Sen no sen

[47MartialMan]

Originally Posted by Draven

Knowing something doesn't make it work, you have to know and be able to apply it without having to think it over. You just react, and react based on both knowledge and training. Whether that knowledge is academic such as understanding strategy and human interaction or tactical such as applying the correct technique against a given threat...

The late Bruce Lee seemed to have this.

[Magister]

Originally Posted by 47MartialMan

The late Bruce Lee seemed to have this.

Most fighters recognised the efficacy of intuition. Humans, as a species, are born with innate instincts traceable through an evolutionary phylogenetic history. It is only as one learns the morals of not fighting in modern society that these instincts become dormant. For some odd reason, man's intellect tells him he needs to go to experts of fighting to awaken his instincts, which of course is utter non-sence. All good masters of fighting know that to be good at fighting, you need to ingnore the intellectual mumble-jumble and listen to your instincts as a human animal. Hence the importance of meditation, of No-mindedness in the martial arts, of the Void etc. Good fighting is therefore the science of studying the instincts.

[Thanatos]

Originally Posted by Magister

Hence the importance of meditation, of No-mindedness in the martial arts, of the Void etc.

What I strive for basically.

[souldrum71]

Originally Posted by Magister

Hence the importance of meditation, of No-mindedness in the martial arts, of the Void etc.

Yeah, a lot of my high school English students have mastered 'no-mindedness,' and hardly any of them can even explain the difference between a kick and a punch.

[47MartialMan]

Originally Posted by Magister

Most fighters recognised the efficacy of intuition. Humans, as a species, are born with innate instincts traceable through an evolutionary phylogenetic history. It is only as one learns the morals of not fighting in modern society that these instincts become dormant. For some odd reason, man's intellect tells him he needs to go to experts of fighting to awaken his instincts, which of course is utter non-sence. All good masters of fighting know that to be good at fighting, you need to ingnore the intellectual mumble-jumble and listen to your instincts as a human animal. Hence the importance of meditation, of No-mindedness in the martial arts, of the Void etc. Good fighting is therefore the science of studying the instincts.

Some scholars and/or scientists would argue about human "instinct"

[Them's Fighting Words]

Originally Posted by Magister

Most fighters recognised the efficacy of intuition. Humans, as a species, are born with innate instincts traceable through an evolutionary phylogenetic history. It is only as one learns the morals of not fighting in modern society that these instincts become dormant. For some odd reason, man's intellect tells him he needs to go to experts of fighting to awaken his instincts, which of course is utter non-sence. All good masters of fighting know that to be good at fighting, you need to ingnore the intellectual mumble-jumble and listen to your instincts as a human animal. Hence the importance of meditation, of No-mindedness in the martial arts, of the Void etc. Good fighting is therefore the science of studying the instincts.

While I believe in the importance of human instinct, I also believe that without proper education, one cannot exceed a very basic ability for survival. In the same way that a human on their own is instinctively guided to communicate but cannot actually formulate meaningful languages on their own. A human on their own is also instinctively guided to try and survive a fight but is unlikely to fosm the most effective techniques to win. Only with correct teching methodology and combat experience can one train to fully utilise the surival instinct into something more than "Tooth and Claw".

[Draven]

Originally Posted by Magister

Most fighters recognised the efficacy of intuition. Humans, as a species, are born with innate instincts traceable through an evolutionary phylogenetic history. It is only as one learns the morals of not fighting in modern society that these instincts become dormant. For some odd reason, man's intellect tells him he needs to go to experts of fighting to awaken his instincts, which of course is utter non-sence. All good masters of fighting know that to be good at fighting, you need to ingnore the intellectual mumble-jumble and listen to your instincts as a human animal. Hence the importance of meditation, of No-mindedness in the martial arts, of the Void etc. Good fighting is therefore the science of studying the instincts.

Instinct is reaction and adaptation without thought, and human instinct like the instincts of any predator needs to developped, conditioned and trained. Watch some kittens sometime; they are taught to hunt by mothers. The same is true for dogs especially those breed for hunting.

Rememeber the the Hagakure warns against the abstract use of no-mind in avoidance as an avoidance for proper training. No mind can be better translated as no-thought, action without preconceaved thought to outcome or event...

[47MartialMan]

Mothers' teaching is not instinct. Instinct is reality cannot be taught. Some sociologists, psychologists, and or sociobiologist, tend to disagree that because of intellect, humans cannot have instinct. That what is term instinct is actually reflexes. Human intellect could indicate no actual instinct. We think, we do, we can over-ride motivational forces.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by 47MartialMan

Mothers' teaching is not instinct. Instinct is reality cannot be taught. Some sociologists, psychologists, and or sociobiologist, tend to disagree that because of intellect, humans cannot have instinct. That what is term instinct is actually reflexes. Human intellect could indicate no actual instinct. We think, we do, we can over-ride motivational forces.

And we can recall information & conditioned actions reflexively. Instinct is reflex as you have defined and so can reflexes not be conditioned? More so, do predatory animals not teach their children to hunt, yes they do. Instinct is react without contious thought, but thats does not mean we can react without knowledge. Or that knowledge somehow is a barrier to instinct.

I'm more of a fan of simple explainations; if instinct is action/reaction without contious thought (i.e. reflex) then how can reflexes be conditioned? Since everyday we train to condition our reflexes are we not building and improving instincts?

