Wu-Wei and Taoism

In class we had an interesting lesson about Taoism and Wu-Wei. We were also asked to write a blog on it, or any of the other stuff we learned today. So this is me posting my thoughts on it.
As I mentioned, the ancient arts of Kung Fu center greatly around Taoism. The basic teachings of Kung Fu state things that are basically Taoist beliefs.
From what I've studied personally, the most basic teaching of Kung Fu is that one does not learn Kung Fu. It is awakened from within them. Take a look at animals. How do they know how to defend themselves? Even from birth, a kitten claws with the exact same motion as a fully-grown tiger. Obviously animals don't learn how to fight. How are humans different? Well, first of all, we don't rely on natural instincts as much as animals do. From a young age we're taught to use reason instead of instinct, so we've never developed our instincts. So you can clearly see a connection to Taoism already. It applies perfectly to Wu-Wei. If we had just submit ourselves to the natural order, there would be no need to study martial arts. We would naturally know how to use our bodies to defend ourselves.
Of course I'm considering the ups and downs of that way of thinking. The only advantage seems to be that instinct is directly tied to having a substantial knowledge of survival. However, the way we as humans have formed our society, those who do not learn reason and use what we glorify as "higher thinking" will not succeed, and cannot survive in a civil environment. Instead of starting what we're born with, all we can do is learn what we have to in order to follow a system put here by the fools before us. Our society restricts us from following natural order, ergo it restricts us from finding harmony with the world. It seems the only times we can feel true peace is when we remove ourselves from the bonds of everyday drudgeries. I may not look or act it, but I enjoy the great outdoors, probably a lot more than the next person. There is nowhere I can find more happiness than on riverpaths, in quiet meadows, or among the mountains and canyons. My most cherished memory was spent on a rock jutting out the side of a mountain, looking down at the valleys, letting the nature lift away the burdens of my mind, if just for an hour or two.
But I guess this is a principle of Taoism too. The Universe contains complementary opposites, Yin and Yang. This is also a principle taught in the LDS doctrine. Opposition in all things, right?. For how could we know true happiness if we have never experienced the deepest of sorrows? What is good without evil also? Where would we find peace if there was no strife?
I guess ultimately, that's what modern society is good for: So that people can remove themselves from it to find peace. Heheh.

What if violence/murder was not considered immoral?

Often I've pondered that question. How would our society as well as our government be formed differently if murder and other acts of violence were not considered so incredibly immoral? How would the average person's mind differ in its priorities if it was a regular thing to learn how to defend yourself? How much more of an impact would the philosophies taught by martial arts have on our way of thinking as a whole? Well, let's take a step back with this question: Why does our government hold murder as the highest offense against the law?
Well, the answer is pretty basic--the taking of another person's life is the most effective way to involuntarily restrict their freedom--which is why I'd like to analyze it. It's a primitive answer to a stupid question. It's a lot more fun to get something meaningful out of it.
What is so intriguing about such a simple answer is that it's based on our most basic cultural thinking. It is not uncertain to the average American that killing someone will do little more than end their life permanently. We are so bound by this cause & effect belief that we never consider other cultural points of view to have any truth in them. And because of such a belief, we also believe therefore that murder is the most terrible crime; so terrible in fact that we sometimes find the most justice in taking the life of the murderer as well.
How does this compare to the Japanese way of thinking? Well first of all, in Japan, Shinto-do caused its disciples (all people of Japan at one point) to look at violence and murder very differently. The Japanese believe as part of common sense that humans are not physical beings, but spiritual inhabitants. One's own spirit is not fully bound to the body they are given. It could be drawn out, dispersed, concentrated, or even bound to another spirit/object/animal/person. From this basic belief branches all the things about Okami and Oni, spirits unbound by physical substance, but often taking the form of animals or objects. For instance: Amaterasu, the Okami of Life, is often portrayed as a dog. On the other hand, many Oni are portrayed as dolls or flying swords.
Even if many Japanese are/claim to be Buddhist or even Christian these days, this way of thinking brought on by Shinto-do is still present insomuch that even today their everyday speech resembles it. In Japanese one does not say "My hair is brown", they say "The hair is brown". Or, more accurately, "Hair-[on top of head] [subject marker] tea-colored [positive statement marker]". Your body and its faculties are not your possessions. That's not to say there's no such thing as personal property. Japanese does in fact have possessive speech: a donut can and often will belong to someone (so be warned). People still say "She is my mother", "I am your* servant", "Get your* hands off my donut!", and "This is my table and if you don't move now I'll cut you to pieces!". (*There are two different words for "you": Anata and Kimi, which mean "you" and "this/these/those not of 1st person addressing nearest 3rd person", respectively.)
So you can hopefully now see why, at least in ancient Japan, the ideas of murder and violence weren't considered so morally wrong. To remove someone from their body usually didn't mean much more than that. There were of course laws against killing someone against their will, that is, unless the Emperor willed it so. Then in the later centuries there was a time when unsanctioned duels between Samurai were strongly discouraged. Eventually it became a law for all Samurai that they could not challenge or accept challenges. This wasn't because killing was considered wrong, mind you. It was simply because as the Samurai went, they were very hard to replace, and they were only useful to their lords when they were alive and in good health.
It was a large part of Bushido that a Samurai should always be prepared to die. That is ultimately what carrying a sword meant: death, either on your account or the account of your enemies. So really there was no way to unlawfully kill a Samurai. The only problem one may have faced is being able to kill them. Understand though that, as highly trained as any Samurai was, they were careful to not become so prideful that they may have thought themselves invincible. No, an honorable Samurai was one who, upon brandishing his sword, knew that his life was at just as much mercy as his enemy's. Not that he doubted his own abilities, but he was at least wise enough to know that no amount of skill could ever temper someone's skin against the cutting edge, should their own skill fail them.
In modern society we fall very short of that way of thinking, because killing to us is so wrong that we think nothing of it. Civilized people don't kill each other anymore (I myself beg to differ, but that will be a different blog, possibly). When it comes to violence and combat, people are so shallow these days that they seriously believe a gun is more effective than a sword in every conceivable situation, and that pointing one at someone and pulling the trigger will somehow magically kill them. Does this not also effect the way we think in other situations? Take guns to be the easier path. We often take the easier path, thinking it will always be sufficient and just as if not more efficient than the harder path. How would being trained with firearms, blades, other weapons, and martial arts effect our way of thinking?
Perhaps then there would be a higher standard for "common sense".

