# Where can we find the American Kenpo Principles?



## Goldendragon7 (Oct 7, 2003)

Are they printed anywhere?

:asian:


----------



## arnisador (Oct 7, 2003)

I'd like to know! See this thread.


----------



## Brother John (Oct 7, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Goldendragon7 _
> *Are they printed anywhere?
> 
> :asian: *


is this a trick question???:erg: 

Your Bro.
John


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Oct 8, 2003)

> _Orig. posted by Brother John _*
> Is this a trick question???:erg: Your Bro.  John
> *



 Could be I guess    So answer if you know.

:asian:


----------



## Elfan (Oct 8, 2003)

Well for printed stuff you might start by looking in the encyclopedia and Infinite Insights 4.


----------



## Brother John (Oct 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Goldendragon7 _
> * Could be I guess    So answer if you know.
> 
> :asian: *



The Encyclopedia, the 5 infinite insights books and belt manuals.
That's what I Know of that's been printed.
I have no idea if these are exhaustive at all.
Probably not.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Dominic Jones (Oct 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by Goldendragon7
> 
> Where can we find the American Kenpo Principles?



It depends as always!

Kenpo principles are found in everything we do in, whether its basics, forms, sets or freestyle- whether we are conscious of them or not or following them or not.  

Some Kenpo principles have been written down in:



> Originally posted by Brother Jonh
> 
> The Encyclopedia, the 5 infinite insights books and belt manuals.



And various other magazines, books etc.


Cheers Dom


----------



## Brother John (Oct 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Dominic Jones _
> *It depends as always!
> 
> Kenpo principles are found in everything we do in, whether its basics, forms, sets or freestyle- whether we are conscious of them or not or following them or not.
> ...


But I thought that it was a question on finding them 'printed'.
Your Bro
John


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Oct 9, 2003)

> _Orig. posted by Brother John _*
> I thought that it was a question on finding them 'printed'.Your Bro John
> *



I should have made it clearer..... Yes, I was referring more to where can we find them printed (at this point), and have someone produce a list of them here ....... then we could refer to them and discuss them and where they occur within the system.

D

:asian:


----------



## Seig (Oct 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Goldendragon7 _
> *I should have made it clearer..... Yes, I was referring more to where can we find them printed (at this point), and have someone produce a list of them here ....... then we could refer to them and discuss them and where they occur within the system.
> 
> D
> ...


This would be a good tie in to the dictionary we want to create.


----------



## Kenpobuff (Mar 4, 2005)

Ask Goldendragon 7, I bet if we wait long enough, or ask politely, he will post them.  No better source.  I feel this was a trick question on his part.

OK, I'll ask.  Mr. C would you please post a few principle to get us started.  Thanks in advance.


----------



## Doc (Mar 4, 2005)

Goldendragon7 said:
			
		

> Are they printed anywhere?
> 
> :asian:


In the strictest sense of the term "principles," there aren't any. Now "concepts" are a different story.


----------



## Seig (Mar 5, 2005)

Sorry, I must disagree with you:

Main Entry: *prin·ci·ple*


Pronunciation: 'prin(t)-s(&-)p&l, -s&-b&l
Function: _noun_
Etymology: Middle English, modification of Middle French _principe, _from Latin _principium _beginning, from _princip-, princeps _initiator -- more at [size=-1]PRINCE[/size]
*1 a* *:* a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption *b *(1) *:* a rule or code of conduct (2) *:* habitual devotion to right principles <a man of _principle_> *c* *:* the laws or facts of nature underlying the working of an artificial device
*2* *:* a primary source *: [size=-1]ORIGIN[/size]*
*3 a* *:* an underlying faculty or endowment <such _principle__s _of human nature as greed and curiosity> *b* *:* an ingredient (as a chemical) that exhibits or imparts a characteristic quality

Concept
Main Entry: *con·cept*


Pronunciation: 'kän-"sept
Function: _noun_
Etymology: Latin _conceptum, _neuter of _conceptus, _past participle of _concipere _to conceive -- more at [size=-1]CONCEIVE[/size]
*1* *:* something conceived in the mind *: [size=-1]THOUGHT[/size], [size=-1]NOTION[/size]*
*2* *:* an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances

While both are definately present, as you are so fond of saying, it depends on the instructor involved and your particular experiences, there are many more principles involved than concepts. In this particular instance I am referring to the fact of fundamental laws over conceived thoughts or abstract thoughts. So while some may be working from a "concept driven" curicculuum, not all are.

One "principle" we all use is the "clock" principle. The fundamental law we all agree on is that 12:00 is the top of the clock, 6:00 is the bottom, 3:00 bisect to the right, 9:00 bisects to the left. This gives us a common point of reference and is probably the very first principle we are taught in American Kenpo.


