Erle Montaigue and Tai Chi

[exile]

Isn't that always the way with those who perceive themselves to be associated with the One True Whatever. I believe that logical fallacy is called "No True Scotsman", coined by Anthony Flew.

Here's the Wiki link—a nice discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I've been dealing with this one a lot lately without having had a convenient way of referring to it—it's nice to have an off-the-shelf dissection of the fallacy. Many thanks!

 

[oxy]

Here's the Wiki link—a nice discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I've been dealing with this one a lot lately without having had a convenient way of referring to it—it's nice to have an off-the-shelf dissection of the fallacy. Many thanks!

Wikipedia has a huge category devoted to discussions of logical fallacies.

It's an amazing resource. Many show when an argument, which is normally fallacious, is not fallacious in a different circumstance. The No True Scotsman article is such an example.

People should take some time to read all of them. It didn't take long for me, and I hate reading and also a slow reader. It really helps with understanding peoples' points of view; way beyond being able to simply spot a fallacy: it actually helps a lot to see past peoples' wording to see what they were wanting to say in spite of what they said.

 

[Jade Tigress]

ATTENTION ALL USERS

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.

Pamela Piszczek
MT Super Moderator

 

[bigfootsquatch]

Did anyone actually watch the videos I posted so they could give me an answer regarding Erle's tai chi?

 

[Xue Sheng]

Did anyone actually watch the videos I posted so they could give me an answer regarding Erle's tai chi?

Sorry got off topic a bit there.

I did not like this one

And I do not know what to tell you about the alleged Luchan form since as far as I am concerned I have not seen a Luchan form to compare it too.

And to be honest it is not a form from Luchan if it is the old Yang form, it is a form from a student of Shou Hou and it likely had at least some minor changes between Erle and Luchan.

But some of his fajing moves look more like shaking his hands than actual fajing, but that is easy to say from watching a video in person it is possible that Erle could demonstrate it and prove me wrong.

It was my understanding that the old form was higher and Erle's form is higher and the old form was faster and Erle's form is not faster. But then again I am right back to I have never seen a person do this form that could be proven a student of Shou Hou or his Uncle Banhou.

To say Luchan is in my opinion not exactly correct. Then I can claim that my teacher's teacher's teacher's teacher's teacher is who I am learning Xingyi and Yang style from so in the case of Taiji of could say I am doing the taiji of Jainhou and if I continue Chen as I think I might I can say I leaned form however taught Chen Fake. And Xingyi would go back further. To me to me for him to say he does the Taiji of Luchan is a sales pitch, it may be the taiji of a student of Shou Hou. To be honest I WISH I could find someone that could teach me the style of Shou Hou.

As for his Chengfu form, I feel it is to high and to stiff (and it appears that he locks his knee joint in places and that is wrong - but I emphasize "APPEARS" this is also sometimes hard to see in a video), but then I also think the clips I see of Yang Jun are to high and to stiff. My lineage came form Tung Ying Chieh which is a little different, lower and a bit more rounded.

 

[East Winds]

Oxy,

Why do you continue to think that my comments in response to your posts are a personal attack on yourself?

If everyone on this board held the same opinion, there would be no point in having the "discussion" board at all.

Quite simply the whole thrust of my argument is, if Mr. Montaigue has such a low opinion of Cheng fu (and clearly he does if he blames him for the demise of present day taiji) then why does he continue to teach and make teaching videos of that form? Nowhere have I made any criticism of Erle Montaigue’s ability or knowledge of the internal arts. If you think I have then please illustrate that by direct quotes from my posts.

On the point of my apparently “quote mining” let me put you right on the etiquette of debate. You will notice that when I took that quote I used it thus “Obviously, I don’t know enough about the specifics of Taiji to judge how good Erle is…..” You will notice that after the word “is” I inserted 5 little dots. Those indicate (at least to those who are used to the rules of debate) that this is not the full quote and is used here for the purposes of brevity and that in fact this is the only part of the quote that is being discussed and that the whole quote can be found in the original post. But of course if you did not know about this convention, you could assume it was “quote mining”

“If you want to call Erle an *******, fine. If you want to call him a hypocrite fine.” I trust you are not attributing these comments to me and if so, then please again give a direct quote from my posts to justify them.

