"There is nothing ugly in art except that which is without character,that is to say,that which offers no inner or outer truth.

"Whatever is false,whatever is artificial,whatever seeks to be pretty rather than expressive,whatever is capricious and affected,whatever smiles without motive,bends or struts without cause,is mannered without reason; all that is without soul and without truth;all that is only a parade of beauty and grace;all,in short that lies,is ugliness in art.

"When an artist,intending to improve upon nature,adds green to the springtime,rose to the sunrise,carmine to young lips,he creates ugliness because he lies.

"Whenever he softens the grimace of pain,the shapelessness of age,the hideousness of perversion,when he arranges nature-veiling, disguising,TEMPERING IT TO PLEASE THE IGNORANT PUBLIC-then he creates ugliness because he fears the truth.

"To any artist worthy of the name,all in nature is beautiful because his eyes fearlessly accepting all exterior truth,read there,as in an open book,all the inner truth."-Rodin

>Mario the below may sum at least a portion of this thread up.Perhaps you can have the honor of translation.

"Et pourtant vous serez semblable a` cette ordure,
A cette horrible infection.

Etoile de mes yeux,Soleil de ma nature,
O mon ange et ma passion!

Oui,telle vous serez,o la reine des Graces
Apres les derniers sacrements.

Quand vous irez sous l'herbe et los floraisons grasses
Pourrir parmi les ossements.

Alors,o ma Beaute,dites a` la vermaine
Qui vous mangerez de baisers,

Que j'ai garde la forme et l'essence divine
De mes amours decomposes!"-Bauldelaire

Conrad,

I absolutely do not feel proficient enough to translate some poetry(Baudelaire!) from french to english, both foreign to me, without looking REALLY stupid.
I just hazard reading from french the second verse:
Stella dei miei occhi, Sole della mia natura,
O mio angelo e mia passione!
This in italian, my friend. You will give us the pleasure of the correct english version.

Thank you. You did something special.
("There is nothing ugly in art except that which is without character"

Let's hold our head high, we are martial artists!

Ah most esteemed and learned gentlemen, did not Wang live into his nineties? Not bad for a dude who fornicated and ate more than 2 or 3 average men. Certainly he may have been a diabetic, which would have been a result either of his genes or his wieght, not the other way around. Perhaps his Bagua kept him alive, or perhaps what it did for his spirit is what kept him alive. Which reminds me of What Wu Tunan (reputed to have lived to 104) said when asked if Tai Chi Chuan was the secret to his longevity- "a calm spirit is the secret of longevity, Tai Chi Chuan can help you to cultivate a calm spirit". So to might Bagua, Xing Yi, cigars, fornicating, or flat out whatever- as long as it helps promote your peace of mind. As to chi and the Chinese Medical Paradigm, it cracks me up that so many people are willing to invest substantial energy and time into Asian martial arts( seems to imply that they find something worthwhile there) yet are blantantly arrogant in their assumption of the superiority of the Western Paradigm and what that says about the poor, ignorant oriental belief in Chi. Good Training to y'all.

Idaho Joe,
I agree with you. Keep walking your own way, we will try to do so too, struggling to be serious, humble and never again arrogant&superficial.
Good training to you, sir.

Idaho Joe,
I couldn't agree more as to the arrogance that too often accompanies a western viewpoint, and as to the absurdity of invetsing a substantial effort into learning a Chinese martial art while rejecting the cornerstone of the paradigm, i.e. qi. While I admit hesitancy to offer this observation behind the guise of politeness, it is a conclusion I reached several weeks ago.

I readily admit that fighting skill can and is achieved without accepting the qi paradigm, but also I believe that this approach is self-limiting and closes out the possibility of achieveing the highest levels of skill and personal development these neijia arts have to offer.

To each their own tao, but personally I will continue my practice with an eye to every practical use of my training, a perspective rooted in the rational method of thought, and an acceptance of the natural phenomenon of qi as completely within those two concepts.

