addressing your teacher

[rachel]

What do you call your teacher? sensi? sir? or do you call him or her by their name? the kids call our teacher sir and the adults call him by name. some call him sir but most of the adults call him by name. just curious.

[Robbo]

Just 'Sir' as a quick acknowlegement.
Usually 'Mr' so and so.
I think that this was another of Mr. Parker's ways of westernizing the art. Is there any other systems out there that use 'Mr' when addressing and instructor?

Rob

[gravity]

different systems have different titles to address the instructor. Japanese styles use Sensei or Shihan depending on the rank of the instructor, chinese systems use Sifu, Sibak, Sigung or Sijo. At my kenpo school our instructor prefers his own name.

-LATER-

[cdhall]

Originally posted by Robbo
Just 'Sir' as a quick acknowlegement.
Usually 'Mr' so and so.
I think that this was another of Mr. Parker's ways of westernizing the art. Is there any other systems out there that use 'Mr' when addressing and instructor?

Rob

I hit "enter" by mistake and posted "nothing" so I had to come back and edit this post. Then I hit "reset" which is where "Preview" usually is so I lost my post again.

Short version is that Mr. Parker prescribes this in Infinite Insights into Kenpo Book 1 I think. You can get the book from Mr. Conatser.

I think if someone is teaching Ed Parker's material that they should follow his conventions and one of them is that your instructor is not "Sifu" or "Sensei" or "Shihan" or whatever, but Mr/Mrs/Ms and Sir/Ma'am. This may even apply to all adults. But it's in the book somewhere.

My current instructor was a "Sifu" in a sister system for some time and has held onto this title, but I never call him Sifu and if anyone asks me how to address him I tell them Mr/Sir. If he tells them differently later that is of course up to him.
:asian:

[Jill666]

We call our instructor Shihan in the dojo and by name outside (at dinners & such). Altho I find "yes Shihan" a mouthful when I'm concentrating on learning a new technique, and "yessir" usually suffices.

At my cousins' Ninjuitsu studio the students call him by name, and at the Kyoshu sessions on the weekends I attend, everyone is first-name basis, but it is an informal session between instructors. In their classes I'd call them Sensei unless told otherwise. :mst:

[Elfan]

Its okay to ask if your instructor hasn't specified what they want.

[GouRonin]

In fact the proper term for use of the word "Sensei" in japanese systems is to put it after the person's name.

So if you were to use my name for example it would not be "Sensei Gou" but instead it would be "Gou Sensei."

But like most things gone western it has now become Sensei first as in the west people have their titles before their name.

[Les]

At our Kenpo Academy the rule is that Instructors are called Mr. Mrs or Miss, depending on which they are.

Sometimes, students who have been with me for some time will slip up and call me Les, but they are usually very good, especially when 'newer' students are around and they need to set an example.

After training, when we go for a well earned beer, they tend to call me Les, which is fine, because in the pub we are all friends and equals.

The juniors only get to call their instructors by their last names, but as my name (Grihault) is difficult for the English to pronounce correctly they usually call me Mr G and their other instructor Mrs D.

Les

[RCastillo]

By my first name, (if they are adults) Mr., if they are adolescents.

I address my higher ups by Mr. , and Master, as in Master Tracy when I've visited him.

Based on the way Kenpo is, I prefer not to use any terms such as Sifu, or whatever, however, the discipline remains within the class .:asian:

[GouRonin]

Originally posted by RCastillo
I address my higher ups by Mr. , and Master, as in Master Tracy when I've visited him.

I will never refer to any man or woman as "Master."

[RCastillo]

Originally posted by GouRonin
I will never refer to any man or woman as "Master."

Not even after a few cold ones?:eek:

[GouRonin]

Originally posted by RCastillo
Not even after a few cold ones?:eek:

Nope. I believe Ed Parker himself agreed with me on this one. Our reasoning might be different but I understand he said, "There is but one Master."

Smart guy that Ed Parker...
:asian:

[Kenpomachine]

Originally posted by rachel
What do you call your teacher?
I call them both by their names. One of them tolds the first day of class that he didn't want to be call "maestro" or any other way, just his name. The other has never say anything upon this subject.
The kids call them "profe", which is like instructor.

[Mike]

In my school we use Mr. (or Miss) and the instructor's first name, i.e. Mr. Steve, Mr. Ian.

[rmcrobertson]

I'm pretty much with the Gou, here. No way in hell I'm calling anybody, "Master," which is pretty much what, "Mister," means anyway. I suppose if I were high up in the mountains of Tibet, talking to some 214-year-old who was set in their ways....but otherwise, oh, hell no, not unless they've got a shotgun.

Frankly, I'd pretty much avoid training under anybody who wanted to be called, "master." Though I have good friends who are happy enough with it. I'd start giggling and be unable to stop. The terms just aren't appropriate outside their original cultural context and historical mileau.

An even better question: why the hell are Americans, with some very proud democratic traditions, so hell-bent on resurrecting feudalism? I mean, I liked "Star Wars," and "Lord of the Rings," but both are medium racist, clearly pretty patriarchal, and out-and-out royalist. (Please. Spare the arguments. Both emphasize that "blood will tell;" you're born into your place in life, rather than really earning it, though I do find 'Star Wars,' the bigger offender in this regard.)

I guess I got spoiled in college and graduate school. Every single one of my most famous, best known, best educated, most grown-up, most helpful teachers were more or less warm, friendly, polite folks whose only comments on titles were sentences like, "Hi. I'm Ed." Universally, too, the sign of phonyism, stupidity and mean-spiritedness was an insistence on titles--in my experience, putting, "PhD," after your name or insisting upon being called, "Doctor," were really the twin kisses of death. And that's academics, not known for being the most mature and decent of people.

Oh well. I guess I'm just more used to the down-home American brand of BS--you know, use my first name while I sell you a really lousy used car...

[jfarnsworth]

Sir, or Mr., Mrs., and their last name.

[Kenpomachine]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
The terms just aren't appropriate outside their original cultural context and historical mileau.

An even better question: why the hell are Americans, with some very proud democratic traditions, so hell-bent on resurrecting feudalism? I mean, I liked "Star Wars," and "Lord of the Rings," but both are medium racist, clearly pretty patriarchal, and out-and-out royalist.

What has LOTR to do with americans? The books were written by a philology professor and medieval historian at Oxford when the UK had an imperium.

I'll spare you the rest of the argument ;)

[Les]

Originally posted by Kenpomachine
What has LOTR to do with americans? The books were written by a philology professor and medieval historian at Oxford when the UK had an imperium.

I'll spare you the rest of the argument ;)

Hells Bells!

The book of the film is out ALREADY? :)

Only joking,

Happy New Year to you all

Les

[RCastillo]

Originally posted by Les
Hells Bells!

The book of the film is out ALREADY? :)

Only joking,

Happy New Year to you all

Les

Uh, what happened to the Trifle?:mad:

[rmcrobertson]

I had the trifle, Christmas Eve, and darn good it was too.

On "Lord of the Rings," yup. It has nothing to do with Americans. Why, if it had anything to do with the way Americans think, it would be some enormously-successful, kazillion-selling popular film, backed by giant ad campaigns and looked-for by millions of our fellows---oh wait....

That's my point, incidentally. Why is this stuff so popular? Well--and notwithstanding the fact that I enjoyed them too--maybe they have something to do with contemporary political attitudes in this country, while we have our own imperium of sorts to protect.

Part of those attitudes is a kind of medievalism; specifically, a return to feudalist notions about blood and one's place in life. Part is nostalgia; a longing for a time and place where things seemed better, even if this time and place never existed.

(Incidentally, I just started reading Sydney Anglo's "The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe," which should oughta be required for every martial artist. It begins by discussing a lot of topics--the moral character of martial artists as a problem; the lousy teaching by various fake, "masters," that caused various European states to start passing laws and licensing studios of arms at least as early as the fifteenth century...and then, chapter 6 covers unarmed combat, apparently widely taught...)

I probably overstated my original case. Still, there seems to be a real longing in some of martial arts to find a dad and master, not a teacher....perfectly understandable (Freud woulda got it), but not necessarily really something that has to do with respect.

Which is why, I suspect, that nobody so far has worried all that much about what to call a woman who's teaching.

Anyway, this is just to say that I agree. Looking for a master is as out of place in modern America (or Canada) as are the political ideals of, say, LOTR...so why's it happening?

Thanks, and a happy New Year to everybody.

[GouRonin]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Anyway, this is just to say that I agree. Looking for a master is as out of place in modern America (or Canada) as are the political ideals of, say, LOTR...so why's it happening?

I have to say that I enjoyed that last post so much that I didn't even have the urge to punch you in the mouth. On top of that I totally agreed with you.

[kenpo_cory]

What's LOTR got to do with anything other than fantasy entertainment? Do we have philosophy majors on here?

[rmcrobertson]

Read the posts, dude.

[RCastillo]

Originally posted by GouRonin
I have to say that I enjoyed that last post so much that I didn't even have the urge to punch you in the mouth. On top of that I totally agreed with you.

