Peregrino

Welcome aboard, Vera! The kung fu school looks interesting--in Holland, right? As another newcomer to this board, I can say that there are lots of friendly people from all over the world here with whom you can trade ideas. Hope you find yourself at home here too! Best, Peregrino

Hmm . . . I'm trying more and more to be a "fair guy" rather than a "nice guy," though that doesn't in any way mean I shouldn't be friendly when warranted (which is in almost every case except for when people are rude from the get go, although even then it can still be effective to do "verbal jujitsu" and let them stumble over their own belligerence). On the subject of balance, I will admit that, after making a firm resolution not to be a doormat, it's important to be mindful, monitor oneself so as not to go over to the "dark side" of knee-jerk cynicism and suspicion regarding people in general (or women in particular, to go back to the thread topic!). Back on the subject of women, I will gladly sing paens to women of intellect I would love to dine with, such as the philosophers Martha Nussbaum and Edith Wyschogrod. But then again, if we're talking about women in THAT way (even if THAT quality is part of a multi-faceted appreciation), I will have to nominate Monica Bellucci as my current Babe-Among-Babes. Hubba hubba! She ALMOST even made that Mel Gibson movie tolerable! And her cosmic beauty only becomes MORE alluring to me with age . . .

Too funny! Somehow a Japanese Red Riding Hood and an . . . unusually burdened raccoon have made it onto my favorite ninja site: http://www.realultimatepower.net/ninja/post-5sa.gif

Sounds like there's a lot of quibbling over semantics. For what it's worth, etymologically speaking, it's not very nice to call someone "nice": In Middle English the word means "foolish"; it comes from the Latin "nescius," which means "ignorant." I suppose you could say that in a Taoist sense it's important to be "ignorant" (or unconditioned) in the ways of socially conditioned roles, but I still can't help but think that "nice" is often a back-handed compliment. Now, if by "nice guy" you mean someone who is gracious and dignified, there's no disputing the value of that; however, I think that many men who complain about being "nice guys" in some deep sense can be manipulative themselves--they hope women will someday become enlightened and return unconditional love for all the generosity, patience, forgiveness, etc. they've shown them . . . When in reality they're simply tolerating bad behavior and think it will change if they keep doing the same (unsuccessful) things . . . eventually . . . eventually . . . And in some cases (not all, of course), I do think there is lots of resentment behind the "nice guy" exterior, the sort of "gentle-voiced control freak" I've noticed in a lot of New Age circles. So if you are being a "nice guy" without tolerating bad behavior in women, if you are actually challenging women to show their better selves (and you are rising to the occasion to do the same), then by all means I salute you in "being nice and being proud." However, if you're usually "complimented" for being nice but end up getting treated like a doormat, then some serious re-evaluation could be in order.

It stands for "Pick-up Artist"--it's a subculture I've studied out of purely (ahem) anthropological interest. The way the PUAs "model" each other's behavior reads like pure mimetic theory. Actually, a lot of them swear by NLP, but I've noticed several who are into martial arts and apply what they deem to be "Taoist" principles to the way they approach women. (Carlos Xuma is a good example--he's a dating guru AND a martial arts instructor!) Try www.fastseduction.com www.ideagasms.com ( though it's a bit woo-woo!), and zillions more sites you'll find if you google "seduction community." There's also a funny, but at times sobering tell-all bestselling book by seduction guru Neil Strauss called _The Game_. He does renounce his PUA ways (more or less) when he meets the woman he believes to be his soul-mate, but that doesn't mean he lets his "menergy" get too domesticated, har har har! Funny how much these guys tend to become rivals with each other and tear each other down, even though they claim to be entirely pro-male. (Reminds me of a lot of radical feminists, actually.) Still, they do come up with some great quotes! As David Deangelo (or "David DeAnushole," as a bitter rival calls him) says regarding that "push-pull, don't reveal your whole hand at once" dynamic, a man erotically interested in a woman shouldn't be so needy as to seek to communicate with her CONSTANTLY, but should rather, "Give her the gift of missing you!"

