]]>Nevertheless, we’d like to thank those of you who have stood by us in tough times, and those who have started requesting for your learning expeditions again. To you, we are eternally grateful for your understanding and support. Special thanks go out to:
- Kit
- Deepankar
- Ananth
- Shawn Tan
- Nilah
- Subra
- Prasatt
- Ariffin
- Mumtaz
- Vicky
- Karls
- Balaji
- Rama
- Pathma
Every simple act goes a long way, so we are truly thankful to each and every one of you. In light of simple acts making a difference, here is a video, a reminder that there is still good out there in the world. Happy Holidays folks.
Cheers,
Team Cavemen
]]>]]>
That was the question for yesterday's Spiral Inquiry, asked by Pathma,
Truth be told it was a messy one.
]]>
]]>
An interesting idea crossed my mind. What exactly is the ideal modern man? It seems no one knows. Every society has had an anthromorphic ideal. The guy that everyone should be like, Plato would call him the philosopher king. Confucious defined the perfect man as one who "combines the qualities of saint, scholar, and gentleman".
In more recent thought there has been the idea of the Ubermensch, the guy who will overcome all that is baser and lower. Of course, Nietzsche expounded at great length what the Ubermensch wasn’t but not much of what the Ubermensch was.
So really for the modern man empowered by technology where does that leave us?
Are we supposed to be the best we can be at every field that we can conceive because technology allows us so much more ability to do so. For example is it possible for me to learn more things and excel at them then my predecessors? Or am I still bound by very real limiting factors that will prevent me from being anything different from generations before. Will the most used aspect of technology today end up being Facebook and Twitter?
It is starting to seem like a typical economic problem of opportunity cost which I must say I am not very good practitioner of. If it were to be this, would the perfect person in today’s society be one who does a lot of things at a high degree of excellence or does one thing significantly better then others.
It seems that even our modern fictional characters who are most likely to be perfect contradict this idea of perfection by being deeply imperfect. Think about House, Tyler Durden and the comic book characters from Kick-ass and Watchmen.
Is this the new climax or peak? Juggling a million stimuli and making sense of it or is perfection for you back in the old days where it was one man to one undertaking? What do you think? Who is the peak of perfection for you and why?
]]>
At this point, there maybe relativists out there who will bellow at the top of their voice. “Music is a subjective experience! It cannot be compared.” This has been a bane of relativism especially in the post-modernist sense. You can see a brief comparison of all the arguments here. But like all relativist stances it is never practical in the real world and it simply doesn’t work, because it seems we all have an innate sense of aesthetics in our being.
In my view it would be saying though it is difficult to compare a children’s book and a physics textbook, to say that because they cannot be compared and hence the same is a bad argument. The physics book gives you way more pertinent information to survive. Being a proponent of metal music, I do also admit that jazz and classical music are more evolved because a lot of metal music is based on it .
So how can one discern music? Well there are aspects to the musical structure in itself that will appeal to you. The full breakdown is here, however this is a enquiry you need to look upon on your own, is it a particular instrument played in a certain way, particular type of notes that evoke a certain response from you? Usually always look for the music that hits you hard and brings about a response in you and start looking for patterns in them. Of course, if you haven’t heard for many things outside of pop music you will be going in circles. To avoid that read this.
That is not to say all pop musicians are bad or sub par. There are exceptions to the rule like the Beatles, Michael Jackson & Queen who were popular for very obvious reasons. But another way to see how good someone is to see whether their effect lasts the test of time.
Culture changing folks mould the musicians that come after them. For example, check out what Bob Dylan covers till this day.
The music has a quality that is across boundries, I’m sure you have heard a version of Luis Armstrong’s wonderful world. Hear how Jimmy Hendrix changed the ideas of rhythm and music with the Voodoo child.
When you have done so, start exploring how you can feed this musical aspect for you. Don’t aspect to chance upon it in the elevator. And of course if you need help, you can always create an expedition to learn more about music here.
Then the question remains, do we actually choose our music?
The ancients seemed to have strong views about how influential music really was, where according to really smart folks like Socrates and Plato (yeah the dude we are named after), music not only appealed to the emotions but also affected how we behaved in our lives through the faculty of reason. Tracing back further, we see how even earlier civilizations of the Vedic period composed entire books based on a musical meter, which incidentally also seems to make it easier for memorizations hence allowing it to be passed via oral traditions.
