Recreation of the application of forms

[MI_martialist]

Then you need to define the purpose of martial training and the what "results" are.

True, that.

The longer I do this stuff, the more I realize that’s there can be interpretations of this stuff that are in direct conflict with each other and yet, if it gets results for those doing it, then it’s hard to say it’s wrong.

There is no single truth for this stuff. There are only interpretations based on what and how well someone understands something.

 

[MI_martialist]

I will disagree...the original intent was the ability to fight and survive...

What do you mean by synthesizing what was not originally intended?

You seem quite sure of that. Designed in every kata? Not true. In some kata? Possible. In most kata, we don’t know the original intent. We can find those things in any portion of a kata, but we may be synthesizing what was not originally intended. Note that his doesn’t make it wrong - I’m a fan of finding new uses for existing training tools.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If there is a single meaning, there cannot be multiple, and vice versa. Every movement has multiple applications, and every sub-movement within each movement has multiple applications.

I’m not sure what you are classifying as “movement” and “sub-movement”. And are you talking about the intention of the kata, or how a student can interpret?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I will disagree...the original intent was the ability to fight and survive...

What do you mean by synthesizing what was not originally intended?

I’ll give you an example. I created a set of kata for my students. They are quite literal - a walk through the first few Classical (formal) techniques. There is no hidden second level. But some future instructor could find a useful subtext - perhaps using the transitions to teach some of the non-Classical techniques. I didn’t put it there; they synthesized that meaning from the movements (which are almost certainly not exactly what I originally created). This is an effective expansion of the kata, beyond the original intent.

 

[hoshin1600]

.the original intent was the ability to fight and survive...

i would disagree with this statement. i do not think the primary intent of kata was to develop the ability to fight. fighting is the context and result but the primary intent of kata is the perpetuation of the style. kata is a vehicle to pass fighting knowledge from one generation to the next.

 

[lklawson]

I will disagree...the original intent was the ability to fight and survive...

Are you sure? Maybe that depends on the martial art, or even how you define martial art? Remind me again why Bodhidharma (supposedly) taught martial arts to the monks at Shaolin? Didn't Ueshiba write, "Aiki is not a technique to fight with or defeat an enemy. It is the way to reconcile the world and make human beings one family."

While I generally agree that martial arts are (or should be) based on the ability to hurt people and break things off of them, that doesn't appear to be a universal theory.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[MI_martialist]

I am absolutely positive...maybe your thoguhts on survival should be upgraded. Our entire body and being is wired for survival...I said nothing about hurting people and breaking things off of them.

Katsijinken, Satsukinjen.

Are you sure? Maybe that depends on the martial art, or even how you define martial art? Remind me again why Bodhidharma (supposedly) taught martial arts to the monks at Shaolin? Didn't Ueshiba write, "Aiki is not a technique to fight with or defeat an enemy. It is the way to reconcile the world and make human beings one family."

While I generally agree that martial arts are (or should be) based on the ability to hurt people and break things off of them, that doesn't appear to be a universal theory.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

I am absolutely positive...maybe your thoguhts on survival should be upgraded. Our entire body and being is wired for survival...I said nothing about hurting people and breaking things off of them.

You wrote "fight and survive." It appears that you are linking the two together. Are you, instead, saying that they're unlinked? "The original intent of martial arts is anything that helps us survive including mere exercise, 'moving mediation', or a way to promote peaceful coexistence." Is that your position?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Flying Crane]

Then you need to define the purpose of martial training and the what "results" are.

I only need to define it for myself and to my own satisfaction.

Others need to do the same for themselves.

 

[Steve]

Let me clarify a little bit...I am most certainly not talking about the modern, gymnastic, shuffle the feet, and throw the arms out type of "kata". In fact, they are great displays of gymnastics and athletic ability, and I am sure I can come up with something, but...I don't even consider those as kata.

Why aren't these Kara?

 

[skribs]

I’ll give you an example. I created a set of kata for my students. They are quite literal - a walk through the first few Classical (formal) techniques. There is no hidden second level. But some future instructor could find a useful subtext - perhaps using the transitions to teach some of the non-Classical techniques. I didn’t put it there; they synthesized that meaning from the movements (which are almost certainly not exactly what I originally created). This is an effective expansion of the kata, beyond the original intent.

This is exactly what I was thinking of. It's like any art - the artist can mean one thing, but the audience can understand another.

There is a show I like called Still Standing. In one episode, the Aunt sees a drawing her Niece made, in which none of the people had hands. The Aunt was studying psychology, and explained that if a kid is drawing someone without hands, it is because they feel powerless. Turns out there was no deep psychological meaning: the kid just couldn't draw hands.

