Talk:Taoist Tai Chi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We have to be careful not to inadvertantly imply things about other schools in articles. We can say that Moy said that other styles are competitive, but we can't say that other styles are competitive. Some are, some aren't. Most traditional styles aren't, so we have to be careful. This is a big problem for Westerners especially, since they are enthusiatic about pointing out the differences that they feel are distinguishing factors between what they do and what others do. That can be done, of course, but it has to be done according npov policy, and (from a traditional martial standpoint) what Moy would call "Sense of Propriety." The old Chinese martial arts schools worked out a system of behaviour based on the Confucian family model many centuries ago to eliminate overt competition between them. So it can be implied, by the reasoning of that system, that martial styles of T'ai Chi are overtly competitive by saying Taoist society style isn't at all. Again, the right qualifiers (such as the most recent edits I've made to the article) can clear that up without sacrificing info about the school in question.
Another person who made similar statements, only in reverse, was Bruce Lee. He didn't think that traditional styles were competitive enough! This is from our JKD article:
"Bruce Lee's comments and methods were seen as controversial by many in his time, and still are by many today. Many teachers from traditional schools disagree with his opinions on these issues, especially seeing what Lee described as their lack of strategic flexibility due to "rote" teaching methods to be a misunderstanding on Lee's part. Most, if not all, traditional martial arts teachers say "fluid" strategy is a feature of martial training that is indeed addressed in the curricula of most traditional styles at advanced levels, when the students are ready. The schools Lee criticized tend to see their initial conservatism as a safety feature; a legacy of practical experience passed down from generation to generation, said to ensure that their students are thoroughly prepared for advanced martial training, skipping nothing and developing intangibles such as good character, patience and discipline. The hierarchy of the traditional schools is said by this reasoning to provide a level playing field for all students by instilling respect and care for one's seniors, peers and juniors, so that everyone, not just the physically gifted, has an opportunity to benefit from the training provided in a martial art school."
I mention it because it is a good description of why competition in traditional Chinese schools was discouraged. --Fire Star 05:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] About paid instructors.
A remark was removed with the comment: (no instructor of Taoist Tai Chi is paid. It is all volunteer work). The 'Fung Loy Kok Institute of Taoism' and the 'Gei Pang Lok Hup Academy' and the 'Taoist Tai Chi Society' form a happy marriage. Senior staff in one branch teaches in the other. Directors and/or senior staff within the combined organisation are paid officers with annual salaries. These paid officers/members are also teaching Taoist Tai Chi, and thus are paid instructors. Therefore stating that not all instructors are unpaid volunteers is a correct statement. --JohJak2 11:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Note, the people who are paid are the administrators, bookkeepers, and the like. Some also happen to be instructors. They are not paid to be instructors, they are paid for their administrative skills.
- Administrators etc. are paid by Fung Loy Kok and volunteer their teaching in the Taoist Tai Chi Society. However, FLK and TTCS are really one organisation, and moneys/funds are shifted between them. To tell members that all TTCS instructors are volunteers is a play on words. So TTCS is not open and up front towards their members about how the relationship is really functioning. Alexanderprinciple 10:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
you are both obviously not members of the society. as a former member, I can tell you the debate over misrepesentation of volunteer status is futile for the simple reason that the only people who dually are paid administrators and volunteer teachers are members who operate at the headquarters in Canada. All heads and administrators of regional branches are unpaid volunteers. Thats hundreds and hundreds of teachers who are in no way shape or form paid by the society. Besides the fact that even at headquarters, the percentage of administrators who are also teachers is miniscule. saying that the society is lying about its volunteers is based on the paid dual admins/teachers that are less than 1 percent of teachers worldwide and is misleading. VanTucky 04:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
This is an advert for a commercial organisation
This is no more of a "commercial organization" than the Boy Scouts of America or the YWCA. It is a non-profit. Rasp 17:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