----------



## Doc (Mar 5, 2005)

Seig said:
			
		

> Sorry, I must disagree with you:
> *1 a* *:* a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption *b *(1) *:* a rule or code of conduct (2) *:* habitual devotion to right principles <a man of _principle_> *c* *:* the laws or facts of nature underlying the working of an artificial device
> *2* *:* a primary source *: [size=-1]ORIGIN[/size]*
> *3 a* *:* an underlying faculty or endowment <such _principle__s _of human nature as greed and curiosity> *b* *:* an ingredient (as a chemical) that exhibits or imparts a characteristic quality
> ...



Your disagreement doesn't surprize me. Most in contemporary based motion kenpo feel they have strict principles, and in fact Parker labeled them as such, even though he knew and stated himself they were simply concepts. Principles are absolutes that are not necessarily confined to the conceptual vehicle from which they present themselves. As an example take "body Momentum." Momentum is a documented and accepted principle of newtonian physics expressed most often as inertia. It is not a motion kenpo principle because you use it any more than it would be a football principle. Now with that understanding as a base, began the search for a principle that ONLY has application in motion kenpo, and you will find it is conceptual sir, not physically principled.


> While both are definately present, as you are so fond of saying, it depends on the instructor involved and your particular experiences, there are many more principles involved than concepts. In this particular instance I am referring to the fact of fundamental laws over conceived thoughts or abstract thoughts. So while some may be working from a "concept driven" curicculuum, not all are.


On this we can agree.


> One "principle" we all use is the "clock" principle. The fundamental law we all agree on is that 12:00 is the top of the clock, 6:00 is the bottom, 3:00 bisect to the right, 9:00 bisects to the left. This gives us a common point of reference and is probably the very first principle we are taught in American Kenpo.


Once again sir you are incorrect. In a physical science you cannot make an assumption based on information not universal to physical laws. "Clock Principle" is a concept of learning that is based on the assumption you have an understanding of the position and numbers on an analog clock. We do not ALL use this concept. What of those who do not tell time by this mechanism? There are many on this earth that factor time by other means, therefore your "clock principle" would have no meaning to them. Therefore it cannot be a "principle" except within the confines of the conceptual vehicle which it is used. I have associates who have childrens classes where everyone is only accustomed to digital clocks. re-read the dictionary definitions. Motion-Kenpo labeled "principles" are really just conceptual ideas. It is not unusual for there to be confusion on this issue because most have taught and told for years they are principles. 

The test is: 

"Is it used outside of motion kenpo?"

If it is, than it isn't a "kenpo principle" but a "Motion Kenpo Concept" and cannot be claimed as an exclusively labeled "Kenpo principle."

If it isn't, than its back to being a "Motion Kenpo Concept" because it has no rellavancy outside of the conceptual vehicle.

In all fairness I come from a broader perspective and understanding of the sciences and therefore interact often with knowledgeable people of actual sciences that wouldn't let me get away with calling a conceptual idea a science.  As an example, Dr. Dave who post frequently here has become a student after a visit. His background will not allow me to suggest something is "principled" that is not. Because of his extensive educational and practical experience of human anatomy, he simply knows the difference. However as a motion kenpo practitioner, as long as you are only speaking to those who supscribe to your philosophy or don't know any better, I guess it really doesn't matter - unless you intend to grow outside of the conceptual vehicle.

Thanks for the exchange sir, it keeps the juices flowing.


----------



## kenpoworks (Mar 5, 2005)

Louis Pasteur - "One must not assume that an understanding of science is present in those who borrow its language."

I think this quote applies to a lot of us Kenpoists.... at some time.
Rich


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 5, 2005)

As somebody who knows a little bit about theory and practice, let me just note that we can find them on the mat and in our hearts.

But hell, anybody who's taken the first ten minutes of John Milius', "Conan," or the first twenty pages of Robert Scholes' and Nancy Comley's, "The Practice of Writing," seriously knows THAT.


----------



## Doc (Mar 6, 2005)

Seig said:
			
		

> Sorry, I must disagree with you:
> *1 a* *:* a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption *b *(1) *:* a rule or code of conduct (2) *:* habitual devotion to right principles <a man of _principle_> *c* *:* the laws or facts of nature underlying the working of an artificial device
> *2* *:* a primary source *: [size=-1]ORIGIN[/size]*
> *3 a* *:* an underlying faculty or endowment <such _principle__s _of human nature as greed and curiosity> *b* *:* an ingredient (as a chemical) that exhibits or imparts a characteristic quality
> ...



Your disagreement doesn't surprize me. Most in contemporary based motion kenpo feel they have strict principles, and in fact Parker labeled them as such, even though he knew and stated himself they were simply concepts. Principles are absolutes that are not necessarily confined to the conceptual vehicle from which they present themselves. As an example take "body Momentum." Momentum is a documented and accepted principle of newtonian physics expressed most often as inertia. It is not a motion kenpo principle because you use it any more than it would be a football principle. Now with that understanding as a base, began the search for a principle that ONLY has application in motion kenpo, and you will find it is conceptual sir, not physically principled.


