Words of Wisdom from Bruce Lee

[PhotonGuy7]

I believe that Bruce Lee once said something along the lines of this:

"He who knows and knows he knows: he is wise – follow him.
He know knows - and knows not that he knows - is asleep, wake him.
He who knows not - and knows that he knows not - is ignorant teach him.
He who knows not - and knows not that he knows not - is a fool, shun him."

I would have to say, I agree with it.

 

[Orange Lightning]

I would agree too. Careful with that last one though. Could be problematic for you, depending on how you interpret it.

I'm working on this one.

“Here is the natural instinct, and here is the control. You need to combine the two in harmony. If you should have one to the extreme, and then the other to the extreme, then you become all of a sudden a mechanical man; no longer a human being. And so [the goal] is to become a successful combination of both. Therefore, it is not pure and natural, or even pure and unnatural. The ideal is unnatural naturalness … or natural unnaturalness. Empty your mind. Be formless, shapeless; like water. You put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle, it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now, water can flow, or it can crash. But running water never grows stale. So you just gotta keep on flowin’.”

 

[Steve]

I believe that Bruce Lee once said something along the lines of this:

"He who knows and knows he knows: he is wise – follow him.
He know knows - and knows not that he knows - is asleep, wake him.
He who knows not - and knows that he knows not - is ignorant teach him.
He who knows not - and knows not that he knows not - is a fool, shun him."

I would have to say, I agree with it.

Good advice, PhotonGuy. Interesting thing here is that depending upon the subject, you can be the wise one, the sleeping one, the ignorant one AND the foolish one.

there's something called a Johari window. It's an interesting way to think about personality and how we interact with others. It's also somewhat related to the points above.

Essentially, the Johari window is a grid. You have your known self and your unknown self.

1. What's known to you but hidden from others is your private self or the things you choose not to share.
2. What's known to others but not to you is your blind spot.
3. What's known to all is your public persona... this is the version of yourself that you present to the world.
4. What's unknown to all is exactly that. These are the areas we have yet to explore or learn about ourselves.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

This is a very old proverb apparently from Persia I believe it is attributed to Amir Fakhrodin Mahmood Ibn Yamin. (though I have found it attributed to another name) Bruce Lee might have said it and came across it probably in a philosophy class.

 

[elder999]

It's likely Arabic, generally unattributable, and used by Cicero, Aristotle, Livy, and.....SIr Richard Francis Burton

EDIT Oh, and Krishnamurti! Bruce Lee was quite fond of Krishnamurti-that's likely where he got it.

 

[hoshin160014]

I would agree too. Careful with that last one though. Could be problematic for you, depending on how you interpret it.

I'm working on this one.

“Here is the natural instinct, and here is the control. You need to combine the two in harmony. If you should have one to the extreme, and then the other to the extreme, then you become all of a sudden a mechanical man; no longer a human being. And so [the goal] is to become a successful combination of both. Therefore, it is not pure and natural, or even pure and unnatural. The ideal is unnatural naturalness … or natural unnaturalness. Empty your mind. Be formless, shapeless; like water. You put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle, it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now, water can flow, or it can crash. But running water never grows stale. So you just gotta keep on flowin’.”

Natural unnaturalness. ..simple.
I am brushing my teeth and look down to find I am standing in a karate stance...very unnatural for most but natural to me. My punch is not the same as an untrained person. My punch after 30 + years of training is thrown very naturally, it just comes out that way. Unnatural naturalness
Where is the mystery in that?

 

[Orange Lightning]

Natural unnaturalness. ..simple.
I am brushing my teeth and look down to find I am standing in a karate stance...very unnatural for most but natural to me. My punch is not the same as an untrained person. My punch after 30 + years of training is thrown very naturally, it just comes out that way. Unnatural naturalness
Where is the mystery in that?

Muscle memory by itself seems like a bit of a different thing to me.

Naturalness refers to the natural way your mind and body want to accomplish something, and unnaturalness refers to a rational and intentional method. Your instinctive response versus your technique. The point of this statement is to try to combine those two things. Let your body respond the way it wishes, and let your mind express that response with good form and tactics. The objective being make your originally instinctive responses into effective fighting technique. Not necessarily to train in a different response entirely.
It's more of an invention than a mystery. It's a little bit of a mystery too though. It's something each person finds and develops for themselves. Finding the smoothest and most natural way of fighting for themselves and using intelligence, technique, and training to make it effective. It's a very exploratory and experimental way of thinking.

