Add what is uniquely your own

When listening to advice for your goals or exploring what the experts say, you do not have to take in all their advice, but only pick out what resonates with you personally. What inspires you, moves you, motivates you personally. This whole process is about radical trust in oneself and becoming the divining rod for our own experience.

It is about paying attention to what ignites the spark within us. This quote on researching your own experience is the secret. Bruce was able to simplify this complicated process into these four steps. The hardest part in this process might be adding what is essentially your own. Release to spontaneity. This idea is about understanding your whole self, including the light and dark within you and understanding the harmony between the two.

There is no condemnation in understanding, you are merely observing, just look, watch. The perceiving mind is living, moving, full of energy. Denying or judging something will not make it go away.

If you refuse to examine what upsets you, you will never be able to address it and move beyond it. It is not enough to just think about something, you have to do the work.

It can be difficult to implement new practices, like taking notes when something sparks your interest, but it is important work for yourself. If you take action to pursue an idea or interest, you can explore the path to figure out if you actually enjoy it or not. You have to participate in your own development. The truth is that everything is built upon something else. Bruce Lee cultivated this philosophy through reading other philosophers and examining the parts that spoke to him and his experience.

You just have to take into consideration how little your pillow knows… 8. Colossians — Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Your quote is a great application of this quote for those who view Christ as useful, and the rest as somewhat less so.

It goes to show how different people can come to the same conclusion, even though they live at different times, in different places, and have different backgrounds. Well, except when it benefits me, as in following the rules of my employer so that I get paid.

It is the very last inch of us, but within that inch, we are free. Well said. Imagine the world if Einstein or Edison had been a conformist? And they kept at it until they found it. I was mostly focused on learning, and, when appropriate, unlearning. Somewhere along the way, the integrity of what I learn and keep or discard became entwined with my inner workings. Ah, that makes it clearer. Discarding things which no longer serve, despite having been around for a long time, can be difficult, but must be done.

Otherwise the tools we once used to help us become our betrayers. In this manner, we also come to understand the more subtle aspects of what we are doing.

That is […]. Navigation Home Home About …the character of a man… Return to Content By philosiblog on 20 March in adaptation , creativity , good , individuality , originality , personal growth. Like this: Like Loading Half a loaf is better than no bread.

Wisdom is not obvious. You must see the subtle and notice the hidden to be victorious. Discard what is not. Add what is uniquely your own. Grendel's Wish 24 September at pm. Thanks for stopping by, and for leaving a comment. Kendra Francesco 20 March at pm. Thanks for stopping by and adding your thoughts. Hope to hear from you again. Kendra Francesco 21 March at am. And that integrity has taken most of my life to learn. Search for your favorite quote….

If it comes back to you, its yours forever. If it doesn't, then it was never meant to be. Listening is an attitude of the heart, a genuine desire to be with another which both attracts and heals. As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them. Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.

The answer is hopefully a little more clear now. To a beginner, everything seems better. They begin with whatever style they want. But if they apply the philosophy of Jeet Kune Do, they will grow beyond the bounds of that first style they learned. Eventually, after a lot of experience and careful analysis, an individual who goes through this process may come to realize that there is no style which has all the answers and which is best at everything.

Because after all, what is a style but a collection of techniques, ideas, and strategies that someone put together? We're all finite and therefore limited. So styles should also be limited. As for MMA, it is perhaps the best example of Jeet Kune Do in practice today, albeit with a focus on sport instead of survival.

Anyone who has watched it progress from UFC 1 to today has seen a real evolution at work. At first, anyone who knew ground fighting could win.

Since then we've seen fighters being able to dominate using a striking style derived from traditional martial arts. We've seen the rise of wrestling's influence. We've seen boxing's influence.

We've seen muay thai's influence. We've seen some Capoeira. We've seen San Da kung-fu. We've seen Judo. We've even seen some practical use of Taekwondo. Each fighter is taking bits and pieces of other things they've learned and putting it to the test in MMA.

Sometimes it catches on, and for a while everyone seems to go out and learn those techniques. It's because people see how it can give them an advantage in some circumstances. What can we say about techniques in absolute terms? Must we always speak of a particular individual's use of the technique, rather than considering the merits of the technique on its own?

In other words, can we say there are better techniques and worse techniques? The answer is yes, we can say some techniques are better than others on their own merits, but let's qualify that.

We know from MMA that there are "low percentage" techniques. These are techniques that are seldomly used in MMA and do not score very reliably. But that in and of itself doesn't mean that they're inferior techniques. It could just mean that nobody is skilled enough in those techniques to be able to use them. Yes and no. There are reasons why you don't see, for example, a lot of people doing the outer-wrist throw, and it's not because there are no former black belt Aikido practitioners doing MMA.

There are. It's just that this particular technique first requires that you catch someone's hand while they aren't tensed up, while they aren't flailing said hand, and while they aren't doing something to you which requires your attention, all while letting you do the throw instead of attacking you or tensing up their arm.

Needless to say, this is completely unrealistic and unlikely to occur in a real MMA fight. But don't take my word or anyone's word for that matter. Put it to the test yourself. That's what Bruce Lee did. You have to actively try it on live, fully resisting opponents. The more the better. This is called "pressure testing". You'll learn quickly if it works or not. There just aren't a lot of opportunities that come up in a fight whereby the outer-wrist throw can be used successfully.

Judo has something similar to say about this. The way Judo organizes its throws in terms of which ones you learn first is very practical. They teach the most effective throws first. What does that mean? Are some throws more powerful than others? That's not what they mean by "effective" in this case. Instead, they mean that the throws you learn first are the ones that apply in the most situations you'll encounter in real life.

The throws you learn last will be throws that you can only use in special, less frequent circumstances.