> While both are definately present, as you are so fond of saying, it depends on the instructor involved and your particular experiences, there are many more principles involved than concepts. In this particular instance I am referring to the fact of fundamental laws over conceived thoughts or abstract thoughts. So while some may be working from a "concept driven" curicculuum, not all are.


On this we can agree.


> One "principle" we all use is the "clock" principle. The fundamental law we all agree on is that 12:00 is the top of the clock, 6:00 is the bottom, 3:00 bisect to the right, 9:00 bisects to the left. This gives us a common point of reference and is probably the very first principle we are taught in American Kenpo.


Once again sir you are incorrect. In a physical science you cannot make an assumption based on information not universal to physical laws. "Clock Principle" is a concept of learning that is based on the assumption you have an understanding of the position and numbers on an analog clock. We do not ALL use this concept. What of those who do not tell time by this mechanism? There are many on this earth that factor time by other means, therefore your "clock principle" would have no meaning to them. Therefore it cannot be a "principle" except within the confines of the conceptual vehicle which it is used. I have associates who have childrens classes where everyone is only accustomed to digital clocks. re-read the dictionary definitions. Motion-Kenpo labeled "principles" are really just conceptual ideas. It is not unusual for there to be confusion on this issue because most have ben taught and told this from laypersons not of the sciences for years, bu they still are not principles. 

The test is: 

"Is it used outside of motion kenpo?"

If it is, than it isn't a "kenpo principle" but instead a "Motion Kenpo Concept" and cannot be claimed as an exclusively labeled "Kenpo principle."

If it isn't, than its back to being a "Motion Kenpo Concept" because it has no rellavancy outside of the conceptual vehicle.

In all fairness I come from a broader perspective and understanding of the sciences and therefore interact often with knowledgeable people of actual sciences that wouldn't let me get away with calling a conceptual idea a science.  As an example Dr. Dave who posts frequently here, has become a student after a few visits. His background will not allow me to suggest something is "principled" that is not. Because of his extensive educational and practical experience of human anatomy, he simply knows the difference. 

However for you as a motion kenpo practitioner, as long as you are only speaking to those who supscribe to your philosophy, or don't know any better, I guess it really doesn't matter - that is unless you intend to grow outside of the narrow conceptual vehicle.

Thanks for the exchange sir, it keeps the juices flowing.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 6, 2005)

While I must generally agree that concepts have no meaning outside the culture, history and language in which we find them embedded, there isn't any such word in English as, "rellevancy:" it's simply, "relevance."


----------



## Doc (Mar 6, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> While I must generally agree that concepts have no meaning outside the culture, history and language in which we find them embedded, there isn't any such word in English as, "rellevancy:" it's simply, "relevance."



Actually I believe I simply misspelled the word "relevancy."


----------



## Seig (Mar 6, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> Your disagreement doesn't surprize me. Most in contemporary based motion kenpo feel they have strict principles,


First of all I am not labelling "motion" and "non" motion kenpo. I don't think either exists. I beleive we all practice a _concept_ created by Ed Parker.





> and in fact Parker labeled them as such,


And put them in his books and manuals that way. He even taught my instructor, whom you admit "knows his stuff" this. So how can I be wrong? 





> even though he knew and stated himself they were simply concepts.


Simply because all principle must *begin* as a concept, they do not just leap forth and say "Here I am" use me. 





> Principles are absolutes that are not necessarily confined to the conceptual vehicle from which they present themselves.


With words like "doctrine" or "assumption" in the definition" you cannot call it an absolute.


> As an example take "body Momentum." Momentum is a documented and accepted principle of newtonian physics expressed most often as inertia.


No, it is a component of inertia.





> It is not a motion kenpo principle because you use it any more than it would be a football principle.


I fail to see your logic. You have stated there are no principles in Kenpo, that it is completely conceptually driven. No phyiscal activity can have principles that are exclusive only to it. What we can have is greater understanding. Which as I understand it, is one of the things you strive to impart to your students,as my instructor and I do to mine.


> Now with that understanding as a base, began the search for a principle that ONLY has application in motion kenpo, and you will find it is conceptual sir, not physically principled.


Again, you are using circular logic. A physical principal will hold true across physical acticvities; if it does not, it is not a principal and it is flawed


> Once again sir you are incorrect. In a physical science you cannot make an assumption based on information not universal to physical laws.


It is however based upon the knoweldge that is considered common or prevalent in the culture that you are raised or trained in.


> "Clock Principle" is a concept of learning that is based on the assumption you have an understanding of the position and numbers on an analog clock.


This is true. And in this part of the country,it is a part of elementary education beginning in kindergarten. 





> We do not ALL use this concept.


Matters of choice do not validate or invalidate truth. 





> What of those who do not tell time by this mechanism?


 Can they be taught this "principle"? As a teacher, if I can teach it, it holds, If I cannot, I do not belong teaching. 





> There are many on this earth that factor time by other means, therefore your "clock principle" would have no meaning to them.