I thought we had already dealt with the ad hominen nonsense and I will ignore your suggestions that I am being dishonest. Otherwise I might have to ask you again to justify those accusations on this board.

Very best wishes

 

[Xue Sheng]

I know Erle has been discussed some here, but I haven't found a definitive answer for his yang cheng fu and yang lu chan forms.

He claims his yang cheng fu form is the version that chen wei ming taught. Can anyone confirm this?

Do you think that his YLC form is a knock off of Chen Pan Ling's form, or is it his own creation, or the real thing?

Anything about Erle's credibility is welcome.

Thanks!

^^^The above is the original post ^^^

Did anyone actually watch the videos I posted so they could give me an answer regarding Erle's tai chi?

^^^And this is the original posters attempt to redirect it back to post. ^^^

Maybe not my place to point this out, but I felt it might be needed.

Thanks XS



And to answer bigfootsquatch's question. I posted a rather lengthy answer above.

I will say in short

I have heard that Erle has some skill at taiji but I do not know him nor have I ever meant him so I cannot say for sure either way.

I however am not impressed with his Yang Chengfu Yang style but this is a matter of personal opinion based on the style I train.

As to his Yang Luchan form. I have never really seen a confirmed case of anyone doing the Yang Luchan form of Yang style Taiji and I doubt anyone today ever will.

However there are likely still people around doing the Yang style of Shou Hou. Luchan's Grandson and older brother of Chengfu. Shou Hou form would be closer to Luchan's that Chengfu's Yang.

Shou Hou learned mostly from his Uncle Banhou who was Luchan's son.

Chengfu learned mostly from his father Jainhou (brother of Banhou) but Jainhou also changed the family form from small frame to medium frame.

 

[oxy]

Oxy,

Why do you continue to think that my comments in response to your posts are a personal attack on yourself?

Please tell me where I said "personal attack".

I used "attack". In the context of discussion, "attacking" someone need not be personal.

Your attempt to force the "personal" qualifier only furthers my claims about your intellectual dishonesty.

Quite simply the whole thrust of my argument is, if Mr. Montaigue has such a low opinion of Cheng fu (and clearly he does if he blames him for the demise of present day taiji) then why does he continue to teach and make teaching videos of that form?

And I say that is IRRELEVANT as to Erle's ability. Explanation directly below your next quote.

Nowhere have I made any criticism of Erle Montaigue’s ability or knowledge of the internal arts. If you think I have then please illustrate that by direct quotes from my posts.

You want it, you got it. Your own words:

How could you have any belief in a man who does a character assasination of Yang Cheng Fu

How else is one supposed to interpret "belief in a man" other than the ability/knowledge of Erle in Taiji? Keep in mind that the context of Erle's Taiji is implied by the fact that it is talking about Erle in a Taiji forum, in a Taiji thread about Erle.

On the point of my apparently “quote mining” let me put you right on the etiquette of debate. You will notice that when I took that quote I used it thus “Obviously, I don’t know enough about the specifics of Taiji to judge how good Erle is…..” You will notice that after the word “is” I inserted 5 little dots. Those indicate (at least to those who are used to the rules of debate) that this is not the full quote and is used here for the purposes of brevity and that in fact this is the only part of the quote that is being discussed and that the whole quote can be found in the original post. But of course if you did not know about this convention, you could assume it was “quote mining”

The bit you ommitted CHANGED THE MEANING of what I was saying. If you did NOT omit what you did, your argument would have been nonsensical. Basically, if you quoted me within the correct context, your argument would be as follows: Oxy does not have the qualification to say that a person's ability should not be judged by his words because Oxy admits his knowledge of Taiji is limited.

Don't believe me? Here is what you did:

“Obviously, I don’t know enough about the specifics of Taiji to judge how good Erle is…..” But you obviously feel qualified to comment anyway. I usually find that if I don’t know about a subject it is better not to say anything.

