yes, this follows the environment I left in Cali when we moved...everyone seemed to be carrying a copy of Sun Tzu in their briefcases! I'm so contrary that I ignored it for years:)
the translated version I just read made a huge effort to glean the original intent of the author without the additions of other generals...but how could you ever know for sure? like the bible...too much time and too much opportunity to edit:) Many names kept popping into my head as I read them so you see in the margins..Maginot Line...Patton..Stonewall Jackson (who lived and fought where I grew up) etc. thanks for the article for Cln Boyd. On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Isparklaria <[email protected]> wrote: > > CrossBow, > > here is some informatio to take you beyond Sun Tzu. It's about the > relationship between the information in Sun Tzu and the work of 20th > century military genius, Colonel John Boyd. He developed a systems > thinking approach known as the OODA Loop. > > http://consultski.blogspot.com/2006/02/sun-tzu-meets-boyds-ooda-loop.html > Operationalizing Sun Tzu: The O-O-D-A Loop > By H. William Dettmer > > "Those who win every battle are not really skillful-those who render > others' armies helpless without fighting are the best of all." > -Sun Tzu, The Art of War [1:67] > > By now most people have heard of the ancient Chinese general, Sun Tzu, > and his writings about military strategy called The Art of War. Sun > Tzu lived about 2,400 years ago. What many may not realize, however, > is that The Art of War is a compendium of cogent military thought that > has been amplified and expanded upon through the 12th century AD by > other skillful Chinese generals---"the best of Chinese military > genius", one might say. > > Somewhat fewer people (but still a significant number) are aware that > principles articulated in The Art of War can be translated to the > domain of business. Some business schools even require students to > read The Art of War as part of their curriculum. However, though they > may have done such required reading, very few business students of Sun > Tzu are really adept at translating those precepts to practice. Some > authors (McNeilly, for one) have done so and written about it. [2] > > Clearly, there are parallels between military engagements and > business, or, for that matter, with competitive sports, or other > comparable activities where winning or losing (however one defines > those) is possible. The principles in The Art of War can be > effectively applied to such situations, whether the opponent is a > specific adversary or even just an unforgiving environment itself. > > The Art of War is replete with useful information, both strategic and > tactical---too much to analyze at length here. That's not the purpose > of this installment in any event. For our purpose---showing how to > make that application leap that so many haven't been able to do---it's > sufficient to select a few of Sun Tzu's key principles. > > Here are the ones we'll address: > > If you know others and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a > hundred battles…if you do not know others and do not know yourself, > you will be imperiled in every single battle. [1:82] > This principle addresses the importance of understanding your own > system-its capabilities, needs, objectives, and values-as well as > those of your opponents. > Unless you know the mountains and forests, the defiles and impasses, > and the lay of the marshes and swamps, you cannot maneuver with an > armed force. [1:116] > This principle emphasizes the need to fully understand the external > environment in which you---and your adversaries---operate in. In > business, this is more than just the market conditions or the > regulatory environment. It includes the political and cultural > environment as well. > I have heard of military operations that were clumsy but swift, but I > have never seen one that was skillful and lasted a long time. It is > never beneficial to have [an] operation continue for a long time. > [1:58] In this observation, Sun Tzu points out the importance of speed > in commencing and concluding operations and activities---of not > allowing things to drag on. > Act after having made assessments. The one who first knows the > measures of far and near wins. [1:119] The emphasis here is on making > assessments. This is another way of saying "synthesize all your > information into a clear picture of what is going on and where you > stand in the situation; then act." (presumably with the speed advised > in 3, above!) > Generals who know all possible adaptations to take advantage of the > ground know how to use military forces. If generals do not know how to > adapt advantageously, even if they know the lay of the land they > cannot take