Mike Brewer

I have long held the belief that we need to be careful how we train our minds, making sure that the things we ingrain are useful in all areas of life and not totally specific to martial arts. In other words, if we're going to take the time to ingrain aggression and fearlessness, it should not be purely physical in nature but rather a trait that allows us to tackle day-to-day fears and challenges as well. I can't tell you how many times I have seen "fighters" who will face down an angry mob with nothing but their two fists and a dump-truck full of courage, but who are intimidated beyond reason to do something like speak in public or approach a stranger. To me, this is an indicator of training that is too specific to the physical courage needed by a fighter, and which could be improved by a more all-encompassing approach.

In that vein, does it make sense to look to a basic philosophy of pragmatism in our mental training the same way we would in our physical skills? I mean, we can all agree that it makes sense to train high-probability moves that work in a lot of situations across the board instead of getting overly specialized in more advanced specifics. We can all generally agree that someone would be better served learning a good thai-style round kick, a good cross, and a great double leg than they would learning, say, a jump 540-degree spinning heel hook, a spearhand, and an irimi-nage throw. However, when it comes to mental training, I see people throwing out the core concepts and getting over-specialized.

In my opinion, your mental training is the only thing you can do during every waking minute of every day. Your mental training should never be confined to your martial arts gym, nor should it be limited in duration to the time you spend there. It should be a basic elemental part of your overall values system, and a core piece of your daily decision-making process. In other words, your basic beliefs - be they religious, philosophical, or whatever - should be geared toward a daily reinforcement of the mental qualities you deem important in your pursuit of martial excellence. That way, you are constantly training yourself to be aggressive in the pursuit of your goals, creative in your application of your skills and abilities, resourceful in your adaptation and use of tools (physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, or what have you) to further your interests, etc.

As a fighter, this can conflict with your other roles, such as being a compassionate partner or a good parent. However, I believe it is possible to balance all of the roles in my life with my ability to be a calculating and ruthless fighter. I believe that the basic core of all those roles is the same, and can be distilled into the following statement:

Seek virtue, avoid vice, and realize that everything outside those two things is completely indifferent.

Now, I'm into dangerous territory because I just set myself up. I'm trying to simplify a complex idea to the most absurd level possible, so obviously the above statement isn't going to cover all the essential ground. In the interest of expanding without getting too verbose, here's a link to an established and recognized version of the philosophy I'm talking about.

Having read this, what is your take on mental training as a whole? Have you guys found that it is something unique to your martial arts practice, or is it something that extends into the rest of your life as well? I'd be interested to discuss.

Voltage

Interesting post. I'm a big fan of mental training in a practical, non-mystical way.

I just read "Budo Karate of Mas Oyama" cover to cover, and it nails the importance of daily mental preparation, whether relating to training, or to your life outside of training. The philosophy of Kyokushin produces strong fighters, physically and mentally. (For the record, I've yet to train Kyokushin)

Outside of that, I made a decision to become a better person every day for the rest of my life, about 2 years ago. And I am fitter, stronger, less fearful, more determined, more focused and less conflicted now than I was then. It's amazes my friends and family how far I've come, and it amazes me how far I think I can still go. So I research personal development material, martial arts philosophies and wiser people to learn from every day.... I can't get enough.

I'm thinking about how to incorporate this into my teaching on a regular basis.

Can you recommend any good reading material?

__________________
Johnny D
1st Dan Hapkido

Mike Brewer

Voltage,
It's an odd source maybe, but I highly recommend Epictetus' "The Art of Living." Look for the Sharon LeBell translation. Stoic philosophy is well suited to those who are looking to find a practical warrior ideal, but like anything, there is a proper context in which to view the content. You need to keep a flexible and open mind and realize that when context changes, so does the content. That means some of the things that applied in 344 B.C. may have changed in 23 centuries. Cicero is also one of the more important sources for stoic ideals, even though he is generally seen as departing from some of the previously important parts of the overall philosophy. He often wrote about the differences between Peripateticism and Stoicism, but that's neither here nor there.

The function of Stoic philosophy was to help hone the use of reason so that we could learn to live simply in our pursuit of virtue and in accordance with natural law. Taken as a part of a whole, it's a fairly pragmatic warrior philosophy.

Hot_Wings

Fear: The Mind Killer. Obviously, you recognize serious flaws of logic in many people now that you are older and wiser and more observant of others. But you are avoiding the real issue that you want to solve.

