Due to increasing costs and not matched by increased traffic across platforms the website no longer exists in its old form.
It may come back as and when we can find a format that balances things out.
We stoll have here of course and Instagram, Facebook and Twitter
An art or a system is the product of the time that it was
created and evolved in.
It is an expression of what those that created it thought
was important to survive and thrive in the context that it was intended for.
The framework they
give it will be based upon and expressed through how they and their culture understood
the world.
They were of course still operating under the influence and
effects of the world the same as we do.
In a culture before modern physics, but where the concepts relating
to the physical world were expressed, these may well be used to communicate or
support those Principles and Concepts contained in the system.
It can be hard for us now to understand things from a time
before. We are seeing with a different baseline of how the world is. Both more
and less naive.
However, if we hold
that our modern understanding of the world gained by a more refined grasp of
the sciences, is true, those rules would have been affecting the people in the past
as well. Even if the people then did not have the ways to frame that understanding.
For example, now have a deeper understanding of Physics and Physiology.
We can study an action with a set of tools that the practitioners of the past
did not possess.
That can be both a benefit and a curse. A curse because we cannot
truly unsee these things. It, further distances us from them.
However, whether we have more tools at our disposal or not.
We have to ask the question does that really matter.
While I may have a “better” understanding of the rules of
biomechanics, time, and motion and so on, it does not mean I can impart he
skills of a martial art any better to a student. Nor can they understand it better?
Because, although this understanding is part of the make up of our culture,
that does not mean it has a deep personal impact or meaning. Most people are
experiential, and we as guides to a new skill, have to find those we work with,
where their experience lies and build from there.
There is an old trope that people of the past thought the
world was flat. However, people have known the world was round for tens of
centuries. Does that mean everyone understood the word was round? Heck, we even
no have people who think the world is flat and who try to use modern science to
prove it!
However, we have to ask, how useful to most people in the
past was this information? They had no experience of it, nor did it add to
anything to their lives, as such it made no difference. So its truth was not
useful.
So, what do we need to understand about the grasp of the world,
people of the past had?
We need to consider and grasp what they thought was important.
What they express in the words they leave us.
For example, George Silver says there are True and False
times, that The True times are Time of the hand, Hand body, Hand Body Foot and
Hand Body Feet.
It is not important whether these may or may not be “True”
in a modern scientific sense; even if we can interpret them clearly enough to
allow us to assess that in the modern sense.
We also need to recognise that it may not have been thought True
then; I am not suggesting this is the case but making an example.
What we do need to recognise
is that those ideas were held to
be True by Silver when he wrote his work.
Why? Because he used those terms and ideas to get people to
understand his Practice and why it worked and why it was better, in his opinion,
than those of others.
This does imply that his expected audience would recognise
and accept these concepts with the frame of their understanding. Or that the use
of these ideas would be influential to the audience he hoped to attract.
Conclusion
We need to consider that what we are studying is a product
of its time. We need to think Holistically about the time, how it thought about
the world and how it thought about its own past. We can use concepts from our
time us practice the analyse these things. But we must not lose sight that
while many things have remained the same Others have changed markedly.
However, the purpose, to convey ideas is one that still holds
a place now, even if who we do it has changed.
Also that the motivations to do so may well carry through to
the present day as well. Notoriety, fame, influence, ego etc.
Some thoughts and considerations in part sparked by recent discussions of an oft debated source in the history or European Martial arts, and no I am not going to talk about who it is, though you might guess.
How do we interpret the effectiveness of our interpretation?
First or all we are all interpreting a system, whether the
system is living or dead, we are interpreting through our own mentally,
physicality and a host of other factors. When we have a teacher, they can guide
us and perhaps lets us know when we are heading in an inappropriate direction, though
of course when we have a teacher we are interpreting, we are interpreting their
interpretation. This rabbit hole is another post if I have not done wone
already.
So, let us consider some things we need to reflect on to
interpret our Interpretation.
What are the sources for?
Fighting? What is that? There are obviously different goals
for martial arts, and we need to be clear what those are. We need to know what those
goals are, what the source we are looking at is intended for and what we are
looking for in that source.
