Teaching

[Yari]

How would you ensure that your pupils teach their pupils your teaching? Or how do you ensure that knowledge isn't lost?

Would it be by kata, or a specifik curriculum? Writing it all down?

/Yari

 

[Mike Clarke]

Hi Yari,
I'm not sure you can ensure that every generation of teachers will teach 'exactly' the same things 'exactly' the same way?

I'm not even sure you should want them to? As I see it, each generation will naturaly build things into the knowledge base they have recieved. I'm sure you have, and I know I have, and the two students of mine who teach in their own dojo's do so in their own unique way.
After all, my students are not me, and I'm not my teacher, so why should my karate be exactly the same as his?

For me the important thing is that my students understand the importance of the principles of our system. If they do, then the way they interprit those principles will always differ a little from my way.

We are not clones, therefore we can not be expected to have complete uniformity in every aspect of our martial art.

All this is just my opinion of course.

Mike.

 

[Yari]

Originally posted by Mike Clarke
Hi Yari,
I'm not sure you can ensure that every generation of teachers will teach 'exactly' the same things 'exactly' the same way?
.....
For me the important thing is that my students understand the importance of the principles of our system. If they do, then the way they interprit those principles will always differ a little from my way.
Mike.

This is what I find interessting. You state that we can't teach exactly the same way, but a little later you write that as long as the principles are en place it "doesn't matter". But by stating the first, your saying that there's no-way that the priciples are going to be exactly the same. What is it then their learning?

I've been triggered by the differances between traditionalist and 'modern' MA. Can a person really teach somebody something useful, and how do you ensure that the next generation has understod it, so that they teach it correctly?

Or in your case, how do you ensure that the right principles are taught and learned?

/Yari

 

[KennethKu]

Standardized curriculum. Certify instructors to teach. Not that you can control them. But that is the best you can do. Unless you want to run your organization as a military organization.

 

[yilisifu]

Yilichuan has it's own association to which all instructors must belong and it licenses all instructors. Instructors must be certified and I stay in touch with them on a very regular basis.

 

[fissure]

As KennethKu states:

Standardized curriculum. Certify instructors to teach.

I think this is the way to go.
Any "flavor" that individual instructors offer should be in addition to this standard curriculum, not in place of.

 

[cali_tkdbruin]

Originally posted by KennethKu
Standardized curriculum. Certify instructors to teach. Not that you can control them. But that is the best you can do. Unless you want to run your organization as a military organization.

Military organization, isn't that one of the staples of the martial arts?

 

[Blindside]

Military organization, isn't that one of the staples of the martial arts?

No.

Military organization is just one method, and the one that is probably most effective on a large scale. However, arts that were taught in smaller groups (example: Phillipine tribes) do not necessarily have a history of such organizational structures.

Lamont

 

[bart]

Hey There,

One thing my WC sifu told me that I take to heart is that you have to "take the art and make it your own". When you do that, it will forever be different than what your teacher taught you. You take the priniciples and truths of the art and teach them again to the next group. But when they make it theirs, the art will again be transmitted in a different way when they teach. This is the way that arts evolve and that the study of the martial arts grows and gains depth over time. Innovation is born out of study and creativity. None of those can exist in a rigid system.

Admittedly, some things will be lost. Some people will emphasize one thing over another. But overall, the arts will gain as the knowledge and depth will increase. I'm a traditional MAist and this sounds pretty progressive. But I believe it to be the truth.

 

[cali_tkdbruin]

Originally posted by Blindside
No.

Military organization is just one method, and the one that is probably most effective on a large scale. However, arts that were taught in smaller groups (example: Phillipine tribes) do not necessarily have a history of such organizational structures.

Lamont

Umm, YES.

Beg to differ, but, one of the MAIN influences furthering the Martial Arts was the aspect of military training involved in the arts...:asian:

 

[Blindside]

Ummm, NO.

Oh, I agree that training for military applications drove most of todays martial arts. But that is not what the question was about, it dealt with military ORGANIZATION as a means of system transmission, which is totally different. The Shaolin temple was not organized that way, nor was the family structure that Chinese kung-fu moved to. The organizational patterns of Phillipine or Indian tribes were different as well.

So when you stated: "Military organization, isn't that one of the staples of the martial arts?" I answered No. Military organization (implied to be highly regimented by the original poster) is not necessary for the correct transmission of martial technique.

Salute,

Lamont

 

[fringe_dweller]

Originally posted by Yari
This is what I find interessting. You state that we can't teach exactly the same way, but a little later you write that as long as the principles are en place it "doesn't matter". But by stating the first, your saying that there's no-way that the priciples are going to be exactly the same. What is it then their learning?

I think what Mike is talking about is teaching the principles vs the specific techniques. Principles can be handed down and then adapted into the techniques which work for different people. Handing down techniques however is a sure fire way to get people to do what works for you - not them.

2c from a know all 5th gup!