Virtue: the quality of doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong

Virtue, in itself, is a practically meaningless word Mike. Using the definition of the word Virtue we can extract the verb phrase that is its essential meaning and thereby get closer to the universal truth. “Doing what is right” is the only important part of the definition of the word “Virtue”. Hence the statement: ”Seek virtue, avoid vice, and realize that everything outside those two things is completely indifferent” can be boiled down to its essential element of “Do what is Right.” For “avoiding vice” is the very nature of “doing right” so it can be eliminated from the statement. As well, the rest of the statement “, and realize that everything outside those two things is completely indifferent” serves no purpose if “everything else is indifferent.” This final part of your statement serves no purpose if all else is indifferent, then it should be removed for it is pointless to state the obvious and it only distracts from the truth.

What we are left with is the only important true meaning of the statement, which is, “Do what it Right.” If we wish to follow this ideal then we must first decide on what it “Right.” To answer what is “Right” we must turn towards a moral value system called, “Religion.”

You knew that religion was the real answer to your question, but for some reason you are avoiding it. Religion is what truly separates people my friend. For religion is what determines the value system and the moral equation.

Do you believe that “Infidels deserve to Die” or do you believe that you should “Love your enemy”. These are the questions that define all people and differentiate one from another.

Mike Brewer

Well, I have to disagree, although I sense we about to launch into a long and tired debate about semantics. I don't disagree with your entire premise, but the notion that you can eliminate "avoid vice" from the statement I made. Right, like virtue, is a completely subjective term. If one is meaningless, so is the other. So is vice. You will notice that I chose to express the idea in proactive terms. I didn't say "don't do bad things." I said "avoid vice." I believe that there's a difference. One is a positive course of action. The other is a negative image. By that, I simply mean for me, creating the image of proactively avoiding something is more constructive than just not doing. Put another way "avoiding" is more mindful, more purposeful, and as such, should be included in the statement and not just assumed. It's all subjective and it's all semantic, so there's no point trying to convince anyone of it - I'm just explaining my own reasons for putting it that way.

Again, I disagree. You're correct that we must decide on what is right, but I do not believe religion is required in its pursuit. All that's required is that it is clearly understood. Our moral value system is not something that needs to be handed down to us from an outside source. No dogmatic expression of our own values is required in order to understand them. No matter how you look at it, in attempting to strive for virtue or to "do what's right," you are serving your own subjective views of truth. You cannot fully comprehend truth anyway, because in order to do so, you'd need to completely transcend the limitations of human perception. Even if that were a possibility (which I do not believe), you're left with the question, "Once I've transcended human perception and gained the ability to comprehend truth, what's left of me to make use of it?"

The thing to understand about my own thoughts on morals and ethics is that, ultimately, I am a pragmatist. I do not believe high ideals serve any good unless they have some utilitarian function. That's why I believe there is a difference between simply "doing what's right" and the more inclusive "seek virtue and avoid vice." An example:

I do not believe it is wrong to enjoy sex. In fact, in the simple context of "doing what's right," one may not even consider such a thing as the enjoyment of sex as something that fits comfortably in the ideal. It's not that it's bad or good - it just doesn't necessarily belong. However, I believe it is a vice to enjoy sex with another man's wife or with a friend's daughter. As such, I avoid such things. Likewise, I do not believe it is necessarily "right" to enjoy drinking. But drinking to excess is a vice that I avoid. This is a much easier concept to put into practice for me than the more ambiguous "Do what's right." Yes, I am completely aware that one could phrase such things thus: "Drinking to excess is not right, and so it is not something you should do." But to me, that's clumsy and less pragmatic.

In terms of some other folks, religion may be a useful tool. My own spirituality is indeed quite useful to me. But it is not the same as my mental training. My religion is not about attaining salvation or immortality beyond this life, as my own spiritual endeavors tell me that such things are human constructions. I don't think we can understand the afterlife (whatever form it takes), and what's more, the pragmatist in me believes it is counterproductive to spend my time trying. Whatever's out there will be there no matter how I think, feel, or believe. What matters from a pragmatic standpoint is this life and my thoughts, words, deeds, and attitudes within it.

In essence, that's why my mental training also applies to my martial art. I keep it "here," relevant, and as pragmatic as my understanding allows.