Discussion, Debate and Attack

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:

Two major issues may arise because of his statement:

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