Oh gee, what did you mean by "qualified"? Oh gee, what did you mean when you said I should not talk about a "subject" I don't know well?

If you quoted me IN CONTEXT, this is what would have read:

“Obviously, I don’t know enough about the specifics of Taiji to judge how good Erle is but I still think it's wise to judge a person's knowledge of Taiji by... their knowledge of Taiji. And I'm sure everyone will agree with me that it's not possible to do that when a single statement, no matter how ill-founded, cannot display a person's whole understanding.” But you obviously feel qualified to comment anyway. I usually find that if I don’t know about a subject it is better not to say anything.

See the bit I underlined and italicised? That was the context. You omitted it. That changed the context. THAT IS CALLED QUOTEMINING. Your reply, when it did not rely on you taking me out of context, would, as I have said before, have made the following argument: Oxy does not have the qualification to say that a person's ability should not be judged by his words because Oxy admits his knowledge of Taiji is limited.

See how nonsensical your argument becomes when you DO NOT take someone's words out of context?

Still not convinced? Here is an adjusted one, highlighting the context you omitted:

“Obviously, I don’t know enough about the specifics of Taiji...
And I'm sure everyone will agree with me that it's not possible to do that when a single statement, no matter how ill-founded, cannot display a person's whole understanding.” But you obviously feel qualified to comment anyway. I usually find that if I don’t know about a subject it is better not to say anything.

The bit you quoted and the bit you left out (ie, my original posting) was that my inexperience in Taiji had no bearing on the fact that my argument makes sense in general and universally. But you ignored the second, crucial half of the point and chose to focus on my inexperience with Taiji.

Your attempts to excuse your behaviour using a very weak defence further shows your dishonesty by not owning up.

If you want further confirmation, you should get a second opinion on whether your omission changed the meaning of my text, allowing you to make a strawman.

“If you want to call Erle an *******, fine. If you want to call him a hypocrite fine.” I trust you are not attributing these comments to me and if so, then please again give a direct quote from my posts to justify them.

Do you not understand how to comprehend? I did NOT say you called Erle those things. I was using a literary device. The point was that you can say all you want about his hypocrisy in teaching Chengfu's form while deriding it. It does not automatically translate to "Erle's Taiji ability is not to be trusted".

I thought we had already dealt with the ad hominen nonsense and I will ignore your suggestions that I am being dishonest. Otherwise I might have to ask you again to justify those accusations on this board.

No, we had not dealt with the "ad hominem nonsense" because you still do not understand what an ad hominem argument is. Hence your continual comitting of that fallacy.

An ad hominem argument, as I shall explain again, is:

Person A makes a claim X. Person A possesses an undesirable quality A-prime. Therefore, claim X is wrong.

You continue to make an argument of this pattern.

Erle claims his Taiji is quite good. Erle is a hypocrite for teaching and deriding Chengfu at the same time. Therefore, Erle's Taiji is not good.

AD HOMINEM ARGUMENT. And in this context is a logical fallacy because it is WRONG. Ad hominem is not about personal insults. It's about the logical fallacy.

And yes, I am charging you with dishonesty. Intellectual dishonesty. I've already proven that above by showing how you quotemined me. You took my quote OUT OF CONTEXT, a problem which you seem to have trouble understanding.

 

[East Winds]

Oxy,

Oh, good for you!!!!! Nothing like a quick dose of pseudo philosophical claptrap to muddy the waters.

What you thought I think you meant, was not in fact what you meant I thought you said. That’s the trouble with post existentialist epistomalogical reasoning, it has no place in the real world. Oh no, better not start a discussion on the ability of Kierkegaard, I might not know what I’m talking about.:rofl:

Very best wishes

 

[oxy]

Oxy,

Oh, good for you!!!!! Nothing like a quick dose of pseudo philosophical claptrap to muddy the waters.

What you thought I think you meant, was not in fact what you meant I thought you said. That’s the trouble with post existentialist epistomalogical reasoning, it has no place in the real world. Oh no, better not start a discussion on the ability of Kierkegaard, I might not know what I’m talking about.:rofl:

Very best wishes

The evidence is there.

