Ahrramin

I'm just going to write some thoughts I remember having whilst listening to the MA related podcasts. I didn't write anything down so I will have forgotten some of my responses...I have done thousands of hours of 'MA': Mostly Judo, but also with some BJJ, MMA and boxing... I did mostly bare-knuckle MMA/boxing because I didn't want to suffer brain-damage.I gained some understanding through listening to and pondering Stefan's MA podcasts, and I could easily just take that understanding for myself and go on with my life, but I am coming here to share some thoughts to improve other peoples' understanding (and perhaps further my own) too... 1) Stefan said that debates are win-win and MA competitions are win-lose. This is not true. Either can be win-win or win-lose, it's just a matter of mind set. Many people experience debates as win-lose, and many people experience MA fights/competitions as win-win. I experience both as win-win when the rules are followed -- logic in debates; and whatever the rules happen to be in the MA's that I agree to (I don't agree to rules which would tend towards injury because I would experience injury as a loss). Even when rules are not followed one could find a way to experience it as a win, e.g. in a debate one can feel that he has won by revealing his partner as illogical, or in MA's a cheater.2) I never experienced aggression (i.e. a feeling or action of wanting to violate someone else's rights) in practising MA's that I recall, and I had a great deal of empathy for my partners/opponents. I was careful to follow the rules, which includes ones to prevent injury, such as not jamming on an arm-lock, nor kicking someone in the side of the knee for example, because I didn't want to injure anyone (related to not being wanted to be injured myself). There was only a minority of practitioners I met who either wanted to, or were apathetic towards injuring people, and these people were often indifferent or positive towards being injured themselves. My attitude in practising MA's was no different to what it would be in any other 1-on-1 sport, I was focused on improving my skill/understanding through practise and competition just as in debating I am focused on improving my skill/understanding. I am not thinking about trying to harm people -- I am thinking about trying to cause pain (to get a submission), but this is different to causing harm/injury/suffering, and is something the person is agreeing to (whereas a small minority of people actively set out to cause suffering by breaking the rules and injuring their opponents -- something not agreed to).Smacking your girl-friend's ass and taking pleasure in the fact that she enjoys it shows the presence of empathy, not the lack of it. Similarly, by practising Judo someone is accepting that we do arm-locks which cause pain, so doing an arm-lock on someone who is fine with you doing arm-locks on them is not a lack of empathy. 3) Stefan reckoned that most people engaging in MA's were abused as children, and he included public schools in his list of abuses, and said this link suggested causality. However, the same case could equally be made that singing, or any other pursuit engaged in adulthood results from abuse, since most people were abused as children. 4) I started Judo the first time because my father took me there (and I very much enjoyed the sport of it. I didn't have any aggressive thoughts regarding it), and he had done Judo himself. I don't know why he started Judo... I then had a break from Judo and most other things because my parents neglected me and left me an invalid. I started Judo again after beginning the journey of recovering my health because I had decided I wanted to be an athlete (since they are fit/healthy and I cared a lot about fitness/health after being an invalid for several years) and put a lot of thought into which sport I could put the most commitment into. Judo met more criteria for me than any other sport (Diverse range of motion, natural movement/positions, directly useful skill, very engaging mentally -- so when not training physically can train mentally by studying technique/watching and thinking about fights, etc..) so I started doing that again.My mother verbally and emotionally abused me, and also threw things at me. My father physically controlled me, but neither of them hit me. The memory is fuzzy but my father may have made a fist like he was going to hit me a few times but not done it, as I started to get stronger and able to struggle against his physical control. As I mentioned earlier they neglected me which caused me extreme physical harm. The neglect included extremely bad advice health-wise.After being in a pleasant primary school I started a bad high-school wherein I was immersed in peer-to-peer bullying (mostly from older people) for the first time. I'd experienced it briefly before during inter-primary-school sports competitions. So, I was aware of the value of being able to stand up for myself physically. I was able to resist the bullies at first due to my strength, resolve and combat-ability, and I became well-known throughout the school for being tough/heroic/strong etc. At this time I embarked in trying to increase my physical strength/fitness, not only to fight the bullies but also to increase my ability in rugby and other new sports, and this is when my health collapsed and I became an invalid due to the neglect by my parents.I started doing BJJ because I had days when there were no Judo sessions I could travel to but there were BJJ sessions, and I wanted to train as much as possible. As I was doing MMA I wasn't aggressive, I was engaged in it as a sport. One big plus to my valuation of MMA (and Judo) was that it was a useful practical skill for defensive purposes, but I wasn't doing them and getting emotional, thinking about being attacked, imagining my opponent as someone who was attacking me, wanting to violate people's rights etc... I was just trying to improve my skill, complete techniques and score (which leads to victory), etc..5) Stefan said that practising MA's was not worth it because of the large amount of time it takes to get good and the small likelihood of actually being attacked in a way in which it is useful. He said that if it was useful it's likely the result of some childhood trauma which was making the person recreate dangerous experiences which I understand. However, this is not the full story. A similar argument could be made for learning foreign languages for example... It takes a lot of time to learn a foreign language, yet how often have you ever actually needed it..? Skill in martial arts and foreign languages opens up niches to you to which other people don't have access. For example skill in MA will help someone in developing a security company, or simply getting a job as a security guard.. Likewise learning foreign languages can help someone develop an international company or simply getting a job as a translator.Also, it's not as though Stefan does not encounter aggression, he just prefers to submit to it to prevent escalation (e.g. I remember a story involving some burly guys on pool table at a bar). Some people however prefer not to submit, and that's just an individual preference. Each has its advantages and its disadvantages. The more adept one is in combat, the less situations there are in which one cannot win. There would come a point in the progression towards liberty when authoritarians would still exist, but libertarians would have enough might to resist them. Whilst it might be better if certain people were to avoid direct conflict -- people with highly developed and useful skill sets who were not adept in combat -- if everyone were to do the same then no one's rights would be protected, so it's good that there are people who make themselves adept in combat and refuse to submit.6) Stefan said that MA is not practise for self-defense, because if two people were just defending themselves then nothing would happen. Firstly, there are katas in which one person takes the role of attacker and the other the role of defender; secondly, that argument is like saying that engaging in disaster flight-simulations is not practise for flying a plane because if you were flying a plane you wouldn't intentionally create disaster situations..________________End of thoughts for now. I look forward to hearing some responses. This is a very rough post as I've not done much proof-reading of it, so I expect there will be mistakes.

