Knowledge vs. Experience, Higher vs. Lower Level, Etc.

[Antonius]

Doh!

[shaolin_mike]

Speaking of Doh there are 32 variations

http://www.fortunecity.com/lavendar/poitier/135/32dohs.wav

I got that from the Homer Simpson Sounds page... http://www.fortunecity.com/lavendar/...135/homer.html

...Where you can hear Homer expound meaningful teachings on the 5 stages of death.

http://www.fortunecity.com/lavendar/poitier/135/5death.wav

Add a little Simpsons to your life.

Mike

Edit: fortunecity might block those links if it does just click on the 2nd and 3rd sounds on the previously mentioned page

[Charles David]

TeeHee

Dear Mike,

Ahem,

your such a stickler for grammar

That should be "you're", as in "you are".



Pedantically Yours,

[qingui]

If Sifu Stier were to "Cross Hands" with Sifu Santer, it would be with the expectation that the negative energy Sifu Santer had been expressing to Sifu Stier would be the basis for the exchange..... which is the extent of what Sifu Stier's words meant to me, all within the normal range of kungfu learning, and not an actual challenge to a fight or a threat.

Michael

Dear Michael,

Thank you and is nice to "meet" you.
I understand that there are others who have responded to your statement above but I wish to let you know that I accept it as a reasonable alternative interpretation of what Sifu Stier has written. It would be to everybody's liking if Sifu Stier can make it clearer (if that was what he meant) in the first instance.
BTW I know you are learning Mandarin and would like to present you the following words.

心儀

Qingui

[Sifu Stier]

Hello qingui:

Michael Udel's synopsis of my perspective regarding a potential Gong-Sau contest with Sifu Santer was right on target from a Soft Style Internal Martial Arts point of view, except for the gluteus maximus reference. lol

Sifu Santer has made it quite clear to everyone, especially me, that he strongly dislikes me, has no respect for me as a martial artist, and has every intention of perpetuating his endless litany of condescending insults and slanderous remarks, even though he has been asked repeatedly to cease and desist.

I believe that I have made it quite clear previously that I consider his tactics and his words to be a direct challenge to my qualifications as a professional martial arts instructor, and that in so doing he knowingly incites and invites a live, personal demonstration of my "shallow concepts" and "low level techniques". To me, such words continually say that nothing less will change his attitude or stop his verbal abuse.

As such, this would indeed be the foundation of any contest we might engage in, just as Michael Udel said. This is a very common traditional kung-fu way of interpreting constant and repeated antagonism from another teacher. I would prefer that our differences not degenerate to a physical altercation, so I sincerely hope that Sifu Santer will decide to honor my requests at long last.

Regards ~

Sifu Stier

Sifu Stier

[Andrew]

I'm disappointed in the brevity of your reply.

Sometimes brevity is best. As I have shown earlier in this thread, passing on a message in a single concise sentence is better than confusing it in many paragraphs. You obviously received my message despite its brevity.

I will add one more comment for the moment as my Brothers have posted such excellent posts previous to mine.

Sifu Stier, you say and he claims, has a wealth of experience and knowledge. I don't think many disagree on the claims of knowledge. But on the claim of experience many will differ. I can say personally, that much of what Sifu Stier claims has been proved incorrect or, as my Brother Marcus so aptly puts, "low level" -- and this proof is provided by my own perosnal experience. This is not a case of 2 philosophers of theorists comparing notes.

Your comparison with Jack London's book was very interesting in this respect. Were you yourself an experienced sailor of the ships he mentions in his books, you would be in a position to confirm or dispute the technical validity of his excellent work. Without this practical basis, it reamins an excellent book but its validity in terms of sailing prowess may rightly remain in question.

Bringing this back to the discussion at hand -- Sifu Stier makes claims which he is not willing or not able to back up with any form of substantive evidence which directly contradict my own experience. Is it then wrong for me or for others here in a similar situation to question the validity of Sifu Stier's claims? The intention, I can assure you, is to find the truth for the benefit of ourselves and our students.

So in answer to your:

So why question his knowledge? Because you (plural) are obviously threatened by his knowledge and experience for reasons that I do not know and don't care to guess at during this post.

