Main > The Round Table

Which one do you think you are?

<< < (2/7) > >>

Thorsteinn:
Fighter. But you knew that.

You used to live with me after all.  ;)

Sir William:
Those who can, fight.  Those who cannot, teach.  I've seen great fighters who make poor coaches/trainers - because beside the natural talent, you also have to have the ability to connect with your pupil(s), otherwise they will fail, because you have failed to instruct them properly.  The opposite is also true, as well as some who fall in between...great fighters and great instructors.

Your definitions are too linear for me...to choose only one would be to deny all the rest which makes up a man, or more specifically, me.  I was a fighter in my youth, I'm more of a scholar now- but that does not mean I won't fight, or that fear would unman me...I tend to think before I speak and act rashly; it is the smarter way to live in my humble opinion.

Having said that, I see nothing wrong with how you choose to define yourself, but hopefully you'll not take offense when I say that a single one of those could not truly define me.  I am not one to subscribe to societal pressures that one must be clearly defined in such a way that ultimately cannot encompass the sum totality of who and what I am, and what my experiences leading up to this moment have had a hand in making me so.  Square peg, round hole sort of thing.

I would not balk at taking a life if circumstances were such that it was vitally necessary...but there is nothing at all romantic about it.  Of course, never having taken a life, I can't say for sure, but the subsequent loosening of bowels, bladder and blood doesn't make for an inviting bouquet.  Not to mention, I find the idea morally abhorrent.  True, that's more of a societal construct and personal view, but most, if not all of us here are in some way ruled by such things.  There is a reason for that as well...some of us might take a liking to it, and there's really no place for men like that, other than in specialized military or clandestine service and even then, the system of rules, checks and balances are such that if you have a proclivity for bloodshed, they'll find a use for you, until you are no longer useful, and then that's that- but what kind of life is that to lead?  We're all academics as we study the sword, its history, the art forms associated with it- but not a one of us has engaged in a duel to the death...at least, I have not and I'm reasonably sure my other brethren also have not.  Are your views about it being romantic stemming from a personal experience?

Sir Brian:

--- Quote from: Cavaliere di Fiore on 2012-06-21, 16:53:04 ---Sir Brian,
I would be more then happy to further clarify each of these in order to dissuade or solidify your beliefs if you have specific questions.

You and I obviously think differently, though, as I believe taking anothers life is the ultimate form of romance (in the classical term of the word of course). Two men meeting in mortal combat to decide an issue by the point of their swords, the speed of their daggers, and the force of their hands have already accepted the fact that they will kill the man with which they have this disagreement. There is nothing left in them but solid resolve. The two men come onto the field as equals with singular vision, and they both have nothing left to say. It is the epitome of black versus white, of the clash of ideas, it is man boiled down to his baser self. We are animals, but we fight as intelligent beings. I think that is quite romantic.
--- End quote ---

Really? – So how many lives have you actually taken? How many eyes have you looked into and watched as the light of their life became extinguished from your hand and the stench of their released bowels and bladder assault your senses since we all must suffer that same undignified end of being smothered in our own sh** and piss as we die? – To the best of my knowledge I have not taken a life for which I thank God and pray I never have to even though I am capable and willing if it ever becomes necessary. – That’s about as romantic as a fucking heart attack.


--- Quote ---Also, as stated above, Scholars by my definition do not fight at all. They do not understand what they are studying, they are just studying. They have no practical experience, no resolve or drive to win, they just think they know, think they are right, think they are better swordsman because they have read a book.

And no, the true purpose of Martial Arts is to kill others, as given evidence by the name which I am sure you know derives from Mars the god of War in the Roman Pantheon, not the god of Defense which I am pretty sure there is none. I do not mean to sound combative when I say that by the way, I know the internet can make certain things seem more vehement than others.
--- End quote ---

Mere semantics there since typically by the very nature of war one must kill their enemy in order to preserve your own life. – i.e. Kill or be killed.

