Aikido minus mysticism: a step forward

Monty Collier wrote: ...You are in a fairy-tale world. But I have an idea for your next Aikido class. When sensei begins to teach about ki, remind him/her to open with the phrase, "Once upon a time..." Red Beelte

After looking at your web site, I noticed there wasn't any aikido classes listed. Have you studied aikido and with who?

[quote=Monty Collier][quote]

Michael Gallagher wrote: This pious attitude towards the holy fathers of the martial arts world does not justify your ad hominem fallacy. They may know ten times the technique, but if they are wrong at this point, then they are wrong .....

By the same token, if they are right, they are right.

..... Please read the topic of the thread again. Red Beetle

I not only reread the topic, but reread your first post. Since I already replied to it, no need to do that again. But if you want to see it, here, for your convenience, is the link to my initial post:

http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpo...0&postcount=36

Red beetle,
apparently you are just a beginner in aikido since you wont let anyone in this forum know your credentials. Typical of people who go about rambling nonsense of things they have no clue about. why dont u leave? Why do u have to come on here and start fights with everyone? As you can see you are out numbered by far so just go away. No one cares enough about you to want to talk to or about you.

"Wisdom is knowing what to do next, skill is knowing how to do it, and virtue is doing it"

Apparently you lack all three of these traits.

im done with this forum , just one ignorant person , making ridiculous attacks at everyone.

[quote=Monty Collier][quote]

Michael Gallagher wrote: Your remarks presuppose that people learn through their senses. I do not believe that people learn through their senses. I am not an empiricist. It is no safe guide to rely upon one or more of your senses. They all can deceive you. It may look like I can pass his guard, but it turns out I cannot. It may feel like he doesn't have my arm in bad position, but it turned out that it was in even worse position than I thought. I didn't hear him tapping, but it turned out that he was, and I snapped his elbow regardless. Sensations cannot be trusted in wrestling ....

Fine. Then how do you tell which techniques to apply? If sensory input doesn't tell you what to do, then what does?

We are talking about improving the technique itself, not aiding the existing technique.

Well, then what are you talking about?

Paige Frazier wrote: im done with this forum , just one ignorant person , making ridiculous attacks at everyone.

Sorry you feel that way, but as you said, it's just one person messing things up. There's a whole bunch of other people who don't act like that. Hope you reconsider.

I've got an idea.

Stop feeding the troll!

Yea I too am hesistant to feed a troll...but the activity has lead to some good conversation, even though the guy who started the thread has proven to actually no zip about aikido, even though he said he could teach it.

Hmm, yes. Well, to each their own but apparently he thinks anyone can learn a physical skill simply by watching and listening. I've never had much luck with that approach but like I said, to each their own.

Michael Gallagher wrote: But if you train long enough and become an instructor, guess what you end up doing? Passing on what was passed to you; it doesn't matter in what.

If I reached a high level in aikido and started teaching, I Wouldn't teach my students that I was teaching them "love". I wouldn't force them to wear hakama. It would probably be a really informal class...

Michael Gallagher wrote: Yeah, you want to tell the BJJ people to stop doing that? They want to be on the cutting edge, shouldn't they stop weating gis? Esepcailly as the Gracies are Brazillian, not Japanese.

Most bjj'ers also do no-gi and quite of a bit of them do vale tudo training as well. The gi in bjj or judo and the kurtka in sambo seem more like a piece of equipment for those sports.

Michael Gallagher wrote: True; there are even multiple theories about whether it comes out through the fingers, back of the hand, or the palm. But how do you prove something ISN'T there?

If people could agree on what exactly 'ki' is, then disproving it (or proving it depending on the defition... as I said some people think it is just good technique) would be a lot easier.

Michael Gallagher wrote: Maybe. But if results are all that matters, then it doesn't matter, especially if ki visualization works.

You might actually get better results teaching people without using the term 'ki' because they might understand it faster.

Michael Gallagher wrote: Yeah, god forbid martial arts masters who have forgot more than you or I will ever know should know something.

What does the term 'master' mean to you? I've seen plenty of demonstrations where so-called 'masters' performed party tricks or demonstrated on compliant students. I've yet to see any of them in a fight.

Michael Gallagher wrote: The point is not that it changes the technique; the point is that martial arts are about MORE than just the techniques.

You're confusing your reason for training with the reason these martial arts were developed. You seem to be caught up in the mindset where martial arts aren't about hurting people, but self improvement. That mindset was an attempt to get rid of the bad image jujitsu etc. had during the early 19th century. People thought jujitsu was only for thugs, so Kano developed judo and claimed it was for self improvement. You see this trend again after WW2 with aikido.

Kevin Leavitt wrote: I can tell you why...it has nothing to do with the technical skills you gain from the art. It has everything to do with the mental aspects of developing qualities you want in warriors. For the Army at least, those things are Leadership, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service,Honor, Integrity, Personal Courage.