Even in the deeper relationships, I think a man still needs to be unpredictable (which doesn't mean "undependable" or "irresponsible") at times to keep a woman's attraction going. Of course, it's a two-way street, and no woman who wants to remain in a committed relationship with me can think she's free from the necessity to keep surprising me in alluring ways from time to time. Attraction and affection are not the same thing, and a fruitful, lasting pair bond needs to keep renewing both, at least if you want to attain any sort of dual cultivation rather than morphing into some sort of platonic friendship as the years go on. He he, I've actually gotten great advice from gays and lesbians as detached observers of heterosexual dynamics. My lesbian sister used to say, "I don't understand how straight men let their wives and girlfriends belittle and manipulate them so much--I would never let MY girlfriend do that to me!" I also have a gay friend who once told me, "Guys who bake cookies and apologize all the time DO NOT get the girl in the end." At best, they'll be LBJF'd. (Relegated to the "Let's just be friends category.")

I find David Deida *very* interesting, and often right on the ball--despite his inexplicable enthusiasm for Bubba Adi Franklin Free Jones . . . I've heard women's "testing" behavior (as opposed to legitimate, reasonable requests) described as a kind of screening to see if a man will really stand up for them when the shit hits the fan; i.e., "If you can't stand up *to* her, how will you stand up *for* her." I used to be wary of any advice not to take a woman's words at face value (and there are still many times when a man should), but now I can see in many cases, including (and often especially) in the cases of feminists I've known, there's often a vast contradiction between what they say and do. As Margaret Cho said, "I'm a feminist, but I still like my man to be a little al dente." I'll go one further and say that, even with this admission, she's not being candid enough! Then again, "spiritual" PUAs like Stephane Hemon (Ideagasms.com) claim that most women themselves aren't aware of their contradictions. I'll leave it to the meditating, self-aware female posters to comment on that . . . And I keep in mind that without cultivating self-reflection I know I'm incapable of discerning my own blind spots. I don't buy into unevolved notions of coming across "Alpha" or "High Status" when that's just a front for deep-seated *male* insecurities; nonetheless, a refusal to put up with bad behavior has in the end gotten me far more respect from women than being perpetually gentle, patient, a tireless listener, etc. --Peregrino

Anyone ever heard of *limerence*? It's something that affects (afflicts) men and women equally, but I as a man refuse to succumb to its lure anymore when considering women. I'll give affection and respect, *when merited*, but thanks to serious re-evaluations of my behavior and belief system, I don't feed the limerent impulses anymore: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limerence On that note, it's interesting to contrast the original "Louie Louie" lyrics with the Black Flag version. Original: Three nights and days me sailed the sea. Me think of girl constantly. On the ship, I dream she there. I smell the rose in her hair. Black Flag: You know the pain That's in my heart-- It just shows I'm not very smart! ****************** I don't go around acting like some PUA, but I must say that I finally found the best female companionship of my life only after letting go of all the "sensitive nice guy" conditioning I was brought up on. Peace--it's a yang thang too! Peregrino

Funny, one of the guys in my grappling group back in VA was very dismissive of Wing Chun and arts that employ a lot of trapping in general, claiming that trapping "just doesn't work." I disagree--trapping seems great for people with a lot of fast-twitch fibers! (It's still important to know how to defend oneself on the ground, of course, even if grappling does not form the nucleus of one's fighting method, IMHO.) Have you checked out any Paul Vunak vids? He seems really no-nonsense, and uses a lot of trapping techniques. Hmm, I think it's time for me to start the San Shou/Sanda/Xanda thread . . .

I voted BJJ, but mainly judging by my own criteria, which might not be the same as yours: I want realistic and effective combat training--that's the bottom line for me. Of course, I do realize that no style is completely comprehensive and should be corrected by the jeet kune do principle. (As it turned out, my jeet kune do school in California began to incorporate BJJ techniques and drill them regularly sometime in the mid-90s). For "the path" element, the cultivation of moving meditation, the constant focus on a principled life philosophy, aikido would most likely offer more, but I am content to seek that spiritual aspect via other practices (mindfulness meditation, the microcosmic orbit, and whatever else experience and investigation bring my way).

I have great respect for people who remain in the US and choose to light a candle rather than curse the darkness. I returned to the US from Spain and spent two years in human service jobs (case manager at a homeless shelter and employment specialist for persons with disabilities and barriers to employmet), but in the end I found myself too much in love with the differences I found in Europe. Still a lot that I admire about the US, but as my name is peregrino (pilgrim), I've rambled a lot and finally found the place I most love, based on experience, not speculation. IMHO, for all the good intentions of many hard-working individuals, the biggest problems in the US are still structural, and I include the media as a "structure" that sends out an ideology--esp. consumerist narcissism--that very much affects people's perception of reality. Some other time I want to start a thread on the spiritual infantilism and narcissism of much of the pop psychology and "self-esteemism" that is rampant in the US, but for now I'll chant a respectful round of "USA! USA!" in specific memory of some great heroes who are near and dear to my heart: Quaker abolitionists like John Woolman; all the soldiers, black and white, who crushed the Southern Slavocracy; MLK; Dorothy Day (even though her pacifism contradicts my belief in just wars like the US Civil War); Cesar Chavez; and the 1980 Olympic Hockey Team. --Peregrino