I think the idea behind the statement is that any one style by itself won't give you what you need. You need to absorb it and make it your own for it to work for you. Learn technique and ability and so on, and make use of it how you will. Otherwise, you're just learning how someone else fights. And you're not them. Learn the body mechanics and skills of another, but don't copy their method. Their style is only the brush for your canvas.
Or at least, that's my interpretation. I think it's quite a good idea to try to make my natural responses conducive my intentional ones.

 

[PhotonGuy7]

Well Bruce Lee might've not been the first person to say those lines in my OP but he sure believed in it and I believe in it too. Also, yes, it is possible to be in all four of those categories. Even the wisest of us can be foolish from time to time. Even the best of us can sometimes think we know more than we do. That is why, as I said in other threads, its important to not follow bad advice or bad decisions made by people who are "older and wiser" because bad decisions are bad decisions no matter who makes them. Also, of the four, I think its good to be in the category of ignorant, not that I think being ignorant is a good thing but its important that we are aware of the stuff that we don't know, that way we know what we need to learn and work on.

 

[SallyWilliams]

Great advice from Bruce Lee! I agree with him. Nowadays, we have to be extra careful when it comes to choosing the leader that we're going to follow. Just because one is calls himself a leader, doesn't mean that we should really follow him. We need to choose wisely.

 

[Jenna]

What is it we are talking about knowing or not knowing here???

 

[Gnarlie]

Recognising and acknowledging how little one knows does not make one ignorant. Ignorance is a lack of awareness of how little one knows. Unconscious incompetence.

Four stages of competence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[PhotonGuy7]

Recognising and acknowledging how little one knows does not make one ignorant. Ignorance is a lack of awareness of how little one knows. Unconscious incompetence.

Four stages of competence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Well, that's just how the saying goes. A saying used by Bruce Lee even if he wasn't the first to say it. Anyway, like I said I think its best to be in the category where you don't know and you know that you don't know, after all nobody knows everything, there is always more to know, so the important thing is to be aware of what you don't know and to work on it and learn from people who are knowledgable in those areas.

 

[Xue Sheng99]

It is a good saying, but I do not see any, nor can I find any, link to Bruce Lee. He did say

"Knowing is not enough, we must apply. Willing is not enough, we must do.”

“A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.”

“The doubters said," Man can not fly,"
The doers said, "Maybe, but we'll try,"
And finally soared In the morning glow
While non-believers Watched from below.”
'

Or at least he wrote some of them down.

 

[Gnarlie]

Well, that's just how the saying goes. A saying used by Bruce Lee even if he wasn't the first to say it. Anyway, like I said I think its best to be in the category where you don't know and you know that you don't know, after all nobody knows everything, there is always more to know, so the important thing is to be aware of what you don't know and to work on it and learn from people who are knowledgable in those areas.

Bruce said some cool things. This isn't one of them. He also came out with some pretentious rubbish. I prefer to do my own thinking and make up my own mind.

 

[PhotonGuy7]

Bruce said some cool things. This isn't one of them. He also came out with some pretentious rubbish. I prefer to do my own thinking and make up my own mind.

So you're saying this isn't one of the cool things Bruce said? As for doing your own thinking and making up your own mind, that's a good way to be. Bruce Lee wasn't perfect and I don't agree with everything he said either but I do agree with this. It takes humility to admit you don't know stuff and once you empty your cup by doing that you can learn from others who do know.

 

[Gnarlie]

So you're saying this isn't one of the cool things Bruce said? As for doing your own thinking and making up your own mind, that's a good way to be. Bruce Lee wasn't perfect and I don't agree with everything he said either but I do agree with this. It takes humility to admit you don't know stuff and once you empty your cup by doing that you can learn from others who do know.

I am saying Bruce never said this. I am also saying that even if he had, that would not make it wisdom.

This issue I have with this is that it is centred around knowledge, which is a pretty flimsy and ethereal concept. If the ideas are rejigged to be about skill and awareness of skill, for example, then it sort of works for me but I prefer the competence model I posted earlier.

"He who knows and knows he knows: he is wise – follow him.

I would say that such a person has a poor understanding of what knowledge means and of the nature of things, and could be considered arrogant rather than wise. Certainly not to be followed. Why follow someone else anyway? Learning from others, yes, following others, no thanks.

