Labels

architecture Asheville atheism bard bbq books buddhism buffy burgers cars comics fashion film food japan kung fu Las Vegas manga memory music New Zealand other people's blogs photography podcast updates politics San Francisco Santa Cruz sex shoes shopping snow skiing taoism toys travel TV video web 2.0 women writing

Saturday, August 04, 2007

My Dad, Everybody

I consider my writing style to be pretty casual. I like to think that I have a good writing voice, that I represent myself - or, rather, am myself - when I write here. I believe I choose to break grammatical rules to actually acheive the effect of real speech when appropriate. When I read what I write, I hear the voice that I hear in my head every day. That's a worthy goal, right, representing your meaning and intention to your audience through conscious choices of expression? I wonder if people who don't know me already get a sense of me from my writing. I wonder if people who don't know me can even read what I write sometimes.

When I find myself in conversations - verbal or written - in which I start thinking outloud - rambling on without ever ending a sentence as my brain works to draw some sort of conclusion regarding the issue at hand, a thing my brain should do more often in silence than outloud (see, I could edit this since I'm writing it, not saying it, but I think I'll leave it just to make my mildly humorous point) - I think of my dad. I've learned quite a bit from this guy, but I've had to pay very close attention to keep up with his stream of consciousness. Needless to say, I think he has achieved a very distinct writing voice. He wrote me an email yesterday as a response to some of my posts, and mentioned that he'd almost posted his entire email as a comment. Since he said that, I feel okay about sharing some portions of what he wrote, with you, dear reader, so that you might get to know me and Dad a little better.

WORKING AND i`M SITTING HERE HOOKED TO BROADBAND i WANDERED AROUND - well shit - need to move the caps key - or remember to turn it off - testing access and found your picture with the evidence of having been abusing your spouse by slamming him with your forearms. They sell arm guards (snigger).

A couple folks actually thought the bruises were from fingers grabbing around my arms. They are, in fact, from high blocks.

And Kung Fu without the spiritual aspect is just fancy boxing. Have you read/heard the story of origin of Akido? Love is the answer - and never meeting an attack head on, avoid bruises on self and other (a non-violent martial art?) and still put the rest on the mat. A book (I read one too) sing it as substrate for interpersonal effectiveness and using the energy of conflict in positive creative manner gives interesting example: Teacher/Master in demo class (6'plus bearded bruiser)got author (Ex football linebacker but lots smaller and long over it reluctantly up for demo. "Take a swing at me", he was instructed - several times. So he did. Instructor grabbed his arm, stepped slightly to side, pulled to assist him on by - and ran like hell the other direction.

I think, perhaps, I have caused some confusion. I've gotten some interesting reaction to the whole Kung Fu thing. Let me be clear. I'm not really in it for any spiritual reason. Granted, there is philosophy behind the practice - Buddhism, in particular. A monk has to get his exercise somehow, right? (And possibly, occasionally, defend his right to practice his religion.) However, it's my experience that Kung Fu is pretty light on the metaphor. Sure, body coordinations are named things like "Secure the Boat with an Iron Lock," but when you learn them, you learn the applications of them. I hear things like, "punch towards my face more" and "imagine you're smacking someone's ears" and "this strike is good for breaking bones" quite a bit.

On the other hand, calling Kung Fu "self-defense," as one friend put it, or "fancy boxing" doesn't do the practice justice at all. Kung Fu is a hell of a lot older than Akido, and I think the philosophy is much more deeply integrated with the actual action. It is first and foremost a martial art, and it seems that any spiritual or philosophical aspect is integrated into practice for this purpose. For example, we begin class with a few minutes of meditation as a practical application: concentrate on your breathing, become aware of your body, and focus. A very different example is the animal metaphor used to describe different forms of Kung Fu. I'm learning Eight Step Mantis - a pretty typical form, apparently. Many of the moves and techniques were learned directly from a praying mantis. How very Tao, yes?

The physical reprograming of the body does have its spiritual side-effects. Learning how to not focus your eyes and be able to see everything around you can provide a strange sense of hyper-awareness. Losing yourself in the repetition of punches, applications, and forms is a pretty fantastic method for learning mindfulness. Of course, exercise, in and of itself, has a very positive effect on brain function. Seems like science to me - very little to do with some guy sitting under a tree for seven years to gain enlightenment.

But I make fun. It's easy to slam the supernatural aspects of a religion to try to discount the philosophical aspects. By my username (kpsamsara) and my domain name (earthlyworld), you may assume that I have some Buddhist tendancies. (I'm speaking to you, dear reader, not my dad. He knows of my previous Buddhist inclination.) True, the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path make a lot of sense. So do the Ten Commandments. Ultimately, I'm an out of the closet atheist these days. I was an easy convert, frankly. Dad may be a born-again Buddhist, but he used to be pretty agnostic, if not atheist, so, really, I think it was my upbringing.

And more philosophical ponderings from Dad...

The book sounds interesting - but of course I have an opinion. And, by the way, something ah yes - discontinuity of experience - a core Buddhist tenent, you may recall? Continuity is an illusion (true neurologically as well) - each moment of experience is defined by all things present in that moment and that changes with every moment - and as 'we' - our 'selves' are also integral to that moment, our 'self' is also different - I'm not certain if it is 'Doctrine of No Self' or 'of No Soul' but if there are both doctrines, I think they are related here. And back to the main point of this paragraph... the opinion - I came to grips with the dilemna of distress at investment in a 'way' and it not ending up mine not by not caring - although again Buddhist basic: attachment is the cause of all suffering; trick is to not attach (Samuri - can`t spell - to monk on road - "I could cut off your head!" Monk - "You could cut off my head." Repeat sequence with escalationg intensity by warrier (hah!) and same calm, matter of fact by monk. End - or no end. Point of course - It is what it is - it is a true statement (corollary - no attachment to head.)) but to still give fullest attention - the enlightenment is in the full presence and best one can do in each moment, not in the result. I`m not fully there on that one but I am pretty well settled with my view - despite direct line to truth of the universe - is just like all others - (equally so connected of course and all different) - just my Cliff Notes and I`m only in charge (sort of) of me. A particularly notable sch lesson was at [the hospital] when as 'Program Director" it was my charge to lead the team in developing a new program based on the DBT [dialectical behavioral therapy] model - and did such a good job at facilitation that the result was one I had a hard time working in. But as I did so I found my way - better and easier as I relinquished my attachment to original preferences - and it was a really good program. AND everyone could be 'on board' with enough sense of 'ownership' and row together for the most part. Much better that way.

Dad could provide a good case study for the Crucial Conversations book, assuming he could actually reconstruct some of the more momentous conversations that occured to evolve the team. That said, I would contend that he didn't actually relenquish attachment to his original preference but rather realized a higher level common goal - what would have ultimately been his original but unarticulated preference.

Also, I had forgotten about the 'continuity is illusion' tenet. Goes right along with the 'everything is temporary' tenet, one of the reasons, of course, that attachment can be painful. My choice interpretation of the continuity (or lack thereof) theory is that each moment is an opportunity, and it should not defined by the moment before or the moment after. It is always new. That everything is temporary is both hopeful and scary, but if you're truly on the Path, you'll recognize no difference between hope and fear. Apparently, neither is very useful. (Alright, maybe I do have a little bit of an issue with the philosophy part, too.)

Thanks, Dad, for the material. I wasn't sure what I was going to write about today.

Labels: atheism, buddhism, kung fu, taosim, writing