 See previous statement. As a teacher, it is my job to impart this to them. I cannot assume that they have this understanding. I have a 23 year old daughter that does not understand maps. Does that invalidate maps? No. Yet cartography is an accepted science. 





> Therefore it cannot be a "principle" except within the confines of the conceptual vehicle which it is used.


 Still not a valid statement. As long as it can be taught to be comprehended, it can be used, regardless of circumstance. 





> I have associates who have childrens classes where everyone is only accustomed to digital clocks.


Those were a fad here for a while  too. Then the educators realised they were making our children even lazier and dumber than before. 





> re-read the dictionary definitions.


 I have and you are still limiting the definition to negate what is in Kenpo and I continue to disagree. 





> Motion-Kenpo labeled "principles" are really just conceptual ideas.


Reiteration, all principles began as conceptual ideas. Once a concept has been proven, usually in more than one field, it becomes a principle. I never said it was the "American Kenpo Clock Principle" Or the "Motion Kenpo Clock Principle". I said found within the American Kenpo system I study we use the "Clock Principle". Therefore, what I said holds true. It is a principle, it holds true.


> It is not unusual for there to be confusion on this issue because most have ben taught and told this from laypersons not of the sciences for years, bu they still are not principles.


And exactly what science are we talking about, versus which lay view? There is no confusion. We are both looking at each other and saying, "You are wrong."


> The test is:
> 
> "Is it used outside of motion kenpo?"
> 
> ...


This is a patently false statement and what's more, you know it. The clock principle is in fact used outside of Kenpo, and I'd be willing to bet you dinner I know where Mr. Parker learned it. The fact that it holds true elsewhere makes it a "fundamental law" and therefore a principle not a concept. I am not getting hung up on does Kenpo own the term or not. What it seems we are arguing is intellectual property rights.


> In all fairness I come from a broader perspective and understanding of the sciences and therefore interact often with knowledgeable people of actual sciences that wouldn't let me get away with calling a conceptual idea a science.


 As you are so fond of saying; tell me what you don't know. Don't tell me what I don't. 





> As an example Dr. Dave who posts frequently here, has become a student after a few visits. His background will not allow me to suggest something is "principled" that is not. Because of his extensive educational and practical experience of human anatomy, he simply knows the difference.


 Doc, I could cite my wife similiarly. She is a RN. I have interacted with Dr. Dave and know of his education. This is not a slight to him, chiropractors are very respected. I was an EMT at one time. My own knowledge is not poor.


> However for you as a motion kenpo practitioner, as long as you are only speaking to those who supscribe to your philosophy, or don't know any better, I guess it really doesn't matter - that is unless you intend to grow outside of the narrow conceptual vehicle.
> 
> Thanks for the exchange sir, it keeps the juices flowing.


We aren't arguing philosophy here; and as my understand continues to grow, with the guidance of my instructor, I see more and more that this "narrow conceptual vehicle" of yours is only as narrow as you allow it to be.


----------



## Doc (Mar 6, 2005)

Seig said:
			
		

> First of all I am not labelling "motion" and "non" motion kenpo. I don't think either exists. I beleive we all practice a _concept_ created by Ed Parker.And put them in his books and manuals that way. He even taught my instructor, whom you admit "knows his stuff" this. So how can I be wrong? Simply because all principle must *begin* as a concept, they do not just leap forth and say "Here I am" use me. With words like "doctrine" or "assumption" in the definition" you cannot call it an absolute.
> No, it is a component of inertia.I fail to see your logic. You have stated there are no principles in Kenpo, that it is completely conceptually driven. No phyiscal activity can have principles that are exclusive only to it. What we can have is greater understanding. Which as I understand it, is one of the things you strive to impart to your students,as my instructor and I do to mine.
> Again, you are using circular logic. A physical principal will hold true across physical acticvities; if it does not, it is not a principal and it is flawed
> It is however based upon the knoweldge that is considered common or prevalent in the culture that you are raised or trained in.
> ...



Considering your reply, it is clear to me you have no idea of what I am speaking or its context. You seemed to have gone off track a bit and perhaps confused what I was saying. However your understanding of "principles" "concepts" and physicals laws is fatally flawed, and clearly it must be my inability to explain them that is fueling that confusion. That I can live with. 

However your statement that I made "... a patently false statement and what's more, you (I) know it." suggests that you are calling me a liar or at the least the presenter of untruths for reasons unknown. This is a clear indicator that you have taken this discussion down another path and you seem to have taken this discussion quite personally. That is unfortunate because only through clear communcation can we learn from each other.

You have your opinion about "clock principle" (clearly wrong and any learned person from the sciences can tell you that), and motion or not and that fine. But clearly we can't all being do the same thing with such a tremendous amount of discourse and name calling on such a benign topic.

Perhaps one day when you are more receptive to what actually is fairly obvious to those not caught up in the rhetorical kenpo pseudo/para science with no real science knowledge to juxtapose it against, we can continue this conversation. Maybe someone else can pick up the mantle and clarify things to your satisfaction or mine. By the way I never said these concepts were a "bad" thing. Things simply are what they are.