You omitted a portion of my post.

In doing so, you omitted the context.

By omitting the context, you are misrepresenting my point.

By replying to a modified point, you are using a strawman.

When you modify a point to suit your reply, that is called quotemining.

Quote mining == intellectual dishonesty. Strawman == intellectual dishonesty.

Where's the philosophy in that? All I see is my desire to inject some logic and rational thinking into martial arts discussion. None of this politics and rhetorical "Taiji" to divert and distract from making a point that actually makes sense.

Furthermore:

How could you have any belief in a man who does a character assasination of Yang Cheng Fu

This can ONLY be interpreted as saying that Erle's Taiji ability/knowledge is not sufficient because of his character assassination of Chengfu.

I have not been discussing philosophy at all.

Furthermore, your attempt to caricaturise my point as "philosophical claptrap" further exposes your continued practice of trying to garner popularity (by attacks such as the one I'm replying to) in lieu of actually making a sound argument. There's a Taiji guy here who can stick to making sound arguments, so why can't you?

I still have no idea what post existentialist, epistomalogical, etc is. I have no idea what Kierkegaard's philosophy was.

All I know is that your arguments are completely fallacious. All I know is that everything I read from you is good at appearing to have substance but without actual substance. You say the Right Things(tm), but that's all you do.

Do you know what "logical fallacy" falls under? LOGIC. You see, it's spelt different from PHILOSOPHY.

I wonder what you would say if I made the following comment:

How can EastWind's students believe in him when he does not have an ounce of logical reasoning or a rational mind?

I have no need/want for your rhetoric. Try logical/rational reasoning for once; not: "Erle Montaigue teaches and derides the Chengfu form at the same time. This implies...". That is wrong, plain and simple.

In summary:
-you quotemined
-you used strawmen
-you used ad hominem fallacies
-you attacked me

All because I did not:
-jump on the "let's bash Erle" bandwagon

 

[Lisa]

SECOND AND FINAL WARNING:

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

PLEASE KEEP THE CONVERSATION POLITE AND RESPECTFUL. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO USE THE IGNORE FEATURE WHICH CAN BE FOUND IN EACH MEMBERS PROFILE TO IGNORE THOSE WHOSE COMMENTS YOU DISAGREE WITH.

Lisa Deneka
MT Assist. Admin.

 

[East Winds]

Oxy,

What makes you think I’m a member of the “"let's bash Erle" bandwagon. Here is a surprise for you. I first had contact with Erle in 1998 whilst he was still living in Australia, (Murwoolimbah I think, in fact very close to where my wife comes from). I have bought several of his videos over the years and have some of his books, all of which I found very honest productions. I have also said several times on this board (and I quote) “I think Erle is a lovely guy”. I was more than disappointed to read his article on Yang Cheng fu and thought Erle was above such criticism particularly when he speaks so highly of him (Cheng fu) on his Yang Cheng fu videos. To me there is a basic contradiction that’s need to be addressed. Either he should remove the article from his web site or if he thinks the Cheng fu form to be worthless, then he is being less than honest with his students.

How can EastWind's students believe in him when he does not have an ounce of logical reasoning or a rational mind?
My students would probably smile and say something like “Yeh, that sounds about right”

Very best wishes

 

[oxy]

Oxy,

What makes you think I’m a member of the “"let's bash Erle" bandwagon. Here is a surprise for you. I first had contact with Erle in 1998 whilst he was still living in Australia, (Murwoolimbah I think, in fact very close to where my wife comes from). I have bought several of his videos over the years and have some of his books, all of which I found very honest productions. I have also said several times on this board (and I quote) “I think Erle is a lovely guy”. I was more than disappointed to read his article on Yang Cheng fu and thought Erle was above such criticism particularly when he speaks so highly of him (Cheng fu) on his Yang Cheng fu videos. To me there is a basic contradiction that’s need to be addressed. Either he should remove the article from his web site or if he thinks the Cheng fu form to be worthless, then he is being less than honest with his students.