advantage of it. [1:126] > Adaptation means not clinging to fixed methods, but changing > appropriately according to events, acting as is suitable. [Zhang Yu] > [1:125] > A military force has no constant formation, water has no constant > shape: the ability to gain victory by changing and adapting according > to the opponent is called genius. [1:113] > These three precepts are all about flexibility and the capability to > adjust (or adapt) to new situations---again, quickly. > In battle, confrontation is done directly, victory is gained by > surprise. [1:94] > Here Sun Tzu makes the point that the most visible or obvious > engagement is not where war is actually won. In other words, the > direct engagement is no more than a way of fixing the adversary's > attention while the decisive engagement is concluded at a point where > the enemy is weak-and not as well prepared. In other words, "Hit `em > where they ain't." > > The O-O-D-A Loop > > John Boyd, a retired Air Force colonel whose concept of destruction > and creation we examined in the last installment, conceived a four- > step prescription to guide the prosecution of military operations to > swift, ultimate victory. Boyd called this prescription the O-O-D-A > loop. And in the same way that Sun Tzu's principles are applicable to > business operations, so too is Boyd's O-O-D-A loop. Moreover, the O-O- > D-A loop provides highly focused guidance for effectively applying the > specific Art of War principles cited above. It can be considered a > command-and-control loop. [3:165] > > "O-O-D-A" is an acronym that stands for observe, orient, decide, and > act. These are sequential activities that guide leaders to effective > decisions. The act step that culminates this process ultimately > produces changes in the environment that merit a new, subsequent round > of observations, followed by a second cycle of orientation, decision, > and action. Boyd suggested that individuals or groups that could cycle > through these four steps faster than their adversaries had a tactical > advantage. To the extent that they could execute the cycle two or more > times faster than their opponents could complete one, they would > actually increase the opposition's confusion about the competitive > situation to such a degree that the opponent's efforts might totally > collapse. The accompanying figure provides a detailed picture of the O- > O-D-A loop. > > It's worth examining these steps in somewhat more detail. > > Observe > > Observation, the first step in the O-O-D-A loop, is a search for > information. The information that should be sought is, first and > foremost, the nature of unfolding circumstances-the tactical > situation. Only slightly less urgent is what Boyd called "outside > information." This could include the environment; the behavior and > tendencies of oneself and one's opponents; the physical, mental, and > moral situation; and potential allies and other opponents. [4:62] It > must be emphasized that this is not a passive step-it requires a > concerted, active effort to seek out all the information possible, by > whatever means available. > > Moreover, bad news is the only kind that will do you any good. [4:63] > What you're looking for---what you can best capitalize on---are data > that don't fit with your current orientation, or worldview (and > especially the worldview of your opponent). It is these "mismatches" > that offer the potential for learning something that your adversaries > don't know, thereby creating a tactical advantage that you can > exploit. > > Orient > > Orient is the "big O" in the O-O-D-A loop, as you can see from the > complexity of that part of the illustration above. Notice that there > are three arrows leading out of the orient block, but only one leading > in, reinforcing the notion that our orientation to the world shapes > the decisions we make, the actions we take, and what we choose to > observe-what we look for-in the world around us. > > Our orientation is a synthesis of multiple contributions, including > cultural traditions, previous experiences, genetic heritage, and new > information based on unfolding circumstances. These contributions are > then analyzed and synthesized (remember the snowmobile analogy from > the last installment?) into a new, updated picture of reality---a > worldview. To the extent that a tactician or strategist is able to > synthesize a more accurate picture of reality than his or her > opponent, the quality of decisions and the effectiveness of actions > improve, sometimes dramatically. To the extent that the tactician/ > strategist can deny that accurate picture to the adversary, the > quality of the opponent's decisions and the effectiveness of his > actions deteriorate. Boyd referred to this analysis-and-synthesis > process