But then again - what the hell do I know?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 6, 2005)

Mod Warning.
Please Keep the conversation polite and respectfull.


----------



## kenpoworks (Mar 6, 2005)

I watched an instructor, take a "kids" class of 5 to 10 year olds on the subject of the "Clock Principle",  for about 10mins he ignored the hands up and excuse me Sirs of the younger ones as he tried to impart his "lesson", finally frustrated he asked one of them , "what's the problem", the reply was "Sir,  we have just learned the big hand and  the little hand and not the ones that are to our left and right or the ones in front and behind us"... absolutely priceless.


----------



## Doc (Mar 6, 2005)

kenpoworks said:
			
		

> I watched an instructor, take a "kids" class of 5 to 10 year olds on the subject of the "Clock Principle",  for about 10mins he ignored the hands up and excuse me Sirs of the younger ones as he tried to impart his "lesson", finally frustrated he asked one of them , "what's the problem", the reply was "Sir,  we have just learned the big hand and  the little hand and not the ones that are to our left and right or the ones in front and behind us"... absolutely priceless.


So go "assumptions" that are not "principles." True physical principles have nothing to do with your knowledge of them and exist exclusive thereof. But you already knew that Mate. I thought it was pretty simple. Shows how much I know.


----------



## Seig (Mar 7, 2005)

You have both just illustrated a poor instructor, not a faulty principle....


----------



## kenpoworks (Mar 7, 2005)

OK Seig,good point and  I should have stayed out of it.
Carry on gentlemen please.
I was enjoying both of your points of view.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 7, 2005)

My first degree was not in Chiro, but rather in Psych. A masters in psych pretty much qualifies you to do two things:
1. Ask, "would you like fires with that?"
and
2. Write stuff.

A psych degree is part history, and part paper writing. The paper writing part requires that one be inundated with what constitutes a sound paper, and waht does not. Oh yeah...and more statistics than anybody should ever have to look at.

A principle governs a thing, and is trans-disciplinary (if there is such a word...in deference to Robert). A concept is contextually based. Maslows heiarchy of needs is billed as being based on a series of principles, despite the fact it has little or nothing to do with activity or understandings in any other field of science. So Maslow has some conceptualizations of how things are, and devises an explanatory mechanism to illustrate his ideas. They don't become principles at that point; just the stuff on Maslows plate (concepts).

There is a similar word play in Chiropractic that drives me nuts. With a minor in Philosophy, I have a very different understanding of the definition of philosophy than do other Chiro's. They use the term "philosophy" to mean "chiropractic brain-washing dogma". As in, "Your'e just unhappy, because you don't have enough Philosophy".  Thier use of the word, in the context of their little sphere, is significantly different (doh! there's a stats term) from the way the rest of the world understands it.

There are theories of physics, and principles reflected in the "laws" (again, a different use of the term from the standard legal definition. Used in sciences to refer to a theory with enough predictability to be considered more than an idea). Concepts differ from principles, based on context of application. The Clock Principle is really more of a concept (and idea, or conceptualization for learnig purposes), related to principles of direction, sum of vectors, etc. Any thing moving in a direction can be plotted in X,Y, and Z coordinates. The principles governing this allow concepts.


----------



## Michael Billings (Mar 7, 2005)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> My first degree was not in Chiro, but rather in Psych. A masters in psych pretty much qualifies you to do two things:
> 1. Ask, "would you like fires with that?"
> and
> 2. Write stuff.
> ...


 <<Small nit>>: testing also, lots and lots of administering tests, evals, and intakes.
 Just because you write FOR your masters, does not make a good writer.

 <<Nit now picked.>>
 -Michael


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 7, 2005)

Michael Billings said:
			
		

> <<Small nit>>: testing also, lots and lots of administering tests, evals, and intakes.
> Just because you write FOR your masters, does not make a good writer.
> 
> <<Nit now picked.>>
> -Michael


Nit agreed with. Thanks for reminding me about so many parts of what I didn't like about the program. Did you not have to write up the test results, and compare them to satistically determined norms? DSM? Tx & Prognoses? I'm getting a small wave of nausea thinking about it.

BTW, my writing was always improved upon by editors & advisors. Thank god for editors and advisors.

Regards,

D.


----------



## Michael Billings (Mar 7, 2005)

I still have editors ... and am glad of them.

 -Michael


----------



## Doc (Mar 7, 2005)

kenpoworks said:
			
		

> OK Seig,good point and  I should have stayed out of it.
> Carry on gentlemen please.
> I was enjoying both of your points of view.


Consider this mate, when you fall off a building and accelerate toward the ground and collide with it, certain "PRINCIPLES" are evident - and it doesn't matter whether you know that, can teach that, or desire a different results. They exist exclusive of your own knowledge, desires, or capabilities. 