I'll accept that, but that wasn't your original argument.

Still doesn't address or excuse the fact that you took me out of context.

One has to wonder why you went the route of taking me out of context first, only to follow it by attacking me as spouting "philosophical claptrap", before actually getting to the ACTUAL point.

In summary:
-you quotemined
-you used strawmen
-you used ad hominem fallacies
-you attacked me
-you continue to try and defend these actions as if they are completely acceptable

 

[bigfootsquatch]

In Summary
-you both are acting like children
-neither of you are on topic
-the moderator has warned both of you to stop
-i don't want my thread locked
-i hope both of you have a nice day

By the way, thanks Xue for the pm and the post here. You have been a lot of help!

 

[oxy]

Well done.

 

[charyuop]

Yea please, don't have this topic locked. I am neither pro nor against Earle, but I am always been interested in "his" Tai Chi. I have never really liked it (but I am merely a beginner) because it doesn't give me that relaxation feeling that other practitioners give me. I have always thought (maybe wrong) that in Tai Chi in any moment you have to be able to block or strike and that in my humble opinion is due to the fact that you are relaxed during the whole form. I have always found his Tai Chi, as we say in Italy, woodenish.
I really like reading opinions on the subject from much more experienced people than me....so please keep this thread going.

 

[kunino]

Erle Montaigue is a man of deep knowledge and great facility in writing. He is also a dedicated controversialist who stirred up a hornet's nest some decades ago with the suggestion that Chang Man-ching was not good at tai chi chuan on the ground that there was no evidence of his having ever killed or crippled anybody. Sundry Cheng supporters at the time suggested that since he was a practising physician -- in western terms, he was probably an obstetrician and gynaecologist -- he had no interest in hurting people just to display martial arts skill. This was an argument Montaigue brushed aside as nonsensical. The Montaigue path has several such milestones. His claims can be extreme, and his critics he disregards.

I do not offer judgment on his TCC lineage. it would be insolent to do so. I have studied with a number of Chinese masters, including two who did not speak English. I don't speak Chinese. Those masters nominated English-speaking students to take me in hand, in their classrooms when they were presebnt and leading classes. They took time to deal directly with me bnoth by touch and by speaking through the interpreter. There's nothing unusual about that.

It's anodd things about most forms of Asian martial arts that instruction speaks about philosophy, the willow and the grass bending before the wind, etc etc, and yet at many levels, there's the most uncharitable and usually indefensible nastiness addressed toward other teachers. I suspect commercial motives for most of this, and I don't like it much.

In closing, I nominate as one of the most remarkable Chinese hard form teachers I ever saw in action used to teach in the band shell behind the Provincial Museum in Taipei 20 years ago. From a distance, he looked like a precociously skilled and extremely fit 18-year-old. Closer up, he looked like a profoundly skilled and extremely fit 36-year-old. When I got into a smile-and-gesture conversation with him while viewing one class, he handed me a business card saying he was a former airline pilot. A Chinese companion told me this man was 77 years old. I've mislaid the card: does anybody know his name? His monopoly of the band shell suggests some eminence.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Erle Montaigue is a man of deep knowledge and great facility in writing. He is also a dedicated controversialist who stirred up a hornet's nest some decades ago with the suggestion that Chang Man-ching was not good at tai chi chuan on the ground that there was no evidence of his having ever killed or crippled anybody. Sundry Cheng supporters at the time suggested that since he was a practising physician -- in western terms, he was probably an obstetrician and gynaecologist -- he had no interest in hurting people just to display martial arts skill. This was an argument Montaigue brushed aside as nonsensical. The Montaigue path has several such milestones. His claims can be extreme, and his critics he disregards.

I do not offer judgment on his TCC lineage. it would be insolent to do so. I have studied with a number of Chinese masters, including two who did not speak English. I don't speak Chinese. Those masters nominated English-speaking students to take me in hand, in their classrooms when they were presebnt and leading classes. They took time to deal directly with me bnoth by touch and by speaking through the interpreter. There's nothing unusual about that.