as "many-sided, implicit cross-referencing." [4:62] > > It's orientation, however, that drives everything else. The faster we > can orient ourselves, the greater the congruence with objective > reality that we can make our orientation, the better and more > effective our observations, decisions, and actions will be. > > Decide > > In concept, this is an explicit step, meaning a discrete, conscious > activity following hard on orientation. However, Boyd also realized > that intuitive understanding of the situation and one's own > capabilities (the fingerspitzengefuhl discussed in our first > installment) makes the decision step implicit, rather than explicit. > This is a highly desirable situation, because it speeds the cycle time > of the O-O-D-A loop. As early as the 17th century, the quintessential > samurai, Musashi, emphasized the need to practice incessantly until > this fingerspitzengefuhl (not Musashi's word, obviously!) made the > sword an extension of the warrior's arm and action instinctive, > without having to think about it. In other words, implicit decision > and action. > > Act > > The act step is largely self-evident. Action is the whole reason for > going through the O-O-D steps in the first place. But it's crucial to > keep in mind that the very action we attempt to execute will, itself, > influence the environment in which we act. The environment will > change, possibly only slightly, but more likely dramatically. This > change in the "playing field" renders our orientation, or worldview, > invalid to some degree: it introduces a mismatch between reality and > our perception of it. The quicker we realize that this mismatch is > developing, the sooner we can adjust our orientation to more closely > approximate the new reality and act again. And this is the cyclic > nature of the O-O-D-A loop. > > Speed > > A final word about speed. The more factors there are to consider, the > more difficult it is to analyze and synthesize them all quickly. > Knowing what to focus on and what can be ignored is crucial. Speed > comes from the implicit ability to do this, rather than from the > explicit step. With experience and skill, an explicit decide step can > be bypassed, and action becomes an implicit outcome of orientation, as > Musashi intended. Moreover, the decision on what indicators to look > for, or observe, in the external environment also becomes implicit > (thus faster). > > Conclusion > > In the next installment, we'll see how the observe and orient steps > constitute the heart of what Peter Senge has called learning > organizations. And the following installment will introduce the > concept of system constraints as a means of separating what's > important to synthesize from what isn't in the mass of data that > observation produces. > > "The one who figures on victory at headquarters even before doing > battle is the one who has the most strategic factors on his side…The > one with many strategic factors in his favor wins, the one with few > strategic factors in his favor loses-how much more so for one with no > strategic factors in his favor. Observing the matter in this way, I > can see who will win and who will lose." > -Sun Tzu, The Art of War [1:56] > > ENDNOTES > 1. Sun Tzu. The Art of War (translated by Thomas Cleary). Boston, MA: > Shambhala Publications, 1988. > 2. McNeilly, Mark. Sun Tzu and the Art of Business: Six Strategic > Principles for Managers. NY; Oxford University Press, 1996. > 3. Hammond, Grant T. The Mind of War: John Boyd and American Security. > Washington, D.C.: The Smithsonian Institution Press, 2001. > 4. Richards, Chet. Certain to Win. Xlibris Corporation. 2004. > > > On Jan 9, 9:06 am, CrossBow <[email protected]> wrote: > > btw, just finished Sun Tzu's Art of War last night. Wu Ch'i has a > similar > > but more situational section in the back. Loved it, didnt learn anything > > new, but was amazed how it was arranged as a manual. It is obviously a > > powerful tool anyone in command should read. Made me want to play > chess.... > > > > read more » > > > > Obviously Bush has never cracked it at all:) > > > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:23 PM, ornamentalmind < > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have heard the story about Tai Chi that many adapt to their own form > > > of martial art and that is: Many years ago, the Emperor of China would > > > hold open contests for all comers and all forms of fighting. Whoever > > > was left would run his palace guard. Tai Chi was what was left. > > > > > Such truth and/or myth aside, even though with a little effort I > > > couldn't find the film online of the younger Tai Chi boxer who had > > > just finished undefeated after days of martial art contests. Chen Man > > > Ching had told the student to not enter