a financial scorecard, but still an 'achievement and prestige' way of keeping count). After 50, life became less about changing the world (and making sure to get credit for it ) and more about changing my very tiny corner of it.

 

[jarrod]

Which tells me that lack faith in their art...... maybe they should try a different art? LOL

funny you mentioned that...i always remember something that happened as a green belt about ten years ago early in my martial arts training. i was practicing a style that emphasized low, deep stances. the assitant sensei was telling a white belt she needed to lower her stances "like the green belt here" (meaning me) so that she would have better balance. to prove his point he lightly kicked the back of my lead leg & i almost fell on my ***. the white belt said, "but he almost fell down!" the instructor said, "no, he kept his balance, don't argue!" and me, i knew i almost fell down but i didn't say anything. the white belt didn't have enough invested in our training to be attatched to what we were learning; i was in deep enough that i had my doubts, but wouldn't discuss them, & the black belt did't want to doubt something he had believed during his entire trainig. so i can see how if someone gets too invested, it's easier on the ego to dive into belts & certificates than to admit your gaps & go back to square one.

In his own lifetime, Telemann, who is now considered mostly pleasant Baroque background music, was far more popular than Bach, who many regard as the most profound figure in the history of Western music, its greatest genius. This whole business of external honors vs. the judgment of history...

it's so good to hear that. i often tell my former bandmates that we were too awesome to be popular. maybe we weren't as awesome as i remember, but we didn't deserve to be upstaged by a band that played steve miller covers with their shirts off.

jf

 

[exile]

Well, exile, as usual I can't think of anything to add to what you've said, at least not on the philosophical level. Maybe just my own wrestling match with this idea.

Misspent my 30s chasing--and finding some--*success*. Fortunately, that turned out to be smoke and mirrors, and through the gift of a bankruptcy, came to see that 'success' and 'meaning' were, for me at least, diametrically opposed.

I'll also tell on myself that even though discovering this at around 40, it took another 10 years to truly let go of chasing success (no longer used a financial scorecard, but still an 'achievement and prestige' way of keeping count). After 50, life became less about changing the world (and making sure to get credit for it ) and more about changing my very tiny corner of it.

From what I think I can tell about you from your posts, KW, I'd bet high that you've been very successful in areas that really matter. My sense is that people whose main concern is what other people think, and how other people view them, are the ones who are less likely to achieve things of lasting value, because their energies are directed at the management of other people's views of them. In the MAs, and in the academic world as well, you see this with people who seem to be more concerned with making you see how important they are than with actually changing our picture of the world.

So—just as an example—I look at someone like Iain Abernethy, who's worked tirelessly to give us a new, fresh view of what the combat information content of katas really consists of, and how to extract that content from the forms—how to decode kata, how to read them in the concealed language in which they were 'written'. I read his books and newsletters, watch his DVDs, listen to his podcasts, and it's clear to me: this is a guy with no false vanity or sense of self-importance at all, anywhere. He's making a living at this, but his professional energy and passion come from his pleasure in discovery, and being able to transmit those discoveries to those who are themselves secure enough in their own knowledge to listen to what is, for a lot of people, still a very new approach. I think he's a fifth dan, but the last thing you base your assessment of someone like IA on is his paper rank: he's clearly a deep thinker with huge practical experience and first-rate problem solving skills, helping us rethink the karate-based MAs more than a century after Itosu launched karate on the wide world through the Okinawan school system. And I have the same sort of impression about Stuart Anslow and Simon O'Neill, who have applied those kinds of analytic methods in an imaginative and creative way to the practical problem of TKD forms and their combat content. These people are in it for the love of the art, and for the satisfaction of solving difficult problems and showing us what really lives inside those forms. I contrast this kind of definition of success with... well, it's not hard to think of plenty of people in our neck of the woods who have a very different kind of view of what makes one successful and important, eh?