Good training to all as we each follow our own tao,
Walter

Well stated sir. However, in my headlong rush to to make snide comments about paradigms and arrogance I fear that some may get the notion that I embrace the reality of much of the circus style huckstering that goes on regarding Chi.

I believe in the reality of Chi not because of what I have read or "seen", but because of my own direct exprience; exprience in teaching others to feel their own Chi(including hard-nosed folks quite resistant to the idea)and feel my Chi also. But notions about tossing people around simply with Chi, either at a distance or with a touch strongly resemble a certain bucolic byproduct of an odorous nature. I believe that Chi can be mostly explained by a liberal application of Chemical and Physical concepts, with perhaps a foray into Qauntum mechanics and Psychology. Properly cultivating your Chi should make you healthier, saner, faster and stronger- all desirable attributes from a martial perspective.

Nonetheless, I am mindful of what Jimmy Woo said regarding a student being able to kill a chicken with his Chi without touching it( I know I couldn't, but let me dose it every day for two weeks and I bet I could make it awfully sick, or well, depending on the state of mind I cultivated while "treating" it). I am also mindful of what Adam Hsu(someone whose people I actually had lessons with)says about Chi Gung and martial arts: traditionaly in the southern styles they were taught quite separately, so as do avoid confusing the student as to which was which.

Idaho Joe and Sir Walter Joyce sure do have similar writing styles.

Hmmmmmmmmm

Perhaps we both have had the benefit of a bit of education; albeit,I use more semi-colons.

Perhaps you both have had the benefit of the same education; albeit, one that fostered a personality which would enjoy responding to your own posts.

Perhaps not.

Either way, I'd love to bring a healthy chicken to visit you for 2 weeks to see if, indeed, you can sicken it by 'dosing' it with chi. We can video tape each session and post the results online.

If you succeed, you'll have instant internet fame (along with PETA complaints) and chi shooting credibility. If you fail to sicken the chicken you have to kill and eat the whole thing raw, feathers, beak, feet and all.

There would be stipulations that exclude interaction between you and the chicken other than the dosing sessions, and I would have to retain all control of the chicken's diet.

Dear Shane,
An interesting proposal. I am afraid that I am not in the slightest interested in "internet fame"(If'n I was, don't you think I would use my real name?). If I lose, do I get to use Wasabi on the Chicken?

Sure, but I must warn you, wasabi makes the feathers harder to swallow and even more difficult to pass!

Gentlemen,
when it's time to speak about Chi all the fallacies of the world come to life. The abuse of the desire that man bares for 'superpowers' troubles us all (not to say tough that some special individual do not possess something that resembles a superpower). Still, keeping our mind cool and ears open, we can admitt there is much more thatn we usually know in our bodies and minds. I'll tell a story.
In a seminar I met a chinese yiquan teacher. He did not believe in chi as it's usually known but claimed that with the power of tought you can make 'energy' emerge from relaxation. Well, skeptical, I asked a go. He said: "Which is your strongest strike?" "My right kick". And I shot a vicious thai lowkick with all my effort to his left leg. He (75kg) smile remaining relaxed, so I (95kg) shot a second kick. At the end he did not have moved an inch and I felt my shin had hit an iron bar hidden in a cotton sack.

Let's hold our head high, we are martial artists!

Shane,
Sorry but we are different people from diferent parts of the country, albeit with similar perspectives. If you notice I have chosen to post with my actual name attached, not a pseudonym.

As to your challenge, I too am not interested in internet fame. Nor am I interested in sickening poultry, or superpowers, just full development of my personal potential. There are however, more serious studies on the effect or potential effects of qi being done, such as the accupuncture as treatment for hypertension study at Massachusetts General Hospital. Perhaps you've seen it mentioned on the national news.

If this institution, as well as other serious institutions (such as Harvard Medical School) are investigating the natural phenomenon of qi, and its potential for healing and health maintenance, why would anyone stoop to foolish attempts at infecting poultry to satisfy your closed minded skepticism?

