Steve Rowe wrote:
Wu ming I teach 'peace keeping' skills as everything we do is designed to re-establish peace not antagonise anyone. I don't see that as contradictory to any 'hippie' ideals. I also lecture in Buddhism, Taoism and the healing arts.

This is what I love about MA - the point I was trying to make in response to the original question, was that despite years of training in meditation and the healing arts, learning to fight generally adds a sense of 'completion' to that for me, personally speaking (I don't mean 'fight' in a sense of winding people up here - but accepting that there is in all people a degree of a fighter instinct). Just as you say, it isn't contradictory, but I didn't initially understand that when I started my training and I had a lot of crises of confidence around what I was doing, but MA teaches a way through and beyond that either-or state.

Peace is earned - it's not a natural state.

Erm, as far as I'm aware, Steve, I've always been taught in my Buddhist, yogic and tai chi training that Peace IS our natural state, but we confuse it and cloud it over. So, I agree we 'earn' it by learning to get back to it - but that's only because we lose our natural state in the first place.

I also think, like aggression - we all have a natural percentage of peacefulness.

In my experience both peace and violence are 'natural' states that co-exist to bring about 'peace'or nirvana you have to work and earn it.

Depending on your personal circumstances, some have to work harder than others.

I'd agree with that, Steve. :)

I've found that it varies from person to person. Some people do huge amounts of training with lots of hard work to get to a certain skill level whereas others get there with natural talent. I personally have found that with only a small amount of training a person with lots of talent will out shine those who don't have as much. A person's skill is denoted by their talent level and how hard they strive to reach the peak of that level (and most never do).

I find it really interesting reading these views on how humans will behave and act through nature or nurture. The fact is that the human phsycology has a fight or flee mechanism. This desides whether a situation is to be fought for or is it better to run away. The reason for this mechanism is survival. We naturally want to preserve our life as we place value on it (perhaps some people not so much) someone with no training can become a fighter in seconds if their life depends on it. The determination of someone to fight for their life is a very powerful one and unless your out weaponed e.g. a gun against hands that determination could overpower an attacker. That is another point also, an attacker is not fighting for life, he fights to take life so the defender has a differant motive 'survival'.
Could this survival instinct overpower a skilled Martial Artist? Will the innocent prevail through this instinct, should someone try to take their life? Obviously in certain circumstances being human is not enough to defeat guns, knifes and gangs...

I think that if your asking if a 'Fighter' can be nature or nurture then yes anyone can be a fighter. But if you ask about being a warrior then that will be yes also but, as Steve rightly said it is something you work for even if you feel naturally guided towards this path to achieve peace and focus.

There is no violent way to peace, but we journey through chaos to get to peace.