# Seminars:- Techniques or principles?



## Simon Curran (Dec 17, 2004)

Last night after training, my instructor and I got to talking about some of the seminars we have attended, separately, and together, and somehow the disussion turned to which we felt we had gotten the most out of.
This left me pondering the most of the day, since initially we dis-agreed as regards "the gravy", but in actual fact we agreed on "the meat and veg"
My point is this, we were both in agreement that the seminars we both felt we had gotten the most out of, although different, were the ones where we came away not just with a handful of new techniques/corrections for old ones, but the ones where we had learned new principles, which we could later apply to other areas of our studies.
Anyhow, after that long winded introduction, the question is this, (I have a feeling I know the answer, but anyway...) does anybody else feel the same way, or am I way off base?
If the vast majority are in agreement, then why is it that not all seminars lay equal weight on principles vs. techniques?
Is it just commercialism, lack of interest etc?

I would much appreciate any thoughts from any of you out there.
Thanks in advance,
Simon


----------



## pete (Dec 17, 2004)

yep... the difference between getting a fish, or being taught how to catch one.  the worst are when you get neither, but the dude shows you what a great fisherman he is...

pete


----------



## Disco (Dec 17, 2004)

From my viewpoint, the majority of people that attend a seminar are there for the upgrade or review of techniques. Understanding the principles can, depending upon the instructor, become an overdrawn and labored time consuming endeavor, which detracts and leaves people annoyed because the instructor "talked to much" and they really didn't get to play as much as they wanted. All things being equal though, having the principles explained within reason is more beneficial than just techniques on their own.


----------



## Kenpodoc (Dec 17, 2004)

When I go to seminars I just concentrate on the techniques etc. being presented.  A year later I find that it's the principles demonstrated that I really learned.  Oddly enough i find myself referring back to some seminars that I didn't like at the time I went.  

Huk Planas will tell you that the techniques are just a way to learn the rules and principles of motion.  

Jeff


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Dec 17, 2004)

For my buck, principles, hands down. Techniques are "what if" explorations of the application of concepts. Life doesn't happen like an SD tech, but you can always apply principles creatively if you really get them.

Dave


----------



## Kenpodoc (Dec 18, 2004)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> For my buck, principles, hands down. Techniques are "what if" explorations of the application of concepts. Life doesn't happen like an SD tech, but you can always apply principles creatively if you really get them.
> 
> Dave


True, but my point is that if someone just lectures principles you walk away with nothing.  If Techniques are used appropriately it is the principles that you are really learning. As an example there was a Paul Dye seminar I attended.  At least indirectly the seminar was on "regulation" but mostly he just showed us different ways to change techniques.  I don't remember every variation and certainly would be unlikely to pull off one of his variations in real life.  Ever since that seminar however I have looked at techniques differently and my approach to learning techniques changed.  I did not spend the seminar concentrating on learning a principle.  I tried to learn the technique variations as he taught them.  In the long run however this taught principles better than any dry prinsiple discussion could ever have accomplished.

Respectfully,

Jeff


----------



## Doc (Dec 18, 2004)

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> True, but my point is that if someone just lectures principles you walk away with nothing.  If Techniques are used appropriately it is the principles that you are really learning. As an example there was a Paul Dye seminar I attended.  At least indirectly the seminar was on "regulation" but mostly he just showed us different ways to change techniques.  I don't remember every variation and certainly would be unlikely to pull off one of his variations in real life.  Ever since that seminar however I have looked at techniques differently and my approach to learning techniques changed.  I did not spend the seminar concentrating on learning a principle.  I tried to learn the technique variations as he taught them.  In the long run however this taught principles better than any dry prinsiple discussion could ever have accomplished.
> 
> Respectfully,
> 
> Jeff



OK I'll enter the discussion by playing devil's advocate. What "principles" did Paul teach you in his seminar?


----------



## Kenpodoc (Dec 19, 2004)

Doc said:
			
		

> OK I'll enter the discussion by playing devil's advocate. What "principles" did Paul teach you in his seminar?


  Now I'm in trouble.

One important principle I learned was that just because you do a technique on the other side it's never really a mirror of the technique.  By virtue of our natural handedness the majors and minors change. He never stated this but it became obvious after the seminar.  

I also learned that you can take the same series of moves and by regulating emphasis totally change the feel and effect of a technique.  I find this useful both personally because sometimes it gives me insight into a technique.  It also helps me to teach others.  Theoretically it might benefit me in a genuine confrontation by allowing me to modify a technique to fit the appropriate level of response, but I live such a boring life this hasn't been necessary.  

