You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Philosophical DiscussionDo you have a philosophical view to martial arts styles, training, etc. ?
The name could cause jocularity, I warrant you that.
However, perhaps you have heard of the obscure practice of Kotodama. As esoteric as it sounds, it was of course the basis of Ueshiba's secret of Aikido. Something which prompted him to learn Esperanto, a language which was universal and was outside of nationality.
I would be interested in why you would not consider tactics and concepts not pertaining to defining martial art.
Why also, would pragmatic self-teaching not define the practice of martial art?
Interesting. But Ueshiba did learn physical martial arts and did have physical applications. So his study was relying on one thing in particular.
"Pragmatic" self teaching does not lend to having been through the course of vast study over many years of physical application, warranted physical defense.
Simply, one cannot actually drive a car by merely reading about it. They actually have to get in and drive.
And in doing so, it would be nice to have a live experienced driver to assist.
Would I want a surgeon to operate on me whom only had "pragmatic" self study?
Martial arts is not about pragmatical theories or mindset, though it isn't about mere physcial study either. I would think it would need a balance of the two.
__________________ What do I know? Since I didn't post my styles or experience, I have no experience, no knowledge, no say.
That post before mine, was that for post counting? How about the one after?
Hey, my post count has the same palaverment tone as anyone elses'
Interesting. But Ueshiba did learn physical martial arts and did have physical applications. So his study was relying on one thing in particular.
The physical techniques are incidental.
Would you deny that the mind is controlled by the body?
Would you further deny that proper martial technique is based upon mental perception, deduction and consequent direction of the body? The movements of the body are the manifestation of mental tactics...If i wish to attack the opponents face, I must make a tactical decision, and be prepared to change my tactics should it not work. The physical technique is merely the action of my mental tactic. So to consider an artform solely based upon tehcnique is to see martial arts from a highly superficial level. All techniques exist for an intention. Intention is based upon tactic. If there is no tactic, there cannot be martial technique.
Moreover, why is it that non-martial artists view a kata and see a dance? What is it that makes a martial arts practitioner see the raising of an arm, or the lowering of the body as a martial arts technique? Surely movements are movements, and what makes them "martial" is the intention.
It reminds me of "wax on, wax off"....
Quote:
Originally Posted by 47MartialMan
"Pragmatic" self teaching does not lend to having been through the course of vast study over many years of physical application, warranted physical defense.
I'm sure I do not need to explain the principle of pragmatism, in which case physical practice and EXPERIENCE is all important. Was is not Kant who said "that all knowledge is based upon experience"?
I think you misunderstand the principle of pragmatism. It is not the absence of teachers, it is the absence of acceptance of doctrine. Instruction from "teachers" merely exposes the student to the EXPERIENCE of combat, yet, should the student not learn similar actions via EXPERIENCE in this way in the absence of a teacher?
If we were to spar, aggressively and naturally, then would we not learn to defend and attack effectively without the need for someone instructing us.
An intructor is a human being, and therefore a subjective entity. When he teaches, he necessarily teaches based upon his experience, his view, his perception, his expression, his habit. How can he teach you based upon anything else? I do not wish to learn HIS expression, HIS experience, HIS habits.
I will experience, and I will express.
Don't mis-understand: Self-teaching is not practicing at home alone. Its not sitting in your room reciting the tehcniques out of your favourite martial arts book. It is the pragmatic experience of sparring with many and any opponents so that the EXPERIENCE may instruct us, and not allow us to become fixated on the teachings of a teacher whose instruction is based upon the same ends. Why go through the middle-man when we can go to the source?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 47MartialMan
Simply, one cannot actually drive a car by merely reading about it. They actually have to get in and drive.
Well, first of all driving and fighting are not comparable due to the fact that no instincts have developed phylogentically to allow us to understand driving like we do fighting. But I'll continue with your point...
I don't know about you, but my instructor said to me that the only way to learn how to drive is to get into a car and drive. This is fundamental to the principle of pragmatism. So was it the instructor who transfered his experience of driving to you, or was it your exposure to driving which taught you to drive?
What I am saying is, is the teacher really teaching you anything, or does he merely serve as the facilitator for the EXPERIENCE of driving? and if he is, then is not EXPERIENCE your real teacher and not the teacher, the human being himself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 47MartialMan
Would I want a surgeon to operate on me whom only had "pragmatic" self study?