Those my friend are "Principles" of science. It is simple as that. Unfortunately many can not grasp this fact because they have a strong emotional need and desire to elevate what they do to levels that don't exist in the vehicle. Creating science terminology (as Parker and others did) doesn't create science principles, (and Parker knew that) only conceptual ideas. Any "shrink" can tell you that from personal experience. (Calling Doctor Howard, Doctor Fine, Doctor Howard, Doctor Crouch).

If you take those "motion kenpo priciples" to any other science classroom in this universe, they would chuckle under their breath if they were polite and just shake their head. If not they'd fall on the floor laughing. Unless we can bring some real demonstrable science to the table, we should whisper among ourselves to keep from looking like fools in the real world. Only through this elevation of multiple science knowledge and interaction with legitimate academics in the sciences fields, can we truly elevate what we do to a true "martial science." Until then the world of education will just say, "oh you do that karate stuff."

We will continue this discussion in May Mate.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 7, 2005)

Is that "shrink", or "shrunk"?  Hey...it's been cold.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 7, 2005)

I quite agree that there's a helluva lot of pseudo-science in kenpo--I particularly enjoy some of the fake physics and physiology and neuroscience I read and even hear.

However, falling off a roof and hitting the ground doesn't necessarily disclose any scientific principles at all. People had been falling off things and going, "squuoosh," for a long time before Newton came along...and with little things like the orbits of the planets, the fact is that Ptolemaic astronomy explained the facts a lot better than the actual truth did, right up until Tycho Brahe's better observations came along.

Part of the problem is, too, that it is extremely easy to jigger with the observational and experimental conditions in a martial arts studio...


----------



## distalero (Mar 7, 2005)

Yep, and just to shine a flashlight on the underside of all this, Kenpo, whether it's Motion or "Scientific", is allowed it's "principles", just as science has it's "principles" because:
1. In either case principles, as such, are just conclusions based on observation and mucking about, and not something that somehow exist on their own, outside of the situation described, somehow appart from the observer (which is what I think I hear some people here trying to suggest). How could they be. Science is just one guy turning around and pointing something out to another guy. 

2. In either case the accepted bottom line proof is, can you repeat it? When all is said and done, this is what Science, with a capital "S" is concerned about, at least on the level discussed here. It nowadays always reserves that final statement of approval. We're no longer in the 19th Century. 

3. The only thing I'm pretty sure of is that Physics, which is what seems to  be the area discussed here, is not spelled with a capital "F".


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 7, 2005)

distalero said:
			
		

> Yep, and just to shine a flashlight on the underside of all this, Kenpo, whether it's Motion or "Scientific", is allowed it's "principles", just as science has it's "principles" because:
> 1. In either case principles, as such, are just conclusions based on observation and mucking about, and not something that somehow exist on their own, outside of the situation described, somehow appart from the observer (which is what I think I hear some people here trying to suggest). How could they be. Science is just one guy turning around and pointing something out to another guy.
> 
> 2. In either case the accepted bottom line proof is, can you repeat it? When all is said and done, this is what Science, with a capital "S" is concerned about, at least on the level discussed here. It nowadays always reserves that final statement of approval. We're no longer in the 19th Century.
> ...


One of the classic criticisms of science...just a buncha guys sitting around, agreeing or disagreeing with each other -- based on a criteria for agreement, they all agreed on. Kinda like religion, in some ways. One guy in a lab coat says, "looks like a duck, yes?". Some other guy looks over the evidence, and agrees: "Yep, looks like a duck.  Let's see if it quacks when we poke it". And so on. Scientists = priests of the New Order? Holders of the new and ever-changing truth?

Time will tell. Or not. Same with principles. Conceptually, at least.

D.


----------



## Doc (Mar 7, 2005)

distalero said:
			
		

> Yep, and just to shine a flashlight on the underside of all this, Kenpo, whether it's Motion or "Scientific", is allowed it's "principles", just as science has it's "principles" because:
> 1. In either case principles, as such, are just conclusions based on observation and mucking about, and not something that somehow exist on their own, outside of the situation described, somehow appart from the observer (which is what I think I hear some people here trying to suggest). How could they be. Science is just one guy turning around and pointing something out to another guy.
> 
> 2. In either case the accepted bottom line proof is, can you repeat it? When all is said and done, this is what Science, with a capital "S" is concerned about, at least on the level discussed here. It nowadays always reserves that final statement of approval. We're no longer in the 19th Century.
> ...



Interesting thought of repeatability, however it does not assign the term "principle" to a defined conceptual vehicle. Clearly you weren't (aren't) a physics major. Don't take feable concepts to a real scientist unless you have a sense of humor.