However you are correct in that we most definitely think differently. Any training in any martial art is just that: TRAINING. It isn’t real. It is all make believe. You can train so hard and often that when an actual need calls for your chosen art to be utilized, your training (instincts and muscle memory) will serve you well. Other than that you will not tap into the level of endorphins and adrenaline as a genuine life and death fight releases into your bloodstream does. No MMA, boxing, or Karate match, nor any WMA duel or SCA combat, nope nothing will be real enough to convince your body to react in a primordial fight/flight mode. Ergo it is all make believe and as such not to be taken too seriously or overly sensationalized.

Sir William:
Sir Brian, you mention professional combat athletics and that is well done- though fighters in those sports train to win, there are traditions set in place to take one from 'fight mode' to 'calm' - almost ceremonial in aspect.  Take boxing, for instance- I speak on this one because I boxed as a youth and took instruction at my father's knee since I could walk as it runs in the family.  Prefight weigh-ins, taping of the wrists and hands, lacing on the gloves, putting on the robe, last-minute warmups and glovework- these are all things designed to aid in the mental preparatory aspect of fighting.  You've noted that once they get in the ring, their handlers are very close, and when they strip off the robe, that is step one.  Then they meet in the middle to get their last minute instructions (which they'd already received from the ref in the dressing room prior to entering the venue, so it is just a reiteration) where they touch gloves and its back to the corners.  From that point on, the first rule is to always defend yourself, you're in a fight!  At the end of a fight, the robe (or in MMA, a t-shirt, some form of clothing) goes back on, signifying the end of the match, before they leave the ring.  These traditions are in place for to take the fighter from one mode to another...it has a psychological effect and that is the primary reason for it.  So that these combatants do not leave the arena only to still be in fight mode, and potentially wreak havoc on an unsuspecting populace.  Even so, they're not killers...but they do need to be 'handled' as it were to avoid any unfortunate events.  Those who cannot or will not comply with said traditions normally don't last long or do very well as they lack the requisite discipline to advance.

Cavaliere di Fiore:
No they aren't, Sir William. I suppose that leaves me with nothing but an idealistic understanding of it, and I am guessing that in many instances romance was only that, idealistic. Fair argument indeed. I just believe that if circumstances permitting the taking of a life would occur one such as we would not only perform the action as necessary but also feel at the very least justified that we did so, and at the most powerful and glad that we could preform the duty instead of another in order to preserve whatever ideals we or our community believe.

It seems to me that the taking of a life, when justified, should be exalted since the only reason to do so would be to maintain and fight for an ideal, and ideals are generally worth dying for. I think the point I am trying to make is that if one was to take another life in defense of an ideal then you should not grieve for the taking of that life, because the fact of the matter is you live for those ideals, and if you feel bad for defending them then why do you live for them in the first place?

Every man and women dies. It is not your choice if they decide to harm others, or create a dark shadow over peoples lives. It is your choice to believe contrary, and to further decide that one deserves to die now instead of later because of their beliefs. So I believe you should take ownership for that action if ever it is presented to you instead of balking at the thought before and after.

If you were to meet Charles Manson and given the go ahead to shove a sword through his heart, would you give any thought to the fact that you just took a mans life, or for that matter that he soiled himself after doing so? If you would then I find that odd. I would happily kill such a horrid human being, and whistle my way out of the door. What about a man who harmed your child? Or a group of men that have tortured and harassed innocent people? I believe (as is previously mention I do not know for certain) that I would never shed a tear or feel a pang of regret for killing men or women like that. I think it poetic that such a being might one day be put to death after such horrid atrocities that they have committed.

Killing is a means to an end, not the end itself. We are all human beings that have the ability to consider the meaning of every action that we do. If I were to judge killing on the action itself then of course it would be despicable. Snuffing out the life of another is a horrid thing, because as you said, hygienically it is disgusting. But it is only emotionally disgusting if that life was worth living, only if they haven't already shown that the actions they would preform while alive were despicable and abhorrent. We kill dogs that kill innocent children. Why should I feel any more pity for killing a man that does the same thing, that has (and can comprehend) an entire society telling him that it is wrong?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page