What we are looking for colours what we see, and we will
interpret what we are looking at through he lens of what we are looking for.
Now while we can say fighting, as if it were one encompassing
thing. However, a system is a summation of the things the person who created
thought was important to function and succeed in combat, fighting, the goal
they intended it for. So really a system is a preservation of those things, it
is not about success in fighting, for us.
What is this source aimed at?
So, we need to consider what the source we are looking at is
aimed at. What problems is it claiming to solve, explicitly or implicitly. We also need to consider time and context, place etc. they will all
effect the system that creates it. Are we matching the source to our approach?
What does the source say?
Obviously, we need to understand what the source is saying.
What are the key concepts and Principles of the system? If the system says we should
only do X when Y happens, then we need to recognise that and only do X when
happens otherwise we are contradicting the system.
We also need to remember that a source will sell itself and the
person who created it. A source will say it is the best for solving a problem
that of course may or may not be true. Unfortunately, many systems do not address
this with examples of being of them being used, or when they do, they are often
self-referential. So, it hard to be sure how effective it was. Just because the
source survived, does not of itself mean it was s effective. Regardless, a
system is only as effective as the people saying they use it.
Is the Source Unique or does it claim that it is?
Many systems claim themselves to be part of a wider school
or lineage, others makes claims of being different to all the rest, others make
claims of being "New".
Now the veracity of those clams is less important than they
are actually made. If the source is saying it doing something different, I need
to make my interpretation with that in mind, especially when they are
expressing ideas that are an outlier to the others of the time and in wider
context.
Are we doing what the source says or are we “fighting”?
Neither is wrong as such, unless we are claiming we are doing the system when we are not
If the system says we should fight this way, then if we are
doing that system, we should fight that way.
If I am ignoring the approach of the system, I might be
highly successful as a fighter, but I am not doing the system, my success as a fighter
says nothing about the effective of the system or my interpretation of it
unless I can show to be doing what I say I am doing.
Do we know that the source was actually conveying an
effective approach to the problem?
Too often it is treated as self-evident that because a source is from a period where people used the sword for example to fight for their lives that it means any system that survives from that time is inherently effective.
However we do not know that.
Especially if the source claims itself to
be different and outlier, new or unique. Even with more popular and widespread
a system may be, just means it was good at surviving in the market and sustaining
itself. In the modern world we cannot judge the effectiveness or validity of a
system based upon how popular it is, number of students, number of schools or how
present in the wider consciousness of the society it is.
When we do what we say we are doing, is that congruent with
what we say it is?
My interpretation of the concepts and Principles of the
system may be a good interpretation. However, is my physical application of
those things in line with what I say they are or should be.
Just because I say I am doing something does not mean I am
actually doing it?
Just because I or others claim I am doing the system, am I
really. I have seen skilful fighters, who claim they were doing system X, they
stood in a stance of system X they had their fight, which was utilising g
system Y and then when they had won, were standing in a stance of system X.
Look at how effective system X is!! Most vocally the supporters of system X.
Just because we say the same thing does not mean we are
doing the same things?
Lots of systems say similar things or the same things. Yet
there can be a huge variation in how those things are executed in practice. Two
systems talk about economy of motion, one does something in one move, the other
in three. Wing Chun, and the various spellings etc, talk about similar
concepts, use artefacts like Chi Sau to train them they produce a huge variety
of results,
How do we test our interpretations effectiveness?
Success in free play, competitions? Maybe? But are those
things a valid analogue of the intended goal of the original system? A practitioner
of that system may be applying as correctly as possible the Principles of the
system. However, they may fail in the modern analogues available. This may be
because the analogue is not an effective representation, the fighter themselves
is not skilled or experienced enough to makes what they know succeed in the
analogue, or the system itself is flawed.
Conclusion
We have to constantly ask questions of what we are doing what
we think we are doing, what and how we look at things. We also need to vigorously
assess how we think about and verify what we are doing. This becomes more
important when we make claims about what we are doing being based upon a source.
Posts