----------



## distalero (Mar 7, 2005)

Ok, it's wandering off topic a bit, but: have you noticed? It's mostly just us on this rock (I'm enjoying your planet immensely, by the way ). Science is our creation. It's not apart from us. Unfortunately the tendency of the uninformed (and within the discipline, the hacks) is to view it as somehow lofty and "elect", "chiseled in stone", as they say, breathing on it's own (it's usually presented this way when somebody wants to sells us something). Well, not exactly. Science is also something which can just as easily promote our limitations in thought. It's somewhat fragile, in this regard, because it can dictate a certain rigidity in approach. Either you see this, or you don't, I suppose. Scientists see it. They are always doing a dance about limitations. Science, they understand, is never more than essentially a set of (arbitrary) coordinates; a grid, thrown over Everything Noticed So Far, and as such, useful in many ways, but generally speaking a tool for exploration/discussion, and for assessing practical application. Science, and most particularly physics, in it's theoretical trappings,has become philosophy. 

Any principles which arise out of any practice are, well, just principles; principle observations, the truth of which are repeatable more often than not, within a given scenario ("repeatable" is a Principle of science; the touchstone (literally, in the beginning) and has been since it's inception). So it gets all mixed up in people's heads that there are "Laws of Physics" (19th Century), and, with reference to this discussion, good, "scientific" principles v. "conceptual" principles (which of course is a redundancy) which somehow are lessor beasts, not worthy of the holy white lab coat. Now, I can take this train of thought to any scientist (and have recently, actually) and be understood immediately. It won't be seen as feeble, but as an acknowledgement of the grid coordinates, and the uncharted areas therein. That's what scientits like most.  But hey, it's all about the purity of kuh-nuckles meeting flesh, right?  Too late for the lab, then. Then it's: Science, thy name is Uncertainty.


----------



## azkenpo1 (Mar 7, 2005)

Goldendragon7 said:
			
		

> Are they printed anywhere?
> 
> :asian:




Are you kidding Mr. C?  You have got to throw better bait than that out there.....

Darin


----------



## Bill Lear (Mar 8, 2005)

It is my understanding that *principles* are basic generalizations that are accepted as true, while scientific laws are the absolutes that govern our universe.

I am compelled to disagree with Doc's statement that quantifies principles as absolutes.

The following definitions are from http://mathworld.wolfram.com

Principle - A loose term for a true statement which may be a postulate, theorem, etc.

Postulate - A statement, also known as an axiom, which is taken to be true without proof.

Theorem - A statement which can be demonstrated to be true by accepted scientific operations and arguments.

Scientific Law - A scientific statement which always holds true.


----------



## Doc (Mar 8, 2005)

Bill Lear said:
			
		

> It is my understanding that *principles* are basic generalizations that are accepted as true, while scientific laws are the absolutes that govern our universe.
> 
> I am compelled to disagree with Doc's statement that quantifies principles as absolutes.
> 
> ...



While your point is a good one, math as a science is based in the abstract of extrapolated numbers and figures that are a long way from any of the physical sciences, even though on some level they are all interconnected but not necessarily interdependent for existence. Once again facts of physics have nothing to do with mathematics, other than math is usually utilized to explain them. And because math is abstract it can sometimes reach improper conclusions. Mathematically speaking according to the laws of aerodynamics, a bumblebee should be incapable of flight. Math, in this case has reached the wrong conclusion even though the numbers are correct, and when repeated will produce the same incorrect results. Moreover multiple equations are capable of getting the same singular results, right or wrong when put into physical actuation and therefore soes not always hold true.

A Chinese Buffet as an example. Dennis Conatser will always devour a Chinese Buffet, but will never devour it the same way or to the exact same extent everytime.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 9, 2005)

All human languages and ways of understanding--science included, just like math--are abstractions, and therefore permanently divorced from reality. "The map is not the territory," in other words.

With the sciences, we get about as close as we can to actually describing the physical universe as it, "really," is. The question isn't whether the sciences offer a perfect way of understanding reality--it's whether they offer a better fit with reality, a more-powerful set of explanations, and better predictions of what happens next.

There are several consequences of applying scientific methodology to martial arts; some are good, some not so good.

1. A systematization of knowledge that is present, but scattered and relatively useless, throughout other martial arts systems and their histories.

2. A rationalization of training that derives from a better understanding of what martial arts are.

3. A tendency towards mystification--in the particular case of kenpo, a) the tendency to mystify by elevating pseudo-science (NLP, for example; the talk one reads about how the brain works, for another) to the level of science, or to b) mystify by claiming that one's particular method applies perfectly to a, "street," reality that doesn't exist (for example, the tendency to see the world as filled with threats that come from movies), or to c) mystify by claiming that endless training in this new! special! scientific! style will take care of all the, "ninjas in the parking lots." (Mr. Chap'el's excellent phrase.)

4. A tendency to separate the mechanical aspects of training from others that are equally important, in order to, "improve," or to, "rationalize," or to, "make more efficient," or to, "speed up," the process of learning. Here, for example, an instructor might quote Bruce Lee a lot, or eliminate techniques from the system that, "don't work," or throw out the forms because, "they don't help you fight," all in the service of pure, "efficiency." Here, it is important to remember not only that we train animals but we educate people--it is important to remember that the sciences depend on good theory and the development of knowledge, not merely the hyperefficient gathering of facts that don't mean anything without understanding. 