It's anodd things about most forms of Asian martial arts that instruction speaks about philosophy, the willow and the grass bending before the wind, etc etc, and yet at many levels, there's the most uncharitable and usually indefensible nastiness addressed toward other teachers. I suspect commercial motives for most of this, and I don't like it much.

In closing, I nominate as one of the most remarkable Chinese hard form teachers I ever saw in action used to teach in the band shell behind the Provincial Museum in Taipei 20 years ago. From a distance, he looked like a precociously skilled and extremely fit 18-year-old. Closer up, he looked like a profoundly skilled and extremely fit 36-year-old. When I got into a smile-and-gesture conversation with him while viewing one class, he handed me a business card saying he was a former airline pilot. A Chinese companion told me this man was 77 years old. I've mislaid the card: does anybody know his name? His monopoly of the band shell suggests some eminence.

Oh please

My sifu was a student of Tung Ying Chieh and did push hands with Cheng Manching (I will say no more about it here)

I have studied with a few Chinese sifu's that do not speak English and a few that do speak English and they tend towards the form names that are Chinese idioms. I have never had a major philosophical discussion with any of them. I have however had a few explain the idioms. I do speak some Chinese and my wife is fluent and has been a translator for a few one of them more than once

As to Erle all I can say is I do not believe many of his claims and I do not agree with many of his opinions and some of the forms he does that he claims are from a specific sifu is just plain untrue.

 

[Laoshi77]

I've read a few of Erle's books and found them to be refreshing and very insightful. I have seen several of his videos on Taijiquan fighting aspects, 'Fa Jing' and Qigong and again have found them to be insightful and easy to assimilate.

So it seems Erle has said a few things that the conservatives do not like, well this is life and Erle is allowed his opinion as much as the next man. However, in my opinion there is no doubting his skills. An example of his humbleness is in the introduction of one of his books where he dislikes the notion of the word 'master'. This speaks volumes.

I have spoken to Erle once via email and he was courteous and succinct, I personally do not have any problems with him at all.
I have practised Taijiquan and Qigong for over ten years and believe he is a very knowledgeable practitioner of martial arts.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I've read a few of Erle's books and found them to be refreshing and very insightful. I have seen several of his videos on Taijiquan fighting aspects, 'Fa Jing' and Qigong and again have found them to be insightful and easy to assimilate.

So it seems Erle has said a few things that the conservatives do not like, well this is life and Erle is allowed his opinion as much as the next man. However, in my opinion there is no doubting his skills. An example of his humbleness is in the introduction of one of his books where he dislikes the notion of the word 'master'. This speaks volumes.

I have spoken to Erle once via email and he was courteous and succinct, I personally do not have any problems with him at all.
I have practised Taijiquan and Qigong for over ten years and believe he is a very knowledgeable practitioner of martial arts.

Don't really know much about the man personally but I do know his alleged Tung Ying Chieh fast form is not the fast form from Tung Ying Chieh. Actually it is neither of the fast forms that come from Tung Ying Chieh.

His claim that Yang Chengfu ruined Yang Taiji. OK if that is what he believe then fine. If that is what he wants to tell everyone the fine as well. But tell me this, if he believes Yang Chengfu ruined Yang Taiji then why does he still do the form and teach it?

Why not stick with his alleged taiji of Yang Luchan? Which by the way could not have come directly from Yang Luchan nor could have the guy that taught him learned if from Yang Luchan. It would have to come forom Yang Shouhou or possibly another student of Yang Banhou and I have not yet seen that mentioned by Erle. Not that he hasn’t said it somewhere it is just that I have never seen it.

He may in fact be a very nice person but as to not wanting to be called a master. My Sifu who is a student of Tung Ying Chieh and has been doing taiji for over 50 years does not allow anyone to call him a master either. You will find that sort of thing in a lot of the old CMA guys. Even in China you find websites that never ever refer to the teacher as anything more than Sifu on the Chinese , whats that tell you. If Erle does not want to be called master I can appreciate that, but it is not all that uncommon amongst “Traditionalist” in CMA.