The same could be true of a kata. An instructor may take an old kata and say "here are applications you can take from this set of movements." Whereas the original master who created the kata might be asked what a high block means at certain point, and he would say "well, it's a high block." Does that make the original master limited or does it mean the instructor does not understand the kata? Or is the kata merely a tool that different people use differently to teach their students in their own way?

 

[MI_martialist]

I’ll give you an example. I created a set of kata for my students. They are quite literal - a walk through the first few Classical (formal) techniques. There is no hidden second level. But some future instructor could find a useful subtext - perhaps using the transitions to teach some of the non-Classical techniques. I didn’t put it there; they synthesized that meaning from the movements (which are almost certainly not exactly what I originally created). This is an effective expansion of the kata, beyond the original intent.

Why aren't these Kara?

 

[MI_martialist]

Because they are empty dance routines. They may be good, athletic, and gymnastic, but they are dance routines.

 

[MI_martialist]

Therein lies the rub...arts before martial...my interpretation, whether or not it is sound...

I only need to define it for myself and to my own satisfaction.

Others need to do the same for themselves.

 

[hoshin1600]

Because they are empty dance routines. They may be good, athletic, and gymnastic, but they are dance routines.

But your "hands" analogy still applies. The intent of dance may be devoid of martial meaning but who is to say some student can not find some meaning.
And if future generations do find meaning is that meaning valid since it was not the original intent and merely a figment of the students imagination?

 

[Paul_D]

But your "hands" analogy still applies. The intent of dance may be devoid of martial meaning but who is to say some student can not find some meaning.
And if future generations do find meaning is that meaning valid since it was not the original intent and merely a figment of the students imagination?

It depends on the meaning they find I guess.

Some of the moronic interpretations of kata (which are a result of people who doesn’t understand it trying use it against karate attacks from other karate-ka) have meaning, but they are not valid in terms of practicality in a live situation.

 

[Steve]

Because they are empty dance routines. They may be good, athletic, and gymnastic, but they are dance routines.

Maybe you just dont understand them. Perhaps if you took some time to underatand the bunkai.

 

[hoshin1600]

It depends on the meaning they find I guess.

Some of the moronic interpretations of kata (which are a result of people who doesn’t understand it trying use it against karate attacks from other karate-ka) have meaning, but they are not valid in terms of practicality in a live situation.

whether their interpretations are functional are a separate issue from finding meaning in the movements but important. i could find an image of Jesus on my piece of toast. others may say it looks more like Joe Pesci. but the fact is i still found something that could be an image. the real question is, is the image of Joe Pesci something that the baker intended or is it just a mirage and figment of my imagination.
my assertion (@Steve , not opinion) is that if the baker purposely put the image in the dough then it is a fact that it is there (that was the intended purpose). if he didnt then it is just a figment of my imagination and it could be Joe or Jesus or even and elephant or John wayne Gacy. everyone will pull their own meaning from the kata which is no different than looking at the Rorschach ink bot test. when people pull their own meaning from kata they could be seeing applicable defense tactics or magic chi balls.

 

[Flying Crane]

Therein lies the rub...arts before martial...my interpretation, whether or not it is sound...

It has nothing to do with art.

The word “art” in martial arts has nothing to do with artistic interpretation. It is a term used to mean “method” or “technique” or “skill acquired through practice.”

 

[Gerry Seymour]

whether their interpretations are functional are a separate issue from finding meaning in the movements but important. i could find an image of Jesus on my piece of toast. others may say it looks more like Joe Pesci. but the fact is i still found something that could be an image. the real question is, is the image of Joe Pesci something that the baker intended or is it just a mirage and figment of my imagination.
my assertion (@Steve , not opinion) is that if the baker purposely put the image in the dough then it is a fact that it is there (that was the intended purpose). if he didnt then it is just a figment of my imagination and it could be Joe or Jesus or even and elephant or John wayne Gacy. everyone will pull their own meaning from the kata which is no different than looking at the Rorschach ink bot test. when people pull their own meaning from kata they could be seeing applicable defense tactics or magic chi balls.

I'm not sure I agree entirely with the "it's there if it's intended, otherwise it's a figment" assertion. Let's take the toast example.

If the baker just made a loaf of bread, but there's a pattern that resembles Pesci, that's a thing. We could debate whether that thing is a fact or an opinion (and support either case), but the fact is there's a pattern that can be recognized by at least some as looking like Pesci.

Now, if the baker had intended to put in an image of Pesci, but ended up with a rough circle with no features, his intention doesn't change that. So my assertion is that the intention doesn't entirely control what exists. I didn't design any secondary techniques in my kata. But if someone finds the appropriate motions to teach a hip throw in the transition between two techniques, then the movement for a hip throw is there, whether I intended it or not.