I'm not saying that the only true success is that of the code-breakers, obviously; I'm just saying that there's a world of difference between the view that real achievement comes from a genuine new discovery, vs. the view that real achievement comes from getting a lot of other people to think that you're important because... well, because you're important. That was what that story about this year's Nobel laureates drove home to me.

funny you mentioned that...i always remember something that happened as a green belt about ten years ago early in my martial arts training. i was practicing a style that emphasized low, deep stances. the assitant sensei was telling a white belt she needed to lower her stances "like the green belt here" (meaning me) so that she would have better balance. to prove his point he lightly kicked the back of my lead leg & i almost fell on my ***. the white belt said, "but he almost fell down!" the instructor said, "no, he kept his balance, don't argue!" and me, i knew i almost fell down but i didn't say anything. the white belt didn't have enough invested in our training to be attatched to what we were learning; i was in deep enough that i had my doubts, but wouldn't discuss them, & the black belt did't want to doubt something he had believed during his entire trainig. so i can see how if someone gets too invested,

I was talking with my own instructor after class tonight about this very thing.... he told me how he realized, at one point, that he didn't know nearly enough about his own lineage, about technical issues and a bunch of other stuff when he was a new BB, and he spent several years training specifically to fill in gaps in his knowledge, experimenting with different interpretations of the techs he knew, and acquiring new ones that built on what he already could do. His point was, you have to be hard on yourself and not assume that you have the really important stuff in your grasp. What you're saying and what he was saying are pretty much identical in that respect.

it's so good to hear that. i often tell my former bandmates that we were too awesome to be popular. maybe we weren't as awesome as i remember, but we didn't deserve to be upstaged by a band that played steve miller covers with their shirts off.

jf

Well, you've seen School of Rock, right? Who was really good, as vs. who won that big check in the Battle of the Bands, in the end? Hysterical movie, but the point was exactly the one you were just making. Being good and being successful often have very little to do with each other. It's always gratifying when that isn't the case... but it happens too bloody often.

 

[kidswarrior]

Very good point, Craig.

I agree: a lot of people's sense of the importance of rank is tangled up with this idea of power, authority and control—yours over other people, and theirs over you.

Sounds a lot like the hierarchy/bureaucracy in K-12 education.

I see it enough in the academic world as well that I've come to think it may represent a kind of universal dark side of the Force in any activity where difference in power is connected to difference in presumed level of knowledge.

Is this kind of thing inevitable, do you think? Is it something we just have to live with?

I think of the circular divine-right-of-kings concept. When modern nationalism was in its infancy (before constitutional monarchies became common), and monarchs were truly all-powerful, their justification was: God made me monarch, therefore I'm right. And since I'm always right, God made me monarch.

Today, it's: The all-powerful selection committee anointed me __________ proving I'm the best at this activity. And since I'm the best at this practice, the committee anointed me _________. So, inevitable, yeah, as long as egos and competition (people with something to prove, or as Jarrod said, insecurities) drive an organization or field of endeavor.

 

[jarrod]

Being good and being successful often have very little to do with each other. It's always gratifying when that isn't the case... but it happens too bloody often.

i could rattle off 20 bands that attest to that fact...but my wife tells me i'm too much of a music snob

jf

okay, emo. emo went from mildy whiney but energetic & thoughtful in the mid-90's, to the bubble gum self cutting cry-rock that you see today. that's it. end complaint.

jf

 

[celtic_crippler]

funny you mentioned that...i always remember something that happened as a green belt about ten years ago early in my martial arts training. i was practicing a style that emphasized low, deep stances. the assitant sensei was telling a white belt she needed to lower her stances "like the green belt here" (meaning me) so that she would have better balance. to prove his point he lightly kicked the back of my lead leg & i almost fell on my ***. the white belt said, "but he almost fell down!" the instructor said, "no, he kept his balance, don't argue!" and me, i knew i almost fell down but i didn't say anything. the white belt didn't have enough invested in our training to be attatched to what we were learning; i was in deep enough that i had my doubts, but wouldn't discuss them, & the black belt did't want to doubt something he had believed during his entire trainig. so i can see how if someone gets too invested, it's easier on the ego to dive into belts & certificates than to admit your gaps & go back to square one.



it's so good to hear that. i often tell my former bandmates that we were too awesome to be popular. maybe we weren't as awesome as i remember, but we didn't deserve to be upstaged by a band that played steve miller covers with their shirts off.

jf

Been there brother! ...and it always led to me looking for something else.

We encourage our student's to ask questions and challenge what we do. It keeps us honest, effective, and always analyzing what we do which is necessary for improvment.

It's a flaw to believe what one is doing is flawless....IMHO. It leads to a false sense of security, and a lack of humility because...deep down... there's that shadow of doubt or uncertainty....and fear that one's time was ill-spent learning something that wasn't what you thought it was. And then the ego becomes more of an enemy because some can't swallow there pride and "start from scratch".

I hate to say "start from scratch" because even though I've left schools, arts, styles, etc.... I don't feel my time was ill-spent or wasted. I've learned something from them...they just weren't the right "fit" for me. ...so...I kept looking until I found something that was. Just because I had to tie on another white belt meant nothing.....the knowledge and skills previously obtained can not be magically sucked from my brain.

