While I agree there is no need to be that specific, that order of magnitude would be fine with me.
>> Ascetism is not the same as what Greg calls 'Austerities', which is
>> a somewhat more specific technical use of the term.
>
>Yes, that's exactly my (subordinate) point. What you two were talking
>were specifically Austerities. And my main point is that austerities
>in particular and asceticism in general are mystical techniques.
Not convinced of this at all. Austerities are not, I feel, the same as ascetism in general. Which was, in another terminology, exactly what I was saying.
martial arts
>(In what sense is tai chi a martial
>art, he wondered, rhetorically.)
It has martial aspects, though they are usually not studied directly until moderately advanced. Its martial aspects are clear to me, but I've done a reasonable amount of tai chi.
However, it is true that most true tai chi combatants tend to add some kung fu into the mix.
>> leaving room for touching recognitions of the nobility of the
>> deluded uncivilised and so forth.
>
>Not a hechuvalotta room, IMO. What uncivilised peoples might provoke
>such a reaction in the typical Kralori?
Its a classic literary motif, the uncivilised barbarian type surprises the noble protagonists by rescueing party in distress in the wilderness, saving their lives many times before returning to civilisation. In condescending gratitude they admit that he isn't actually subhuman, and may even be a reasonable guy.
Cheers David ------------------------------
Powered by hypermail