Here's a question for any aikido practitioners: Have any of you trained at an aikido school that actually emloyed sparring with more than just the wind-up, chamber, extend and freeze style-punches (as in traditional karate), or totally unpredictable (mock!) knife and/or stick attacks from someone knowledgeable in their use (e.g. a Kali stylist)? I ask because in my admittedly limited observation of aikido training I only see the unrealistic situation of defeding against attacks in which the attacker unrealistically "gifts" the defender with one of those telegraphically wound-up, arm frozen-upon-extension-type punches, and a friend who trained in Jeet Kune Do told me that he once sparred an aikido instructor and had no problem faking him out, getting through his guard, avoiding trapping techniques, etc, just by throwing simple, quick-recoil boxing jabs. After their session the aikido trainer said he had never trained agaist those kinds of punches before!

Bongiorno, Pietro! I'm an Amercan who did vote with my feet to leave the US and move to the EU (Spain), and I haven't looked back since. I really hate Bush, prefer the more civilized pace of life in Europe, the decent and universal health care, lack of gaping economic inequalities, etc. HOWEVER, I really can't pin ALL of the jihadis' rage on the US, and believe that Europeans (minus the sturdy Slavs) are as naive as ever about the need to defend themselves. Note: defending oneself does not equal invading Iraq for non-existent WMDs! The jihadist attacks in Spain are not just about the war in Iraq, and I believe they would have occurred even if Chickenhawk IdiotBoy in the White House hadn't invaded Saddam-land. If you look at the writings of Al-Qaeda and other groups (e.g. Hamas), besides their ludicrous and indefensible "Elders of Zion"-style anti-Semitism (and I'm not simply referring to anti-Israeli sentiment, but truly genocidal anti-Sentimism, a longstanding problem in Europe, as you'll recall), these fundies actually want to re-claim Spain as its lost kingdom from the Middle Ages (Al-Andalus). Oy vey! I know they've got good hash in the Middle East and South Asia, but WTF else were these guys smoking? So, obvious American narcissism aside (and I can see it in spades right now, as I'm back in the US visiting my family til Sunday), what would you say to do about the "clueless European wussy problem," as I affectionately call it? Will the EU finally have to import some Eastern Euro mercenaries (no Serbs, please!) to defend itself, since most Western Euro men have become hopelessly feeble, and inviting American "liberators" yet again would be just too humiliating, and would rapidly accelerate the already proceeding McDonalds- and Starbucksificiation of a great, diversified civilization? Maybe you think I'm paranoid in my animus against radical jihad, but just have a listen to what many imams are saying, and take a closer look at what their followers are actually doing within Europe (Theo Van Gogh, RIP), and just keep in mind that my thinking gravitates in the opposite direction of Bush and towards George *Orwell*, a lifelong socialist and secularist who knew that progressive institutions needed more than progressive cappucino-sipping chatterers to defend them. BTW, have you read Bat Ye'or's _Eurabia_ yet? Finally, and apropos of this website's orientation, what do you think is the appropriate *Taoist* (or, "spiritually enlightened," or whatever label you prefer) response to radical Islamic violence? Do you really think it will all end just by distancing yourself from the US? Do you think the bikini-hating, gay-murdering Islamic fundamentalists will leave Europeans alone just becasue they claim to hate, or at least disavow, the US too? If you listen to a lot of the imams (again, not just abroad, but IN EUROPE), they openly preach of the inferiority of EUROPEAN (not just American) culture, and proclaim the goal of its conquest and subjection to sharia. As I flew over Paris on my way out here, I saw all those glorious achievements and could only say to myself, "Please don't implode, Europe--get your heads out of your asses and defend all those glorious achievements that BOTH the US AND the Islamic theocracies lack." How do we make the viable third (or multiple) enlightened way(s) beyond the false choice of Jihad vs. McWorld? Something to think about . . . Peace--but with a backbone and cojones, Peregrino

Hi, I'm peregrino (Spanish for pilgrim). Grew up in US, now live in Spain. Got into Taoism and other Eastern practices after becoming a martial arts fanatic as a teenager. Besides the teachings of Mantak Chia and Michael Winn, I find the musings of Raymond Sigrist (www.apophaticmysticism.com) about Tao and contemplation to be highly edifying. Wonder why no one seems to have mentioned Sigrist here yet . . . I'm also interested in Bill Bodri and the Taoism/Buddhism debates. Cheers!