If music is perhaps a reflection of the world at that particular point in time, what does ours say about us today?
If we do believe music to be the medium by which we can affect our thoughts and our texture of our subjective experience, clearly we need to be paying more attention to it. I have nothing against pop music, but clearly we would be able to agree that a song like this, doesn’t conjour a sophisticated mental image (for me it was a guy and his naked torso), that would otherwise add to your well-being as a person (unless you club for a living).
So do you go out of your to find music? No clue on how to do it? Wait for the next part of this article.
]]>
Of course, this is in tribute to the ol' Spiceman..
Enjoy and let us know what you think of our efforts.
Watch the above video before you read.
My own understanding of what is considered to be a martial art, is not simply when there is a code of attire or a distinct style of movement is hard fixed to a particular way of attack or defence. Instead, a martial art form has its own set of ethics, a code of conduct that practitioners live by and adhere to when facing an opponent. There is respect for the opponent, and for the art form that the fighters are using, though with the advance of mixed martial arts, it made me wonder if it should even be considered an art.
Granted, mixed martial arts arose from a style known as “Vale Tudo” meaning “everything goes”, where combat took place with minimal rules. Yet it seems that the brutality of the sport, the sheer disregard for the opponent and to win at all costs, does not show a side of a human being that is entirely desirable. Hitting an opponent when he is down, beating his face to a pulp when he is already knocked out doesn’t seem very respectable. If it were for survival, then of course one must do what it takes to survive at all cost, but this is clearly not the situation when there are spectators cheering them on. I wonder, if the lack of any style or so called discipline can give any justification to this brutal violence being termed an art.
The style without no style has been attributed to Bruce Lee’s style of fighting, which cemented in the form known as jeet kuan do. Yet, Bruce Lee was bound by a personal philosophy that many of these fighters do not seem to hold. I have not practiced this form, but the popularity of this sport has begged my curiosity if my views are wrong, and unjustified.
What do you think? Or better still, if anyone who has practiced this sport can shed some light on the workings behind it, such insights would be much appreciated.
]]>
Bruce Lee has fascinated and inspired millions of people around the world. His story is not unfamiliar, and his creation of a style with no style is hardly unknown. Bruce Lee has been called a philosopher and a thinker, and much of his martial art has been stated to be rooted in his philosophy. His style of fighting has influenced cultures, and even given rise to poplar sports such as MMA.
Yet it is difficult to understand what is meant by a style with no style, or how one is supposed to “be like water”. It is also unclear, what is meant by “all knowledge ultimately means self knowledge” and how one was supposed to understand oneself through the actions. It is an immediate reaction of a skeptic to disregard this as baseless premises which are in essence platitudes, or more simply, “ esoteric hippie mumbo jumbo.” As it is with all philosophy, it is important to understand the context in which Bruce Lee said this. He was referring to the way in which traditional martial arts was becoming a pattern following, theatrical act which had little application in a real fight. According to Lee,
"The art of Jeet Kune Do is simply to simplify.” The martial artist must ask two questions. 1) What is it that I want to accomplish? 2) What is the quickest, most efficient and effective way to reach my objective?
His philosophy becomes slightly clearer, as we being to understand the man who uttered these words, someone held by a strict code of conduct, unafraid of exploring and disregarding traditional teaching to mark his own individuality as a stamp of what he believed in. Yet it is not focused upon how hard Bruce Lee worked on his skills before he became really good at it. It is dangerous to apply Bruce Lee’s philosophy without understanding that there was a prior discipline underlying his art, and a specific context in which he made those claims. He was a man clearly disciplined and someone who believed in his principles.
In this light, does his philosophy make sense? Philosophy that is not clearly argued for runs the risk of becoming a religious ritual, where people will take the words of an authority figure as unshakeable truths of life. Furthermore, can this philosophy that was applied to martial arts hold ground because its practitioner could do wonders?
It is a curios thought, but one cannot be certain of the answer until he or she practices the martial arts themselves, and see whether or not the form in fighting is essential to the outcome of the fight. And perhaps then, we will begin to understand what he meant, as we ourselves practice more, instead of merely taking his word for truth and disregarding the validity of ours.
Do you have any thoughts on Bruce Lee's Philosophy? Or have you practiced his art form?
]]>