We question his experience (not necessarily his theoretical knowledge) because we (plural) have personal experience which proves him wrong. To not expose this would now be a disservice to all of the members of this forum and Shaolin Wahnam members throughout the world.

I hope this answer was long enough --- it was certainly longer than I had originally intended

Andrew

[Michael Udel]

Screaming video

Dear Sifu Anthony,

Conceal my feelings? These are opinions, not "feelings."

I don't question his knowledge. He's obviously a walking encyclopedia of information. I question his experience of the things that he speaks.

Again, I don't question his knowledge. I question his experience.

You are splitting hairs between words and avoiding making a response to these questions, which goes along with your selective responses to my posts.

And let's be clear. I accepted this "invitation", but offered a few stipulations.

You can't have it both ways: you either accepted or you did not. Sifu Stier's offer for anyone to come to his kwoon for a personal demonstration of his martial skill was made completely and unreservedly without any stipulations whatsoever long before any of this ocurred. Anyone who accepted the offer would be doing so according their own intentions, which would dictate the tone of the meeting. If you had wanted to meet Sifu Stier and make some sort of validation prior to now, you could have arranged it. I say you could have arranged the meeting with the same tone of assumption that you use when you insist that Sifu Stier is obligated to provide videos.

The stipulations you made were yours and yours alone, and were simply a convenient loophole you created to control the rules of the game, and give yourself an advantage and a safety net to back out, which you have done. The offer has been repeated with the incentive of some delicious tea, without conditions, stipulations, disclaimers, streaming video, and waivers. People who are confident in their abilities, both to take care of themselves and to accurately perceive the intentions of their opponent, don't require conditions and stipulations. If you truly believed Sifu Stier intended you harm, you would be a fool to visit him, and would not provide any scenario with conditions in which you would be obligated to attend the meeting. You never intended to meet with him; the stipulations were just a smoke screen.

This is a discussion forum, and generally, validation of words is done with words alone.

No, it's not. Maybe on other forums, but not this one....then we require validation with more than just words. That is our prerogative as hosts of this forum.

You are making up new rules as we go along in order to support your arguments. Was Sifu Stier ever explicitly and formally made aware, since he joined the forum, of the fact that you had obligated him to validate himself in a manner that suits you? His offer of validation, one that he made I'm sure without knowledge of your above quote, is that you may visit him for a personal demonstration of his martial skill, discussed above.

In this situation, the requirement for validation, you are not being fair to Sifu Stier and you are contradicting longstanding attitudes espoused by Shaolin Wahnam that the Master is not obligated to prove himself to anyone but his worthy students. Please explain why you are entitled to require "more than words" from Sifu Stier on this discussion forum, but I request that you do not repeat your earlier statement about prerogative. The fact this is "your" forum is equivalent to a child who says, "It's my football and we'll play by my rules." Sifu Stier has recently said that you should be more up front about what this forum is and is not in regards to its openness, although I do recall that you have stated words to the effect that the only opinions that matter here are those of Shaolin Wahnam Instructors.

What is more important, the message or the messenger? Is the value of this forum limited by the perceptions of its owners alone, or enlarged to rightfully include all of its participants? In other words, just because your team is behind in the score, will you run home with your football?

Never before in the history of Kung Fu has anonymity been an option.

Sifu Stier is not anonymous. He has stated that you are welcome to visit him to verify his identity and existence. A google search on "Shen Men Tao" will give you his contact information.

Are you sure? This post here makes the question of videos less clear.

I don't follow. He again explicitly states that there are no "...videos to post."

If Sifu Stier doesn't have any videos, then I find that a bit odd. This could be easily remedied by one of his students with a digicam.

Why "odd?" "Easy?" Says you. You know the difficulties involved in making videos, and should be able to recall what it could be like for someone with little to no experience in that field. There is a significant time period required to get up to speed.

Why do you feel you are in a position to dictate to Sifu Stier that he should have videos? Or that he should have anything you consider a priority? Again, I remind you that Shaolin Wahnam has stated that the Master is not obligated to prove himself to anyone but his worthy students.

I already addressed the issue of ad hominem attacks.

Yes, you said they benefit the forum, providing a justification for you and other Shaolin Wahnam Instructors to attack Sifu Stier.