Please do not take this as me supporting or glorifying violence. To me it deserves less of a place in our society than sports and entertainment. That doesn't mean that what can be learned from insights of combat cannot be applied to everyday life, and that is why I think we all should study combat seriously and sensitively, no matter how much our society condemns it.

Upon reading an excerpt from the Koran

This is me trying to squeeze one more task into an already busy and stressful day. I could barely get anything done; in fact, I'm still supposed to read two short stories and finish my math homework by Thursday. Right now however I should probably be catching up on sleep so I can stop being late to first period. I'm sick of coming in to a quiet room catching the attention of everyone as they try to finish up their bell writes. Just know that most of the time it isn't my fault. Usually it's siblings or the traffic that's to blame. It's not easy knowing when the best time to leave is when you live two cities away from the school and have to commute across a street that's infamous for being very busy and occasionally chaotic. Any number of obstacles could come up, and they have. Moreover I haven't even talked to my friends back at my old school this week, which just makes the stress worse. Every spare moment I have I waste by trying to contact them and failing.
So anyway, to the topic. We were all assigned to write a blog about the excerpt from the Koran we read as homework. I noticed almost immediately that it was a retelling of the story of Joseph, son of Jacob. Or did the title indicate that? I'm not going to bother checking.
What made it so different from the way the old testament tells it is that it was written with more detail. Really, it could be compared alongside the version in the Bible and except for some details which on a grand scale don't really matter it wouldn't disagree with it at all. It seemed as if it was meant to be written that way. Now, I myself had neither the time, energy, nor motivation to actually open my King James Version and see how the accounts compare, but from what I remember it isn't too different. And I guess if there are certain ways the King James Version is worded that disallow certain interpretations, it may just as well be possible that this account could be compared alongside another more popular version of the Bible, such as the one the old-world Hebrews used. This is just lazy speculation so I'm not sure.
I apologize for not being so quick to factualize and muse in this blog. I really need to be getting to bed earlier and I simply don't have enough time or energy to pour all my philosophical soul into a required class assignment.

Pending Blog Prompts

Here's a place for me to record anything that comes to my mind that I may want to write a blog about. Feel free to take any of these ideas and blog about them yourself.

• The human mind's shortcomings in striving to simplify and classify the world around us
• Mainstream and the contradictory ways in which youth deal with it
• The negative ways in which people respond to challenges against their opinions, beliefs, ideas, etc.
• How religion effects our government's definition of morality (Particularly speculation on how the usual way of thinking would differ if we didn't think of violence and killing as pure evils)
• How to use a tabletop RPG as a fun innovative medium for field-testing original characters, why it's so cool, and what the limitations are
  

THIS JUST IN...