the contest. (In fact, in > > > Watson's school, none of us were allowed to enter contests, even after > > > decades of study.) Anyway, for having disregarded his teacher's > > > admonition, Chen Man Ching, when 'attacked' by the younger student, > > > didn't even let the student engage him. With a very small flick of his > > > left wrist, the student went flying away, not able to regain his > > > footing for about 20 feet or more. (backward) I have seen the film > > > over and over…it is amazing. And, an example why few will ever see > > > actual tai chi. > > > > > On Jan 8, 6:26 am, Isparklaria <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Jan 7, 9:11 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > This said, even Chen Man Ching himself found > > > > > > > himself in a situation where he had to use his art. A very large > > > > > person just picked him up once and was going to throw him down. On > the > > > > > way up, with some very fast footwork, Chen Man Ching did a lot of > > > > > damage to the person so was then let down easily. > > > > > > Orn, Crossbow and anyone else reading this. > > > > > > I just want to make sure that the reader doesn't mistake the > uprooting > > > > of tai chi for grabbing someone and picking them up as the assailant > > > > did to Cheng Man Ching. First of all the "pure and correct" uproot is > > > > a training exercise. The uproot can be seamlessly melded into a > > > > projection technique, which can propel the airborne person into a > wall > > > > or other object. Tai chi has many other attack methods besides > > > > bouncing someone off the wall. Uprooting need not precede most of > > > > these other types of attacks. > > > > > > It is not worth explaining exactly how uprooting works unless someone > > > > can feel it. In brief let me say that it is nothing like what most > > > > people think of when they think of wrestling. To some it seems to > some > > > > to defy the laws of physics because the contact between the persons > is > > > > so light. It does not defy any laws of physics since living beings > > > > have a lot of momentum that they are not typically aware of. > Uprooting > > > > relies on the relative tension levels between the uprooter and the > > > > uprooted in order to manipulate the others momentum. If the person > you > > > > are trying to uproot is less tense than you are in the moment that > you > > > > are trying to uproot them, it will fail. It also relies on the > > > > automatic reaction of the uprooted to a very slight and precisely > > > > directed downward pressure that seamlessly occurs before the uproot. > > > > The founder of Yang style tai chi is reported to have said that there > > > > are three types of men that he could not beat, men made of wood, men > > > > made of brass, and men made of iron. Yes, his great technique would > > > > not work against an unresponsive statue. But when some one is not > > > > moving they are not a threat at the moment and they can also be hit > at > > > > will, if you are sure that they are about to attack. > > > > > > On Jan 7, 9:11 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > For those who want more than theory about Tai Chi, although the > > > > > YouTube videos are not nearly as clear as the original films, which > I > > > > > watched many times, they may give you a sense of what we are > talking > > > > > about more. > > > > > This is of one of the masters we have been talking about and the > > > > > teacher of Patrick Watson who was asked to start the school I've > been > > > > > in since the early 70s. Some of the students were able to have > studied > > > > > with Chen Man Ching himself. Watson had the original films and even > > > > > more than what this set of videos shows. He kept them close yet, > they > > > > > were taken from his apartment in NYC late in his life. The 3rd > person > > > > > in this video is Smith, who Ish has mentioned. He is also shown > doing > > > > > the Sword Form later on. > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4603FB2mh4&feature=PlayList&p=2814CFE. > .. > > > > > > > While perhaps a little too mystical for some here, to me, rather > than > > > > > learning how to fight, the best Tai Chi, in my view, is that which > > > > > never has to be used. This said, even Chen Man Ching himself found > > > > > himself in a situation where he had to use his art. A very large > > > > > person just picked him up once and was going to throw him down. On > the > > > > > way up, with some very fast footwork, Chen Man Ching did a lot of > > > > > damage to the person so was then let down easily. > > > > > In NYC, there were many times when my intuition was to change > routs. > > > > > Some of the time, I found out why. > > > > > As to health, Chen Man Ching's autobiography