3/29/2007 1:40pm, #51
Since nobody liked my Venn diagram idea, here’s my take on the taxonomy. It’s essentially the same as mentioned with a few comments.
Tradionnal and Historical Martial Arts
Self-Defense and Combatives Systems
Display and Demonstration Arts
Fitness and Health
Styles would exist in one, and only one place. Each section could be further subdivided into sections representing things like Geographical origins (e.g. Chinese Arts, Korean Arts, etc) and focus (Grappling, sword arts, etc)
As for the “usefulness” of a particular style; that could be determined by linking each one to a comprehensive overview that includes rankings for things like aliveness, grappling, striking, and all the type of criteria you see in the school reviews.
For the whole “what about the instructors who are trying to make a difference” thing, I don’t think it’s relevant. Just because a few TKD schools are trying to make a difference doesn’t change the fact that TKD is traditional Korean martial art. If a person or school is that noteworthy, then you can insert something about them in the Bullshido.org page about TKD, or post a school review and link to that.
3/29/2007 3:10pm, #52
This whole category thing is asinine, unless Phrost just wanted to start something up to make all the idiots feel like they belong, and they're doing something. Arbeit macht frei!
Originally Posted by Phrost
Some of the ideas posited in this thread, ideas to give this project the nuance it'll need to keep from being outright misleading, are, while impressive in their dedication to complexity, in actuality destroying my soul as I attempt to read and understand them. The confusing results of these efforts would not justify the work required.
Originally Posted by Phrost
Originally Posted by donoharm
Anyway, it's not the art, it's how it's trained. You want to provide a service to the public? Outline succint, clear criteria that'll send them to the good TKD school and steer 'em away from the BJJ fakers, put 'em on a site that's easy to find and read.
Go ahead. I dare you.
...Ha ha, did you see where I said "good TKD school?" Oh rhetoric, is there no end to the fun we have?!Originally Posted by HedgehogeyOriginally Posted by Kidspatula
3/29/2007 3:26pm, #53Originally Posted by Dr. Fagbot Q. MacGillicuddy, PhD
This is an exercise in well-intentioned pigeon-holing using critical thinking. We're up against years and millions of dollars of marketing, misinformation, and outright lies. And just because you can't stuff every peg into one of 6 different holes, doesn't mean that all the pegs should be lumped together as if they were equal.
And doing this is a whole lot more diplomatic and inclusive than taking the blanket approach that if you're not training for a fight, then you're not a Martial Artist.
3/29/2007 3:53pm, #54Originally Posted by Phrost
Originally Posted by The Guy With The Good AdviceOriginally Posted by Phrost
And wouldn't that be more effective, in the long run? Helping people make better decisions? In essence, becoming smarter? As opposed to "Hey, I'm smart, listen to me and this is how it is, RRRRAR."Originally Posted by HedgehogeyOriginally Posted by Kidspatula
3/29/2007 4:01pm, #55Originally Posted by Dr. Fagbot Q. MacGillicuddy, PhD
What this exercise does is to say "These are the 5/6 primary reasons people train in Martial Arts. These are the styles that generally reflect those reasons".
The reason for doing this is to be more inclusive. Most of you know my personal opinion on this subject; if you're not training to fight, then you're LARPing. But we're not going to accomplish much with that extremist stance and so trying to create a framework around why people train in MA, and which styles generally cater to them, is a better way of going about doing what we do here than saying "If you don't fight, **** YOU" like a billboard for Tarrlyton Cigarettes.
And wouldn't that be more effective, in the long run? Helping people make better decisions? In essence, becoming smarter? As opposed to "Hey, I'm smart, listen to me and this is how it is, RRRRAR."
3/29/2007 4:04pm, #56
Well, it's settled, then. Doomed to failure. At least you'll come out of it with some fascinating discussion and... Oh, wait, no you won't, it'll be more of the same old megathread bullshit. Well, good luck!
(This isn't trolling, by the way.)Originally Posted by HedgehogeyOriginally Posted by Kidspatula
3/29/2007 4:24pm, #57
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
Sorry, DFQMP, but we as a society classify and name things, this sort of project is what everyone does all the time.
BUT, there is a major category missing on the original taxonomy proposed for this thread, that category is "Bullshido" itself.
Without it, where do we put: arts that are absolute crap, made up by some guy with purchased qualifications and a desire to head a cult?
Without that category, you are doomed to let the kid who makes up a style in his basement and competes in a forms competition place his style into the "Sport Martial Art" category."Sifu, I"m niether - I'm a fire dragon so don't **** with me!"
3/29/2007 4:27pm, #58
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
Usually, I'd say that such arts wouldn't even merit a profile - they can be dismissed at a glance as total craziness.
3/29/2007 5:17pm, #59
For generations, scholars have argued about aesthetic experience. Some argue that it exists, other that it's a bourgeois illusion. For those who do think it exists, some say it's an ineffable phantasm, others a clear and tangible constant. For those who think it's a constant, some say it's a universal structure (with individual content), others a universal structure and content (it always has this form, and this significance).
Quite the scholarly clusterfuck, as per usual.
Philosopher Monroe Beardsley had endorsed several different versions, and realised he couldn't make them all fit together. It just didn't work, and no amount of carving off or squashing in would make ALL the elements of aesthetic experience fit together ALL the time.
So he fudged it, and the result was very helpful.
Rather than beginning with a theory of humankind and the universe, and ending with a theory of art, he logically examines aesthetic experience to contribute a clear description of its characteristics. Aesthetic experience must have object-directedness, and at least three of the other characteristics: felt freedom, active discovery, detached affect, and wholeness. While each of these might be included in other kinds of experience, the combination of four of Beardsley’s characteristics ensure that they are excluded from aesthetics per se. In so doing, Beardsley allows for the widest variety of aesthetic experiences, without including everything and anything. This provides a helpful ‘rule of thumb’ for art and museum professionals, whether they are judging art, or trying to develop programs for facilitating and evaluating aesthetic experience.
Sorry about the long post - just giving some context.
3/29/2007 5:32pm, #60
To continue briefly, Phrost's original taxonomy was helpful, because it appealed to what people are looking for. Most parents - for example - aren't looking for BJJ, they're looking for something that'll get Jimmy off the couch, and into some exercise. They might also want to help Jimmy with his self-esteem problems, and defend himself against 'that Fagbot boy' (who's a bully, but really just wants to be hugged).
So rather than focusing on a taxonomy of all martial arts, you say: if you want to learn how to fight, you do: 1, 2 or 3. To find a good 3 school, make sure it has a, and three of b, c, d and e.
Bullshido could have a field where you enter what you want, and it suggests what you might be looking for (I'd do none of this, of course - it's all up to Phrost and his many Objectivist minions).
Last edited by DAYoung; 3/29/2007 5:36pm at .