My videos? Plenty.

Not surprised, since your videos are quite good. The way I should have phrased my question is, how many experienced martial artists have been dissatisfied with Shaolin Wahnam videos in their inability to validate various Shaolin Wahnam claims? There was just recently a post where it was stated that Shaolin Wahnam Instructors spend significant time explaining the videos to detractors. My point is that your requirement and receipt of a video from Sifu Stier may or may not satisfy you, whether because of actual lack of validating content in the video, or because of other reasons, such as those given by the many people who decry Shaolin Wahnam videos as unworthy of validating the fees Shaolin Wahnam charges for its classes.

I don't consider it to be harrassment. I consider it to be a perfectly reasonable request.

I have given my reasons why it is not a reasonable request, but for the sake of argument, let's say it is. It is harassment because of how frequently you and other Shaolin Wahnam Instructors have repeated this request.

It is another thing to walk what you talk.

If you are really so keen to discover the truth and "validate" Sifu Stier, and considering that Shaolin Wahnam has stated many times that the Master is not obligated to prove himself except to his students, then walk yourself to the airport and catch a flight to Austin. I daresay the time, effort, and expense involved, for a one-night stay, with discounted weekend airfare, is less than the cost of a video camera, associated peripherals (do I get USB 2.0 or IEEE 1394? Mini or full size plugs?, etc.), upgrading or purchasing a personal computer capable of video editing, and the time needed to learn how to use the new hardware and software to an acceptable level. I would understand completely if you said that you are too busy with your studies, kungfu students, and kungfu practice to make such a trip, but do you think your time is more valuable than Sifu Stier's, and that he should make it his priority to create videos to satisfy you? Perhaps you wish to just observe a class and skip the face-to-face push hands? Sounds reasonable to me. If Sifu Stier is what he says he is, I think it would be obvious without crossing hands physically.

Best wishes,
Michael

[Sifu Stier]

Re: Validating Credentials

What better measure of my skill level and personal experience could you wish to have than my repeated, open invitation for those who have any doubts to meet with me for a live, personal demonstration. I promise to carry my credentials in both hands for your esteemed consideration!

Respectfully ~

Sifu Stier

[Michael Udel]

Stars, rivers, and lakes

Dear Sifu Santer,

Thank you for your respectful manner of addressing me. I wish to point out a small misunderstanding: I do not have the title of Sifu. Please call me "Michael" or "Michael Udel" according to your preference. Thank you.

How you confuse the false from the real, and mis-construct my good intension for something “very childish” is really beyond my comprehension.

Your good intentions were demonstrated by all the hard work you put into the Yielding thread and the fact that it was beneficial to many forum members. Your good intentions were questioned when you took a long time to respond to repeated requests from Sifu Stier, me, several Shaolin Wahnam students, and other forum members to change your tone and discontinue using Sifu Stier as the object of your criticism. Finally, your good intentions were proven when you did agree to stop antagonizing Sifu Stier. Ultimately, your good intentions were questioned when you resumed your unnecessary criticism of Sifu Stier.

But to avoid embarrassing Sifu Stier, we kept the discussion to ourselves.

But, you later made the discussion public. The the primary basis of my complaint is that you made public the fact that you criticized him as a group. This is the definition of gossip. I do not question your reasons or right for discussing anything you wish in private, but as I labored to explain earlier, it was improper when you publicly stated that you had been doing so, in an apparent attempt to humiliate Sifu Stier.

I also have invited Sifu Stier to debate with me to show me wrong to say that his concepts are shallow and his techniques low-level, but until today Sifu Stier has not replied to the debate.

A debate requires some preliminary agreement on the topic and content, but what you call a debate was your attempt to draw Sifu Stier into a disadvantageous argument. Your tight grip on the narrow interpretation of some insubstantial comments by Sifu Stier, taken out of context, do not allow for the proper meeting of the minds necessary as the precursor to a debate.

You also accused me of being “Hypocritical with a capital H.” I really wonder whether you understand the meaning of “hypocritical”.

