Empty hand flows from weapons...

[MBuzzy]

I find it interesting that most of the people in this discussion do not train in karate. I don't go onto TKD or Arnis threads and try to talk knowledgeably. I guess that is the custom on this forum.

Actually, it kind of is....I suppose the difference is that - in my experience - you would be welcome in any of those forums by most people. In my style forums, it is often the opinions of those outside the style that offer the greatest insight. Again, Exile's right on.

Everyone's viewpoint has a right to be acknowledged, from the lowest ranking student to the highest master in all styles. I personally feel that it is regrettable that so much great insight is missed by those who refuse to acknowledge outside opinions.

I make it a point in my day to day job to always ask the opinions of those around me, including the lowest airmen. And honestly, I learn a great deal from those who I "outrank" in martial arts. Not only from teaching them and dealing with others, but from their viewpoints and thoughts. But again....off topic, I just felt the need to respond to that one.

 

[exile]

Discussions of Hamlet, on the other hand, are based upon having read the play and are completely intellectual in nature. Hamlet, with all of its intricacies and scholarly wars, is something anyone can read and comprehend on the intellectual level. It requires no hand/eye coordination, no necessity of making the connection between kata, bunkai, and the lineage from which they derived, and no mind/body integration...unless you fidget while reading.

But think of it from the point of view of the professional Shakesperian scholar. S/he would be astonished at the idea that you can just read the play and be prepared to discuss it usefully. Each of Shakespeare's plays reflect complex relationships to other of his plays; they involve specialized knowledge of the sources for his plays—that issue is particularly complex in the case of Hamlet—as well as a knowledge of Elizabethan stagecraft conventions, conventional imagery and symbolism of the era (some of it very, very obscure and dense), the history of the physical manuscripts of the plays themselves (a lot of the problems in the interpretation of the play involve textual difficulties and errors—is dram of eale a corruption of dream of evil, or of something else; the choice can change the interpretation of a key line enormously), the insights offered by prior interpretations of the play (including plausible-seeming readings which turned out to be untenable when scrutinized in detail)... the list goes on and on; Shakespearean scholarship is one of the most dauting areas in English literature, because there's such a vast amount that, in theory, you have to master before you can hope to offer a genuinely new insight (for just a sample of the incredible density of already existing analysis, check out this site, which offers an extremely intricate, complex and closely reasoned proof, based on the 'Mousetrap' text within the larger play, that Hamlet was formally illegitimate, i.e., born prior to his parent's marriage, and some equally dense further inferences based on that conclusion). But what Kitto did was find a very different angle on the play by bringing a novel interpretation of Greek tragic drama, which he developed and sustained by deep analysis and really brilliant criticism, over several preceding chapters, to this supposedly light-years-distant domain of literary scholarship. Elizabethan literary scholars have a reputation for eating interlopers alive, but Kitto's work had actually found a genuinely novel line, which made it possible to reconcile what had previously been thought of as mutually incompatible clues in the play.

The thing is, no matter what the area of knowledge, there are specialists who will point out, correctly, that there is an awful lot to learn before you can claim to really grasp the length, breadth and depth of that domain. But it's also possible to make contributions by virtue of an insight which gets at basic connections between that domain and certain others. I'm not saying that that's what any of us who study other arts than Okinawan MAs are trying to do—but our interests and perspectives intersect with a variety of other arts, and our observations may well correctly identify some linkage between what's happened in the OMAs and what's happened in our 'home' arts... or they may not. I'm not saying that at the level of concrete detail, someone who doesn't actually know the precise form and feel of Okinawan kata is likely to find a deep application/motivation for its particular content. But not all aspects of the problems are like that. There may be relationships of a more general kind between Okinawan, Japanese and Korean forms that legitimately prompt an "outsider's" interest in a specifically Okinawan (or Japanese or Korean) form; for example, comparing how different kata were reinterpreted in the daughter arts (we've done this a bit already with Rohai, right? And there are similar issues that arise with Empi and other 'descendent' analogues of Okinawan forms).

I'm just saying that it may well be a mistake to dismiss out of hand what someone not primarily based in the Okinawan arts has to say about an Okinawan topic. It really all depends on the substance of their comment, no?

