View Single Post
Old 11-20-2005, 09:06 AM   #4
senshincenter's Avatar
Dojo: Senshin Center
Location: Dojo Address: 193 Turnpike Rd. Santa Barbara, CA.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,471
Re: Article: On the Interdependent Nature of Tactics and Strategies by "The Grindstone"

Hi Kevin,

Thank you for your reply. I am glad you found the article interesting. Hope the videos were able to add something to the clarity of the piece.

I imagine we are talking about the same things here - especially since you've come to the same set of experiences. I think we all do - if we take training off in this direction, away from the standard kihon waza dominant slant we usually practice. Like in our other talk, I try to define "real" in my martial training as consisting of at least two interrelated aspects: 1. The real is marked by the fact that anything can happen (i.e. anything can be real - the real is marked by pure potential); and 2. The real is marked by the unknown. This is why, for me, kihon waza can never be real - why it must remain (and should remain) part of an artificial constructed reality. Kihon Waza is ideal, not real, because it manifests one to several things in order that they can be more clearly known - this is the exact opposite of something existing in pure potential and/or of being unknown.

However, because reality is marked by pure potential and the unknown, we can never really say that what we practice in Kihon Waza could never be part of the real. It very well can be. However, because it can only be a part of the real it must be set within its prime conditions for existing in order to be that part. In reference to this article, the throwing techniques of Aikido waza, for example, are ripe for existing under real conditions when the attacker has set his/her tactics within the prime conditions of commitment that mark the logic of the technique in question. Thus, for me, if an attacker came to function within the exact energy to energy relationship that we see in Kihon Waza Irimi Nage Tenkan, I most certainly would fight for real in exactly the same way that I perform this technique under ideal conditions. The thing is, in my opinion, we aren't too prepared for doing this if we do not come to realize, for example, the interdependent nature that exists between atemi tactics and throwing strategies (or throwing tactics and atemi strategies).

In the end, this inspires me to keep training as real as possible. This means I am inspired to confront pure potential and the unknown as much as possible in my training. However, I do not try to do this because I want to learn how to fight better. Fighting skill is only an incidental of the training. I choose to confront pure potential and the unknown because these things are also central elements in the refinement of the human spirit. Therefore, I could never suggest that we could train or should train one way for "do" and another way for "fighting." I imagine you mean the same thing here only you are coming to point in this direction via a different set of expressions - in response to something else you are trying to check from happening, etc. I would be very interested in hearing what that something else might be. Maybe you don't know what I'm talking about - my fault. But maybe if you answer this question it might reveal itself for us to discuss: "Why can we not train to fight for real and have that training be of Budo?"

thanks for your comments - hope you continue with them, would love to hear them.

David M. Valadez
Visit our web site for articles and videos. Senshin Center - A Place for Traditional Martial Arts in Santa Barbara.
  Reply With Quote