On Aung San Suu Kyi

Today, the Canadian House of Commons unanimously passed a motion to revoke the honorary citizenship of Aung San Suu Kyi — one in a succession of denunciations of the de jure leader of Myanmar over her handling of the Rohingya crisis.

Myanmar, or Burma, itself still seems to be one of the most unknown countries in the world. A country fraught with civil conflict so long no international relevance can grow.

I believe Myanmar represents a case of a true shadow government where nobody can exactly tell you who holds power, or what types of checks and balances there might be.

Aung San Suu Kyi is a figurehead.

This person spent fifteen years under house arrest for her beliefs which is more than most will ever say. It was only after the persistent work of activists drummed up enough international pressure that she was released. It’s hard to rectify the image of that person with some of the stances she’s taken now.

International pressure freed her and led to the military-backed 2011 reforms, but I’m not sure anyone stuck around long enough to see what those were really going to be. Did anyone think it was going to be all good if you throw Kyi back to the people you freed her from? To take the junta at its word, and to think later Kyi was going to have real power, and fix everything singlehandedly from the freshly-created position of ‘State Councillor’? I don’t see any reason not to believe that the people still struggling for reform in Myanmar aren’t doing so with a gun to the back of their heads.

How can you make one person the scapegoat for the inactions of the international community? Did we send peacekeepers? Not just for the Rohingya crisis, but ever? If we did, if obviously wasn’t enough, or they weren’t empowered. If we didn’t, why not? If we sanctioned Myanmar, it as well clearly didn’t affect lasting positive change, and almost certainly would have had a negative effect on the regular people before those in power. I haven’t seen the nations of the world lining up to truly help Myanmar except when it’s the cause celebre.

In Kyi’s case, it might have been better to leave the country and never return when she was given the chance, rather than stay and become a puppet. Ultimately though, revoking her honorary awards may end up being as meaningless to her and the people of Myanmar as when she was given them. I can judge Kyi only as a person who compromised their beliefs — perhaps a person not willing to die for them.

Unless substantial international attention and resources are poured into Myanmar over a long period of time, I would expect a continuation of its troubled history; Aung San Suu Kyi will only be available to take the blame for so long.

On protest

What is the nature of protest? What does it mean to protest?

Without attempting to pass judgement on whether anything about the situation is right or wrong, these are questions I felt I had to ask myself about the protest of Colin Kaepernick.

Early applications of the term protest mean to testify or object, and to myself the casual observer it seems like our usage of the word hasn’t changed much over time. It means to raise or act on concerns. In this sense, a protest has no inherent moral component, and does not imply being right or wrong on its own.

I idly theorize that there could be at least two forms of protest: direct, where the concerns are made known, and indirect, where they are implied. Direct could be a rally; indirect might be quietly choosing not to buy certain products.

With Kaepernick at the time, and moreover with the recent Nike deal, I was stunned that a person could inspire so many strong feelings, and affect the course of hundreds of millions dollars, with a body movement as fundamentally simple as a ‘wave-of-the-hand’.

I felt that in some way this must be an essence of protest — or perhaps even trolling. The sum total of all actual harm done to anyone or anything by taking a knee is zero, and yet the amount of impact has been staggering.   

This form of protest — like burning the flag — is an attack on people’s symbols. The greatness of humanity is in it’s individuals and not in flags or anthems, but symbols are powerful representations of meaning to people and should not be disrespected lightly. By causing people to consider what symbols mean to them, Kaepernick affected the largest protest one person could reasonably expect.

Cynically speaking, sometimes symbols are for those who can’t or won’t think for themselves, or those who lack meaning in life. I think it’s perhaps more accurate to say that symbols can be used against you — like in protest. If you serve a symbol blindly it opens you to exploitation. I believe it is better to serve yourself and the people in your community, before you serve a symbol.

On difficulty levels

‘I don’t want a challenge. I just want to succeed in a more satisfying way.’

I said this to a friend once while we were playing video games and failing a difficult sequence.

Finding the right level of difficulty is hard.

Not finding or providing the proper level of challenge can limit a person’s experience.

Most of the early video games had a set difficulty scaled with the additional concept of a ‘score’, or, the difficulty was provided by a second player like other games and sports.

An early innovation in video games was the idea of difficulty levels. Being able to select the degree of challenge opens up the experience and the art form to a broader audience.

Quick-time events and cutscenes are as old as Dragon’s Lair, but freed from coin-op concerns and joined with pause and save features, this type of gameplay would lead to the development of games that approximate the both fluid and ponderable experience you get from movies, music, reading, and even looking at a painting or feeling a sculpture.