...enough rambling...I've had no sleep. LOL...sorry...

 

[jarrod]

i agree, no time i've spent training has been wasted. but i did leave that school shortly after.

jf

 

[morph4me]

Great topic. I've found that throughout both my martial arts and work careers, the people whose opinions that I have the most respect for are the ones that, when they are recognized for their contributions and accomplishments, are usually suprised and/or embarrassed by the attention and really don't understand what all the fuss is about, they are just doing something they enjoy doing, to the best of their abilities.

 

[exile]

Some important points in these posts—I have to get a class ready, but it occurs to me that organizations tend to actively build in that insecurity we've been talking about. It's a way for them to sell their product, services, or whatever. It's all over the place. Hazing rituals, the way women's magazines subtly undermine the confidence of their readers to make them vulnerable to the sales pitches of the advertising that's the real reason for magazines' existence, the way people in academia wind up working their butts off as students to produce high quality work and win the desperately desired approval of an important faculty member (with recommendations for grad school or jobs or researching funding as an important payoff thereof)... the whole of society works that way, I've come to believe. Freud, though he's gotten plenty of bashing in the last several decades (much of it deserved!) made a very important point in his little book, Civilization and its Discontents, that from the social point of view, neurosis wasn't a bad thing but rather a good thing: the futile compensation that individuals tried to carry out as a result of their neuroses didn't do anything for them, but it did supply the motivation and energy for actions that, collectively, create larger and more powerful societies.

I think that if we look at the MA world from that point of view—as a set of institutions that have their own interest different from the interest of the inviduals whom they comprise—we could begin to get a handle on why there's so much of that insecurity, and what work it does for those institutions, as well as why it seems to produce so many anxious individual desperate for others' approval...

 

[kidswarrior]

I think that if we look at the MA world from that point of view—as a set of institutions that have their own interest different from the interest of the inviduals whom they comprise—we could begin to get a handle on why there's so much of that insecurity, and what work it does for those institutions, as well as why it seems to produce so many anxious individual desperate for others' approval...

A couple of aphorisms come to mind:

A man is not rich by what he has, but by what he can live without. -Immanuel Kant (paraphrased)

If you want pleasure, get all you can. If you want happiness, give all you can. (Don't recall the source)

How different would our MA organizations, personal experiences, relationships, and even attrition rates be if more of our seniors, heads of system, founders, and other big shots *gave all they could*, without any thought to possible return/gain? I believe it would change the entire tenor of the MA's. It would certainly cut out the silly lineage arguments, prove-your-credentials challenges, and art vs. art slug fests, as people instead rolled up their sleeves to give back all they could.

 

[teekin]

This thread is a great reply to "Is it all in Decline". Kids'Warrior I think you and I came up with one of the same solutions and one of my problems with MA's.
In the equestrain world the Masters are NOT the riders. The riders just happen to be the ones who's talent keeps them aboard the horses. Big deal. They are expendable. The Masters are the the trainer and more so the Instructor. They don't get on the horses any more because they are just too valuable. To be able to teach art is a rare and precious gift. The instuctor who turns out technical, soft riders and happy technical happy horses with heart are worth their weight in gold and are engaged by nations to mold national teams. The idea of holding out info on their riders is repugnat.
You can have all the titles in the world, as many olympic golds as you like, no one cares. If you can't turn out riders and horses your just a jockey.
This is what supprises me about the MA's. So what is some guy/girl has a 5th red belt with black and purple stripes from Japans 2nd Podunk of the sister town of Owkinawa. If he can't or won't teach, what good does that do me? Why does that crap influence anyone?
Lori

 

[hogstooth]

I think it comes down to ego. We are all taught to be humble but so few of us are. We have self proclaimed Soke, or newly formed arts by people that have only studied a few years. Humility has been lost in these people and I think the major thing that has degraded the arts more than any one thing is ego. They do it because it draws attention to themselves and they think the bigger they are the more students will follow them. They are basically a false idols for those that would follow them. They come up with new titles or new belts or stories of how they can kill someone without ever touching them. All to feed their ego.
Humility, honesty, integrity and moral character is something that escapes these people and no one calls them on it.
The MA's is full of these false masters and it only hurts the arts as a whole. I think that it will only get worse unless we regulate those that claim to be something that they are not. "Evil can only triamph if good men choose to do nothing"