Discussion and
debate benefit the participants as well as onlookers. Attack can be categorized
into two types – (1) attacking a statement or a hypothesis and (2) attacking
the author of a published work. The first type of attack can generate a heated
debate and whether it turns into a personal attack will depend on the
participants. The second type of attack is mean and the attacker is the loser
right from the beginning.
For example,
when my article about Xuan Kong Fei Xing was published on April 7 2013 on Facebook,
it generated quite a lot of attention and discussions. Howard Choy contributed
a lot to supplement the article. Others also expressed their opinions or
elaboration on certain points.
The same article
invited attack by Compass Chung posted on his group created with only one
purpose – to attack Joseph Yu and FSRC. Issac and Compass Chung think that if
they can prove my teaching is faulty then they can ruin FSRC and take over
everything. This is what they dream to do to someone who helped Issac Chung to
lay a good foundation to his international teaching career.
Although it
appears that Compass Chung is just attacking the statement “In Feng Shui, we focus at directions,
not location.” This is legitimate as it may initiate a debate. However, this is
not the case because the focus of the statement is intentionally ignored. In
Chinese we call this strategy 斷章取義 truncating
an article to get (the deviated) meaning/idea. The statement should be viewed
with reference to what the entire paragraph is about and should not be viewed
as a general statement.
The entire paragraph is about the way the stars come
into a house dictated by the three stars in the central palace. The statement
“In Feng Shui, we focus at directions, not location” explains the idea that a
house is not divided into eight wedges or nine rectangles and the stars do not
reside in those locations. We focus at the fact that the stars come from the
eight different directions and do not reside in the eight or nine locations. Either
the understanding ability of this young man is too low or he purposely twists
the idea in the paragraph to suit his purpose.
The attack is not really on the content of the article
and therefore does not initiate a debate. He does not deserve any reply at all. His inability to
understand and follow a simple article can be forgiven but I think it is more
probable he did it intentionally because this is his conclusion:
1.
If
someone encountered Joseph Yu's idea of Feng Shui first, he or she will
probably think Chinese is a stupid and superstitious race. That is why it is
understandable when Paulo
Mendes said he is skeptical about Feng Shui - Joseph Yu's statement doesn't
seem logical at all.
2.
For
his certified Feng Shui practitioners who worship him, they will take his words
as words of god and provide questionable Feng Shui consultation for their
clients. By carry out services based on Joseph Yu's statement, they may
endanger other people's live;not to mention that they are teaching this
principle and spreading the poisonous gas to the public.
One can see that
this is written with a mean intention. Well, I give him the benefit of doubt
that the article was actually written with his father’s idea and not his. The
writer of the above “issues” can already be sued for defamation. I am
approaching total retirement and it is a good chance for Issac Chung to take
over. He is too impatient and ruins himself totally. Evil at heart is not a
heart disease and therefore incurable.
Joseph Yu