 

[TimoS]

What I would like to see side by side are two kata from the same karate/kobudo system and see if there are any direct technical linkages.

So you mean that both karate and kobudo were from the same lineage? Not many of those available. Most of the ryukyu kobudo trace their lineage back to two teachers, either Taira Shinken or Shinko Matayoshi. Before them, it is my understanding that there weren't any comprehensive systems in place and both were formed in the 20th century. The only that comes to mind at this time (it's just 7:50 AM here and I just woke up ) is Jinbukan Goju ryu and Jinbukan Kobudo, but again, even that style traces it's kobudo lineage to the sensei I mentioned earlier.

 

[cstanley]

But think of it from the point of view of the professional Shakesperian scholar. S/he would be astonished at the idea that you can just read the play and be prepared to discuss it usefully. Each of Shakespeare's plays reflect complex relationships to other of his plays; they involve specialized knowledge of the sources for his plays—that issue is particularly complex in the case of Hamlet—as well as a knowledge of Elizabethan stagecraft conventions, conventional imagery and symbolism of the era (some of it very, very obscure and dense), the history of the physical manuscripts of the plays themselves (a lot of the problems in the interpretation of the play involve textual difficulties and errors—is dram of eale a corruption of dream of evil, or of something else; the choice can change the interpretation of a key line enormously), the insights offered by prior interpretations of the play (including plausible-seeming readings which turned out to be untenable when scrutinized in detail)... the list goes on and on; Shakespearean scholarship is one of the most dauting areas in English literature, because there's such a vast amount that, in theory, you have to master before you can hope to offer a genuinely new insight (for just a sample of the incredible density of already existing analysis, check out this site, which offers an extremely intricate, complex and closely reasoned proof, based on the 'Mousetrap' text within the larger play, that Hamlet was formally illegitimate, i.e., born prior to his parent's marriage, and some equally dense further inferences based on that conclusion). But what Kitto did was find a very different angle on the play by bringing a novel interpretation of Greek tragic drama, which he developed and sustained by deep analysis and really brilliant criticism, over several preceding chapters, to this supposedly light-years-distant domain of literary scholarship. Elizabethan literary scholars have a reputation for eating interlopers alive, but Kitto's work had actually found a genuinely novel line, which made it possible to reconcile what had previously been thought of as mutually incompatible clues in the play.

The thing is, no matter what the area of knowledge, there are specialists who will point out, correctly, that there is an awful lot to learn before you can claim to really grasp the length, breadth and depth of that domain. But it's also possible to make contributions by virtue of an insight which gets at basic connections between that domain and certain others. I'm not saying that that's what any of us who study other arts than Okinawan MAs are trying to do—but our interests and perspectives intersect with a variety of other arts, and our observations may well correctly identify some linkage between what's happened in the OMAs and what's happened in our 'home' arts... or they may not. I'm not saying that at the level of concrete detail, someone who doesn't actually know the precise form and feel of Okinawan kata is likely to find a deep application/motivation for its particular content. But not all aspects of the problems are like that. There may be relationships of a more general kind between Okinawan, Japanese and Korean forms that legitimately prompt an "outsider's" interest in a specifically Okinawan (or Japanese or Korean) form; for example, comparing how different kata were reinterpreted in the daughter arts (we've done this a bit already with Rohai, right? And there are similar issues that arise with Empi and other 'descendent' analogues of Okinawan forms).

I'm just saying that it may well be a mistake to dismiss out of hand what someone not primarily based in the Okinawan arts has to say about an Okinawan topic. It really all depends on the substance of their comment, no?

Hey...I'm an English major with grad degrees.:wavey: You are preaching to the choir...however, even though I agree with you (mostly), I think there is a difference. Not that big a deal, just an observation. I would consider it presumptuous if I jumped into a thread on a martial art I had not studied and began making categorical statements about it...but, that is just me.

PS Checked my shelf and I cannot find a reference to Kitto in either: Greenblatt, Bloom, Rosenbaum, Akroyd, Jackson, Oxford Companion to Shakespeare, Taylor, Auden, Hattaway, or Roper. Help me out here. I want to read this essay. Thanks.

 

[exile]

Hey...I'm an English major with grad degrees.:wavey: You are preaching to the choir...however, even though I agree with you (mostly), I think there is a difference. Not that big a deal, just an observation. I would consider it presumptuous if I jumped into a thread on a martial art I had not studied and began making categorical statements about it...but, that is just me.