Ouch! you missed him, and hit me ! Canadians are our allies!:mad:

I need a cold one for my face!:mad:

[Sigung86]

The Good Doctor fancies himself a Literature Professor with delusions of teaching in California. Gou (pronounced Gao like Ow in owl (the bird, not part of a b-owl, nor confused with bowel), fancies himself to be a barb-witted, quasi-ill-mannered, Clyde-like, Russian Marital, or perhaps, martial, artist.

And me I like them both and watch their shennanigans... I am ...

BORED OF THE RINGS!!

:lol: :lol: :lol:



aka "The Right Reverend Bob"

[Elfan]

The Lord of the Rings has sold 60 million mass market paper back copies and probaby millions more of all the other editios. In addition a movie based on it has, as you pointed out, maid a good bit of money. When something has been read by so many differnt people it tends to start meaning whatever people want it to mean (like the Christian Bible).

I could take the support for Aragorn and right of kings to lead me to belive that politicaly we should suport our leader, George W. Bush, in whatever he does. Or I might look at the theme of power curupting, decide that the US trying to have military power with no possible competetor and decide we should opose George W. Bush's policies. Which one I choose will likely hinge on what I thought of Bush to begin with.

On the racism thing, the german publishing company wanted proof that Tolkien was not Jewish before it would publish The Hobbit. He refused and wrote this to a friend in a letter:


Personally I should be inclined to refuse to give any Bestätigung [German for ‘confirmation’].... and let a German translation go hang.... I do not regard the (probable) absence of all Jewish blood as necessarily honourable; and I have many Jewish friends, and should regret giving any colour to the notion that I subscribed to the wholly pernicious and unscientific race-doctrine.

[rmcrobertson]

Um...did we all read the same book? watch the same movie? the ones in which characters are constantly talking about, "the race of Numenor," and, "the blood that flows in my veins?" to mention only the two most prominent examples?

To go back to the original question--or at least in its direction--what do your claims about Tolkein have to do with terms of respect?

[jazkiljok]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
I'm pretty much with the Gou, here. No way in hell I'm calling anybody, "Master," which is pretty much what, "Mister," means anyway. I suppose if I were high up in the mountains of Tibet, talking to some 214-year-old who was set in their ways....but otherwise, oh, hell no, not unless they've got a shotgun.

Frankly, I'd pretty much avoid training under anybody who wanted to be called, "master." Though I have good friends who are happy enough with it. I'd start giggling and be unable to stop. The terms just aren't appropriate outside their original cultural context and historical mileau.

An even better question: why the hell are Americans, with some very proud democratic traditions, so hell-bent on resurrecting feudalism? I mean, I liked "Star Wars," and "Lord of the Rings," but both are medium racist, clearly pretty patriarchal, and out-and-out royalist. (Please. Spare the arguments. Both emphasize that "blood will tell;" you're born into your place in life, rather than really earning it, though I do find 'Star Wars,' the bigger offender in this regard.)

I guess I got spoiled in college and graduate school. Every single one of my most famous, best known, best educated, most grown-up, most helpful teachers were more or less warm, friendly, polite folks whose only comments on titles were sentences like, "Hi. I'm Ed." Universally, too, the sign of phonyism, stupidity and mean-spiritedness was an insistence on titles--in my experience, putting, "PhD," after your name or insisting upon being called, "Doctor," were really the twin kisses of death. And that's academics, not known for being the most mature and decent of people.

Oh well. I guess I'm just more used to the down-home American brand of BS--you know, use my first name while I sell you a really lousy used car...

which is why i thought Starship Troopers was one of the most radical hollywood sci-fi movies made;)

as to titles -- cool is what it is at the moment it is- come tomorrow may be a soldier etc...

i think gou might be right about you- you're probably the only guy on this forum that's read Robert Musil- good thing you do kenpo .:D

peace.

[Kenpomachine]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Um...did we all read the same book? watch the same movie? the ones in which characters are constantly talking about, "the race of Numenor," and, "the blood that flows in my veins?" to mention only the two most prominent examples?


How's that a character in a book shoulod reflect what the writer think about a certain subject? There's enough number of races in Tolkien's books to support almost any position you want to make it support.

Plus, he defended the humans right to rule their lifes, at least imho. And that sure isn't feudalism.

[GouRonin]

Originally posted by kenpo_cory
What's LOTR got to do with anything other than fantasy entertainment? Do we have philosophy majors on here?

Yes. I have a university degree in it.


Originally posted by Big Bad Mistuh Farmer
Gou (pronounced Gao like Ow in owl (the bird, not part of a b-owl, nor confused with bowel), fancies himself to be a barb-witted, quasi-ill-mannered, Clyde-like, Russian Marital, or perhaps, martial, artist.

I resemble that remark!
:rolleyes:

[Rich Parsons]

I have a minor in Philosophy.

As for the Title(s), I prefer on the mats to be referred to as Mr. Parsons, or simply sir. If a mistake is made no issue is made of it either. Now, I also call students by there last name, as in Mr. Smith please execute technique XYZ.


As for Racism, you can find it anywhere you look. The use of Black Belt could be a negative comment to our friends of African heritage. The term of Yellow Belt and White belt and Red Belt could also be negative. Then again it could be used to say that since Black and degrees of Black is/are the highest ranks then does not that then support the superiority of the color Black.

I could also go on and find an argument with anything anyone said, and find issue with any book written. How about a certain race or tribe being the chosen ones? How about, only those of a certain faith have it correct? How about people who only have the latest trend in clothes are IN the know?

As for an author being a direct representative of his writings, is this also true of actors and the roles they play? If you study a Japanese Martial Art then are you Japanese? The argument falls apart real quick when it is tried to be proven. Now, this does not mean that the author did not have some of these thoughts or beliefs, it just cannot be proven unless there are some writings that address this issue. If the author wrote notes about his beliefs or intentions.

In the comedy "Back To School" Rodney Dangerfield hired the author to write is interpretation for his assignment in college. And the instructor told him his paper was so far from the truth, yet who else but the author would know his work the best. Now this is an example of someone in the movie business picking on academia, yet it holds true on how anyone can read anything into anything.

My Apologies for the non-coherent rambling

Rich
:asian:

[rmcrobertson]

OK, look. To clarify.

First, I couldn't get through, "The Man Without Qualities." Bored me; preferred Thos. Pynchon--MA types may want to read, "Vineland," where not only is the dreaded dim mak employed, not only is one of the lead characters a trained, "ninjette," who reads a magazine called, "Aggro World," but we are treated to a description of the aftereffectes of the ultimate MA technique, the hideous, "gojiru na kimpiru." (Then, I advise the following websites: teleportcity; and you call yourself a scientist?; Stomp Tokyo; Jabootu's B-movie dimension.)

Second: the argument that "black belts can be taken as...," simply isn't even approximately my point. Nor did I call J.R.R. Tolkein--a professor of philology who specialized in Old English and Anglo-Saxon, incidentally (read his, "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics") all of which he ripped off right and left--some kind of racist, anti-semite, or whatever. I said that a) his books clearly had "racist content," if we take the meaning of "racist," to be that one classifies people first and foremost by their race, their blood, their biology, and b) that I suspected the royalist politics of his books was exemplary of the causes for so many in martial arts looking for a master rather than a teacher.

Third: there is in martial arts a strain--most easily visible in the traditional arts, by the way--that I'd have to identify as racist in the sense defined in the preceding paragraph. Draeger argued that the whole division between "internal," and "external" arts really meant, "chinese," and "not-chinese," and went on to discuss the militarist and racist ideology behind much of twentieth-century Japanese arts. (Regrettably I don't read Japanese; I've been told that Funakoshi's autobiography has a lot of racial superiority stuff that was conveniently left out of the English editions; anybody know for sure?) It's pretty damn clear that Morehei Ueshiba has some odd little notions, given that if you read John Stephens' "Abundant Peace," the founder of aikido a) belonged to some really iffy (and that's being polite) Japanese societies, b) had his epiphany while in China during the late twenties, with a group that was trying to seize Manchuria so Japan could move in. There's the ongoing "controversy," in sumo about non-Japanese wrestlers attaining yokozuna status (see David Benjamin's "Sumo: A Fan's Notes," about the best and funniest maartial arts book I've ever seen). And to this day, I hear repeated stories about the difficulty Westerners encounter with regard to attaining rank in "traditional" (i.e. "Asian," whatever that word means) systems. Nor is this one sided: the silly controversy I always used to hear about, when I was a kid and readcing "Argosy," magazines I'd sneak out of my dad's room, pretty clearly argued for boxing as exemplifying a Western, white guy civilization that was superior to an "eastern," non-white-guy world.

Hey, at least nobody got ticked that I also said the whole thing about, "mastery," and "masters," was a guy problem, a man's issue--or that I tied the love of LOTR to the Brits love of what was correctly called, "their imperium."

But just watch the flicks. Is there some moment when an orc--interesting skin color there; and then even the human allies of Mordor are identified by the original books as Saracens--might break out of their biology? That's the essence of racism: to claim that what we are is defined and indeed completely constrained by our biology. Yes, some of the people in LOTR can choose what to be--but that moral choice is specifically reserved, in movie and in book, to fair-skinned characters. And in movie and book, one's moral choice--one's decision for good and evil--is again and again specifically defined as choosing to accept one's destined place in a monarchical universe (see the old Tillyard book, "The Elizabethan Chain of Being"). That's what separates Boromir and Faramir--essentially, the B-man is too damn democratic, and won't accept the fact that his blood means he cannot be King until the moment he dies.