[47MartialMan]

Originally Posted by Draven

And we can recall information & conditioned actions reflexively. Instinct is reflex as you have defined and so can reflexes not be conditioned? More so, do predatory animals not teach their children to hunt, yes they do. Instinct is react without contious thought, but thats does not mean we can react without knowledge. Or that knowledge somehow is a barrier to instinct.

I'm more of a fan of simple explainations; if instinct is action/reaction without contious thought (i.e. reflex) then how can reflexes be conditioned? Since everyday we train to condition our reflexes are we not building and improving instincts?

Humans improve their intellect, not their instincts. It is their intellect that separates them from animals. Rather humans choose to not remain in a social conform of non-agression is another study. Aggression can be surpressed. Remember-reflexes and instinct are not the same.

In biology, instincts have generally been thought of as largely inborn instructions for behaviours that are more complex than a reflex. The animal must interpret or search for an environmental que before it will implement its instinct. For example, a spider will look for a place to build its web, or a bird will search for a potential mate before giving its courtship display. No learning is needed for a spider to know how to build its web, a bird to build its nest or display in courtship (perhaps), or for a wasp to know how to paralyse and nip the legs off a spider so it will fit snugly into its mud gallery as food for its larva. These are inherited instincts. The environment must provide the right conditions for their expression, but then contributes little else.

[Chapel]

Originally Posted by 47MartialMan

Mothers' teaching is not instinct. Instinct is reality cannot be taught. Some sociologists, psychologists, and or sociobiologist, tend to disagree that because of intellect, humans cannot have instinct. That what is term instinct is actually reflexes. Human intellect could indicate no actual instinct. We think, we do, we can over-ride motivational forces.

Except the act of a mother caring for and teaching a child is instinctual. The lessons aren't, the act is.

Beyond that, I think its mostly semantics.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by 47MartialMan

Humans improve their intellect, not their instincts. It is their intellect that separates them from animals. Rather humans choose to not remain in a social conform of non-agression is another study. Aggression can be surpressed. Remember-reflexes and instinct are not the same.

I would rather believe we do both; when attacked it is instinct to raise our arms in defense is it not? And, so it is the conditioning of reflexes build onto that instinct; to learn and condition blocking/counter striking patterns...

A child plays based in part on instinct; the need to compete and to prove oneself and to question everything. However as the child grows older those drives take new forms and a form of social programming takes place based on the knowledge the child aquires. Simply because we are more discoplined then animals does not mean we do not share the same instinct or instinct to learn.

All mothers are feircely protective of their children (its an instinct), all men assume the role of "protecter" or "champion" to attract females and everyone seeks to apropriate with the opposite sex. Thats an instinct, how we address it and what we learn by addressing further programs our instincts. Instinct is tied to emotions and reflex reactions. It is our instincts to fear the dark after all, how we address that is up on us and as we learn our instincts take a new focus through our experiences...

[Magister]

Originally Posted by 47MartialMan

Some scholars and/or scientists would argue about human "instinct"

Indeed, Ethologists consider that to be an instinct, behaviour must:
a) be automatic,
b) be irresistible,
c) occur at some point in development,
d) be triggered by some event in the environment,
e) occur in every member of the species,
f) be un-modifiable, and
g) govern behaviour for which the organism needs no training

Of course, not all of these apply - as you said, aggression can be controlled and therefore it is modifiable. However, as Geoff Thompson discusses, there are still a set of instinctive behaviours, some of which he names as:

1. “Arm Splaying:
The attacker splays his arms in a fit of exclamation. The fingers come-on. He will often beckon his victim on with his fingers.
2. Head nodding:
the head will sporadically nod to underline the verbal.
3. Neck pecking:
he will peck his neck, again to underline verbal.
4. Eye bulge:
due to the tunnel-vision that accompanies adrenaline the attackers eyes will appear wide and staring.
5. Stancing up:
he will take up an inate fighting stance.
6. Distance close down:
with every passing second the attacker will advance closer to his victim, his movements and tone becoming erratic and aggressive the closer he gets to actual attack. “

In which case, as MartialMan says, it is not as simple a consideration. Perhaps instincts are a subconsious element which the neocortex is able to conquer?

Originally Posted by Them's Fighting Words

While I believe in the importance of human instinct, I also believe that without proper education, one cannot exceed a very basic ability for survival. In the same way that a human on their own is instinctively guided to communicate but cannot actually formulate meaningful languages on their own. A human on their own is also instinctively guided to try and survive a fight but is unlikely to fosm the most effective techniques to win. Only with correct teching methodology and combat experience can one train to fully utilise the surival instinct into something more than "Tooth and Claw".

As Thomas Hobbes once concluded;

"Let us suppose one man imbued with an excellent use and dexterity in handling arms; and another to have added to that dexterity an acquired science, of where he can offend, or be offended by his adversary, in every posture or guard: the ability of the former would be to the ability of the latter, as Prudentia to Sapientia; both useful; but the latter infallible."

[47MartialMan]

Hey. Dont misconstrue what I am saying. In school, I had pitted two of my teachers against each other on this very subject. Both of them had strong arguments.

Here's a kicker. If instinct in not to be considered as non-taught, not learned (how could it be), per a mother snake, spider, etc, do not "teach" their younglings how to hunt-etc., how does a human infant "know" how to suckle it's mother's breast/nipple?

[Thanatos]

Originally Posted by 47MartialMan

In school, I had pitted two of my teachers against each other on this very subject.

Sounds entertaining.