Still not comparable to combat...
Quote:
Originally Posted by 47MartialMan
Martial arts is not about pragmatical theories or mindset, though it isn't about mere physcial study either. I would think it would need a balance of the two.
Pragmatism is the intellectualisation of practice. Theory is informed by practice and hence practice informs the theory. So the two are combined in Pragmatism. What you have said in the quote above supports Pragmatism as an idea and a method of learning.
__________________ "Tradition comes from when a master realises a truth, then teaches it to others; his source was the world around him. The tradition begins when students follow the doctrine but fail to see the truth it teaches. Martial Arts, like religion, are now the gospel.
So I assert; Seek not to follow in the footsteps of great men, but seek that which they themselves had sought." Magister, on the Eskirmological Law of Institutionalisation
Would you deny that the mind is controlled by the body?
Would you further deny that proper martial technique is based upon mental perception, deduction and consequent direction of the body? The movements of the body are the manifestation of mental tactics...If i wish to attack the opponents face, I must make a tactical decision, and be prepared to change my tactics should it not work. The physical technique is merely the action of my mental tactic. So to consider an artform solely based upon tehcnique is to see martial arts from a highly superficial level. All techniques exist for an intention. Intention is based upon tactic. If there is no tactic, there cannot be martial technique.
I understand where you are going with that, but I don't necessarily agree with it. While intellectual interpretation of a situation is necessary to properly deduce a proper response, it is not a necessity. In other words, you do not always make a tactical decision based upon a mental tactice. Sometimes your reaction is entirely instrinctual which means that it is occuring without even thinking about it.
__________________ Whats so bad about a criminal teaching martial arts?
- Energizerbunny63
I understand where you are going with that, but I don't necessarily agree with it. While intellectual interpretation of a situation is necessary to properly deduce a proper response, it is not a necessity. In other words, you do not always make a tactical decision based upon a mental tactice. Sometimes your reaction is entirely instrinctual which means that it is occuring without even thinking about it.
And what is an instinctive reaction if it is not a phylogenetic or unconscious tactic?
See the purpose of martial arts is for attack and defence by its very definition. Even an instinctive response is based upon a tactical logic. Tactics are ways of achieving an end, even if that end is not conscious.
Therefore, any action you make in a fight for your own defence or to carry out an attack is tactical whether you are conscious of that fact or not.
Your opinion of instinctive response (if you continue that line of reasoning) actually supports my later argument in my previous post.
__________________ "Tradition comes from when a master realises a truth, then teaches it to others; his source was the world around him. The tradition begins when students follow the doctrine but fail to see the truth it teaches. Martial Arts, like religion, are now the gospel.
So I assert; Seek not to follow in the footsteps of great men, but seek that which they themselves had sought." Magister, on the Eskirmological Law of Institutionalisation
And what is an instinctive reaction if it is not a phylogenetic or unconscious tactic?
See the purpose of martial arts is for attack and defence by its very definition. Even an instinctive response is based upon a tactical logic. Tactics are ways of achieving an end, even if that end is not conscious.
Therefore, any action you make in a fight for your own defence or to carry out an attack is tactical whether you are conscious of that fact or not.
Your opinion of instinctive response (if you continue that line of reasoning) actually supports my later argument in my previous post.
The number of Shhhhh practitioners is unknown. Each practitioner is their own teacher. There are a few free articles that explain the self learning/training methods whereby they can discover their own moves.
There are also free articles that shed light on universal tactics, how to use them in the martial arts and how to increase understanding of them.
Character improvement is central to Shhhhh and methods are given to increase particular virtues in the practitioner's everyday lives. These qualities apply to combat situations as well.
The number of Shhhhh practitioners is unknown. Each practitioner is their own teacher. There are a few free articles that explain the self learning/training methods whereby they can discover their own moves.
There are also free articles that shed light on universal tactics, how to use them in the martial arts and how to increase understanding of them.
Character improvement is central to Shhhhh and methods are given to increase particular virtues in the practitioner's everyday lives. These qualities apply to combat situations as well.
Shhhhhhhhhhh isn't a martial art, it's a new type of ebook.