And to complete the my argument for the record: If qi is effective as a source of health maintenance and treatment of illness, as a central principle of Chinese medicine and a product of Chinese culture, why should we be so quick to dismiss its potential as a phenomenon to be addressed in martial training, as suggested by the neijia tradition?

In closing I feel to compelled to ask, do you often question someone's credibility when feeling taht your core beliefs are being challenged? Remember, minds are like parachutes, they only work when they're open.
Good training all,
Walter (For the easily confused, I am who I say I am and I post under one name only on this discussion board.)

Walter,

Firstly, I never suggested anyone sicken a chicken with doses of Chi, I simply stated my willingness to test someone's assertion they can.

Secondly, I'm far more open minded than you might expect. I believe lots paranormal stuff, I've experienced and seen things that the majority of folks would never believe if I had the inclination to blab about them- however, I know what I know and do not need external validation.

Do I often question someone's credibility when feeling that my core beliefs are being challenged? The short answer is; No.

The long answer is;
1) I don't really know because my core beliefs have never been challenged.
1-a) there is nothing in my core belief system that covers Idaho Joe's chi projecting, chicken sickening abilities.
2) I do not believe I questioned anyone's credibility in my recent posts (I did suggest that you and Idaho Joe seem to me to be one person, but now that you've clearly stated you use your real name and Idaho Joe has clearly stated he does not-well then- mystery solved!)

Happy training,
Shane

Idaho Joe,

In regards to your statement "I am mindful of what Jimmy Woo said regarding a student being able to kill a chicken with his Chi without touching it" what did Jimmy say about that?

Were Jimmy Woo's students frequently attacked by chickens?

Jimmy Woo reputedly had a student who started making claims about his ability with Chi. Mr. Woo told the student that if he could kill a chicken with his chi, without touching said chicken, Mr. Woo would publicly kiss his ass- I believe the student thereupon moderated his claims( say, do suppose that if I can"sicken a chicken" with my Chi, I could get someone to kiss my ass?). At any rate the story, which read I in some magazine was intended to illustrate Mr. Woo's feelings about chi and fighting.

Would Woo would kiss his own ass, the Chicken's or the student's?

Was the story intended to illustrate that Mr.Woo's feelings about chi was the over-whelming urge to press his lips to someone (or some animals) butt?

For someone with the benefit of a bit of education you certainly don't explain yourself very well.

I reckon my writin is a bit obtuse. What do you think is the most likely scenario? Mr. Woo demonstrating superior flexibility by kisssing his own arse because one of his students could kill a chicken with mysterious Chi power? Or Mr. Woo being so certain that the student was full of B.S., that Mr. Woo felt confident(pretty sure he(Mr. Woo)would not have to) in proposing that in the highly unlikely event(probably couldn't be done) that the student killed the chicken(with his chi power), Mr. Woo would then publicly kiss the students arse(shouldn't take to much flexibilty)? Since Mr. Woo( from what I have read, and the local San Soo stylists I have encountered) did not teach, nor advocate Chi Gung, could we not conclude that he felt it was worthless from a fighters perspective?
My education only extends(so far) to junior college level, where I have recieved A's in English Composition( which no doubt explains my poor writn style).
Regards, Idaho Joe

Honestly, none of those scenarios sound likely at all. I highly doubt Mr. Woo nor his students were EVER able to locate, and I quote you, "a chicken with mysterious Chi power" That's just absurd.

Even if they WERE able to find such a chicken, I'm certain Jimmy Woo would rather catch it for scientific research than have a student kill it and then receive a reward of a smooch on the toocus.

I've known several of Jimmy's long time students and I'm sure that by now I would have heard about the chicken if that story were even remotely factual.

Ah, I stand corrected, and with a gooey, slimy substance on my face( perhaps Chi charged egg from the mystery Chicken). Well, I guess that is what comes from reading Martial Arts magazines. Perhaps You could enlighten me regarding Mr. Woo's true feelings and teachings regarding Chi and/or chickens.