Thanks, Freeform--I didn't know about the Taoist contributions to scientific discoveries beyond personal well-being (e.g. the sound-based measurements). Reminds me that the partition today between "contemplative" and "academic" knowledge is really arbitrary and detrimental to the sum of human progress . . . Same could be said for the contemplative output of Plato, to which which modern science and mathematics also owe a great debt. Best, Peregrino

Greetings from another newcomer! I've found this site to be both very friendly and informative, and hope you can get a lot out of it too. Where are you from in Canada? Got any recommendations for any outdoorsy vacations in your immense country? I recently read a supernatural thriller called _Monkey Beach_ set in the Kitamaat Pacific region--sounds amazing! Best, Peregrino

No need to apologize--that's why I'm here: to expand from my admittedly strong biases. Maybe it's a chicken and egg thing regarding the influence of imitation and the deviation from the actual needs and impulses of the body. Something for me to ponder there . . . And Cloud, we have *got* to start a Bizzuble Free Pimp thread after your Castaneda thread runs its course. (Re: Castaneda, I think _The Power and the Allegory_ said it all. ) There's just too much unintentional comedy diarrheically spewing from that Pacific island palooka's mouth--and herpes sores--not to take advantage of for entertainment purposes!

Thanks Sean, that pretty much clarifies my idea that Taoism is a special tool for a special purpose (individual cultivation) and should not be held accountable for the purposes it does not address. For that reason, I look elsewhere for guidance in thinking about "big picture" or socio-historical ethical issues, while holding to Taoism for all kinds of wisdom regarding the conduct of daily life. Peace, David

Thanks for the rec--I'm only really beginning to look into this debate, so all my opinions are very tentative. While my impression right now is that Buddhism is often more "rigid" than Taoism, I still find Buddhist ethics to be compelling, even if I don't always follow their metaphysical basis; that's not to say that Taoism is somehow amoral to me, but I want to know more about ways Taosim has contributed towards concrete social changes as opposed to simply promoting individual cultivation. Not exactly an invidious comparison, I just want to know!

Hi Cloud, I would still say that _Things Hidden_ is the best place to start for MT, even with the explicit Christian apologetics--it's extremely lucid and comprehensive. _Violence and the Sacred_ is also excellent, does not contain any apologetics, and is filled with thousands of fascinating examples of myth and ritual from the Hellenistic world, Africa, Asia, and the Americas--all presented in a way that makes Joseph Campbell ("human sacrifice enables us to transcend the ego--as long as we are sacrificing someone else!") seem really naive. Sorry if I in turn am coming across as an inveterate Campbell-basher. He was an inspiration for me in my early twenties, and he did spark my curiosity in many ways, but now I see him as a guru of narcissism and willful misreadings of various world traditions. (BTW, in an earlier post on "favorite quotes" I had to bring up that the quote popularly attributed to Chief Seattle, making him sound like a cross between Ralph Nader and Robert Bly, is completely apocryphal, although Campbell quotes it verbatim as if it were authentic.) Ah, another really clear introduction to MT--one that includes some very direct refutations of Joseph Campbell--is Gil Bailie's _Violence Unvelied_. Beyond religious texts, Bailie looks at literary works, current events and pop culture to find ubiquitous evidence of the confrontation of sacrificial and anti-sacrificial mindsets. As a final note, I had to laugh at the unintended connection between my reference to "pacific" (i.e., non-conflictive) mimesis and the current abode of that randomly punctuating language terrorist, aka Franklin Jones. Hmm. . . Did you know that Frankie's body is shutting down and now he's looking for a new "host" so he can "keep walkin' on"? How about it, Cloud--are you worthy to become the next incarnation? Your imitation of his titles indicates that you might just have what it takes to fill his "Adi-Das"! (Groan, I'm too tired to make any puns right now . . .)