PS Checked my shelf and I cannot find a reference to Kitto in either: Greenblatt, Bloom, Rosenbaum, Akroyd, Jackson, Oxford Companion to Shakespeare, Taylor, Auden, Hattaway, or Roper. Help me out here. I want to read this essay. Thanks.

OK, a quick note on Kitto: his book was called Form and Meaning in Drama, if I recall correctly; it was published by Penguin in 1956. When I first started university, I placed out of English composition and the other required English classes; so what I took was a semester-long course on Hamlet. We read the play inch by inch, did a critical annotation of a passage of our choice based on the first Folio text, and read, and offered counter-commentary on, what felt like a couple of hundred years' worth of criticism: all the old war horses, and some odd birds too, like Kitto, who had come in from left field. That's where I encountered him, and his essay always stuck in my memory... I think the book is out of print, alas.

 

[cstanley]

OK, a quick note on Kitto: his book was called Form and Meaning in Drama, if I recall correctly; it was published by Penguin in 1956. When I first started university, I placed out of English composition and the other required English classes; so what I took was a semester-long course on Hamlet. We read the play inch by inch, did a critical annotation of a passage of our choice based on the first Folio text, and what felt like a couple of hundred years' worth of criticism: all the old war horses, and some odd birds too, like Kitto, who had come in from left field. That's where I encountered him, and his essay always stuck in my memory... I think the book is out of print, alas.

I'll call my old English prof and check around. Sounds interesting. BTW, there is a new edition of Hamlet out that has both versions of the play and line by line comparisons of the controversial stuff. A friend just told me about it the other day, so I have to get the details. Not sure I want to plunge back nto that stuff, but it is tempting. I re-read Shakespeare every few years...most of it anyway.

 

[exile]

I'll call my old English prof and check around. Sounds interesting. BTW, there is a new edition of Hamlet out that has both versions of the play and line by line comparisons of the controversial stuff. A friend just told me about it the other day, so I have to get the details. Not sure I want to plunge back nto that stuff, but it is tempting. I re-read Shakespeare every few years...most of it anyway.

I'd love to see what they do with the dram of eale stuff! Sounds like a must-have for serious Shakespeareans. I reread a number of the plays too every so often—not Titus Andronicus, obviously! :lol:—but Hamlet, The Winter's Tale, As You Like It, and The Tempest mostly, the really lovely, lyrical ones.

Haven't thought about that class in years... It was very weird, I remember, reading G. Wilson Knight on Hamlet; he had this idea that it was Hamlet who had introduced the evil at the center of the action in the play... very strange.

Hmmm... we seem to have gotten somewhat far afield from the OP topic... not sure how it happened, but I have the sneaking suspicion that this time it's much more my fault than Lisa's...

 

[cstanley]

Alright, back to karate/kobudo. I was saying it is difficult to posit any direct relationship between karate and kobudo, as in one evolving directly from the other. Things just didn't happen in such a systematic way on Okinawa. Japan is different.

 

[Flying Crane]

I read music, but I would not presume to discuss piano technique with a concert pianist.

Why not?

 

[cstanley]

Why not?

Because I do not play the piano. Look, there is nothing more presumptuous than someone with "book knowledge" of an art, science, or skill who tries to talk knowledgeably about it with people who have been doing it for years and for whom it is either a profession or an avocation. It is fine to ask questions or genuinely seek information, but there are too many people out there who think that, because they are merely clever, they are experts in everything.

In my dojo, students like that spend a lot of time at lean and rest or in shiko dachi against the wall. It seems to cure them...or they leave.

 

[Kacey]

I read music, but I would not presume to discuss piano technique with a concert pianist.

Why not?

I agree with Flying Crane. Why not? I am not a master, and I am the first one to admit that there are things I don't know or don't understand... but from the time I started TKD as a white belt, I was encouraged to talk about what I was doing with anyone and everyone, as a way to increase my knowledge. The responses I received helped to increase my knowledge, understanding, and interest - not because I remained silent and listened while my seniors talked (although that happened too), but because, when appropriate, I discussed my ideas and interpretation with those who knew more - and they were able to help guide me when I was not understanding, correct me when I was wrong, and congratulate me when I was correct.