Please take note: the following video has been carefully censored of violent or suggestive themes so as to not offend the nuns down the street.



THIS IS BEOWULF.

. . .


BEWOWEWOWEWOWEWOWEWOWEH

How does the main character make a story interesting?

Esteemed friends interested and bored enough to read my published rants, we stand on the brink of finishing our Beowulf unit. I, having read the whole thing, have a few afterthoughts upon Beowulf as a main character.
Beowulf almost immediately struck me as a legendary unstoppable kinda guy from as soon as he wandered into the story. He's a warrior with bear-like strength who in his senior years is still able to break a dyed-iron viker sword against any surface that dare test its sharpness. With his bare hands he was able to wrestle with the cursed monster Grendel, whose skin was like iron to the blade, and tear his arm off no less. And he has no doubt of his abilities, shows no sign of fear to his enemies: his mind is unbreakable. So here's a guy with basically no weaknesses, except that he's so strong he can accidentally break his own armaments. Invincible, unbreakable, god-like: perfect. (I just know I've seen those words somewhere else...can't quite put my finger on it...some book about vampires....)
So overall I was actually disappointed in the story and in Beowulf as a character. While I was reading along I kept praying for some amount of actual struggle in the conflicts that took place. But time after time my prayers went unanswered. Beowulf seamlessly overcame every single obstacle he came across (except of course the dragon, because hey, it's a freaking dragon). Seamlessly, I say! because despite the fact he's everything but immortal, he defeats his enemies without so much as a possibility of failure present. In fact he isn't so much as scratched when facing Grendel and Grendel's mom. And yes, I know he gave a speech before he went off to kill her that was basically him stating that he might die, to me it sounded more like "Oh yeah man, sounds radical. I can probably do it without even breaking a sweat, but to be fair, if I really do die through some really stupid series of misfortunes, that's totally cool with me. Now let's blow this popsicle stand!"
I understand that Beowulf is not modern literature and to compare it with our modern expectations would be unfair. But to me it seems like one of those classics you study in high school and never speak of again until all of the sudden there's a movie about it that barely resembles the text. And in the interest of good literature I still choose to pick at its unfathomably invincible main character.
Beowulf is not charming in a way a main character should be. He's actually rather full of himself. And it's not that he couldn't compile a list of good reasons for his self-absorbedness, it just makes him a lot less interesting and memorable than a main character should be. He has the personality and description that would better fit him in the role of a minor character. Compare him to minor characters such as Emmett Cullen, that one master fencer from Seven Samurai whom I can't remember the name of, or Auron from Final Fantasy X. People like those characters and some who can't look two moves ahead demand that they be the main characters of the story, but they really work better and can get that reputation because they're not the main character. In fiction, the main character is the one who must struggle with conflict both plot-related and psychological. Pre-composed invincible characters like Beowulf and Emmett wouldn't make for interesting main characters because there is no struggle anymore, they are completely developed and would therefore make for a very boring and uneventful story (poor Stephenie Meyer managed to weave past that literary safety pylon by making her centralized character stale in those ways). If the main character is designed such that they can overcome any obstacle with minimal effort and their mind is already composed beyond breaking point without the risk of losing a shred of confidence, the story overall will struggle to be interesting. Suspense must take place. Simple rule of fiction.
Often I fight for the idea of the main character still having at least some skill or talent. If there's anything I hate, it's an unbelievably skilless main character utterly lacking in confidence and knowledge of ability to the point of contemptibility. Invincibility may kill suspense, but total powerlessness is simply absurd. As Brandon Sanderson so wittingly wrote in his review for Henroshi's Bane (a short story of mine), "I am relieved to not find myself reading the story of yet another ordinary peasant boy somehow destined to save humanity. [Henroshi] has skill, and there's no shame in it."
I designed Henroshi to be a man with a mind as sharp and ready as the blade he so masterfully wielded. This is how I see it: I give a character a sword, they must know how to use it. It is utility. The best way to challenge a character thus is to either take away their choice weapon or put them against a foe with equal or greater skill. This seems difficult at first, but hey, so is writing a novel. Also, Henroshi had to deal with a serious psychological obstacle which he had difficulty overcoming throughout the entire story. And that is how you create a main character who is unique and charismatic enough to be remembered; not for his place in the plot, but for his own skills and attributes along with the way he is developed.

What is Immorality?