Changes in concepts of difficulty helped video games develop as an art form. The challenge sometimes is in working through the presented experience and what it makes you feel more so than ‘beating’ or understanding the work’s given parameters.

Most of the time in real life it feels like you can’t pause or change the difficulty level. In another sense, the only one who can always change the difficulty level is yourself: by compromising the level of effort you give, the challenges you accept, or the results you accept. At times, this may even be necessary.

Perhaps it is best to strive for great things, but to try and find the difficulty level that allows you to enjoy and take meaning from life itself. To attempt to experience life itself as art, and accept that perhaps you won’t unlock every achievement.

Even then, many times in life the satisfaction, the meaning, will be inextricably tied to the magnitude of the challenge. Avoid the trap of wanting to succeed in a more satisfying way and search your feelings to attempt to decide what you truly desire when a challenge presents itself.

For me, wanting to succeed in a more satisfying way in that moment meant I couldn’t rectify how good I thought I was or wanted to be at the game versus the challenge presented. I had to decide if I wanted it, and how to accept the situation.

To admit you gave effort or failed is to open yourself up to criticism and show vulnerability, but if you pretend you didn’t try it only protects your insecurities.

“Truly wonderful the mind of a child is.”

In my opinion, the mind of a child means to be open to new ideas, but also having awareness of your preconceptions. Sometimes, kids are not as susceptible to suggestion as people think and play freely with ideas they can see trouble adults.

Children lack knowledge but have strong intuition. Though time and necessity adults forget and grow numb to stimulus kids feel acutely. Adults worry about what knowledge to give or withhold from kids, but try to remember what it was like when you could sense adults weren’t telling you the whole truth or they didn’t have full answers.

Sometimes the things we have trouble explaining to kids point to things we’ve taken for granted.

Often the questions we fail to get satisfactory answers for as a kid become buried and forgotten but may continue to influence our behaviour: why? What happens at death? What is reality? How do we know what we know? What is the nature of god? Children are inherently philosophical, but to get through life there is pressure to settle on a set of answers we can live with to questions which have no certain answer.

Philosophy is sometimes thought to be a self-indulgent pseudoscience, but I believe philosophical problems — like the ‘big questions’ — tend to underpin many people’s decision-making. They can be a powerful source of meaning a person’s life, and strike at such universal concepts and emotions that it can be hard to bear the possibility of being wrong about them.

There is no magic threshold at which your thinking transitions from ‘kid’ to ‘adult’.

I do not believe kids are stupid. If kids are stupid, then it holds that adults are stupid as well. Adults frequently feel they see stupidity in themselves or others, but may fear to admit it is still the same stupidity of a child. This is to fear to admit how hard it is to change in a world that demands growth, and naturally seek justification.

I have tried not to forget what it was like to be a kid. At one point I felt my imagination drying up, and where I might have expected boredom I still sometimes find anxiety or frustration instead. I tried to recall how I used to observe the actions of adults, and consider when and why things that didn’t matter to me as a child began to. I thought the idea of a person ‘turning into’ their parents was bizarre if one didn’t choose it.

When I was a kid I didn’t understand why flawed characters are ‘relatable’. Why adults ‘identified’ with characters who seemed celebrated for behaviour I was taught was bad. To have the mind of a child for me then was to not understand that flawed kids turn into flawed adults; how hard it is at any stage of life for one to change themselves.

Sometimes the effort needed to change seems pyrrhic. It’s hard to either accept or deny the idea that through nature or nurture people may have things about them they cannot change.

If possible, hold yourself open to the possibility of personal change at all times. Apologize for your weaknesses when appropriate, but do not let them dominate your thinking as insecurities.

At a point where it begins to persistently affect your quality of life I believe this energy is better spent elsewhere — if not for yourself then out of respect for others and what sustains you.

On kata (tekki)

You should feel free to study any kata you like for any reason.

You should feel free to invent your own kata if it interests you.

I consider kata a form of shadowboxing. It is the training and use of the imagination.

Most often, this means to use the power of the mind to imagine real opponents. We should aspire to be able to manifest opponents realer than the ones in our sparring. By reflecting on the possibility of true threat, fear, and intensity behind each movement, there is a corresponding increase in the energy we give and the quality of training.

In my view, it is the presence of threat in the world and corresponding fear which drives most people to martial arts. Fear of pain, humiliation, or death for one’s self or their loved ones. The worldly, primal vulnerability borne of an entropic universe that at any time someone simply bigger than you can take what you have.