I have never had a discussion with anyone who was skilled at something that I was interested in, where my desire to discuss - no matter the scarcity of my knowledge - was unwelcome. I have learned more from such discussion - about a wide variety of topics - than I could ever have learned on my own. I have also, on occasion, brought a sufficiently different viewpoint that the expert - despite much greater knowledge and experience - was able to use my viewpoint to help with something related to that person's area of expertise. I have been corrected frequently - but my desire to learn more and express my opinion based on my own - often limited experience and understanding has never offended anyone; nor have I been asked to refrain from such discussions in informal settings, such as Martial Talk.

Formal settings are a different issue, and I can understand not getting involved in high level discussions there.

As far as the original topic (which I will address despite never having trained in a weapons-based style) - I can see it going both ways, depending on the art, the location, the circumstances, etc. - either from empty hands to weapons, or vice versa - or even having them develop side-by-side and borrowing from each other. There are, after all, only so many ways in which the human body can move or react.

 

[cstanley]

I agree with Flying Crane. Why not? I am not a master, and I am the first one to admit that there are things I don't know or don't understand... but from the time I started TKD as a white belt, I was encouraged to talk about what I was doing with anyone and everyone, as a way to increase my knowledge. The responses I received helped to increase my knowledge, understanding, and interest - not because I remained silent and listened while my seniors talked (although that happened too), but because, when appropriate, I discussed my ideas and interpretation with those who knew more - and they were able to help guide me when I was not understanding, correct me when I was wrong, and congratulate me when I was correct.

I have never had a discussion with anyone who was skilled at something that I was interested in, where my desire to discuss - no matter the scarcity of my knowledge - was unwelcome. I have learned more from such discussion - about a wide variety of topics - than I could ever have learned on my own. I have also, on occasion, brought a sufficiently different viewpoint that the expert - despite much greater knowledge and experience - was able to use my viewpoint to help with something related to that person's area of expertise. I have been corrected frequently - but my desire to learn more and express my opinion based on my own - often limited experience and understanding has never offended anyone; nor have I been asked to refrain from such discussions in informal settings, such as Martial Talk.

Formal settings are a different issue, and I can understand not getting involved in high level discussions there.

As far as the original topic (which I will address despite never having trained in a weapons-based style) - I can see it going both ways, depending on the art, the location, the circumstances, etc. - either from empty hands to weapons, or vice versa - or even having them develop side-by-side and borrowing from each other. There are, after all, only so many ways in which the human body can move or react.

I think the key for me is when they try to appear more knowledgeable about it than they are. Friendly discussions are fine. Maybe I'm just persnickety.

 

[Flying Crane]

Because I do not play the piano. Look, there is nothing more presumptuous than someone with "book knowledge" of an art, science, or skill who tries to talk knowledgeably about it with people who have been doing it for years and for whom it is either a profession or an avocation. It is fine to ask questions or genuinely seek information, but there are too many people out there who think that, because they are merely clever, they are experts in everything.

In my dojo, students like that spend a lot of time at lean and rest or in shiko dachi against the wall. It seems to cure them...or they leave.

Some valid points you make.

I think it's a matter of pretending to be an expert in a subject, vs. having something valid to contribute to a discussion. A non-karate person shouldn't pretend to be an expert when discussing karate topics. But a kung fu person can contribute to the discussion because of similarities in training methods, as well as a certain level of shared and influenced history between the arts.

I don't think the non-karate people tried to pass themselves off as experts in karate matters. They just had a potentially relevant connection to express.

So if you have an interest in and knowledge about music, feel free to talk to a concert pianist, if that person is willing. Just don't pretend to be an expert on piano technique. Don't pretend to be what you are not.

 

[cstanley]

Some valid points you make.

I think it's a matter of pretending to be an expert in a subject, vs. having something valid to contribute to a discussion. A non-karate person shouldn't pretend to be an expert when discussing karate topics. But a kung fu person can contribute to the discussion because of similarities in training methods, as well as a certain level of shared and influenced history between the arts.

I don't think the non-karate people tried to pass themselves off as experts in karate matters. They just had a potentially relevant connection to express.