Respectfully,

Jeff


----------



## Doc (Dec 19, 2004)

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> Now I'm in trouble.
> 
> One important principle I learned was that just because you do a technique on the other side it's never really a mirror of the technique.  By virtue of our natural handedness the majors and minors change. He never stated this but it became obvious after the seminar.
> 
> ...



No trouble from me sir, too much respect. Anyway, the things you mentioned are not principles, but mostly theory and at best conceptual ideas which are the majority of motion based kenpo. I'm not trying to bust your chops, but I think we as students must make a distinction between true physical sciences and "ideas." It is difficult at best to pull physical principles out of abstract ideas of physical interaction. Most make this mistake because they are sold as "principles of motion." As long as we lower our understanding to the acceptance of ideas as principles it prevents us from moving to higher levels of execution. No slight on Paul but, but no "principles" there. He came up in motion kenpo. I think this is worthy of significant discussion, and there are areas that I know you would understand based on the very complicated physics of human physiology.


----------



## Kenpodoc (Dec 20, 2004)

Doc,

First a confession.  I'm not sure that I personally have a definite definition of principles with respect to Kenpo.  I'm sure that I'm not quite sure of your definition. My initial response was really just the general response that I leave with concepts and not specific techniques when I go to seminars.  I use the techniques to teach me more about my body, how it works and how others respond to what I'm doing.  

Now, I'm intrigued.  What do you mean when you say principles.  Language is always such fun when we use the same word and mean different things.  It's a common problem when communicating with patients.

I come from a motion Kenpo background and want to make it clear that I have nothing but respect for those who've taught me. I'm not pretty when I move but I'm far more effective than I ever thought that anyone could teach me to be. I'm also inquisitive, Mr. Wedlake says cynical, and always looking for ways to make myself more effective both in medicine and Kenpo.

Jeff


----------



## jfarnsworth (Dec 20, 2004)

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> Now, I'm intrigued.  What do you mean when you say principles.  Language is always such fun when we use the same word and mean different things.  It's a common problem when communicating with patients.


A good start is reading book 4. One of the chapters is based specifically on the 21 principles. I don't necessarily know if he was referring to those set 21 but it's a good start nonetheless. :asian:


----------



## Doc (Dec 20, 2004)

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> Doc,
> 
> First a confession. I'm not sure that I personally have a definite definition of principles with respect to Kenpo.


Thats Ok sir. I only brought it up for discussion because I already know there is a tremendous amount of confusion over the use of the words, theory, concept, and principle with regard to Kenpo. 


> I'm sure that I'm not quite sure of your definition.


In general, a principle is described as;

A rule or law concerning the functioning of natural phenomena or mechanical processes.


> My initial response was really just the general response that I leave with concepts and not specific techniques when I go to seminars.


I would say that you are correct. You leave with ideas.


> I use the techniques to teach me more about my body, how it works and how others respond to what I'm doing. Now, I'm intrigued. What do you mean when you say principles.


This is where the water begins to get muddy. Exactly how the body works and responds to external stimuli entails physical principles that can be precisely articulated, and not conceptual ideas. In Newtonian Physics you have as an example; 

Newtons Second Law of Motion:

Newton's second law of motion pertains to the behavior of objects for which not all existing forces are balanced. It simply states that the acceleration of an object is dependent upon two variables - the net force acting upon the object and the mass of the object.

I use Newtonian Physics only as an example of a physical principle, that is an undisputable proven phenomenon or law. 

Newtonian Physics however are, for the most part not completely literally translatable to human anatomy as some might think. This is because the human body is always in a constant state of change and flux from one jiffy-second to the next. It draws on its many external sensors, and makes adjustments accordingly. Therefore, the body is never static, and the answer to any question of physics in human anatomy is always a variable predicated on specific information at the precise moment of interaction.


> Language is always such fun when we use the same word and mean different things. It's a common problem when communicating with patients.


Yes sir, that is true. The problem with modern commercial motion based Kenpo, is it is not a true science, but a pseudo or para-science that contains many conceptual ideas that are given the status of principles, when they are in fact are not. There are no true principles in motion Kenpo. Moreover, once its defined principles are removed from the context of the progenitor's pseudo-science base, they are without significant meaning or reference in the scientific community. Real sciencetist canand do colaborate because there are specific constants that exist in true science. A scientist not a student of kenpo would be confused at its conceptual nature being considered a "science."