If something is low-level, but you think it is high level because you have not been exposed to or experienced that of a higher level, you are ignorant, or you have different standards, which seems to be the case here.
If something is low-level, and you know it, but you still say that it is high-level, you are being hypocritical.
If something is low-level, and you know it, and say it publicly with substantiation, it is being honest and courageous – two of the qualities we value in Shaolin Wahnam.

My accusation of your being hypocritical was not in response to the substance of your kungfu discussion.

Really? You are bragging about your courtesy while simultaneously humiliating someone by letting everyone on the forum know that you and other instructors criticized him. Hypocritical with a capital H.

It was in response to the fact you were bragging about your courtesy while at the same time you were gossiping about the person to whom you thought you were showing such excellent courtesy.

“Initiate Instructor Level Practitioners … have the have the opportunity to learn Sun Style Tai-Chi Chuan, and the Wu Yi-Hsiang Style Tai-Chi Chuan from which it came, after achieving expertise in the Old Large Frame Yang Long Imperial Form Set, the Yang Pa-Hou Small Frame Form Set, and the related Weapon Form Sets for Straight Sword, Sabre or Broadsword, Staff, Spear, and Halberd or Long Handled Broadsword. Most students never get this far.”

As it has been mentioned many times, it is a matter of perspective. Maybe you and certainly many other people may consider this high level. It requires the practitioners to learn a lot of forms -- and often little or nothing else.

My interpretation of the above quote by Sifu Stier can be summed up as, "Who cares?" This is a simple description of his curriculum. Very little can be inferred. Sifu Stier's comment that most students don't finish that portion of the curriculum of Shen Men Tao can be interpreted in the most obvious way possible: most students don't get this far. If 100 students have enrolled, and more than 50 have not completed this portion of the curriculum, his comment is simply a statement of fact.

He has made a few other statements during his 900+ posts that he trains more in one day than most of his students do in one week, and he has also said that extraordinary effort is required. The obvious meaning to me (and therefore, why not to everyone , Michael said ironically) is that Sifu Stier is emphasizing the importance of dilligent practice for the success of the student.

“An energetic web connects all, and that the energy is dynamic, active and alive. In fact, without it present within you, your body would be lifeless! So, what is the nature of Nature? Does this connecting energy function according to known principles or does it just randomly express itself?

The ONLY way to know for certain is to study and observe Nature. And not by only watching an occasional nature program on the television. Let such programs motivate you to hike outdoors, wade and swim in rivers and lakes, go on a wilderness camping trip, buy a telescope and study the sky at night.....anything that will get you outside in all kinds of weather, both day and night, to see and smell Nature, and hear Her words of wisdom!”

It is obvious that Sifu Stier does not know that by Nature the Taoists mean the Original State or God. The Taoists do not mean rivers and lakes, and stars at night. There are many ways to experience Nature, including chi kung, Shaolin Kungfu and Tai Chi Chuan. Indeed many Shaolin Wahnam students have had glimpses of Nature, and some of their experiences are recorded in this forum.

Hence, Sifu Stier’s first paragraph quoted above is based on reading, and he does not have direct experience. If he had, he would not have written what he wrote.

Are you saying that rivers, lakes, and stars do not express the original state of God? That's what it meant to me. I remember when Sifu Stier made that post becuase I was immediately inspired to delight in my memories of nature, recalling my fondest trips into the mountains and longing for the next clear night when I could gaze at the stars.

It is interesting to note, Sifu Santer, that you and I have spent time and energy digging up some old posts in attempts to persuade the other of our respective points of view. I have to confess that I fear we may have wasted our time. To try and salvage something from this, I would like to tell you that you have given me many enjoyable chuckles in the past few months because of a joke you made earlier, way back in the CFQ thread. In the middle of a stressful situation, you remarked on the "...worst bar in SE Asia..." Every time I have walked past some godforsaken dive in Guangzhou since I read your post I have wondered, "Is this worse than the 'worst bar in SE Asia?'" and laughed. Thank you for your sense of humor.

Best wishes,
Michael

[Andrew]

Michael,

You are obviously extremely passionate about Sifu Stier's status on the forum and that is fine. I would suggest, though, that you do take the time to take a small step back to review all that has happened. At the moment your posts are coming "hard and fast" and you may (or may not) benefit from a little more contemplation.