I love this stuff, and it's no worse than Shakespeare. But let's not pretend ideology ain't there.

My next rant will be truly offensive, I promise. I'll take up the subject of male anxiety and looking for a master, linking it to political anxiety and a longing-for a fantasy past.

Thanks, folks. Interesting discussion.

[GouRonin]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
OK, look. To clarify.
(snip)
My next rant will be truly offensive, I promise.

Ok.

I want to punch you in the mouth again.
:rolleyes:

[rmcrobertson]

Sorry about that, chief. And how's about we lay off the, "punch in the mouth," rhetoric? Just say, "I think you're wrong," or, "I think you're completely kidding yourself," or "You have no idea what you're talking about," and here's why, eh? I realize it's just the way you write...but in future, I'll avoid responding, and I suspect you've got some interesting things to say on the topic.

Thanks.

[GouRonin]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Sorry about that, chief. And how's about we lay off the, "punch in the mouth," rhetoric? Just say, "I think you're wrong," or, "I think you're completely kidding yourself," or "You have no idea what you're talking about," and here's why, eh? I realize it's just the way you write...but in future, I'll avoid responding, and I suspect you've got some interesting things to say on the topic.
Thanks.

Eat my shorts.

You're welcome.

[RCastillo]

Originally posted by GouRonin
Ok.

I want to punch you in the mouth again.
:rolleyes:

Make sure you get it right this time, I don't want to 2-0. And if you do. that's 2 beers you owe me!;)

[Seig]

Originally posted by GouRonin
I will never refer to any man or woman as "Master."
Don't make me release that home video of yours.......If you are under 21, don't even ask....:rofl:

[SingingTiger]

Originally posted by GouRonin
I will never refer to any man or woman as "Master."

That's certainly your prerogative, but, with all due respect to Mr. Parker, I'd argue that that position implies that the word "master" has only one definition, when in fact it has many.

Barring any kind of duress, I'll also decline to refer to anyone as "master" if I believe that the person I'm addressing expects me to be some kind of slave (i.e., where the definition of "master" being used is "one having authority over another"). But if I'm studying under someone who prefers to be addressed as master because he or she is "an artist, performer, or player of consummate skill," I'll have no problem using the term.

Personally, I can't imagine that I'd ever want to be called "master." I'm very informal, and I doubt it would ever feel comfortable. But that's my preference, and that doesn't make those who have different preferences wrong.

Rich

[GouRonin]

Originally posted by Seig
Don't make me release that home video of yours.......If you are under 21, don't even ask....:rofl:

I said I was young and needed the money!
:cuss:

[Kirk]

Originally posted by SingingTiger
That's certainly your prerogative, but, with all due respect to Mr. Parker, I'd argue that that position implies that the word "master" has only one definition, when in fact it has many.

Barring any kind of duress, I'll also decline to refer to anyone as "master" if I believe that the person I'm addressing expects me to be some kind of slave (i.e., where the definition of "master" being used is "one having authority over another"). But if I'm studying under someone who prefers to be addressed as master because he or she is "an artist, performer, or player of consummate skill," I'll have no problem using the term.

Personally, I can't imagine that I'd ever want to be called "master." I'm very informal, and I doubt it would ever feel comfortable. But that's my preference, and that doesn't make those who have different preferences wrong.

Rich

Great post!

[rmcrobertson]

Being something and requiring a certain form of address are two different things, just for openers.

I'd still like to hear an argument that makes sense about using the term, "master," in a modern and democratic society, especially given all the patriarchal baggage that goes along with the term. And this isn't even considering all the fake, "masters," out there, who have thouroughly debased both the term and the concept.

We all know that there are some things wrong with contemporary martial arts. One of the things wrong, I'd submit, is all this fuss about being a master...especially given the fact that a fair chunk of the folks using the term are frauds.

And what, exactly, is the hell wrong with calling somebody by their name, thinking of them as your teacher, and addressing them with respect? And not in some fancy language, either. Maybe I've lost my tiny, but laast time I checked, "teacher,' was sujpposed to be aabout the highest title anybody could aspire to...

Again: my consistent experience in college has been that the folks who demand titles are pompous phonies. I believe we should save the fancy terms for occasional, ceremonial occasions.

It's America, guys. We started the country with getting rid of the clowns who demanded titles and all that they imply.

Just arguin'...thanks.

[D_Brady]

Very well put sir, You can buy the title( If I join your orginizeation with all my schools you'l promote to what?) or just give it to your self as so many have , but if your not regarded as a teacher than what do you really have. People keep talking about students leaving them, but how many of you left a teacher who was still teaching you what you were looking for.

[Kirk]

Originally posted by D_Brady
You can buy the title( If I join your organization with all my schools you'll promote to what?)

Brave man! Everyone knows it .. not everyone will say it!:)

[jeffkyle]

Originally posted by D_Brady
People keep talking about students leaving them, but how many of you left a teacher who was still teaching you what you were looking for.

I agree completely! If you are showing them something...why would they leave?

[Brother John]

If you don't know what to call your instructor, ask.
If you can't ask, use respect and follow what others of similar rank do.
Above all, ASK.
Your Brother
John

[SingingTiger]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Being something and requiring a certain form of address are two different things, just for openers.

So what? You have two doctors. One prefers that you call him "Dr. Smith," while the other prefers that you call him "Bob." Neither is wrong, they just have different preferences.


I'd still like to hear an argument that makes sense about using the term, "master," in a modern and democratic society, especially given all the patriarchal baggage that goes along with the term.

I already gave you one, if you choose to ignore it or disagree with it that's up to you. The use of the term does not necessarily have anything to do with whether or not you're living in a modern democratic society, or "patriarchal baggage." It's possible -- and, I'd argue, more often than not likely -- that a martial arts master prefers the title "master" for the same reason that your doctor might prefer the title "doctor." If someone spends a lot of time and hard work reaching a certain level of proficiency in the field he or she has chosen, and prefers that his students/patients/whoever recognize the work by using a specific title when addressing him or her, it's just a personal preference.


And this isn't even considering all the fake, "masters," out there, who have thouroughly debased both the term and the concept.

As well it shouldn't, given the fact that the existence of quacks who don't deserve to use a stethoscope in no way invalidates the legitimate use of the title "doctor."


And what, exactly, is the hell wrong with calling somebody by their name, thinking of them as your teacher, and addressing them with respect?

Nothing. One instructor's preference to be called "master" does not indicate that there is anything wrong with calling another instructor by their name if that is his or her preference. You might notice that the reverse is just as true.


It's America, guys. We started the country with getting rid of the clowns who demanded titles and all that they imply.

Oh please. Aside from the fact that this statement isn't even true -- the last time I saw Bob Kerrey on a Sunday morning talk-show I seem to recall the hosts referring to him as "Senator Kerrey" and not "Bob" -- jingoism is usually a poor excuse for an argument.

Rich

[Kenpomachine]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
but laast time I checked, "teacher,' was sujpposed to be aabout the highest title anybody could aspire to...

Just FYI, teacher translate into spanish as either "profesor" or "maestro". Teachers at secondary school have dropped the second term and now favor the first one....

[Kenpomachine]

Originally posted by SingingTiger
So what? You have two doctors. One prefers that you call him "Dr. Smith," while the other prefers that you call him "Bob." Neither is wrong, they just have different preferences.
..
Rich

That's maybe the reason Brother John says "ASK"
Btw, even if he/she tells me to call him/her master, I'd only call him/her master if I feel they deserve it... and try to find another teacher asap.

[Rainman]

Originally posted by SingingTiger
[B]
Oh please. Aside from the fact that this statement isn't even true -- the last time I saw Bob Kerrey on a Sunday morning talk-show I seem to recall the hosts referring to him as "Senator Kerrey" and not "Bob" -- jingoism is usually a poor excuse for an argument.
[B]

And Mr. President, Vice Pres, Mr. Secretary, Monsignor, Bishop... duh dah duh dah duh dah.


[QUOTE][B]
As well it shouldn't, given the fact that the existence of quacks who don't deserve to use a stethoscope in no way invalidates the legitimate use of the title "doctor."
[QUOTE][B]

:rofl: That was good!

[rmcrobertson]

First off, don't shift the terms. I wrote "requires:" it's different from, "prefers." When I'm teaching English, I tell my students that I'd prefer to be called, "Robert;" if they're uncomfortable with that, the formal address is, "Dr. Robertson." And I explain that part of learning to read/write well involves learning different forms of address for different audiences and situations...but if I were to require "Doctor,' or "professor," well, it'd be jerky of me. And I'm sorry, but it has been my consistent experience since 1977 that only pretentious a-holes insist on titles. Without exception, every since professor I've had or met who deserved the highest respect--and not just in my estimation, either, but in terms of their education, work, and general importance--was a, "Hi. I'm Ed," or, "Hello, I'm Barbara," person.