5. A tendency to separate the mechanical aspects of training from everything else, grounded on a) an inadequate understanding of what, "martial science," is, and b) a refusal to understand that part of what is really going on is commodification (making something intangible into a solid, sellable object) in a capitalist economy. 

6. A confusion of martial arts teaching and practice with what, say, a good physicist does. Should martial artists apply the lessons science has to teach about objectivity, information-gathering, the development of theory? Absolutely. Should martial artists pretend that what they're doing isn't an art, but a pure science? Absolutely not. 

Oh well. I still say that one of the more-important things to learn from the history of science is how easy it is to lie to others and to yourself, with, "science." 

Real science is slow, tedious, and prone to mistakes that have to be checked by others. That's not a bad practical lesson to learn for martial arts, either.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 9, 2005)

Yep. But we've been down that road and around that bush already, haven't we. You made a great point on another post about people using shortcuts due to mental laziness. Among those listed, "to feel is to believe". And yet, how can you judge a thing without an experience of it?

Responding to subtleties from between the lines that may be simple projections by myself, percieved as bait: You have not stepped in to see what Doc does, or why; nor have you any idea as to what I do with NLP in the martial arts context. Science? By strict definitions, far from it. Useful? Replicable results? Yep. Absolutely. With too many variables in the interaction leading to the result to successfully isolate specifc cause/effect variables. Therefore, destined to remain in the realm of pseudo-science. (And remember, Robert: Not all NLP afficianadoes are glassy-eyed new age wannabes, using Timeline therapy to explore past lives or feel better about their deficient personalities).

You will note the absence of comments in my history regarding Mr. Tatum's training methods and philosophies on kenpo. Simple reason: Never been there; never done that. As you wrote once before as a quote from one of your fave auths: Who is speaking?

Science in kenpo will always bump into the same challenges science in the world faces. That guy with the German name who talked about looking at kitties in boxes...the act of observing a thing, changes the thing. So science provides us with ideas which are, by thier very nature, defunct at the time they are explored. Tainted from conception, to birth, and on. Yet this tainted science, applied, allows us to drive cars that run on multiple contained explosions, live in houses made of artificial stone, and explore such concerns as science in kenpo over information highways carrying bits of complex data through the air around us. What if we measure the value of a thing by it's usefulness, rather than it's ability to fall within a pre-determined criteria of academic integrity?

There is always more to learn; more to be explored. Using models for containing and defining information in a given context -- in this case, kenpo -- has distinct advantages and disadvantages. The flexibility of the model limits the data or events that can be accounted for by it. A good model will take and/or drive exploration into greater territory. But until a TOE is successfully adopted in kenpo, there will also be new events in the field that can not be accounted for in a previous model, without expanding or modifying it. This does not require pseudo-science; merely, the admission that a thing noted can't be accounted for, and that the model must stretch at some point to allow for it; to incorporate it. Then complementary models can be explored, discarded as defunct if they fail to provide the necessary accomodations, or new models can be concieved of to account for the new thing. Happens all the time in science. Constant exploration into the "what's next" of what we don't know is what drives the fascination of our new-world explorers.

The history of science is filled with concurrant discoveries by different and unrelated explorers. Commodification? Or one of the next logical places for exploration to take an inquiring mind on a simple road? How disappointed some will be when history bears out that some explorations and modifications were not conducted in the name of profit, nor for the fame or ego satisfaction of the explorers; rather, for the simple joy of looking under a rock or around a corner to see what's there.

D.


----------



## pete (Mar 9, 2005)

boy, you guys are takin' all the fun out of hittin' things...


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 9, 2005)

pete said:
			
		

> boy, you guys are takin' all the fun out of hittin' things...


I'm thinkin I like this perspective more and more. Spot on.

D.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 9, 2005)

I mentioned neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) because its origins can easily be traced back to the network of ideas giving rise to phenomena like Scientology and the host of other science-like ideas promulgated by John W. Campbell, the great editor of, "Analog Science Fiction," among others. 

As for what Mr. Tatum teaches, I'll be spending a happy if horrified evening getting hit with that particular truck. 

One of the things I learned? In martial arts, theory is no substitute for practice.


----------



## distalero (Mar 9, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> All human languages and ways of understanding--science included, just like math--are abstractions, and therefore permanently divorced from reality. "The map is not the territory," in other words.
> .


Man oh man, good post. The only thing I would say concerns the first two sentences. Abstractions aren't divorced from reality ("divorced" is an abstraction in itself), they fall WITHIN reality; the map IS the territory, is your mind, is the ground you stand on, is the rocks, trees, blue lines depicted), is..................(to the rising crescendo of 200 kazoos): us. Just us.

And it's also the heavy bag I now go out in the garage to mildly irritate.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 9, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> As for what Mr. Tatum teaches, I'll be spending a happy if horrified evening getting hit with that particular truck.
> 
> One of the things I learned? In martial arts, theory is no substitute for practice.


Amen. Now if I can only get my freakin schedule clear to spend my time where my heart is.


----------