I would like to address just 3 things right now.

1. Anthony's acceptance of Sifu Stier's "invitation"
Anthony set out stipulations in line with traditional encounters between Chinese martial artists from centuries ago. It was absolutely normal for the parties to demonstrate some of their skills and abilities prior to engaging in a friendly (or non-friendly) sparring. More often than not there were interested spectators to watch and "record" the goings on and "results".

Considering this, it is absolutely understandable that Anthony requested to see some of Sifu Stier's kung fu in advance of meeting and also the video recording of the "event" so that we cyber spectators can witness the event. If we had no record, would any of us believe the "result".

2. Splitting hairs etc.

You are splitting hairs between words and avoiding making a response to these questions, which goes along with your selective responses to my posts.

It is interesting to see you comment on Anthony's apparent use of this tactic whilst ignoring Sifu Stier's many actual uses thereof. Please note the differentiation of "real and apparent".

3. Validation

Was Sifu Stier ever explicitly and formally made aware, since he joined the forum, of the fact that you had obligated him to validate himself in a manner that suits you?

What you are saying, then, is that we (yes, plural) are expected to accept all Sifu Stier has to say with no evidence, no proof and no validation despite much of the presented information being contradictory to our own personal experience and basic concepts and principles taught in our school? That, I must say, is what is (using your word) farsical.

If we say nothing, we could be accused of accepting and agreeing with Sifu Stier's words through our non-response. If we disagree, Sifu Stier turns on us (still using plural). If we ask for proof of the claims or detailed discussion about them, we are being unreasonable and unfair. I must have missed something

Andrew

[Michael Udel]

What if?

Originally posted by Sifu Stier:

Sifu Udel, that you come to such a conclusion gives me cause for concern. What is the opinion of the other readers of this thread? Imagine Sifu Stiers words were addressed to you, would you interpret them as the kind of action that could result in just a "small bruise" to your buttocks? Really, I'd like know.

Kind regards

Marcus

Dear Sifu Santer,

There is an obvious and fundamental difference of opinion between us in regards to this particular point. Because of the great space between our respective positions and interpretations, I am not confident that we will be able to come closer in understanding to one another, but I will do my best to answer your question.

It's difficult for me to put myself in your situation. I would have agreed with those Shaolin Wahnam students to stop mentioning Sifu Stier in the Yielding thread and continue doing your excellent work discussing the topic without Sifu Stier being the continued object of your criticism.

I consider Sifu Stier to be a kind and benevolent man, and I don't believe he wants to harm anyone. I interpret his words in the context of his being a conscientious martial arts teacher with a reputation to protect.

I am unable to satisfy your request to explain how I would feel if Sifu Stier were to aim such words at me, perhaps because I respond to his style of communication differently than you. I have tried to write something to show sympathy for you, but everything I write sounds wrong. If he threatened me, I just wouldn't be able to take it seriously, perhaps because I am also from Texas. "Don't mess with Texas!" I do not think he threatened you, but as I said, we differ greatly on this point.

Best wishes,
Michael

[Michael Udel]

Chinese characters

Dear Michael,

Thank you and is nice to "meet" you.
I understand that there are others who have responded to your statement above but I wish to let you know that I accept it as a reasonable alternative interpretation of what Sifu Stier has written. It would be to everybody's liking if Sifu Stier can make it clearer (if that was what he meant) in the first instance.
BTW I know you are learning Mandarin and would like to present you the following words.

心儀

Qingui

Dear Qingqui,

Thanks for the Chinese characters. I will ask one of my students to tell me about them. Is it "little Buddha"? I'm sure I am waaaay off. BTW, I'm trying to learn Cantonese.

See you on the forum!
Michael

[Andrew]

Michael,

I received your deleted post by email as I am subscribed to this thread and was, at best, disappointed by your aggression and loss of self-control. You may be learning the wrong "unexpected lessons" from all of this. I think your decision to delete the post was wise.

Thanks,
Andrew

[Michael Udel]

Michael,

I think your decision to delete the post was wise.