Now I can finally get around to the prompt I had more interest in, and had a lot more to say about. Last week in class we were discussing immorality. I don't recall how we branched off to that as many of us have ADD and it takes worthless effort to try to stay on one subject. In his own blog, Mr. Dye briefly touched on the controversy of the Holy Bible. Most of what I'm about to say I've already covered in my comment on that blog.
As Mr. Dye stated, the Bible contains several scenes portraying immorality--violence, sex, gore, incest, inhuman cruelty, even foul language if you choose to interpret it that way--the Bible has it all. So what makes the Bible so special that morally-minded Christian parents don't look at it and say "I would never read that to my children!"? There's certainly enough questionable content to make that outlook suitable. Think about it, if there was a movie that followed the entire Bible word for word, there's nothing they could do to get any less than an R rating.
Now there are two sensible ways to think past this. We can either accept the fact that the Bible along with other R-rated materials contain enough praiseworthy content to justify their very existence, or we can shun the Bible along with any material that shares its distasteful traits. I choose the former. Yes, I confess: I watch lots of R-rated movies. Just as I believe the Bible to be a collaboration of holy works by inspired men of God, so do I find good report in such movies. Sometimes the R rating on some of the R-rated movies I watch could easily be removed had they gone without one wretched scene. In rare cases there's no reason for it to be rated R and it just seems the MPAA took one look at it and said "Behold, it's a movie based off an anime intended for mature audiences; it must be rated R". But in most cases the R is there for good reasons. And I can see why people of my faith wouldn't subject themselves to such material (to those people I can only say "the Bible is such an awful book!" and hope they get the hint). Some people aren't headstrong or mature enough to take all the blood, the flashing weapons, and the occasional scantily-clad heroine. And some who subject themselves to such material are hardly deserving of it. Too many people watch R movies simply for the blood and the violence and the sexual themes; in other words, they watch R movies because they're rated R. This I find deplorable. Not only does it show that these people have no sense of morals, it also dampens their ability to appreciate the higher meaning that is present in most R-rated movies. There are too many examples to list I'm afraid, but let me tell you, several times have I walked away from an R-rated movie having been taught an important principle of humanity. Sometimes it's a lot harder to find for a couple reasons: first and foremost there would often be heavy amounts of violence that would distract the average audience to any higher meaning, or simply the higher meaning would be too subtle to be offright. Other times it's not necessarily a philosophy or a principle, but simply an interesting concept.
Anyway, I'm gonna end that branch and get back to the topic at hand. In class we helped Mr. Dye classify that in order to be considered moral, the book/movie must have the following traits: It must show that actions have consequences, it must show that liberty is linked to responsibility, and most important it must portray humans as complex individuals.
I feel that after that we haven't necessarily defined morals per se, but that we've essentially defined something entirely different. That's not to say that the list is bad, but who are we to decide what morals are? Everyone has their own definition and drawn lines not to cross. Sure there's a common ground for all moralists, but I don't see that list as the Venn of all perspectives. Regardless, I like that list; not because it shows what morals are, but because it basically defines good literature. That being said, let me address a certain series of books that doesn't quite make the cut. I guess if the list really does show what morals are, you can consider the series to be immoral. And that being said, I'll give a warning: If you react aggressively to someone questioning the moral value or quality of something you like (in other words if you're a close-minded individual that does not subject themselves to critical thinking and questions the validity of that which you follow), do not read on.
I'm gonna name it right off for ya: the Twilight Series. Never in all my life have I read fiction that has fallen so short of the standard of good literature it has literally driven me to violent psychosis and chronic nausea. I understand I'm not the target audience. That still does not excuse Stephenie Meyer from portraying a sociopathic overaged vampire as the ideal boyfriend/husband. The books struggle to even amount to our list, and they fall very short of it. Let's take a look at it:

• It must show that actions have consequences - Beyond common sense it fails. Sure, Bella gets pregnant after she and Edward procreate. But does it show the consequences that often follow for a teenage girl after having a boy in her room alone with her? That's not to say it would lead to unchaste activities; I'm addressing the issue of the apparent lack of parental impact upon Bella's tolerance for such an unspeakable action. In real life, parents would charge on to battle at the first sign of such. Let's hope at least, because in a society of morals, parents are the law and a responsible parent recognizes that.
• It must show that liberty is linked to responsibility - In no way does it show this. Bella is given an unrealistic amount of liberty and she has no sense of responsibility. This is either because she is stupid or because Meyer failed to make a believable main character. Take for instance the fact that absolutely everyone in her new school loves her to death for no good reason. This I would classify as a liberty. At this she fails to take responsibility, recognizing the way people treat her unconditionally, but not showing that same love in return. Or what about her responsibility as a daughter, being given the liberty that Charlie has granted her? She should be thankful to have such unquestioned freedom (were I her father I would not abide her talking to me as if I were a stranger that never tells me where she's going).
• It must portray humans [(AND vampires...AND werewolves)] as complex individuals - Let me think, what's the best way to say this? If this requirement was the essential factor in determining whether a book was moral or not, Twilight and its sequels would be banned, burned, and exorcised. The characters are far from complex. Some are cliches, others are archetypes, but most are simply poorly constructed. Bella is your typical helpless female, stripped of any sense of heroism or the slightest ounce of self-respect. She sets the worst example possible for female teenagers. The text basically screams to the young female population: "Dislike yourself no matter how beautiful you are, kill yourself before living down a bad break-up, and let a hot guy who struggles to control himself take control of you. Oh, and only marry guys whose last name sounds like the word for the rear-end of your digestive system. By the way, nerds are gross!" And don't get me started on Edward. I cannot begin to describe how one-dimensional, conceited, sociopathic, and unrealistic he is. That's mostly because I've done it so much I'm rather sick of it. He is clearly the reason the book was made and I believe it is because of that centralization in creating a novel that ultimately made the premise and plot fail. I have never enjoyed romance novels for that reason: often the only reason the book was made was to describe the author's idea of the perfect mate. You can clearly see how this would make a book automatically detestable. Not only does the idea of the perfect mate differ from person to person (meanwhile Stephenie Meyer was wrong to use a bloodthirsty sociopath as her prime example), but writing an entire novel while trying to focus on that aspect (I would say six paragraphs devoted to describing how oh-so perfect Edward's body is would be classified as focusing on that aspect, wouldn't you?) would deprive the text of the more essential attributes that would qualify it to be considered good literature. It becomes even more of a problem when the centralized character is also void of personality and strikes you as the kind of guy that would trap a girl with no self-respect in an abusive relationship. And frighteningly enough, the dialog reflects that (note: this is a summary of the selected dialog, not exact quotes. Thus, the incessant cheesiness of the original lines has been discarded): "Face it, you're lost without me." "No other man can make you feel the way I can make you feel." This, children, is what we call signs of an abusive relationship. An abusive relationship does not necessarily consist of physical abuse, mind you. It can also be called such if there is emotional abuse or even if inhibition of freedom is enforced. Often the abusive mate will not force their partner to stay, but they will say certain things that they will be enticed to believe so strongly, they eventually submit to it.

Anyway, aren't we glad THAT's over. But there you have it, the ultimate example of what is immoral according to the way we classified morals. I'm aware I probably stepped over several lines of provocation, but please understand that I am only criticizing the books in order to open your mind to what we've all agreed is moral and inversely what is immoral.

Now following the first prompt...

When all you lucky people were told en masse how to create your blogs, you were left with a question to ponder: Why study history? I guess I'm not exempt, and I'll answer that now.

First of all, it's really hard to say something that hasn't already been said by several of you. I find that there are only a limited number of sensible answers to that question, and it's been answered by many, many people, philosophers and students alike. So after presenting a few of my favorites I'll conclude.

The best reason I can think of right away is the fact that history tells us of what's been done in the past. We can learn from these things in order to move our civilization forward, as well as our individual way of thinking. Learning from mistakes is important, but too few people have addressed the opposite of that way of thinking: We can learn from the achievements of historical figures as well. It was the achievements of Gandhi that inspired Martin Luther King, Jr. to start a revolution free from the necessity of bloodshed. Can we not learn from these men a glorious way to change the world, one without war?
And so touching on that I can make a connection to another reason: History allows us to look at the past in order to build a greater future. What more can be said about that? I'll move on.
History allows people the opportunity to not be stupid. If video gamers never read a history book and only relied on "historical" games (point of interest: Age of Empires II is NOT historically accurate in the least*) as a reliable source of knowledge, where would we be? Honestly, this thing called "strategic balance" is tarnishing the proud covers of history. No, a single-shot rifle was not more powerful than a heavy repeating automatic. No, knights were not combat-devout brutes with little but common sense; on the contrary, knights were revered for their educated minds. And no, for the last time, the Spanish did not win the Mexican Revolution!

Those are definitely enough reasons for you to chew on. That's all for now, folks. And now, an hilarious image:

Aye, me be a pirate! Savvy?

*If it were historically accurate in the least, the Japanese would be an unstoppable force. Check the dates, people: The Samurai had already forged the perfect hand-to-hand weapon and developed several deadly martial arts before the armies of Europe had even gotten the brilliant idea to wear armor, and by then the Samurai had that covered too and were even able to refine it minimally. Take that, western culture.

This is my 1st blog post.

Yup.
I'll add more elements to this page once I'm on a familiar computer. Once I'm through it'll blow you all away. For now, enjoy the drab default template. For sooth!