Your point about "Senator Kerrey," is worth examining, though it's important to remember that it was clowns like Nixon who stuck us with a lot of this, "Hail to the Chief," baggage, and the trappings of the Imperial Presidency. A "Senator," is indeed what he is, a name for a position to which he was elected. It's a formal situation, too, so of course he gets the formal title.

But we know what a Senator is; and even if you think the guy's a joke, the argument's the same as in the military: you salute and respect the uniform and the rank, not the man, if you can't stand the guy. Moreover--and unlike the martial arts in America--there's no argument (no intelligent argument, anyway), about whether or not the title is deserved. You've got the degree or you don't; you've been elected or you haven't. Al Gore isn't called, "president," because he didn't get enough electoral votes; according to American rules democracy, he ain't President.

There is no equivalent of that in martial arts, with some exceptions.

And I still find it revealing that there don't seem to be example of women demanding this "Master," horsepuckey, which would be perfectly appropriate if we were all at Shaolin...five hundred years ago.

And I still say that some of this stuff involves some very anti-democratic longings on the part of Americans. A big chunk of what's wrong--and probably unfixable--in present-day martial arts, too, circles this particular drain. Not just that phony maasters aboundd, but that we want them.

[GouRonin]

To top it all off, you will not find almost anywhere so many out-and-out liars of station, than in the martial arts.

[SingingTiger]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
First off, don't shift the terms. I wrote "requires:" it's different from, "prefers."

If a teacher is requiring something of a student, it is because that something is what the teacher wants (prefers). The only real difference is that the teacher-student relationship is more likely to be severed in one case than the other; that doesn't materially change the fact that, at the core, we're talking about a preference on the part of the teacher.


if I were to require "Doctor,' or "professor," well, it'd be jerky of me.

Not necessarily. That's not to say that you're not a jerk, I really couldn't say. But stating your preference as to how your students should address you -- and making it a requirement for continuing the association, as long as it's voluntary on both sides -- wouldn't make you a jerk.


Your point about "Senator Kerrey," is worth examining, though it's important to remember that it was clowns like Nixon who stuck us with a lot of this, "Hail to the Chief," baggage, and the trappings of the Imperial Presidency.

Nonsense. I believe the president was referred to as "President Whoever," senators were referred to as "Senator Whoever," the Secretary of State was referred to as "Secretary Whoever," etc., long before Nixon came along. If you've got some evidence to indicate that prefixing the person's name with the office started in Nixon's day, I'd like to see it; if you're referring to something else with your comments about the " 'Hail to the Chief' baggage" and "Imperial Presidency," please explain.


A "Senator," is indeed what he is, a name for a position to which he was elected.

I'm sure that you'd also agree that prefixing a judge's name with "Judge," even if the judge was appointed and not elected, would be similarly valid, so the fact that the person was elected really has no bearing. We're still talking about whether or not it's reasonable for someone to prefer (request, require) that they be addressed by a title which they call their own, regardless of whether the title was due to an election, or an appointment, or a doctorate being handed out, or a test administered by some martial arts organization. Getting back to the specific point at hand, I still say that it's perfectly reasonable for a teacher of a martial art to request that he or she be called "master."


Moreover--and unlike the martial arts in America--there's no argument (no intelligent argument, anyway), about whether or not the title is deserved.

"No intelligent argument, anyway." Aren't you the guy arguing against pomposity?

Anyway, you seem to be trying, once again, to make the point that whether or not a title is deserved in some instances has some bearing on whether or not the title is valid in any instance. Again I'd point you to a quack, and ask whether or not his use of the title "Doctor" invalidates your doctor's use of the title.


And I still say that some of this stuff involves some very anti-democratic longings on the part of Americans.

I guess we'll just have to disagree there. I find the idea almost laughable.

[rmcrobertson]

Roughly in reverse order:

First, it is instructive to look at the little trick the ACLU pulls every July 4th...they xerox the Bill of Rights, present it to people on the street as a petition, and guess what? Half the folks going by don't recognize it, and won't sign it. Then there's the old Stanley Milgrim experiments, that everybody reads about in Psych 1...I could multiply examples, but if you honestly think there are no anti-democratic impulses in the Land of the Free, you need to start looking around a bit.

Second, gee. I knew senators were called Senators. I just didn't see why you'd wnt to pick Bob Kerrey as an example, given that he typically comes across as extremely unpretentious...so I figured I'd stick in a Republican. Nixon--you know, Enemies List Dick. He's also the guy who tried to get a White House Honor guard dressed up in unforms out of, "Duck Soup."

Last: I'm still not seeing any discussion of the main points here. But I will bet you a dollar--and I haven't bet on anything since I put five on the Colts aagainst Joe Namath--that if we surveyed every martial arts studio in the US, we would find that an overwhelming majority of obvious fakes, charlatans and manipulating bastards called themselves, "master." Along, of course, with all the guys who come out of traditions, and exemplify lineages, where this makes some sense.

And I still want to know what it is that makes, "master," necessary, or even useful, in day-to-day training here in the New World. I don't wear a suit and tie every day when I teach, I don't wear robes every day I'm in school.

I think this whole "mastery," thing says more about the goals of a lot of folks in the arts than anything else. But I guess that's because I don't believe in mastery, any more...

It is interesting that you should claim, "request," and "require," are the same, in this context.

Thanks; it's an interesting discussion, and I'm certainly thinking about your arguments.

[Michael Billings]

You know something weird gentlemen? I have never, ever, in real life, ever heard someone called "Master" or even requesting or insisting he be called that. I this just a Taekwondo (TakeOne'sDough) thing?

There was a "Master Yi" here in Austin in the mid to late 80's - and he had a TV ad running. I believe he was a Tukong Wu Sul "founder" from Korea. But never having met him, I do not know that this is what he "required". Is it really that prevelant?

I do remember cards from my grandmother being addressed to Master Michael Billings, but this was the diminuative form of Mister (which is derived from Master.)

I figure if someone is demanding that title, if anyone does, must be insecure about deserving it ... . I have had students address me this way and actively discouraged it. I have been introduced as their "Master", and corrected it with others. Jack of all trades, master of none ... that's me. But I believe that you may be entitled to call yourself that due to having "mastered" something, or through perfection of your trade, you may deserve the title. Think of a Master shipwright (builder) or master wood worker. There are master masons (stone workers), not to be confused with 32nd degree Master Masons ... not the same thing at all. Master electricians probably make more money than me ... or not, but I have never heard a master plumber being called Master.

It is not a racial slur unless you are making it one, nonetheless it is not my preferred title. I like "Student of Kenpo" or "Senior Instructor in the Art", but who on earth would want to be called that everytime someone opens their mouth? Not me. I have accepted the honorific of Sifu or Sensei from students who just have to have a label. These are usually high ranking students from other systems switching over ... and I try to break them of the habit gently, and I am like Robert in that my name is good enough for me, 1st or last. I never heard Mr. Parker calling himself a Master, rather he would say "Hi, I'm Ed" or "Ed Parker".

I know there is a cultural issue regarding any man being another's master, then there is the religous interpretation of Christ as being our Master. I will not touch this, as various religions world-wide refer to "Masters", and not just Judeo-Christianity.

But I just can't quite get around being Master Billings. Would you like to be called Master Mac for your honorific, or Master Bob? At least it is a little catchier than just my last name. I don't quite get the strenuous objection to the title of "master", if you don't like it, don't use it. But try to entertain a less ethnocentric perspective and acknowledge that "master" is an honorific in many cultures, and not limited to martial arts. Zen masters, those who have demonstrated or live a life of shibumi, or are masters at chess or go, etc. are introduced as Master So and So.

A Master's in academia does not entitle you to be called master, although you may eventually reach a level of mastery that is evident to all. If you do not tout it in front of others, rather it is acknowledged as a sign of respect for the individual or their accomplishments, it is much more meaningful.

This issue keeps showing up periodically, and I rather be entertained by some of your stories about alleged "Masters", who are maybe fooling themselves as much as pulling the wool over their student's eyes. Got any good ones guys?

Oss,
-Michael

[SingingTiger]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
if you honestly think there are no anti-democratic impulses in the Land of the Free, you need to start looking around a bit.

Your hypothesis seems to be (and I'm quoting here), "some of this stuff involves some very anti-democratic longings on the part of Americans." If you honestly think that my challenging that hypothesis indicates that I believe that there are no anti-democratic impulses in society at large, you need to stop reading things between the lines that simply aren't there. Of course such sentiments exist -- though I don't think your ACLU example exposes them any better than the "master" discussion, since having encountered pollster-types at the grocery store I'd argue that most responses that they would term "negative" have more to do with inconvenience and apathy than with actual "anti-democratic" sentiments.


I just didn't see why you'd wnt to pick Bob Kerrey as an example

More reading between the lines: I picked Kerrey because his was the first name that came to mind. Take Clinton, or any conservative senator, the argument's the same.


Nixon

I'm sorry, none of that gives me any idea why you brought him up in some apparent attempt to argue that the practice of using a title in front of a government official's name started during his presidency.


I'm still not seeing any discussion of the main points here.

Question in original post: "What do you call your teacher?"

Later post by RCastillo: "I address my higher ups by Mr. , and Master, as in Master Tracy when I've visited him."

