Where can we find the American Kenpo Principles?

[Goldendragon7]

Are they printed anywhere?

:asian:

 

[arnisador]

I'd like to know! See this thread.

 

[Brother John]

Originally posted by Goldendragon7
Are they printed anywhere?

:asian:

is this a trick question???:erg:

Your Bro.
John

 

[Goldendragon7]

Orig. posted by Brother John
Is this a trick question???:erg: Your Bro. John

Could be I guess So answer if you know.

:asian:

 

[Elfan]

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

 

[Brother John]

Originally posted by Goldendragon7
Could be I guess So answer if you know.

:asian:

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

Your Brother
John

 

[Dominic Jones]

Originally posted by Goldendragon7

Where can we find the American Kenpo Principles?

It depends as always!

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

Some Kenpo principles have been written down in:

Originally posted by Brother Jonh

The Encyclopedia, the 5 infinite insights books and belt manuals.

And various other magazines, books etc.


Cheers Dom

 

[Brother John]

Originally posted by Dominic Jones
It depends as always!

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

Some Kenpo principles have been written down in:



And various other magazines, books etc.


Cheers Dom

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

 

[Goldendragon7]

Orig. posted by Brother John
I thought that it was a question on finding them 'printed'.Your Bro John

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

D

:asian:

 

[Seig]

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

D

:asian:

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

 

[Kenpobuff]

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

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

 

[Doc]

Are they printed anywhere?

:asian:

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

 

[Seig]

Sorry, I must disagree with you:

Main Entry: prin·ci·ple
Pronunciation: 'prin(t)-s(&-)p&l, -s&-b&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, modification of Middle French principe, from Latin principium beginning, from princip-, princeps initiator -- more at [size=-1]PRINCE[/size]
1 a : a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption b (1) : a rule or code of conduct (2) : habitual devotion to right principles <a man of principle> c : the laws or facts of nature underlying the working of an artificial device
2 : a primary source : [size=-1]ORIGIN[/size]
3 a : an underlying faculty or endowment <such principles of human nature as greed and curiosity> b : an ingredient (as a chemical) that exhibits or imparts a characteristic quality

Concept
Main Entry: con·cept
Pronunciation: 'kän-"sept
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin conceptum, neuter of conceptus, past participle of concipere to conceive -- more at [size=-1]CONCEIVE[/size]
1 : something conceived in the mind : [size=-1]THOUGHT[/size], [size=-1]NOTION[/size]
2 : an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances

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

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

 

[Doc]

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

Concept
Main Entry: con·cept
Pronunciation: 'kän-"sept
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin conceptum, neuter of conceptus, past participle of concipere to conceive -- more at [size=-1]CONCEIVE[/size]
1 : something conceived in the mind : [size=-1]THOUGHT[/size], [size=-1]NOTION[/size]
2 : an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances

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

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

On this we can agree.

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

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

The test is:

"Is it used outside of motion kenpo?"

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

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

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

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

 

[kenpoworks]

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

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

 

[rmcrobertson]

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

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

 

[Doc]

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

Concept
Main Entry: con·cept
Pronunciation: 'kän-"sept
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin conceptum, neuter of conceptus, past participle of concipere to conceive -- more at [size=-1]CONCEIVE[/size]
1 : something conceived in the mind : [size=-1]THOUGHT[/size], [size=-1]NOTION[/size]
2 : an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances

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

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

On this we can agree.

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

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

The test is:

"Is it used outside of motion kenpo?"

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

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

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

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

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

 

[rmcrobertson]

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

 

[Doc]

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

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

 

[Seig]

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

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

and in fact Parker labeled them as such,

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, it is a component of inertia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We do not ALL use this concept.

Matters of choice do not validate or invalidate truth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

re-read the dictionary definitions.

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

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

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

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

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

The test is:

"Is it used outside of motion kenpo?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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