Re: That it works, don't make it good.
I am reminded of a line from "Barfly" - something about "dumb luck counting too." J
Well I would not count it as an empirical error - it worked because it worked. However, the mistake comes when we take what worked beyond the parameters in which it worked, coming to ignore those parameters (especially when they are extremely limited), and then universalizing that which worked as that which works.
If you suspend this notion (i.e. that which worked works), even if just temporarily, and you then go beyond to investigate the whys and hows that supported such a working, you are going to realize real quick that having something that "worked" is just the beginning of one's investigation into what works (what is good/what is practical).
In this example, you see a technique that worked. Why? How? If one is truly interested in seeing what works, one is going to ask these questions -- moving beyond the fact that it worked. You are going to note that the underlying effectiveness which is present is heavily dependent upon the following: having 30-50 pounds on your opponent; being in fight and not being attacked; having your opponent swing wildly; having your opponent close his eyes and/or turn his gaze away; having your opponent being unskilled at closing the gap; having your opponent be unskilled at tying you up; having your opponent limit himself to hand ballistic weapons only; etc. If you do this, you know you got a great technique for fighting smaller folks of extremely low skill who are not all that interested in really taking you out. If you do not do this type of analysis, attempting to satisfy all that can and should be learned with this single phenomena, you will have a tendency to walk away saying, "Kung Fu kicks ass!" The downside to this is, if Kung Fu truly kicks ass, you will never be the one to know it because you will never come to know the how and why that is necessary for supporting such a statement.
Last edited by senshincenter : 06-19-2005 at 01:21 PM.