Originally Posted by Liberty

Wolfeye, my use of the word “emphasized” spoke of a philosophy. While my use of “in accordance with the various ranges, honed to deadly accuracy, speed, power, timing, etc,” spoke not only to a philosophy, but to certain principles, as well. In my use of the phrase “his writings” this is also evident. Surely I was not referring to his penmanship (technique), for example. And what is “it was for him a journey of looking within, rather than without,” if not a philosophy? What about my “what he said, when”?

The question and the point of my post, has not been so much Bruce Lee’s technique but rather his philosophy’s effect on it. That his philosophy was, for him a continuous, wondrous journey of looking within, to, as he’d found therein, “the cause of his own ignorance,” and of continuously honing what was revealed by that process to an ever greater degree of combat efficiency. As such, his technique could never be outdated, for it was ever evolving, ever alive, not static.

My question regarding “which of his techniques might be outdated” had hoped to open that discussion, to explore that, to point to that.

I’m reminded of a failing of his own which Inosanto once described. That every so often, while attempting to lead students to experiencing one principle in particular which he’d had in mind, while attmepting to do so through various techniques that he’d have them execute, some, unable to grasp that principle, would instead get caught up in the techniques and complain he was teaching them too many (techniques) at once.

I've also obviously failed to get my point accross. And for that, all I can hope to do is to go back to the drawing board; my own soul, search out the cause of my own ignorance, and hopefully do a better job of communicating a point the next time around. Wolfeye. thanks for your time, by the way.