So if you have an interest in and knowledge about music, feel free to talk to a concert pianist, if that person is willing. Just don't pretend to be an expert on piano technique. Don't pretend to be what you are not.

Agreed. I actually enjoy Exile's and others' input...it just seemed odd that they would spend so much time in a karate forum when there are perfectly good forums for their own arts. Sometimes they are re-discovering the wheel that many of us in traditional arts have been rolling for decades.

 

[MBuzzy]

I think the key for me is when they try to appear more knowledgeable about it than they are. Friendly discussions are fine. Maybe I'm just persnickety.

If I make a blatent historical or content error, please correct me - especially if I come off as "trying to pass myself off as an expert." That is by far the furthest thing from my own intention and I am pretty sure that I speak for most others on this board as well.

As to the topic, apparently I was mistaken that we are speaking about the conceptual relevance that an empty hand style may have flown out of a weapons style or vice versa, or their creation in tandem. Obviously I was mistaken, since we are now discussing very specific styles of Karate of which I know nothing.

Although, I must say that I have always encouraged discourse and other points of view....both in my martial arts training, personal life, and work. I feel that if my position and knowledge aren't strong enough to refute or support another claim and discuss, it is indicative that I need more research.

 

[MBuzzy]

Agreed. I actually enjoy Exile's and others' input...it just seemed odd that they would spend so much time in a karate forum when there are perfectly good forums for their own arts. Sometimes they are re-discovering the wheel that many of us in traditional arts have been rolling for decades.

Personally, that's why I read this forum regularly. Because my style has deep roots in Okinawa and Japan. I personally seek insight into my own style from the knowledge of others.

 

[Kacey]

Agreed. I actually enjoy Exile's and others' input...it just seemed odd that they would spend so much time in a karate forum when there are perfectly good forums for their own arts. Sometimes they are re-discovering the wheel that many of us in traditional arts have been rolling for decades.

And this is bad... why? I'm being perfectly serious here; there are many things I was told - by my instructor, by my parents, by friends, etc - that made no sense to me whatsoever until I discovered and/or experienced them for myself. So what if someone discovers for themselves something that others already know? The understanding comes from the discovery.

 

[cstanley]

And this is bad... why? I'm being perfectly serious here; there are many things I was told - by my instructor, by my parents, by friends, etc - that made no sense to me whatsoever until I discovered and/or experienced them for myself. So what if someone discovers for themselves something that others already know? The understanding comes from the discovery.

I meant that sometimes discussions among karate seniors get sidetracked by non-karate guys who are going over already plowed ground. If you are a TKD student, the wheels you need to be discovering are not in a karate forum.

 

[Kacey]

I meant that sometimes discussions among karate seniors get sidetracked by non-karate guys who are going over already plowed ground. If you are a TKD student, the wheels you need to be discovering are not in a karate forum.

Discussions about specific techniques - techniques and terms specific to a particular art, or questions about patterns or testing requirements - may well be sidetracked by people from other arts who use different terminology. Nonetheless, a discussion of fighting stance - whether you call it back stance, L-stance, cat stance, or any of a large variety of other terms - is still a discussion of what stance it is most effective to fight out of. Even with those things specific to a particular art, those from another art may well have insight that is lacking in those intimately familiar with it, because their perspective is different.

If it truly bothers you, then skip those posts and respond to the ones that are on the topic you wish to discuss. For me, the different perspectives are one of the reasons I come here; they add both depth and breadth to the discussions, and thus to my understanding of my own art, both as an individual entity and in how it relates and compares to other arts.

 

[cstanley]

Discussions about specific techniques - techniques and terms specific to a particular art, or questions about patterns or testing requirements - may well be sidetracked by people from other arts who use different terminology. Nonetheless, a discussion of fighting stance - whether you call it back stance, L-stance, cat stance, or any of a large variety of other terms - is still a discussion of what stance it is most effective to fight out of. Even with those things specific to a particular art, those from another art may well have insight that is lacking in those intimately familiar with it, because their perspective is different.

If it truly bothers you, then skip those posts and respond to the ones that are on the topic you wish to discuss. For me, the different perspectives are one of the reasons I come here; they add both depth and breadth to the discussions, and thus to my understanding of my own art, both as an individual entity and in how it relates and compares to other arts.

Never mind...