Theory of General Morality Morality means doing what is socially right, or good; immorality means doing what is socially wrong, or bad. Individuals make subjective value judgments as to what they consider to be socially right, and what they consider to be socially wrong: One person would consider a tattoo to be a work of art, and would be very grateful to have received one - they would consider the actions of the tattoo artist to be right, or moral; whilst another would consider it to be a scar and would be saddened to have received one - they would consider the actions of the tattoo artist to be wrong, or immoral. For this reason we cannot be sure whether the actions we or others take are right: moral; or wrong: immoral, unless we ensure that consent is granted by the people whom those actions affect. Consequently, whilst morality itself is subjective; and whilst morality -- actions judged to be right -- can occur without consent; the only way to ensure morality and prevent immorality is to prevent people from acting against others without consent. This theory, therefore, is a rational justification for the Non Aggression Principle (NAP) –- which states that actions should not be taken against people and their property without consent: implied or explained -- being the objective foundation of a moral society. I think the above theory is as objective as one can get in terms of morality.

It's not the morphine, it's the size of the cage: Rat Park experiment upturns conventional wisdom about addiction

So in a fairly recent call-in show there was an ex-hockey player who suffered chronic pain since he stopped playing.I would like to ask that person if he changed his diet when he stopped playing hockey.Because, eating poor quality food can increase the inflammatory response, meaning existing damage which he was living fine with, once he stopped and started eating badly, the body could start attacking itself in those places through inflammation (blood quarantine) and make that damage worse. So, say, he could have done damage in his joint but his body just accepts it and it's not really a problem, then the body quarantines it, starving the cells of oxygen causing them to die (thinking it is infected or something) which causes more damage, perpetuating the same inflammatory response, preventing it from ever healing. I was neglected and, I don't know what the term would be, but sort of 'actively neglected' too... What would you call it when a parent, for example, tells a child that it is good to eat lots of sweets, or to starve themselves, or to do any such harmful thing because it will make them prettier, or stronger etc..? So not only are they feeding the child badly, but also telling them it is good so they engage in it by their own will.Anyway, I experienced this chronic pain due to bad diet as a child, and when I changed my diet as an adult, the pain stopped within days. So... clearly I had not had a chance yet to heal, it's just that the inflammation stopped, which then allowed me to function normally and my body just healed then over time. Feel free to move this thread to a more appropriate sub-forum if one exists.