is testament to how > well > > > > > it can work. And, having known Patrick for many years, I guess I > don't > > > > > see how one can say he was in any way unhealthy. But, perhaps that > is > > > > > bias. I know that his hands felt like cotton, if like anything and > one > > > > > moment we were engaged, the next moment I was in the air and then > hit > > > > > the wall on the fly. Overall, it did help the inner organs. > > > > > > > Also, from the more mystical lore, it is said that if you attack > with > > > > > the intention to kill, this energy will be returned and you will > find > > > > > out you have killed yourself. > > > > > > > On Jan 7, 5:48 am, Isparklaria <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Orn, > > > > > > > > I am writing much of this out for the benefit of others. Your tai > chi > > > > > > style of writing, drawing me out is good, but other will not > > > > > > understand much and at the moment I want them too. > > > > > > > > In my opinion, the bottom line with tai chi is that it is an > > > empiracle > > > > > > art. I had to reread and rethink what you said about that > particlar > > > > > > women who cannot be "pushed" your qoutes. First of all she is > short, > > > > > > which helps when no no striking is involved. Secondly you said > that > > > no > > > > > > one could "push" (your quotes) her. But if you are making a > judgemnt > > > > > > as to who is better at push hands than it would seem that she can > > > also > > > > > > move every one else, at least occaisionally. If she can and also > > > > > > cannot be moved then I would judge her the best in your circle. > > > > > > > > William Chen claims to have only practiced neutralization for > about > > > > > > his first year. It was only later that he learned to effortlessly > > > lift > > > > > > others straight up off the floor, both feet leaving the ground > and > > > > > > using only light contact with his hands (I could barely feel them > > > when > > > > > > ever he did this to me). It is this skill that that is hard to > > > develop > > > > > > for all but seems to be harder for women to develop, in my > > > experience, > > > > > > then men. That is the style of uprooting that CMC taught. Making > > > > > > others stumble backwards, fall forwards or to the sides, is also > > > > > > useful, for fighting, but according to CMC not the correct > uproot. > > > > > > > > As for the "real" Tai Chi, I would suggest you look for a top > > > > > > certified student on Ma Yueh Liang. CMC was one of the best, best > > > > > > nearly every one who experienced both agreed the Ma was the best > in > > > > > > the world at the time and had a much more complete system. He has > top > > > > > > students in China who have surpassed his level and some very good > > > ones > > > > > > in the USA. > > > > > > > > As far as fighting goes, as far as I know Ma never really showed > it > > > or > > > > > > taught it. If one is really a master of the tai chi training > methods > > > > > > then it doesn't take long to become a great fighter, whether for > > > sport > > > > > > ot for self defense. The later (self defense) is what I consider > > > > > > "real" fighting. CMC showed it to Robert Smith or so Smith writes > in > > > > > > his chapter on CMC in his book "Chinese Boxing, Masters and > Methods. > > > > > > In that chapter there is a story of CMC also using push hands for > > > > > > fighting. CMC knocks out a mantis style boxer by bouncing him of > the > > > > > > wall. However it is easy to beat an externalist with push hands, > if > > > > > > you also know how to fight for real which invlolves being able to > > > > > > slip, perry and absord strikes. On the bottom of 42 and top of > page > > > 43 > > > > > > CMC demonstrates real fighting to Robert Smith. Their are only > two > > > > > > people I know of who are real masters and also teach real self > > > defense > > > > > > fighting to their students. William C. C. Chen is NOT one of > them. He > > > > > > teaches sport fighting. One of these masters is extremelly soft, > > > > > > except when he hits. His strikes are internal though. If he went > > > after > > > > > > me for real, he would beat or even kill me within a seconds. I > heard > > > > > > the other one is very soft too, but I have never met him. I have > > > > > > played with one of his students and from that I have come to the > > > > > > conclusion that this other master is also a devastating fighter. > > > > > > > > Push hands is a training method and an important one, but it is > often > > > > > > way over emphasized for fighting. Push hands, done properly, is > > > > > > actually more important- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > -- gnothe se auton --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
