Nevertheless, I get what Anne is trying to say - that her level of investment should not be put down below anyone else's, and that it does yield real results and things of great significance for her, etc. I 100% agree with that and teach that in my own school. I understand her but she does not understand me. What she does not get is that I can personally concede the viability of hobby level training (to myself, to her, and my own students that train thusly) while nevertheless being able to note that there remains a depth that is going untouched (for whatever reason, but here by choice). So accepting of hobby level training am I that I can easily note its superficiality while not saying it is completely false, impossible of being real, and/or without any value.
David, I understand that you are taking an effort to attempt to understand what I am saying. I appreciate your effort, but once again you fail to understand.
I would be fine if you said for yourself
a hobby is superficial, but that is not what you are saying. You are saying that if someone does not train as serious as you expect them then they are a hobbiest; therefore, they are superficial. Then you say that people:
Deep down most are festering in insecurity regarding the superficiality they cannot seem to move beyond.
Those kinds of statements really cross the line and really define to me more what you are about. Such statments of generalities really put a meaning behind your idea of superficiality. Some how, any hobbiest, by your definition, has some sort of deep festering insecurity that people can not let go of. It is not that you only take a serious view towards yourself
and your own training
, but you also take the time to place a judgment on those who do not meet your standards
of a "serious student." And, in an effort to make yourself sound like a serious martial artist, you end up putting others down in order to raise yourself up to a supposed higher standard.