He who is skilled and is aware of his skill may or may not make a good teacher but might be a bit of a bighead.

He who knows - and knows not that he knows - is asleep, wake him.

I am not sure such a person exists except in the sense of literally being asleep.

He who is skilled but is unaware of his skill is talented, perhaps?

He who knows not - and knows that he knows not - is ignorant teach him.

This person could be looked at in two ways...are they ignorant, because they know that they know nothing and are happy to stay that way? Or are they humble and intent to learn? According to this line, many of the greatest minds in the canon of western Philosophy were ignorant.

He who is not skilled and is aware of his lack of skill is humble, modest, and perhaps ready to begin learning. This is the person with the empty cup, but people don't arrive to learn new skills in this state, they arrive in the next one...

He who knows not - and knows not that he knows not - is a fool, shun him."

This describes the starting point of any person faced with learning something new, especially when that learning is not of their own volition. Shunning such people would put an end to learning. Which would be foolish.

He who is not skilled and does not understand the skill enough to realise that he is not skilled, is new to the skill. Develop him.

I would have to say, I agree with it.

Not sure I do, for the above reasons.

 

[PhotonGuy7]

Well how about the third part? The person who knows they don't know. And lets say they want to learn. Would you want to teach them? Or is it spoon feeding as you've put it in other threads? This is just me but the way you define spoon feeding is much how Sheldon defined it when he was playing Pictionary with Leonard.

 

[Orange Lightning]

All about interpretation.

I would say that such a person has a poor understanding of what knowledge means and of the nature of things, and could be considered arrogant rather than wise. Certainly not to be followed. Why follow someone else anyway? Learning from others, yes, following others, no thanks.

He who is skilled and is aware of his skill may or may not make a good teacher but might be a bit of a bighead.

Could have just meant that a person knows about all the reasons why something they do is effective, and they can break it down to an atomic level. A person can be good at something without knowing so precisely why, or what it makes it so effective. I think that person would be this "He who knows - and knows not that he knows".
However, a person the stance of "knowing and knowing that they know" could just as easily be arrogant as they could be wise. It matters who we're talking about.

This describes the starting point of any person faced with learning something new, especially when that learning is not of their own volition. Shunning such people would put an end to learning. Which would be foolish.

He who is not skilled and does not understand the skill enough to realise that he is not skilled, is new to the skill. Develop him.

Or, he could be this arrogant person that thinks "he knows and knows that he knows".

I think a lot of it has to do with understanding yourself and other people. A lesson in attitude. Correctly appraising which of these you are and other people are, and when you and other people are these things. Are you any of these things yourself? Do you perceive other people as these things because of the way you might think of yourself?

Interpretation. Perspective. It's very possible that it isn't meant to be taken at face value. Or, it's literal, and so perhaps not the best phrase ever.

 

[Gnarlie]

Well how about the third part? The person who knows they don't know. And lets say they want to learn. Would you want to teach them?

I am willing to teach anybody. Whether or not they learn is as much up to them as it is to me, and I make them aware of that.

Or is it spoon feeding as you've put it in other threads? This is just me but the way you define spoon feeding is much how Sheldon defined it when he was playing Pictionary with Leonard.

I don't need or want to go over this again, but for a final time: I am perfectly willing to teach people the skills that they need. I just do not find it necessary to give them the explicit grading requirements. What we do in training every day prepares them for that grading. I want them to pass because they are all round well trained, not because they or I pandered to the requirements.

When I say spoon feeding, I mean giving detail about grading requirements that it is not necessary for them to know in order to pass. Nobody needs to know those details except the examiner. For example, if the measure of a great side kick break is: strong kihap, technically correct kick, correct striking surface, standing foot heel. in, correct posture...their body will already know all of those things by the time they test. There is no need for them to know all of those details - in fact thinking too much interferes with the core of 'do' arts. There is no need to teach the centipede how to run.

Just because you don't understand or agree with the above does not make it wrong.

The centipede was happy quite
Until a toad in fun
Said, 'Pray, which leg comes after which?'
This raised her mind to such a pitch,
She lay distracted in a ditch,
Considering how to run.
-Anon

 

[Tez31]

I think Bruce Lee was good at a lot of things but he wasn't particularly wise, at least no more than most people.