Response from GouRonin: "I will never refer to any man or woman as "Master."

That's the main point that I was discussing, sorry you missed it.


if we surveyed every martial arts studio in the US, we would find that an overwhelming majority of obvious fakes, charlatans and manipulating bastards called themselves, "master."

I don't agree that the conclusion is foregone, but even if it is, the existence of a quack. . . Oh well, I guess we'll have to disagree on that point as well.


And I still want to know what it is that makes, "master," necessary, or even useful, in day-to-day training here in the New World.

Necessary? I don't think it is, but then I don't think the term "doctor" is necessary, either: as you said, you either are, or you aren't. Useful? I don't know, a show of respect? A handle other than "hey"? A desire to differentiate between student and teacher?

I'm glad I'm on a first-name basis with my instructor. But if he went by "master," well, that would just be his preference.

Rich

[rmcrobertson]

Dear Mr. Tiger:

OK, let me try this one last time. To begin. When you refer to somebody's argument as, "almost laughable," I think it fair to read this as a claim they're wrong. Since you expressed these sentiments in regard to my remark about nostalgia, feudalism and regressive tendencies in American life, I guess I assumed you thought there weren't any. Sorry that I allowed myself to get annoyed by your tone there and elsewhere, but in re-reading I think that was reasonably-well justified.

I am glad to hear that you agree about at least some of the obvious anti-democratic stuff.

I'll skip the politics; however, it is worth noting that with some fairly-ugly exceptions, the Republicans have been the ones into pretensions and titles and the Democrats have been the down-home, folksy crooks....

It may be fair enough to find this a bit far afield; I don't, but what the hell.

More importantly--no, it ain't just a matter of personal preference, and all opinions are equally good. At some point, there's certainly going to be a line you wouldn't cross--"Hello! Mein namen ist Hans! But I vill be your Fuehrer, und you vill address me as such!"--and the "master," bit is where I draw the line.

After all, we already have "Mr." and "Ms." We have "sir," and "ma'am." They're pretty much the same things--so why's "master," so important?

I see that I've not been clear. Let me try again on another point...there's a difference between a title that denotes an earned rank or position where the criteria are clear and the same for everybody--"Sergeant," "Doctor," "Senator," etc.--and titles such as "master," which (to repeat myself) are in the martial arts seldom based on anything like an official titles (Senator), and earned rank in an organized structure (Sergeant) a position won through work in a clear, ordered educational structure (Doctor). When they are, I guess it's no big deal. I still wouldn't, though as it happen I started martial arts with people who simply didn't use such titles, and it's never been an issue.

By the way, I just took another look at my 1st degree BB certificate. Following Mr. Parker's lead, the descriptions of the various ranks that Larry Tatum wrote never identify anybody as a master. There're "instructors," of various kinds and levels, there are "professors," there's an "Associate Master," (8th degree) and a, "Master of Arts," (9th), but there ain't no Master.

I see the problem this way: students coming to martial arts are looking not only for technical mastery, but something else, something indefinable. They're looking for the development of their character, for one thing, I'd say. "Master," denotes not just something about technical knowledge, but also about achievement in maturity--and I guess I'd rather not be around somebody who has to assert this with a title, rather than shutting up and showing it with their actions.

Oh well, what the hell. I actually think Mr. Billings has a pretty good point--the whole thing's kinda theoretical anyhoo, because I just haven't had to deal with these guys.

I think I'll shut up now--with one last note. Everything isn't just a matter of opinion. Sure, everybody's entitled to their opinion, their belief--but this does not make them correct. This is true of all kinds of popular opinions about scientific realities, too...

[Sigung86]

Hi Bob,

just a point here, and I may be off base posting this late in the discussion, however ...

I do think that there are probably more underlying causes for people in the Martial Arts, or anywhere else for that matter, to use titles than simply democratic tendencies vs. non-democratic tendencies.

As our society has aged it has become apparent (at least in my skewed vision of society) that we, for the majority, are more dependent on leaders and authority figures to make our decisions for us. We fully expect the government, the churches, the schools, the police, the doctors, Sears, J.C. Penney, etc. to take responsibility for what we do, and how we think in our lives. We appear (again, in my paradigm) to be giving up our rights to self determination. View the amount of unquestioning support for the patriot act. Further, view the number of people who fully expect the government to take over and drive virtually every portion of our daily lives as a society. View how we are quick to blame the schools and teachers for the shortcomings of our children.

That particular mental state requires that we validate those who make the decisions (for right or wrong) with titles. Titles, really, are the way that we differentiate between the people we don't care about and the people who impress us most or who appear to have the most authority... They are labels and gentle identifiers. We need identifiers, badly. How often when you are meeting people for the first time, do they find out very early on, just exactly what you do for a living? Most people need a tag ...

There is also, probably, much to be said for the mentality of people who come to the Martial Arts. I had a student who left me a number of years ago, because I was not formal enough in my classes. He came, joined the school, then showed up for classes with a shaved head, bowing, scraping, and toadying all over the place. He also wore a jing-mo (white with black frog ties). It was as if he had watched and lived every episode of Kung Fu, and Kung Fu, The Legend continues. When I pulled him into the office, after several classes like that, to talk to him and indicate that this wasn't a 500 year old monastary, he took umbrage at our lack of "discipline" and left. He ended up studying under a "Master" Lee, a 9th degree World Champion, and Grand Master of Tae Kwan Do.

I think that often times, again in the martial arts, but not limited to them, people expect some pomp and ceremony. It is, after all, Eastern or Oriental in origin ... And many people get so hung up on the mysticism and titlature, that it is an integral part of their training.

I always have to laugh when I meet someone new (not in my school) and they eventually find out that I am a Kenpo instructor. There is always the same awe or pseudo-awe, and "fear" and the same silly questions ... Can you break bricks ... Is breaking ice possible .. etc. etc. etc. And this is in the 21st Century, an era of enlightenment. People, tyros if you will, come to the Martial Arts with many preconceived notions and expectations, many of them invalid, otherwise we wouldn't lose students, who haven't become deadly killers in six months. :lol:

I personally don't like those titles, but with damn near 40 years both in and at the arts (for accuracy here), I have come to expect that people need them, at least until they get their feet on the ground. Some people never give them up. There was a "World Champion" 9th degree (same one mentioned above)... My wife and I went to brunch at a restaurant on a Sunday Morning some years back. He showed up at said restaurant with three or four of his senior students. They "made way" for him, pulled his chair out and held it for him, got his breakfast from the buffet, after determining his desires and sat, not eating, until he began.
:rofl:

Scarey, but apparently, necessary to his group of hanger-ons. And I think, after watching this for some years, that they are the rule rather than the exception.

No... There are much deeper seated needs for the title thing than simply a political statement or condition. I agree with you that it is unnecessary, but I don't think we will ever get rid of it... I don't let my students do it, but many do... If people are willfully giving over control in their lives, to any extent, they need, or think they do, the titles, pomp, ceremony, etc. to validate their decisions.

Just some more thoughts, and again, my apologies for chiming in late here.

Take care, and be well.

Dan Farmer

[Kenpomachine]

Originally posted by SingingTiger
But stating your preference as to how your students should address you -- and making it a requirement for continuing the association, as long as it's voluntary on both sides -- wouldn't make you a jerk.

It's not voluntary if it's a requirement, and there's people, like me, who feel really unconfortable when somebody requests being called master. If he says "I'd rather be called Master Doe, but you can call me John" I can then choose how to call him. But nonetheless, if I ask first how he prefers to be addressed is because I don't mind how to address him.

[SingingTiger]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Since you expressed these sentiments in regard to my remark about nostalgia, feudalism and regressive tendencies in American life, I guess I assumed you thought there weren't any.

But I didn't. I made the remark in regard to your comment about using the term "master" pointing to anti-democratic sentiments. That was it. Anything else you wrote in the thread regarding nostalgia, feudalism, etc., was not expressed in that comment, so was not addressed by my response.

The only reason I argue the point now is that, based on the posts you have made on this board that I have read, I think you do a lot of (inaccurate) "reading between the lines." And my choice of the term "laughable" was deliberate, as I believe you used the same term to describe some arguments -- I think mine were included, though you didn't enumerate -- in a different thread.


no, it ain't just a matter of personal preference, and all opinions are equally good. At some point, there's certainly going to be a line you wouldn't cross

The two are not mutually exclusive. In other words, yes, it is a matter of personal preference, and yes, there is a line I wouldn't cross. Your example is a good one. It appears that we would both decline to call someone "fuehrer," so there is no debate; apparently, you would decline to call someone "master," while I would not, and that's the whole point of this friendly debate.


There're "instructors," of various kinds and levels, there are "professors," there's an "Associate Master," (8th degree) and a, "Master of Arts," (9th), but there ain't no Master.

That's an interesting footnote, but not really important to the discussion. It only pertains to one instructor; moreover, the fact that the title "Associate Master" is used but "Master" is not seems somewhat silly to me: in most professional areas, "Associate X" implies the existence of "X," as well it should.


Sure, everybody's entitled to their opinion, their belief--but this does not make them correct.

Unfortunately, my perception is that you believe that anyone who holds an opinion that differs from yours is, de facto, wrong, regardless of the topic, and that because their opinion differs from yours, it's not even reasonable. Maybe my perception is inaccurate, but that's what it is.