Wow, that flameout site is great--just what I need for my daily cup of iconoclasm! The bit on Sangharakshita (check "Guru Index") was of particular interest since I first got my introduction to Buddhism through the FWBO. I did find the instructor to be a quite the gentle-voiced control freak, and I always thought it funny that a grand guru would have the word "shit" embedded in his name, so the eventual revelations of FWBO misconduct were none too surprising! Still, I have the FWBO to credit for teaching me mindful breathing. A sound practice is always a sound practice. As for the topic of "manifesting"--that's a bit of a sore point, as I have a (potentially erstwhile) friend who has consistently either ignored or evaded me when faced with the responsibility of paying me back the money he's owed me for over three years. I know my treasure is where my heart is and all that, so I'm about to give up all contact with him and concentrate my energies elsewhere . . . But what really irks me is that this same person always used to pass himself off as a new age guru, telling people to just "relax, give in to the power of the universe, and all you need will be manifested from a natural abundance." Grrrr! I think he needs to take up Bill Bodri's "virtue course" (Cp. 7 from White Fat Cow) for a reality check--an increasingly rewarding reality check, as I've found from my own efforts, but that is a topic for another thread . . .

Damn, I just lost my carefully worded reply! Hmmph, will try to recover my thoughts . . . Any book that systematically makes the POCM argument while taking into account potential objections would be a good start . . . Also, any POCM arguments that give evidence of pagan predecessors whose myths affirm the INNOCENCE of the dying and resurrecting god--THAT is where Girard claims the Gospel story breaks decisively from the past. He's not scandalized by the similarities between the Gospels and the pagan predecessors that Nietzsche and others like to bring up, but it is where the DIFFERENCES begin that the matter becomes crucial. The Gospels highlight the INNOCENCE of Christ as the sacrificial victim, unlike previous traditions with morally ambiguous divinities (e.g. Dionysus, or "trickster" gods like Loki) whose immolations justify a social order based on scapegoating mechanisms. (Girard claims that innumerable myths contain traces of the violent foundational mechanisms behind their respective cultures, e.g. Romulus and Remus, Cain and Abel, and lots of non-Western deities such as Tikarau of the Tikopia, the founder of the Dogon culture, the founder of the Ojibwa, etc.) Note that historical Christendom has not always been exemplary in propounding this non-sacrificial reading of the Gospels--obviously! Jews themselves were amongst the first victims of the Casaero-Papist tradition. This is not lost on Girard either--the absolute renunciation of scapegoating impulses is indeed a dramatic evolutionary leap for us human animals, and the traditionally pagan cultures in which Christianity took root have obviously resisted the more radical implications of a non-violent divinity. This is evident in traditional doctrines absurdly claiming that God the Father killed his own Son as revenge against sinful humanity . . . as opposed to the realization that Christ died because of the all too HUMAN reaction to the scandalous revelation of their culture's widespread collusion with scapegoating violence. "God" didn't kill the messenger "he" sent--scandalized human beings did because they could not tolerate the messenger's demystification of their sacrificial business-as-usual. The Jewish people (nor the Romans, for that matter) have no special guilt in the matter of Christ's death--the idea is that ANY human community would react scandalously and murderously to the revelation of its bloody foundations. (Interestingly enough, Thich Nhat Hanh said in _Living Buddha, Living Christ_ that there's nothing "inferior" to him about the violent death of Christ vs. the peaceful passing of the Buddha--that indeed, Buddha himself would have been killed when facing such a violent, angry mob too.) The demystifying impulse in Western cultures in recent centuries, AWAY from such transcendentally sanctioned violence, owes everything--according to Girard--to the demystifying logic of the Gospels themselves, even if such logic now often expresses itself in a more "atheistic" or "scientific" discourse. Of course, this is not to say that the old, violent, "primitive" sacred has been completely abandoned among those calling themselves "Christians"--any fundamentalist wearing a Last Supper T-shirt with the logo "This Blood's for YOU!" will confirm it! What else . . . I am also greatly interested in any testimony from pre-Christian pagan thinkers (polytheistic, Pythagorean, Stoic, etc.) who vociferously denounced any and all religious justifications of violence--whether in ritual sacrifice or any other socially sanctioned form. I can say this of the Buddha, but I'm talking about the West here . . . I mentioned John Barleycorn as one possible Western exception in which the dying and resurrecting god is explicitly lamented for his innocence, but the folk songs that re-tell the old myth might have been influenced by later Christian contact; then again, maybe not--I'd love to get some credible data. OK, enough of these now-scattered thoughts. (If only you could have read the "lost gospel" of my original draft--har har!) Yours in pacific mimesis, Bubbagrino