04-17-2007, 09:42 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-18-2007, 06:04 PM by Rhydderch Hael.)
I'm not much one in the way of guns, that may be obvious. My own deadly art comes in the form of something a tad more archaic. But in the end, the device itself is not the object that changes in the situation or temperment: it's the man.
In the medieval German swordfighting philosophy of Johannes Liechtenauer and his disciples, there is this focus on the concept of "initiative" and the way it swings between two combatants in a fight. There is the vor, the essence of being in control of the conflict: where your actions dictate the flavor and timing of the fight. Then there is the nach, reaction instead of action: where you have to move in order to accomondate your opponent (by 'accomondate' I don't mean you "help" the other fellow in what he wants, but rather your moves are made solely as an attempt to stave off whatever he is doing).
In between those definite extremes is the more immaterial concept of indes, the sense of immediacy. Hard to explain, really. Superficially, it's summed up as the pivotal moment where one can seize the vor or otherwise rescue yourself from the nach. But trying to probe further into it, I see it as the instant where conflict is joinedâ where forces in opposition are presented and measured, then from there your choices turn the conflict one way or the other.
Absorbing the above as a bit of background, I'll sum up my point by saying that those who believe all merit and honor lies in defense, where you can win by enduring the conflict and making wise reactions to the events, are defeated. Too many people today find it an acceptable course of action to bend rather than break, to stay out of the way and hope that fortune will favor them when all is done. That they have a better chance at winning by reacting rather than taking an action that is fraught with clear and obvious risk.
Problem with avoiding the obvious risk in the initiative is that you are left at the mercy of the not-so-obvious risks which will come by surrendering the intiative to your opponent. You stand on his terms, 'accomondating' his actions through your reactions. Worrying more about what is he doing, or might do, rather than taking a course where your actions may save yourself or others.
"Go in hard, and you won't get hurt"â the action, made on your terms and through your choices, may save you where passive reaction and hesitation may condemn you to defeat. Through that initial clash, when you are presented with the problem, you are at indes: your choices then determine who's in the vor and who's in the nach. Mind you, I don't mean to blindly choose "fight" over "flight": the vor may very well be finding a way to retreat to a more advantageous position, rather than tuck into a corner and hope for help to come to you.
I hope you can see that I'm trying to speak far beyond the scope of a simple, physical fight. It's a mindset applicable to many forms of conflict beyond the clash of weapons or bodies. I won't say that how it answers the present tragedy, or how it will precisely resolve any other conflict. But I hope you consider its implications through many other guisesâ the simple warning of what happens should you acquiesce the 'control of the fight' to the other party.
Taking the initiativeâ the outright risks may daunt you, but don't be fooled by the illusion of assured safety that passive endurance presents you. It's better to end up naked yet victorious, instead of being beaten in your clothes.
(Yes, I realized that I just went from medieval sword combat to a double entendre) :huh:
In the medieval German swordfighting philosophy of Johannes Liechtenauer and his disciples, there is this focus on the concept of "initiative" and the way it swings between two combatants in a fight. There is the vor, the essence of being in control of the conflict: where your actions dictate the flavor and timing of the fight. Then there is the nach, reaction instead of action: where you have to move in order to accomondate your opponent (by 'accomondate' I don't mean you "help" the other fellow in what he wants, but rather your moves are made solely as an attempt to stave off whatever he is doing).
In between those definite extremes is the more immaterial concept of indes, the sense of immediacy. Hard to explain, really. Superficially, it's summed up as the pivotal moment where one can seize the vor or otherwise rescue yourself from the nach. But trying to probe further into it, I see it as the instant where conflict is joinedâ where forces in opposition are presented and measured, then from there your choices turn the conflict one way or the other.
Absorbing the above as a bit of background, I'll sum up my point by saying that those who believe all merit and honor lies in defense, where you can win by enduring the conflict and making wise reactions to the events, are defeated. Too many people today find it an acceptable course of action to bend rather than break, to stay out of the way and hope that fortune will favor them when all is done. That they have a better chance at winning by reacting rather than taking an action that is fraught with clear and obvious risk.
Problem with avoiding the obvious risk in the initiative is that you are left at the mercy of the not-so-obvious risks which will come by surrendering the intiative to your opponent. You stand on his terms, 'accomondating' his actions through your reactions. Worrying more about what is he doing, or might do, rather than taking a course where your actions may save yourself or others.
"Go in hard, and you won't get hurt"â the action, made on your terms and through your choices, may save you where passive reaction and hesitation may condemn you to defeat. Through that initial clash, when you are presented with the problem, you are at indes: your choices then determine who's in the vor and who's in the nach. Mind you, I don't mean to blindly choose "fight" over "flight": the vor may very well be finding a way to retreat to a more advantageous position, rather than tuck into a corner and hope for help to come to you.
I hope you can see that I'm trying to speak far beyond the scope of a simple, physical fight. It's a mindset applicable to many forms of conflict beyond the clash of weapons or bodies. I won't say that how it answers the present tragedy, or how it will precisely resolve any other conflict. But I hope you consider its implications through many other guisesâ the simple warning of what happens should you acquiesce the 'control of the fight' to the other party.
Taking the initiativeâ the outright risks may daunt you, but don't be fooled by the illusion of assured safety that passive endurance presents you. It's better to end up naked yet victorious, instead of being beaten in your clothes.
(Yes, I realized that I just went from medieval sword combat to a double entendre) :huh:
Political Correctness is the idea that you can foster tolerance in a diverse world through the intolerance of anything that strays from a clinical standard.