From: jon@zeus.med.utah.edu (Jonathan Byrd)
Subject: Re: Seeking Feedback (was Re: Shotokan misconceptions)
Organization: University of Utah
	<1992Aug21.130348.5448@fns-nc1.fns.com>
Date: 21 Aug 92 11:05:05

In article <1992Aug21.130348.5448@fns-nc1.fns.com> sbs@fns-nc1.fns.com (Syd B. Seifert) writes:

   What were some of the basic principles from my old dojo?
	   1.  Maintain your balance
	   2.  Never stand still or move backwards; move towards the "light"
	   3.  Never expose your blood supply
	   4.  Always respect other humans
	   5.  When a person physically, mentally, or emotionally abuses
		   you or another person, they cease to be human and
		   are an object  (chill)

number 5 scares me a little.  mental abuse?  emotional abuse?  you
mean if someone calls you an asshole or makes you feel bad, you can
rip them to shreds since they're no longer human?  it sounds to me
like rule #5 somewhat negates the sincerity of rule #4.

	   6.  Be able to leave a battle without bruises, scratches,
		   or other injury (this means also not to develop calluses)

a nice ideal, but i have never seen a real fight in which someone got
out unscathed.  i think it's better to face reality, and train to
fight through pain and injury.

   Further, instruction was given one-on-one.  The idea there being that
   this was the earliest method of handing down the martial arts.  This
   way, you can best facilitate an individual's own development and
   they learn to think for themselves, trust themselves, and, because of
   the philosophies taught, still respect other living beings.

there are drawbacks here, too.  some of the senior students in my
karate classes had a profound positive impact on me.  in a group
class, i saw people overcoming widely varied physical and behavioral
shortcomings, and i was sometimes able to incorporate their solutions
into my own style.

furthermore, i can't understand the argument that a one-on-one
situation facilitates "learning for yourself."  at the final level, we
must all learn to do everything for ourselves since we are the only
ones who can will ourselves into action.  if anything, a one-on-one
method makes it more likely that the student will get a narrower
education since he sees no other possible interpretations of the
instructor's teachings.

   SOOO - my confusion lies here:  I do not understand the point of learning
   inefficient or ineffective moves, katas, forms, blocks, rituals (answer
   "yes sir" loudly and count loudly to show confidence (?!!)).  The 
   inconsistencies and non-sense of the moves has made it impossible for me to 
   get much out of the instruction.  What am I missing here?
   What do "pure" forms of M.A. have to offer that justify teaching
   "impure" moves (those that may be inconsistent with their own philosophies
   or with those that just plain make sense).  I welcome ideas and feedback!

why learn about the commutative, distributive, and associative axioms
of mathematics when all you *really* want to do is balance your
checkbook?  there is a saying in japanese: "the longest way around is
the shortest way home."

the inefficient motions you speak of constitute the foundation of the
art, according to the people who created it.  if you learn the
foundations well, it is a short leap to the *living* art that you see
the masters doing.

you can't erect a building of any size without using some scaffolding,
but don't mistake the scaffolding for the final structure.  don't eat
the menu instead of the food; it is certain to taste bad.

i'd like to expound upon the possible advantages of group classes, but
i am rushed today.  maybe later (unless i am deluged with email
telling me to shut up).

--
jonathan byrd
jon@apollo.med.utah.edu