To feel like one must know the nature of killing is what engenders the philosophy of martial arts and leads us to question morality.

Tap into fear if you have it and use it to empower your training.

A contrasting way to advance the power of your shadowboxing is to use fun. Imagine yourself as your favourite characters or figures.

In my opinion try not to get either too linear or too bogged down with the idea of bunkai. Whether certain kata are supposed to be against one opponent, multiple opponents, weapons, or else, may be pertinent to your school, but a person of sufficient imagination may be able to conceive of any of these possibilities in any kata.

Consider tekki/naihanchi and its characteristic horse stance. This one stretches the imagination immediately: are we fighting against a wall, or perhaps standing on stones in a river? Is there a ‘real fight’ practicality to the horse stance itself, or is it mainly for the training of the legs? While I still believe in the use of the imagination when we do the kata, I lean towards the latter.

Horse stance was among many of the things Bruce Lee characterized as ineffective from the old-school styles of kung fu like hung ga when he was making a name for himself. Even if we were fighting on river stones, why wouldn’t we use shiko stance which activates the hamstrings and provides better support?

It may be because against a true threat we can find ourselves, or be put, into positions we would not choose, hence, we might seek to master a variety of stances out of a sense of necessity, and not choice.

“For full awareness in natural stance, you must practice ready position as a beginner.”

As an aside: when the mind is engaged the body tends to follow suit. When training at full speed, I think it’s better to visualize moving the parts of your body to their targets as fast as possible instead of thinking about the motion of your hips.     

On evil and anger

What is the nature of evil? Does evil exist?

Popularly, evil is thought of as the equal and opposite of good, representing a necessary, contrasting, duality — like ‘the Force’.

In Catholicism, at the bottom, Satan is often positioned as though he is somehow god’s equal; at the top it is taught that the force of good is paramount handily.

The excellent quote goes: “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”.

I prefer to say: don’t let anyone trick you into anger.

Freedom from negative emotions may be impossible, but that does not absolve the responsibility of how they are handled.

Like fear in ‘Dune’, try to let anger flow through you so you may continue to think.

From karate, try: “be ready to release your mind”, or, “fire in the body, ice in the mind”.

Throughout history, as much evil has been done by the manipulation of the concept of good and evil as much as anything else; by good people being turned towards negative emotions whenever the energy would have been better spent investing in themselves or their communities.

I believe many people, and perhaps most men, suffer from fantasies of righteous violence. Protecting one’s self or our loved ones. Going to fight a sure threat or evil. These fantasies underpin much of our storytelling, our love of sports and competition, and the idea of heroism.

Concepts like heroism, honor, sacrifice, and duty, are among the strongest sources of meaning a person can experience; they can be used against you and the cause of good, often in a cascade of good intentions.

So many negative outcomes are caused by people who thought they were doing the right thing that it can call into question the existence of evil at all.

Ultimately, true evil may be to be fully aware and realistic about the consequences of your actions, then do them anyway, and self-justify the good instead of searching for another way.

On art

Try to have a broad definition of art.

Even simply as an exercise in broadening one’s perspective and keeping the imagination agile, try to consider the multitude of options each individual has in performing even the simplest of actions.

Consider there being art potential in any non-necessary action, or art itself as any time you put effort and thought into a thing beyond the minimum.

Breathing is one of the best examples of an action which may be performed mindlessly thousands of times a day, or concentrated upon and practiced each time.

Observe a flight of stairs and listen to the different amount of sound each individual makes with their steps. To attempt to be fully conscious of where your energy is distributed, and how much is meted out for any given thing, are fundamental to concepts of grace and the martial arts.

Unless there is direct harm, you should not be able to be scandalized by art. Art will always inherently have the quality of making a person think or feel something, but rarely represents actual threat.

When you create something, ask only if you know what you wish to present, or, if you are trying to explore something; both are valid sources of meaning.

On rue and respect

Paraphrasing George Herbert: “The best revenge is living well, even on yourself”.

Paraphrasing Yoda: “Respect leads to threat. Threat leads to fear. Fear leads to anger”.

Respect may be the core of all emotions.

Threat is an element of respect. We must respect the threat posed.

Threat, or perception of it, is often the cause of fear, anger, and sadness.

A being often feels these emotions as a threat response to individuals or situations where they must respect the form of power — physical or otherwise — the circumstance has over them.