Therefore, you see if one accepts it as a science then one is limited to the concepts of the vehicle, which are not a true science. The proverbial catch-22. If one is to raise their level of effectiveness, they must accept the inherent limitations of the knowledge base concept, and move to a true science that has applications within the concept. By doing so, one moves to Martial Science as opposed to martial arts. Art will always be defined and interpreted by its subjective participants. Motion-Kenpo is a Martial Art, not a Martial Science.



> I come from a motion Kenpo background and want to make it clear that I have nothing but respect for those who've taught me.


I take that as judicial notice sir.


> I'm not pretty when I move but I'm far more effective than I ever thought that anyone could teach me to be.


Whether or not proper anatomical movement could be defined as pretty, would of course be a subjective opinion of the viewer. However, effectiveness would not be in general disputable, and is ones primary goal I would assume.


> I'm also inquisitive, Mr. Wedlake says cynical, and always looking for ways to make myself more effective both in medicine and Kenpo.


Like myself, I suspect Lee would expect no less of a student, and I encourage it. There are applied physical principles of human anatomy in Martial Science that are not in disupte, and are quite provable.


----------



## Kenpodoc (Dec 21, 2004)

Thanks for your response.

I agree that kenpo as it is generally taught is less science than is generally thought.  For me it was a giant step up from the Shotokan I initially learned. (No disrespect meant to the shotokan as I enjoyed it immensely and appreciated it's Japanese/Okinawan philosophical underpinnings.)

I maintain that the importance of handedness and the inability to just mirror image techniques is a physiologic principle and not just a concept or theory.  In general Left Brain Motor strokes cause the Right side to quit functioning but there is no loss of sense of the Right Self.  Right brain strokes cause not only the loss of movement on the left but a loss of ability to recognize that there is even a Left in existance.  People tend to just dress their Right side or eat off the Right half of the plate.  Even when taught to compensate they tend to think of the Left side in the way that someone else would think of a prosthesis.  

The Oliver Sacks books are a great way to learn about how the brain works differently than most of us intuitively believe it does.  Non technical but enjoyable and enlightening.  


As to the physical principles of martial science I agree that they exist but I have not yet seen them well presented.  They tend to be misrepresented here on Martialtalk.  The Human body is an immensely complicated device and both more resiliant and more fragile than most believe.  

I look forward to learning more of what you have to teach,

Respectfully,

Jeff


----------



## Doc (Dec 21, 2004)

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> Thanks for your response.
> 
> I agree that kenpo as it is generally taught is less science than is generally thought.  For me it was a giant step up from the Shotokan I initially learned. (No disrespect meant to the shotokan as I enjoyed it immensely and appreciated it's Japanese/Okinawan philosophical underpinnings.)
> 
> ...


See, I knew I was talking to the man. You might also find here on MT my paper on the "Ambidexterity Myth" in martial arts. You are absolutely correct about the human body and its complexity sir, which should be obvious to others. A simple thing as understanding what and how the body sensors respond to and activates "Startle Reflex" would yield invaluable tools in a martial environment. Its always great to be in the company of those like yourself with a significant background of education in human anatomy. I look forward to the challenge of face-to-face interaction as I did with Dr. Dave. It is through these exchanges that the validation of the science is confirmed. Science discussion between scientists is always fun. "Artist, always argue too much." - Ed Parker Sr.


----------



## Kenpodoc (Dec 21, 2004)

Doc said:
			
		

> See, I knew I was talking to the man. You might also find here on MT my paper on the "Ambidexterity Myth" in martial arts. You are absolutely correct about the human body and its complexity sir, which should be obvious to others. A simple thing as understanding what and how the body sensors respond to and activates "Startle Reflex" would yield invaluable tools in a martial environment.


Thanks, I'll do some research.

Jeff


----------



## Doc (Dec 21, 2004)

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> Thanks, I'll do some research.
> 
> Jeff


Your opinion on the paper would be well received and appreciated.


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Dec 24, 2004)

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> Thanks, I'll do some research.
> Jeff


 LOL ....... a lot of research for this one to do, he has.


----------



## Simon Curran (Dec 26, 2004)

Hi everybody, and thanks for your responses.

I guess I kind of mis-worded my thoughts, I never really thought about specific definitions of the words principle, idea, theory etc...:idunno: 
Especially thanks to DOC and KENPODOC, not just an answer to my question, but also and education in linguistics and human anatomy...
I knew it would be a good idea to join this forum.:ultracool 

Simon
(By the way GOLDENDRAGON would you have any objections to me sending a personal message?)


----------