Thanks,
Andrew

Then you're definitely not going to like the actual post I made

Best,
Michael

[Michael Udel]

Overstating the bleedin' obvious

Dear Sifu Barnett,

I am responding to both of your posts, #74 and #78, in this single post since you didn't give me a chance to reply to your first one before posting another. Never fear, I am caught up responding to the other slew of posts from the group of Shaolin Wahnam Instructors aligned in a coordinated personal attack against Sifu Stier, in flagrant and repeated violation of the rules of this forum, and can now reply to your latest missives, which are missing useful content, and are just a repetition of other's posts, including, surprisingly, my own.

Sometimes brevity is best. As I have shown earlier in this thread, passing on a message in a single concise sentence is better than confusing it in many paragraphs. You obviously received my message despite its brevity.

I received the message that you are completely incapable of responding coherently to any of the specific points that I made, and that you needed extra time just to come up with this very lame response, which again fails to reply directly to any of the specific points in my posts.

I can say personally, that much of what Sifu Stier claims has been proved incorrect or, as my Brother Marcus so aptly puts, "low level" -- and this proof is provided by my own perosnal experience.

Will you please substantiate the above claim? What is your "own personal experience"?

Your comparison with Jack London's book was very interesting in this respect. Were you yourself an experienced sailor of the ships he mentions in his books, you would be in a position to confirm or dispute the technical validity of his excellent work. Without this practical basis, it reamins an excellent book but its validity in terms of sailing prowess may rightly remain in question.

You have repeated the exact point that I originally made, while failing to grasp the meaning yourself. "I will try and shoehorn this concept into your brainpan," as we used to say in the Marines. The setting of the book is not important compared to the theme, which I am fully qualified in evaluating without any sailing experience whatsoever. To be even simpler, I don't care about sailing, I care about writing. Jack London was not well-regarded as the best fiction writer in the world because of his sailing prowess, but because of his skill as a writer.

Sifu Stier makes claims which he is not willing or not able to back up with any form of substantive evidence which directly contradict my own experience.

What direct experience are you refering to? Are you just saying that you don't regard his posts as highly as I do? To find more substantive evidence, American Airlines has non-stop flights from Zurich to Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport. Take a taxi from D/FW to Love Field, jump into a Love 737 for a 45 minute ride to Austin's Bergstrom Int'l Airport. Hire a car and drive about 40 miles west by southwest. Exit car. Receive "substantive evidence." Stay in Austin for a few days and enjoy the best city in Texas. The beer is good and so is the music.

We question his experience (not necessarily his theoretical knowledge) because we (plural) have personal experience which proves him wrong.

I think you've set a new record for repeating yourself in a post without actually giving any substantive evidence to back up your words.

Anthony set out stipulations in line with traditional encounters between Chinese martial artists from centuries ago.

Your statement is completely invalidated by the fact that Sifu Stier made no such stipulations. You are now inserting another stipulation retroactively that something Sifu Korahais did can be excused by claiming that it was according to ancient Chinese tradition. It's quite clear that Sifu Stier, whom you claim is not experienced in the martial arts, is completely confident in his abilities and doesn't need to make any conditions or stipulations to meet anyone who wants a personal demonstration of his skill. Sifu Korahais is obviously lacking confidence in his abilities, as are you in him, that you need to make so many excuses for backing out of meeting Sifu Stier.

It is interesting to see you comment on Anthony's apparent use of this tactic whilst ignoring Sifu Stier's many actual uses thereof. Please note the differentiation of "real and apparent".

I gave specific examples of Sifu Korahais' playing obvious word games, to which you completely failed to respond. You neither refuted what I specifically said about Sifu Korahais, nor did you give any specific examples to back up what you're saying about Sifu Stier.

What you are saying, then, is that we (yes, plural) are expected to accept all Sifu Stier has to say with no evidence, no proof and no validation despite much of the presented information being contradictory to our own personal experience and basic concepts and principles taught in our school? That, I must say, is what is (using your word) farsical.

I'm beginning to wonder if there is not something faulty in your computer's video monitor inhibiting your ability to read. I clearly explained that Sifu Korahais is putting dubious demands on Sifu Stier, demands whose origin is a matter of Sifu Korahais' emminent capricious nature in the face of a situation where, if he can not control by manipulating the rules, he makes new ones up.

Best,
Michael