In our memories we may feel these emotions because of the threat that the circumstances which created them are still outside our control, the threat we have been judged, or possibly the threat that we ourselves cannot change.

Some believe any degree of undeserved or overdone regret to be a form of self-violence. To be proud when we need to be and humble when we are not is not easy.

No one can change the past. Try to recognize if your relationship with self has become adversarial.

It may be impossible to feel better about one’s past by refusing the change the person who crafted it — you must address the threat your memories pose and prove you can continue to live.

If you wish to take revenge upon yourself, you must differentiate yourself from the person you were: the only option is to live better moving forward.

Self-respect may be the highest form of any revenge, as you raise yourself to meet the threat.

On the word hate

“I can’t find any use for the word hate.”

Try to be conscious of your words and judicious with strong ones; consider them when you think them because they can influence your moods and actions.

Even at fear for one’s life, it may be more moral to say you do not hate the threat — what then the times in life so many people may catch themselves saying ‘I hate broccoli’, or ‘I hate traffic’?

It is difficult to balance absolute freedom of speech and the idea that words are inherently separate from actions with the idea that words should be modulated — either by forum or by self.

I think perhaps to approach absolute freedom of speech would be to suggest that words have no power, or cannot cause actions.

Consideration for the words one uses can be a form of respect for language as a key element of human progress and human history.

Consideration for the words one uses can be a a form of respect for one’s self.

If hate is used, always consider first the threat, and decide if it was necessary.

Consider second the synonyms and alternatives of hate, and their meaning to you.

Consider third that if you still truly hate the threat, further use of the word hate or the emotion thereof could be redundant to the problem, and may even be working against you.

Reminder on reciprocity

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc2.htm

Baha’i:
“Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou does not.”
“Blessed is he who prefers his brother before himself.”
“And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou chooses for thyself.”

Brahmanism:
“This is the sum of Dharma: do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you.”

Buddhism:
“…a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?”
“Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.”

Christianity:
“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophecy.”
“And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.”

Confucianism:
“Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you.”
“Tse-kung asked, ‘Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?’ Confucius replied, ‘It is the word ‘shu’—reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.’”
“Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence.”

Ancient Egyptian:
“Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do.”

Hinduism:
“This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you.”

Humanism:
“…critical intelligence, infused by a sense of human caring, is the best method that humanity has for resolving problems. Reason should be balanced with compassion and empathy and the whole person fulfilled.”
“Don’t do things you wouldn’t want to have done to you.”

Islam:
“None of you believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.”

Jainism:
“Therefore, neither does he cause violence to others nor does he make others do so.”
“In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self.”
“A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated.”

Judaism:
“…thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”
“What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary.”
“And what you hate, do not do to any one.”

First Nations:
“Respect for all life is the foundation.”
“All things are our relatives; what we do to everything, we do to ourselves. All is really one.”
“Do not wrong or hate your neighbour. For it is not he who you wrong, but yourself.”

Roman Paganism:
“The law imprinted on the hearts of all men is to love the members of society as themselves.”

Scientology:
“Try to treat others as you would want them to treat you.”

Shinto:
“The heart of the person before you is a mirror. See there your own form.”
“Be charitable to all beings, love is the representative of god.”

Sikhism:
“Compassion, mercy and religion are the support of the entire world.”
“Don’t create enmity with anyone as god is within everyone.”
“No one is my enemy, no-one a stranger, and everyone is my friend.”

Sufism:
“The basis of Sufism is consideration of the hearts and feelings of others. If you haven’t the will to gladden someone’s heart, then at least beware lest you hurt someone’s heart, for on our path, no sin exists but this.”

Taoism:
“Regard your neighbour’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbour’s loss as your own loss.”
“The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for virtue is faithful.”

Wicca:
“And it harm no one, do what thou wilt.”

Yoruba:
“One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts.”

Zoroastrianism:
“That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself.”
“Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others.”

Epictetus:
“What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others.”

Kant:
“Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature.”

Plato:
“May I do to others as I would that they should do unto me.”

Socrates:
“Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you.”

Seneca:
“Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your superiors.”

George Bernard Shaw:
“The golden rule is that there are no golden rules.”
“Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same.”

Karl Popper:
“The golden rule is a good standard which is further improved by doing unto others, wherever reasonable, as they want to be done by.”

Walter Terence Stace:
“…doing as you would be done by includes taking into account your neighbour’s tastes as you would that he should take yours into account. Thus the golden rule might still express the essence of a universal morality even if no two men in the world had any needs or tastes in common.”