Re: Extreme Martial Arts

Chas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>If we start out with a loose definition of what it is we're talking about,
>we may not agree on what constitutes it's proof.
>As an example; I study two arts that I believe are the oldest continuously
>done systems there are.
>That's a bold statement.

Nah.  Your standards of belief are you own.

>> >As an example, 'Taiji' is supposed to date from the mid-seventeenth
>century-
>> >but it is predicated on 'loose boxing' which goes back quite a while
>before
>> >that. Is it rigorous to include that prior history of loose boxing, or
>does
>> >one only date it from the formalization period.
>> Depends on how well you document the change and evolution over time.
>
>The key word is 'document'. If you're dealing with an utterly foreign
>language and culture, and with a concept that may well be utterly
>antithetical to the concept of 'documentation' in any case, one has to shift
>the idea of proofs.

No.  You don't shift what you'll accept as proof based on what's
available as evidence; you shift what you think you can prove.

>That's like people wanting downloadable video of events from before the
>video or the internet. It doesn't exist, so it's not a workable criteria.

Right.  So rather than accept every little story about how things
happened, you just accept that you don't know, very well, what
happened.

I'm perfectly comfortable *not* having an opinion on matters that I lack
enough evidence; one part of 'knowing' is having a supportable way of
'knowing' it, rather than happening to be right at the time.

-- 
 Matthew Weigel
 hacker
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]