Where can we find the American Kenpo Principles?

[Doc]

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.
This is true. And in this part of the country,it is a part of elementary education beginning in kindergarten. Matters of choice do not validate or invalidate truth. Can they be taught this "principle"? As a teacher, if I can teach it, it holds, If I cannot, I do not belong teaching. 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. Still not a valid statement. As long as it can be taught to be comprehended, it can be used, regardless of circumstance. Those were a fad here for a while too. Then the educators realised they were making our children even lazier and dumber than before. I have and you are still limiting the definition to negate what is in Kenpo and I continue to disagree. 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.
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."
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.
As you are so fond of saying; tell me what you don't know. Don't tell me what I don't. 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.
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.

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]

Mod Warning.
Please Keep the conversation polite and respectfull.

 

[kenpoworks]

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]

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]

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

 

[kenpoworks]

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]

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]

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.

<<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]

<<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]

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

-Michael

 

[Doc]

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]

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

 

[rmcrobertson]

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]

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]

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".

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]

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".

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]

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]

Are they printed anywhere?

:asian:

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

Darin

 

[Bill Lear]

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]

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.

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.