Hi Jason,
The martial arts are concerned with physical techniques designed to attack and defend etc. But who designed the moves?
There are of course many answers to this question. In my view, if we boil it down to essentials, the moves arise from the different characteristics of the different body parts along with the unchanging laws of nature.
My idea is that anybody, by intelligent focus, can discover for themselves any move that might otherwise be taught by an outside authority.
Any video that I might produce would not really prove anything beyond the obvious. For example I could show video 1 where someone shows off some basic hammer fist stikes. Video 2 could show extracts of the long process of hard work, training, sparring and experimentation etc used to really saturate the hammer fist strike move with awareness. Video 3 could show the practitioner with much improved hammer fist strikes, different types of hammer strikes that the practitioner had *never consciously known (or been taught)* before. It might also show some amazing combinations and transitions between various hammer fist strikes.
It is possible that even if someone saw the video clips they would be so close minded as to still reject the obvious. On the other hand an intelligent person would not need video footage as the logic is self evident.
Of course this idea of focus producing results is so obvious that all martial artists use it to some degree. All martial arts are different. One of the unique characteristics of the Shhhhh martial art is it's total confidence in the practitioner's martial intelligence and the effectiveness of the focus process to such an extent that no physical moves are taught.
I use the phrase "total confidence" and not "total reliance" because there is nothing against the Shhhhh practitioner learning moves from other martial arts if they wish to. I for example am receiving teaching in Wing Chun presently and have had some brief experience with Tangsoodo and Jujutsu as already mentioned.
The difference with Shhhhh is that any learnt move is seen very specifically as merely a seed idea for deep study and experimentation-if that particular move is selected for focus.
Another self evident fact is that our character has a tremendous effect on our martial art. This realization is taken to the extreme in Shhhhh where character improvement approaches a science.
Although all martial arts use focus and experimentation in their training to achieve real results to some degree Shhhhh uses that method almost exclusively. Whilst other martial arts might focus on particular move types, on strength and endurance etc; Shhhhh widens this significantly to include any facet of character, any universal tactic as well as a much wider range of move types.
Further areas for focus are on particular situations from the general to the extremely specific and particular targets which in Shhhhh are not limited to physical body parts but include more abstact ideas such as the enemy's relationship with allies, their morale and even their anger etc or other character faults that might have caused them to attack in the first place. The enemy's moment to moment attention is also studied so that it can be manipulated for martial advantage.
Regarding the focus on particular physical enemy targets I am talking about a level of focus rarely seen. For example *in addition* to the other training a practitioner might focus for *weeks* on all different techniques to attack/break an enemy's collar bone. This focus would include set ups and finishes etc. By the end of a few weeks of sincere training they would have a clear potential advantage during many moments in a fight where they could expertly employ their specialized training.
Styles: Western Boxing, Tai Chi, Animal Form Kung Fu, and Wing Chun
Posts: 1,963
Home Country:
This is philosophy and technique mixed. I think it misses something deeper about learning to defend yourself. You must learn the concepts and science that technique is based on to truly be efficient at real martial arts. This is not something most people can pick up by practicing and focusing at a technique level. You definitley cannot learn it without practicing application of the concepts and science with a resisting training partner. Its all well and good to believe that you will do this or that when confronted with forceful violence. It is quite another to actually do it. Without real understanding and quality training, with someone that can guide you past certain pitfalls it is highly unlikely that one could become competent at fighting.
This is philosophy and technique mixed. I think it misses something deeper about learning to defend yourself. You must learn the concepts and science that technique is based on to truly be efficient at real martial arts. This is not something most people can pick up by practicing and focusing at a technique level. You definitley cannot learn it without practicing application of the concepts and science with a resisting training partner. Its all well and good to believe that you will do this or that when confronted with forceful violence. It is quite another to actually do it. Without real understanding and quality training, with someone that can guide you past certain pitfalls it is highly unlikely that one could become competent at fighting.
I guess I can train myself to be a pro football/baseball, and paint/art. I guess I can teach myself to perform surgery.
__________________ What do I know? Since I didn't post my styles or experience, I have no experience, no knowledge, no say.
That post before mine, was that for post counting? How about the one after?
Hey, my post count has the same palaverment tone as anyone elses'
Is Shhhhh a Martial Art?
Linear Mode