Respectfully,

 

[KennethKu]

Originally posted by bart
One thing my WC sifu told me that I take to heart is that you have to "take the art and make it your own". When you do that, it will forever be different than what your teacher taught you. You take the priniciples and truths of the art and teach them again to the next group. But when they make it theirs, the art will again be transmitted in a different way when they teach. This is the way that arts evolve and that the study of the martial arts grows and gains depth over time. Innovation is born out of study and creativity. None of those can exist in a rigid system.

Admittedly, some things will be lost. Some people will emphasize one thing over another. But overall, the arts will gain as the knowledge and depth will increase. I'm a traditional MAist and this sounds pretty progressive. But I believe it to be the truth.

This is b/c WC is more of a conceptual MA than a technical MA, which is what JKD borrowed. The techniques are only there to implement the concepts. The concepts survive unchanged but the techniques are free to evolve as long as they implement the concepts.

 

[Elfan]

I really don't think there can be any guarantees that your students will pass it on to future students. Many have tried to write their teachings down and now in a more modern approach create video tapes, however, I think it still comes down to hope and trust that some of them will choose to pass it on.

 

[cali_tkdbruin]

Originally posted by Blindside
Ummm, NO.

Oh, I agree that training for military applications drove most of todays martial arts. But that is not what the question was about, it dealt with military ORGANIZATION as a means of system transmission, which is totally different. The Shaolin temple was not organized that way, nor was the family structure that Chinese kung-fu moved to. The organizational patterns of Phillipine or Indian tribes were different as well.

So when you stated: "Military organization, isn't that one of the staples of the martial arts?" I answered No. Military organization (implied to be highly regimented by the original poster) is not necessary for the correct transmission of martial technique.

Salute,

Lamont

Ummm, YES...

Let's just agree to disagree. Peace out...:asian:

 

[Yari]

Originally posted by Blindside
No.

However, arts that were taught in smaller groups (example: Phillipine tribes) do not necessarily have a history of such organizational structures.

Lamont

True, but they have history, and maybe dances, or different kind of standard traditions that hold on the the "arts".

By this they could hand over the art since it's part of their cultur. The understanding and learning is "alike" for everbody in the community.

But if a person wants to think for himself or "change history", the fundamental understanding to understand the art will change.

And if this is true, then there isn't that big a differance between modern MA and old MA(traditional).

/yari

 

[Yari]

Originally posted by fringe_dweller
I think what Mike is talking about is teaching the principles vs the specific techniques. Principles can be handed down and then adapted into the techniques which work for different people. Handing down techniques however is a sure fire way to get people to do what works for you - not them.

Yes but principles are soft values, and can only be described. Basing the knowledge your giving on what experience the other has. And since the other probably has a different experience then yourself how are you sure that the principle is understood correctly? This is her I think techniques come in. The are very important, because by making people do exactly the same technique you trying to get them to understand something so close to how you understand it. When this understanding is in place then, and only then , can the principles come into play.


/Yari

 

[Mike Clarke]

Yari,
Fringe dweller had it about right in regard to the point I was making.

I have a couple of students who are over six feet tall, I'm only Five feet six inches tall. If they do a technique 'exactly' as I do it, they will fail to make it work due to them having an incorrect distance and timing for their size, length of limbs etc.
If however they work hard to discover in them the same 'feeling' for the technique that I have for it, they will make it work.
Copying me will teach them a short persons way of doing something they need to know the tall person version of.
This is why no one does the same style of martial art the same way, and in my book this is okay.

Also, I have to say that the idea of passing down a set of techniques that have to be set in bronze for ever and ever will only ensure the sytem dies out. The 'tradition' in traditional martial arts lies not in learning a bunch of techniques and having the ability to regurgitate them in front of a grading panal. It has to do with finding the spirit of the movements and the essence of the system and making it work for you. If you manage that then you will have found in you what the masters of history found in themselves, thus the tradition is still alive and relivent.

To think that any one person has found all the answers is a bit childish in my opinion. And this is why setting in bronze one way and one way only of doing something that should be then handed down from one generation to the next is in my opinion a mistake. The priciples I'm talking about refer to the use of timing, distance, focus, angles, breath control etc. If these things are grasped and understood, it doesn't matter if you are thin, fat, big, tall, man or woman. So long as you have the right attitude and understand the principles of your art, it will work.

Mike.

 

[Yari]

I agree, mostly.

I get the feeling that I'm pulling in the oppsite direction of what your pulling. but our means are the same.

/Yari

 

[Mike Clarke]

Yari,

I think that all serious martial artist are pulling in the same direction, we just like to use different methods of pulling, and in my book that's okay.

I see you study Jujitsu and Aikido [?] as well as Arnis. I should think you have a good idea about blending with your attacker then. Again, blending is something that comes from your 'feeling' for your sysytem and not just the remembering of techniques.

Having a set list of things to do by this rank or that rank, has more to do with marketing than martial arts, and has proven to be completely usless as a way of indicating skill and understanding. Just look around at the amount of 'masters' we have today with high rank, lots of followers, and very little ability.

I think you and I have more in common than might first meet the eye, and it has nothing to do with the style or art we train in, it has to do with a sincere attitude.

Mike.