I'd say this horse is pretty well dead.

Rich

[SingingTiger]

Originally posted by Kenpomachine
It's not voluntary if it's a requirement.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the requirement was voluntary -- which would be a contradiction in terms -- I meant to imply that the relationship was voluntary, as the teacher-student relationship is: the student can walk away whenever they choose, and the instructor can choose to expel the student.

Rich

[Kenpomachine]

Originally posted by SingingTiger
I meant to imply that the relationship was voluntary, as the teacher-student relationship is: the student can walk away whenever they choose, and the instructor can choose to expel the student.

Rich

BINGO:cool:

[rmcrobertson]

Um...ah...I'm gonna skip most of it. I realize you don't like my interpretations, but to argue that there's no basis for them or that I "overinterpret," is, well, mistaken. And I'd be interested to see where I used the word, "laughable," in another thread, since I try very had to avoid engaging in personal diatribe. if so, perhaps it's my bad...but I might note that interpretation becomes necessary because folks don't say what they mean.

I'm sorry for your "perception," and you're certainly entitled to it. However, the fact that in this country we are entitled to hold, voice, write and teach pretty much anything we want does not make us correct. Lots of folks believe we never landed on the moon: are they right, just because they believe it? Clearly not; that's all I'm sayin'.

As for the argument that the BB certificate remarks don't pertain to this discussion--well, look at the top of the thread. It's classified as a Kenpo thread, right? Well, the founder of kenpo made some pretty strong statements about calling martial arts instructors, "masters,"--he appears to have been agin it, unless I'm wrong, always a possibility--and his descriptions off BB levels don't describe anybody as a master. To repeat, it seems to have been in Mr. Parker's writings that there are instructors, and professors, and associate masters, and masters of arts, but no just plain "masters." One of the few very best contemporary kenpo guys, and teachers, and writers, Larry Tatum, follows that lead. Hm.

I might add that the whole philosophy of American kenpo seems to be simultaneously a deconstruction and a rationalization of traditional martial arts and their concepts of mastery, but that'd be highfalutin intellectoolism, something of which I am never guilty.

There is such a thing as "underinterpretation," however. You might go re-read the posts on this string, in which I mentioned (just to cite a coupla examples) having friends who call some of their teachers, "master," and not seeing anything too wrong with it, or my noting that I might be overarguing, or that I simply didn't have to use the term so I'd gotten used to it...but I suspect there's no point in my mentioning this. Have at it; I quit.

I quite liked Sigung 86's way of discussing this, which I thought was intelligent, tactful, and to the point. And while I suspect that we wouldn't quite use the same terminology, it makes sense to me to think of this as symptomatic of something lacking in everyday American life.

Here's a story from a kind of BS book by, "John Gilbey," that I rather like, titled, "The Way Of A Warrior." Chapter XIII, "The Master of Applied Cowardice," paraphrases a great story by Bertold Brecht this way: "A town is conquered by vandals and the high priest's home is taken over by their commander. He brusquely tells the priest--'You will clean my house, prepare my food, and cater to my every wish. You will be my slave. Do you consent?' Without answering, the priest sets about scrubbing the floor and doing other menial jobs. He serves the commander for ten years, at the end of which time the commander dies and his army is overthrown. The priest buries him, then spits on the grave and answers, 'No.'"

Good for him, and I'll leave it at that for the time being.

[SingingTiger]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
I realize you don't like my interpretations, but to argue that there's no basis for them or that I "overinterpret," is, well, mistaken.

That may be, I don't suppose there's any way of proving the point. I've thought on more than one occasion after reading a post of yours that you were assuming motives and arguments about someone else that weren't evident in the post to which you were replying. But maybe I'm just guilty of over-interpretation myself.


I'd be interested to see where I used the word, "laughable," in another thread, since I try very had to avoid engaging in personal diatribe.

This thread (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4484). You're about 3/4 of the way down.


the fact that in this country we are entitled to hold, voice, write and teach pretty much anything we want does not make us correct.

I wholeheartedly agree, and I'm sure we agree on many other things as well. I'll simply leave it at the fact that I think my definition of "matters of opinion" is much broader than yours (feel free to tell me I'm wrong).

Rich

[rmcrobertson]

Fair enough about the, "laughable," though I might note that it would be simpler just to say, "I'm hacked off at you because...."

Still, not everything is a matter of opinion, you know.

It isn't a matter of opinion, for example, that I used the i-word...

[Old Warrior]

I don't get the problem with using a title someone has earned. I am 54, have a number of college degrees and professional licenses and earn a respectable living. I spend my days calling people "Your Honor" who have very little and know even less.

If a legitimate 7th degree black belt who has earned the title "Master" in his art wants the appellation - give it to him. My Kumdo instructor earned the title, has spent his entire life training and earns a very modest living from his small school. He works hard, runs a great class, is sincere and truly wants you to learn and enjoy the training. The bow and the title are all part of the tradition and it doesn't diminish me at all. Lastly, if it makes him feel respected for his 30 years of devoted training - I think he's earned it.

[SingingTiger]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Fair enough about the, "laughable," though I might note that it would be simpler just to say, "I'm hacked off at you because...."

Where's the fun in that? I read this board for, a) education, and b) entertainment. A thread like this isn't likely to be all that educational (at least not like the threads in the technical forum), but it can certainly be entertaining. Seems to me that using a derisive term in regard to someone's opinion when (and only when) that person has used the term on someone else's opinion qualifies as entertainment, but I suppose our opinions might differ there (and I won't be surprised if you tell me that "what's entertaining" isn't really a matter of opinion).


It isn't a matter of opinion, for example, that I used the i-word...

What?

Rich

[jazkiljok]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

As for the argument that the BB certificate remarks don't pertain to this discussion--well, look at the top of the thread. It's classified as a Kenpo thread, right? Well, the founder of kenpo made some pretty strong statements about calling martial arts instructors, "masters,"--he appears to have been agin it, unless I'm wrong, always a possibility--and his descriptions off BB levels don't describe anybody as a master. To repeat, it seems to have been in Mr. Parker's writings that there are instructors, and professors, and associate masters, and masters of arts, but no just plain "masters." One of the few very best contemporary kenpo guys, and teachers, and writers, Larry Tatum, follows that lead. Hm.




http://www.ltatum.com/
:confused:

[ProfessorKenpo]

Larry uses the term Master Tatum on his website to promote himself and association, but that's as far as it goes. When we walk into our studio Larry is there to greet us, and most of us say "Hey Larry, what's up". He is one of the few of that rank and stature who are entitled to a little more pomp and circumstance, but he prefers to just be Larry. This is something else that has kept me at his side for the last decade or so, along with his excellent skills as a Kenpoist. I don't ever think I've seen him get excited over being called Master Tatum when he has a name that he prefers to use.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

[RCastillo]

Originally posted by ProfessorKenpo
Larry uses the term Master Tatum on his website to promote himself and association, but that's as far as it goes. When we walk into our studio Larry is there to greet us, and most of us say "Hey Larry, what's up". He is one of the few of that rank and stature who are entitled to a little more pomp and circumstance, but he prefers to just be Larry. This is something else that has kept me at his side for the last decade or so, along with his excellent skills as a Kenpoist. I don't ever think I've seen him get excited over being called Master Tatum when he has a name that he prefers to use.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

I like that, uses the title professionally, but is down to earth.:asian:

[Hollywood1340]

And you're just Clyde......sir.
Saw video of you from one of Mr. Tatums camp, you've got a wicked Dance of Death. Verily wesome. Enjoy the nice weather. If it keeps up like this the ice caps will melt and most of Cali will be underwater. And MT will be within a resonable distance to a beach, finally. But it's gonna be a hell of a fire season this year. And on a topic note, my instructor is Master, but Mister is fine. Most of us just call him Sir, and "Hey Todd" calls for a beating. Simple respect in our eyes, like you'd call your teacher in school Mr/Ms/Mrs. Here I am with John. Grandmaster Pelligrini to me :)
Cheers

[cali_tkdbruin]

Originally posted by Old Warrior
I don't get the problem with using a title someone has earned. I am 54, have a number of college degrees and professional licenses and earn a respectable living. I spend my days calling people "Your Honor" who have very little and know even less.

If a legitimate 7th degree black belt who has earned the title "Master" in his art wants the appellation - give it to him. My Kumdo instructor earned the title, has spent his entire life training and earns a very modest living from his small school. He works hard, runs a great class, is sincere and truly wants you to learn and enjoy the training. The bow and the title are all part of the tradition and it doesn't diminish me at all. Lastly, if it makes him feel respected for his 30 years of devoted training - I think he's earned it.

Well said sir, you hit it right on the...:asian:

[rmcrobertson]

I was absolutely with you right up to the very last line...then, I part company. It seems to me that a real "master," whatever the hell that means, wouldn't need a title to feel respected.

[Old Warrior]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
I was absolutely with you right up to the very last line...then, I part company. It seems to me that a real "master," whatever the hell that means, wouldn't need a title to feel respected.

