|
Q. Based on your critical reading and evaluation on text 1 and 2, Write an essay that answers the question of text 2 of Paul Bowman: What ‘more’ is there (for martial arts)?
In answering the first question, you may go beyond Lee’s account. For example, use dynamics between the interviewer and the interviewee in the text 1, or evaluate parallels and divergences between text 1 and 2.
In addition, compare and contrast martial arts with another form of art or activity. In answering this second question, choose any form of art or activity that you are familiar with.
Humanity has coexisted with an abundance of activities ever since ancient civilizations emerged. Foraging, cooking, fighting, painting, acting, and so on—it is hard to imagin our lives void of these activities. It is also noteworthy that by no other creatures like cats or dogs but people, all of them are performed. This endows an essential and twofold characteristic to activities: they consist in both physical and metaphysical—or philosophical—realms, because human being itself is a twofold being consisting of soul and body. To my understanding, martial arts is one of the forms of activities. Hence, as for the question brought about by Paul Bowman, “What ‘more’ is there for martial arts”, my brief answer to that is this: martial arts is performed by a person, so it should harbor the features of both sports and philosophy; and therefore, martial arts is not about ostentatiously exhibiting a series of superficial movements but have to come with philosophy(Here I adopted the word philosophy in order to describe the intellect of human being). In the subsequent paragraphs, I will discuss my understanding of martial arts based on text[1] and [2], answering Bowman’s question, and comparing martial arts with playing the piano, which I frequently do.
Martial arts is a successful combination of sports and philosophy. In the text [1], Bruce Lee says that martial arts is “unacting acting or acting unacting.” And the interviewer also remarks that “the oriental attitude views sports, art, and philosophy to be facets of the same thing.” In line with these clues, it is evident that martial arts features the ambivalence of both sports and philosophy. This standpoint is further corroborated by the fact that Bruce Lee mentions Steve McQueen and James Coburn as respectively better at certain departments, saying it is hard to determine who is the best among his pupils; Steve MacQueen outperformed as a fighter while James Coburn was superior as a philosopher; however, none of them was the best. Then, what is the physical—sportal—and philosophical aspects of martial arts? Martial arts, on the one hand, as a sport, requires people to train themselves mechanically, keeping their reflexes alive, so that they would become one with what they think—this is, in other words, training oneself to be able to precisely control their body as they want without a tiny margin of error. On the other hand, as a philosophy, it is a way through which a person perceives the world, which is implicitly revealed in the koan-like question-and-answer session between Bruce Lee and his teacher in the text [2].
Martial arts is also expressing oneself honestly, according to Bruce Lee’s account at the end of the text[1]. Martial arts is composed of both sportal and philosophical aspects. Expressing oneself honestly through martial arts, therefore, can be achived only when performers are adaquately trained and have philosophical understanding of what they want to do simultaneously. If either of these prerequisites is not fufilled, they cannot express themselves just has they are but falsely exhibit all the phony movements with the sensation of being cocky, as Bruce Lee explains at the end of the text [1]. To my understanding, the phrase, “expressing oneself honestly,” can be understood as fully immersing oneself in what they want to express, which I will elaborate on later in the last paragraph where I will compare martial arts with the activity of playing the piano.
As for the question brought about by Paul Bowman, “What ‘more’ is there for martial arts”, I would say this: the movements of martial arts are endowed artistic value. For instance, the value of a painting tends to be determined by who created it and with what intention the artist painted it, rather than the level of sophistication in the technique applied to the work. A brushstroke with an obvious purpose outvalues a haphazard one. Likewise, a punch wielded with meticulous intention is artistically worthier than that of whim. This pattern of thought is also applicable to every kind of human activity, whether it is sports, music, or acting. Thus, Paul Bowman’s assertion that martial has no unfathomable things is no more than an unfair depreciation.
Lastly, martial arts has lots of similarities with the activity of playing the piano. From my perspective, expressing oneself honestly, not falsely, is akin to being immersed in what they do. The footing of this standpoint can be found in the text [2], where Bruce Lee says “It hits all by itself,” and “Because the word ‘I’ does not exist,” and his teacher remarks “I see your talents have gone beyond the mere physical level. Your skills are now at the point of spiritual insight.” These clues found in the dialouge indicate that martial arts can reach the point of spiritual insight, and it entails automaticity and unconsciousness to a certain degree. The spiritual insight here mentioned can be viewed as the immersion of oneself in activity or art—or what Bruce Lee means by saying “acting unacting or unacting acting.” In that sense, the similitudes between martial arts and playing the piano can now be discussed. Firstly, they both requires physical training, because without training, you cannnot obtain the full authority of your body, controlling it as you want. For instance, without sufficient physical training, martial arts cannot be performed appropriately, and so is playing the piano. Without practicing how to play the notes written in the scores, you cannot play music beautifully, otherwise your playing becomes but a noise evne if you have the ideal imagination of them being played in mind. The lack of physical training also inhibits you from becoming fully immersed in your chosen activity, since the lack of technique will constantly occupy your consciousness.
Secondly, they both necessitates philosophical understanding of your activity. Without obvious purpose or determination, every physical action you conduct becomes merely mimicking some superficial movements of what others do, what you are not, and what you do not know. Every movement of martial arts, and every note played by you can be just emulating others, not expressing yourself franckly. Lastly, they both coalesce you to be fully immersed in what you do. To be fully immersed in martial arts or playing the piano, you should both be physically trained and be fully aware of what you want to do through them simultaneously. As I mentioned above, without physical training, martial arts would become showing a series of inferior movements, and playing the piano rendering a performance with lots of mistouches. Conversely, without philosophical understanding, both martial arts and playing the piano would make you feel cocky and blinded by phony things because you are not expressing what is genuinely inside of you but what is outside of you.
Nevertheless, there are also differences between them. Firstly, they are different in terms of the manner through which one expresses themselves. Martial arts is a way through which you can experss yourself in a combative form while paying the piano is a way to express yourself in the language of music. Secondly, they are performed in different venues. Even though they are performed in front of the audience or spectators in common, martial arts is conducted more frequently in open spaces while playing the piano tends to happen in closed spaces like recital or concert halls. Lastly, martial arts does not necessitate particular equipments for you to perform it while paying the piano cannot be done without the instrument.
|
첫댓글 수고했다,,,홧팅,,,