Why not? Why am I entitled to the benefit of a person's life devotion for the mere pittance of my dojang fees. The Master has no social standing (outside the school), no money, his family just gets by, and yet he takes the time to teach me.

I once showed up on a snowy day and I was the only one there. I asked if I should wait to see if anyone would come, thinking he would cancel class if no one showed. He looked at me like I was crazy and told me to change. He gave me a private lesson that was terrific. I'll never be any good. I'm just an old guy with a sincere interest. In his world, he's famous. In my world, the only real return he gets is the respect I give him. Whether he needs my respect or not, isn't the point. He's earned it and it would diminish me, not to give it.

[Kirk]

My ex TKD instructor, Master Choe, said that in Korea, "Master" is
a term widely used in TKD. For their culture, it doesn't have the
negative conotation that our country's past has given to the
term. It's no different than "Teacher" to them.

Their insistance on using the term isn't as egocentric as it seems
to Americans.

[rmcrobertson]

Um...I think you didn't read my post, or the post to which I was responding.

I agreed with everything, right up to the point at which it was claimed that somebody truly adept needed a title to feel respected. I'm probably being excessively nit-picky, but it does seem to me that there's a difference between what we as students are comfortable with, and what an instructor might need.

I take the points about, "master," just signiofying a technical competence--but in English, in Western culture, the word simply has inescapable connotations--in this culture, for example, its flip side is, "slave."

Another of its connotations has to do with wisdom--so I repeat, why would somebody really wise need to be called, "master?" Doesn't wisdom suggest being a little more grown up that that?

Thans: nice story, incidentally.

[SingingTiger]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Um...I think you didn't read my post, or the post to which I was responding.

I realize this wasn't directed to me, so I hesitate to respond lest you think I'm just trying to continue an argument with you. But since I've thought about mentioning this before, this seems like a good place: using the "quote" feature of this bulletin board software makes it clear what you're responding to, and minimizes the need to scroll back and forth. I know I'd find it helpful in your lengthier posts. That's my opinion, anyway, take it for what it's worth. (Personally, I try to edit the quotes to save space, especially now that they're so much larger than they were before the Big Crash. But again, that's just my preference.)


I take the points about, "master," just signiofying a technical competence--but in English, in Western culture, the word simply has inescapable connotations--in this culture, for example, its flip side is, "slave."

I'd argue that the connotations are only inescapable if you ignore context. If someone mentioned the term out of context, the master/slave relationship might be the first one to come to mind; I really couldn't say now, having been involved in this discussion. But given the context of a martial arts school, that's not the first connotation that comes to mind. But that's just me.

By the way, I was sincere in wanting to know what you were referring to with the term "i-word." Your prerogative whether you'd like to explain or not, I just thought I'd make it clear that I didn't intend my one-word question to imply I wasn't really interested.

Rich

[rmcrobertson]

I actually meant to write, "l-word," but that's what happens when you hurl a cuppa coffee onto your keyboard. I now have a new keyboard.

As for the bit about context over-ruling connotation, nope, sorry. Words do not simply mean whatever we wish them to mean--whether we like it or not, they drag along all the meanings they've acquired in history.

I'm stealing the point from Walter Benjamin, "The Task of the Translator." He argues that translation is in fact an impossibility for just this reason: when we "translate," a word, we're stripping off everything that gives it its full meaning, and settling for an approximation.

So, for example, when we translate words like, "sensei," or whatever, we're losing the cultural context that gave them their meaning. A word like, "master" then ends up with some unpleasant connotations, no matter how well some individual uses it. Or-as others have pointed out on this string--it acquires something more than the relatively-narrow meaning of, "one who is proficient at a certain technique," with which it began.

I still don't get why anybody even WANTS to be called, "master." I find it repugnant, and I suspect that the older I get, the more revolting I'd find it.

Hey, think that one causes argument...about a third of the time I can't even recollect that Mr. Tatum calls his school a "studio," (a place for studying/producing the art), not a "dojo," (a place for studying the way).

Thank you.

[Jill666]

I like "dojo" for it's connotations- also everyone else knows where I'm going if I off to the dojo. But if I say club, school or studio, confusion results.

I do call my instructor Shihan, or sir on occasion, and have no problem with that, but you're so right, I would never call that man "master"! Which is precisely what I am doing. Hmmm.

Connotations are stronger than context. Some words produce a visceral response, plain and simple.

[Old Warrior]

I concede the political correctness point. From the perspective of an African American I accept that that the word is repugnant.

Nevertheless, in the context of the discussion, there can be no mistake that the word is being used to connote a title, conferred by study and exam, in Korean culture. Actually the 7th Dan rank gives the title "Grand Master" but that too could be seen as suggesting an abhorent picture.

In life, I make it a habit to ask new acquaintenances "how do you like to be addressed?" It never crossed my mind to think of the word in the context of 1860 history. It's 2003 and I'm really enjoying the study of Kumdo.

[rmcrobertson]

Ya know, I never even thought of African-Americans and the issue of American slavery, let alone, "political correctness." I guess that pretty much proves my point about words having inescapable meanings....

I absolutely disagree that it's a matter of being stuck in the 1860s. It's a matter of recognizing the texture of the present, its richness, its depth.

And I still haven't seen an answer concerning the question about just why it is that a grown person would even WANT to be called, "master," on a regular basis. Especially in 2003...but I guess here, we agree on wanting to live in the present.

More to the point, here's a question: what do people actually think when they encounter somebody who's calling themselves, "master?" I have to say that I haven't met anybody yet, personally, who wants it...to repeat the Clyde, everybody I know who uses it at all, drags it out on formal/ceremonial/professional occasions (and even then, not always)...so I just have no experience with it. Nor do I want any--unless they're over 147 years old...

[rmcrobertson]

I forgot. Here's an idea. Maybe the whole idea of, "master," was fine in its time, fine among the elderly and senior, perhaps even still fine in certain identifiable instances--but generally speaking, it's an idea who time is past.

I still argue that in this country, it's an title that's done a hell of a lot more haarm than good, but I dunno.

[Hollywood1340]

I simply recognize it as his rank, not his position. Race doesn't enter it to it, and never should.

[SingingTiger]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
As for the bit about context over-ruling connotation, nope, sorry. Words do not simply mean whatever we wish them to mean--whether we like it or not, they drag along all the meanings they've acquired in history.

Of course they don't just "mean whatever we wish them to mean." I'm not going to use the word "happy" when I mean "sad" because that's not one of the generally agreed-upon meanings of the word.

Let's say you're talking with a 90-year-old woman, and you mention her granddaughter. She smiles and says, "oh yes, she's always so happy and gay." In the past few decades (maybe more, I'm not sure), the term "gay" has developed a meaning of "homosexual," and that meaning has negative connotations as far as some people are concerned; at the very least, it often evokes a sense of controversy. Would you tell her that it's inappropriate to use the word because, when used with the other meaning, it has controversial connotations? I know I wouldn't. If I thought about the term at all as a term that refers to homosexuality (and I probably would, since that's the meaning it most often carries these days), I would immediately recognize that that's the not the meaning in use, and, in the current context, understand immediately what the woman meant. The issue of "master" is even easier, because the "expert" meaning is still in common use -- as evidenced on your own black belt certificate, where it's used in terms like "associate master" and "master of arts."

You're not really arguing that words with multiple meanings, one or more of which carries negative connotations, should never be used with their other meanings any more, are you? Seems to me to be a good way to kill the language, or at least make it awfully boring.

I'm surprised that you hadn't considered African-Americans and the issue of American slavery in this discussion. If you recognized that the master/slave relationship would be a connotation of the word, what were you thinking of? (Serious question, I'm curious.)

Rich

[Hollywood1340]

As an African American, that's the farthest thing in my mind when I train. There should be no race, sex, religion, or nationaltiy on a martial arts mat. If there is, they don't deserve to share the mat with you. I train with martial artists. As a human being I'm every bit there equal regarless of rank. So what they call themselves is pointless.

[rmcrobertson]

First off, I didn't directly bring up the issue of race. Or indirectly; somebody else did, and I took it as fair comment (not something directed against me, just comment) and a testimony to the fact that words cannot be dissected out of their cultural and historical contexts to be used as we please.

I find it a bit odd that this is coming up in this fashion, and I don't quite get it. Nonetheless, I think I've been explicit about what I mean. But still, another shot at it.

a) This is America. We don't have "masters," not anymore. What we do have, it would seem, is a nostalgia for a past that never really was. As several posters mentioned, "mastery," was originally a much lower-level term. For its present status, I blame David Carradine.

b) Anybody out there associate the term, "master," even remotely, with women? I think it extremely unlikely. What this argues is that the whole idea of, "mastery," as presently constructed in the martial arts community, is a patriarchal one. That means that, "father," is a big part of what's being said when it's used, and it excludes women.

c) Assuming that one is not 147 years old, and does not come from a very traditional background, why in the world would you want to be addressed as, "master," on a regular basis? At rubber chicken dinners, sure--nobody pays any attention to that stuff anyway--but day to day? I would find it embarassing in the extreme--not that it's ever going to be an issue, given my plodding progress in the martial arts and lack of interest in opening a school.

d) Anybody out there ever run into a phony who used the title? had to deal with something worse? read the back pages of "Black Belt," and feel a vague sense of disquiet about all the "masters," we seem to have in this country? I'd argue it's simply one of many terms that's become hopelessly debased. It should be taken out of mothballs and worn only on special occasions...like a tuxedo.

e) I insist upon my experience: every single person I've ever met who had a legitimate claim to mastery, whatever the hell that means, would've looked at me like I was insane if I'd used the term. Its use reminds me of the time I went to see Seung Sahn (I think that's the proper spelling) talk about Zen, back in Providence: every bonehead on the East Coast was there, leaving the articles out of their sentences and trying to sound like a bad translation of a koan. ("O Master!" they'd say, while supposedly asking questions. "Sky very blue! We here below! {questioner hits floor with flat of hand} What is life??") He proceeded to lecture on the tastiness of airport hamburgers, reminding me that humor is a big chunk of Zen. Oh, I did see one Buddhist "master," lecture a couple of times--Trungpa Rinpoche--now there was a guy who liked his titles. Read up on him; what a creep.

f) I think the usage has a corrupting effect, which is why I oppose it strongly. It helps us fetishize...

g) I doubt the word's gonna kill anybody. I also think that lots of charlaatans (as I've said) simply adopt a donw-home, folksy approach to screwing perople over. But in part, I think the concept's simply worth exploring; in part, I'm trying to figure out my own ideas on the subject. So, thanks.

Well, that's all too clear, I trust. I'm going to leave this as a summary and shut up, more or less. Them's my points. Sorry for the repetition.

[SingingTiger]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
He argues that translation is in fact an impossibility for just this reason: when we "translate," a word, we're stripping off everything that gives it its full meaning, and settling for an approximation.

I thought about this a lot before falling asleep last night. Seems to me a good argument against "stripping off" context when determining a speaker's meaning, regardless of whether or not one or more meanings for a word carry negative connotations.


I insist upon my experience

That's fine, but hopefully you realize that "anecdotal evidence" isn't really evidence at all. Just based on the posts in this thread, it's clear that there are others who have had experiences contrary to yours.


whatever the hell that means

Second time you've put it that way. But presumably, in the systems (unlike EPAK) that use the term, it has a specific meaning. A kung fu student could just as easily look at someone with a blue belt at your school and say, "she's a blue belt -- whatever the hell that means."

I still find it amusing that it's okay to use the term "associate master" (whatever the hell that means) but not to use the term "master."

Rich

[rmcrobertson]

Why, no. It never occurred to me that others might have different experiences...you mean, that individual experience is no authority?
Seriously, of course that's true.

Next: anybody wanna try defining what they think, "mastery," is? It strikes me that there are a few basic approaches:

a) define the term simply as a function of time-in-grade; you study for a long time, you're a "master." How long? I dunno. It depends.

b) define the term through explaining the rules of a particular style, tradition, etc.

c) define the term as a measure of both technical and "spiritual," achievement. Here, the trick would be to explain clearly what technical measures, and what spiritual achievement, you meant.

d) define the term as a ceremonial bit of verbal dress-up

e) define the term satirically, in the fashion of Bierce's, "Devil's Dictionaary;" i.e. "Master. Adjective employed to help strip Americans of their cash and free will. See also: Humbuggery (No, Gou, it doesn't mean what it looks like it means) in the martial arts, chi masters, McDojos, levitation, fire-walking, chi kung, Paul Mitchell Demonstration Teams, Count Dante. (Just kidding guys. take a breath...hold it...there. That's better.) I might add that I write this in California, of which Robert W. Smith once wrote: "California is to martial arts as garlic is to vampires."

f) define the term by offering examples of those considered to be masters, with clear illustrations of why.

g) define the term as a phenomenon necessitated by economic/cultural pressures.

h) define the term as being necessitated by psychological pressures: i.e. the desires of students looking for ways to shore up their egos (nothing necessarily wrong with this, by the way), a side-effect of what Freud called, "transference-love."

i) define the term as resulting from sexism, as yet another way to turn the dojo into a boy's own treehouse, with "Girlz Keep Out," written on the door with the, 's' put on backwards.

Certainly, there are other approaches to definition that I haven't thought of. Certainly, too, my sketches of approaches have some definitions built into them. OK. So what are your clearer definitions?

Thanks, in advance.

[Kenpomachine]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Ya know, I never even thought of African-Americans and the issue of American slavery,

A question out of curiosity here. When you refer to African Americans, does it only apply to negroes and moroccans and the like, or only to negroes?

[rmcrobertson]

The term's pretty specific. I believe it refers to American citizens who trace their "origins," back to the indigenous peoples of the African continent. It is, therefore, a cultural/historical/ethnic term. And it implies a deliberate choice of one's own past, or a sort of social choice aabout how to describe people on aa form. It is not, in my mind, a biological description, except in fantasy--since we all "originally," evolved in Africa.

If it helps, I'm taking some of this definition in bits and pieces from Henry Louis Gates' anthology, "Black Literature and Literary Theory," particularly his opening essay, "Criticism in the Jungle." I'd also point to Sollers, "The Invention of Ethnicity," as well as some earlier writing.

It's an interesting topic; I'm just not quite sure how to wedge it into a discussion of kenpo...whoops, wait, through discussing the BKF? But that's another string thingy...

[Old Warrior]

This is my final foray into this discussion. I agree with Hollywood there is no place for “race” in the martial arts.

The study of martial arts is, for the most part, an anachronism. The proliferation of deadly weapons, even in the hands of children, makes training for unarmed combat or the study of swordplay somewhat irrelevant. Part of the allure of the pursuit is the immersion in an ancient art and culture where the knowledge of martial arts was highly valued and the experts, perhaps, even revered.

When I put on my Kumdo uniform, it takes me to place in time, where the teachers were, in fact, called “masters" and their knowledge highly regarded. Part of the attraction is becoming part of the culture and adopting its customs and terminology is part of the package. In 2003 America “bowing” is considered offensive as it is a custom that is not performed even when greeting the President, who is the most powerful person in the world. We still have master sergeants in the army and master craftsmen in the arts and unions. If you don’t want to go along with calling the professor/teacher/instructor “master” – find another school that suits your sensitivity. You can’t please everyone.

[rmcrobertson]

I have to note that the idea of being teleported back in time is, in part, my point...though I'd add that in many cases, one is teleporting back to a "past," that never was. Those good times were filled with wars, violence, racial/ethnic/class/gender discrimination...just to mention the obvious. To me, it's just like folks who want to go back to the good ol' days in schools---you know, back when schools were segregated, and everybody had to pray first thing in the morning, which is exactly how it was when I was a kid.

I realize I'm being picky, but it's part of my post-fu...this ain't, "sensitivity," but knowledge and awareness.

Anyway, thanks for a discussion that has helped me to figure out my own thoughts on the matter.

[SingingTiger]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
anybody wanna try defining what they think, "mastery," is?

Great question.

Being a lowly blue belt -- and just barely, at that -- I'd be hard pressed to define what a first-degree black belt is, at my school or any other, with any degree of accuracy. I have no idea how to define the term "master" (which, as far as I know, isn't used at my school). But I suspect that for any school/organization for which the term has meaning, the approach used must be roughly along the lines of your example c), a measure of both technical and "spiritual," achievement. Possibly without even including the "spiritual" aspect (which, I agree, makes the definition tricky).

Just out of curiousity, do you (or anyone else) know what the definition of "associate master" (or any other high-level ranking) is within an EPAK organization?

Rich

[rmcrobertson]

Here's the quote from Larry Tatum's BB certificates, updated following Mr. Parker's original ideas. NB: I contributed a phrasing or two to these, though I don't recollect which, so anything you don't like is mine.

"At eighth degree (associate master), the black belt's concerns shift to areas of physical mastership that were not visible to him in the past. His art eventually begins to expand physically and mentally, so much so that a definite physical change becomes evident, expressing the fact that he has begun to settle into a physical mastery. Thus, movements become less contrived because they are in the process of becoming embodied within him."

Interestingly, eighth is pretty physical where seventh and ninth are more psychological/spiritual/social/cultural; the BB descriptions alternate that way from first to ninth...

Here's the one for tenth--in which none of the phrasing is mine at all.

"Tenth degree represents a lifelong endeavor to help all humankind. The person's rank is so respected by peers and students that the person's work affects the course of the art."

Hm; thanks for asking.

[SingingTiger]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
so anything you don't like is mine.

I'm used to that.

Just kidding, I've really enjoyed this thread.

The descriptions are interesting. If 8th focuses on physical and uses the phrase "physical mastery," and 9th focuses on the spiritual/etc. side, then it seems to me reasonable that the vague and all-encompassing nature of the description for 10th makes a good definition (in the context of the preceding levels) for "mastery." There are certainly other possible labels -- you mentioned "master of arts" earlier, though I don't know if that's for 9th or 10th, or one of the levels below "associate master" -- but "master" seems reasonable.

Anyway, thanks for making me think in this thread.

Rich

[Kenpomachine]

It's an interesting topic; I'm just not quite sure how to wedge it into a discussion of kenpo...whoops, wait, through discussing the BKF? But that's another string thingy...

I have started a new thread to continue the discussion on this topic in the locker room...