Well the Army isn't trying to teach people that the techniques they are learning to maim or kill their enemies are "love". From what I've heard and read, martial arts training in the military is more about developing aggression and confidence.

How does submission grappling, boxing, etc. (which the Marines do) develop leadership, duty, selfless service, etc?

Kevin Leavitt wrote: Martial arts is much the same way. You don't study them for the technique you learn, but for the friendships you gain, the values the art emulates, the spirit it evokes so on ans so on.

Maybe that's why you train but many, many people don't.

Kevin Leavitt wrote: ...the very essence of KI.

If you know what the essence of ki is, you must also know what ki itself is. Care to explain your flawless defintion that everyone can agree on?

Kevin Leavitt wrote: ....those mental skills can be learned through training. They make you feel good and strong.

The mental attributes necessary for fighting (confidence etc.) are more easily achieved through hard training than through what you might find in a lot of aikido dojos. It's hard to be sure of yourself if you've never tested yourself...

[quote]

Ignatius Teo wrote: Monty, (may I call you Monty?) You are absolutely right. You do not need the mysticism in aikido to learn or teach it

Thank you.

Mysticism is simply a tool for explaining things (and how O'Sensei explained his universe of meaning).

Here is where we would disagree.

Personally, I prefer the mysticism part and find it easier to understand than something expressed in the much clumsier English language.

I claim that mysticism is not understandable. It is better and more cogent to use the English language.

Very often, things get lost in "translation" and the transliteration does not always convey the "correct" meaning.

I deny this. It is because all language is propositional that it can be translated in the first place. If there is propositional meaning, then it can be translated. If something is lost in the translation, then you need a better translation.


Thanks.
Red Beetle

www.kingsportjudo.com

[quote][quote=Michael Gallagher]

Monty Collier wrote: You can do that, but should you? Was your sensei the exception or the rule in not mentioning Judo's history (or at least in not giving you a handout that outlined it right away)?

The point of the this thread is that you can eliminate mysticism and advance Aikido. I am glad to see that you now agree. You are right when you bring up the topic of SHOULD we eliminate mysticism. I would say yes, but others might not.

They still wear gis and use a Japanese name.

As we talked about earlier, you can change the name and still have the content. Here, the Brazilians have kept the name 'Jiu-jitsu', but have altered much of the content and stratagems. This is interesting.

What's also obvious is he is not using the words "intellectual process" the way you do. What you refer to as the intellectual process of learning a technique he calls a "training program."

Then disregard my comments if they do not apply.

And since he's been doing Aikido for about 30 years -- that's what, longer than you've been alive -- I have a hunch he may be right about two or three things.

Maybe, but an appeal to numbers is a fallacy (ad populum). It is always better to be right because you are right, not because your 60 years old (or have been doing something 35 years, and so on).

Well, then, you needn't worry about me because he explains it verbally quite well.

Good for you.


Red Beetle

Well the Army isn't trying to teach people that the techniques they are learning to maim or kill their enemies are "love". From what I've heard and read, martial arts training in the military is more about developing aggression and confidence. How does submission grappling, boxing, etc. (which the Marines do) develop leadership, duty, selfless service, etc?

I don't believe I ever mentioned the word LOVE in my post. The thread has to do with mysticism. I am still a little confused, to be quite honest about what various people are defining as mysticism. I assume it is anything that is not related to combat effective technique. If you read my post as an entire, you will see my point is that there is much more to BUDO than technique, in fact, I believe technique to be the least important part of BUDO. again, never mentioned LOVE. Although LOVE, as defined as compassion is not necessarily a bad thing.

I also do more than "hear, or read" what the Army is doing with combatives...I teach it. We are not teaching this stuff to maim or to kill. It really has little to do with that. It has more to do with attitude, spirit, and confidence that you did mention.

developing Army Values: It would be a long disertation to define how it does this. Basically developing and encouraging the warrior spirit is the bottomline. Team work, commaraderie are a wonderful thing that causes many things to happen. Again, nothing to do with techniques.


Phillip I agree with you on your point that states "that is why YOU train". You are correct, I wrote a bad assumption there. It is why I train. I guess my argument is that those who train for just technique are missing out on alot. If you compete in the octagon, or NHB fighting, then I could certainly see training for simply technique. There is a big difference in "game" training and "combat" training.

Many romaticize about what they do is training for combat. Few really understand what it takes to make a competent warrior. It is more than empty hand, escrima sticks, knife fighitng, and marksmanship. You first must have a warrior that is mentally and physically prepared to fight. This is something I do know quite a bit about.

Ya got me on the KI part! No there is no way you can ever get anyone to agree on a definition on KI. My point was that you have a guy who comes on an aikido website, and starts a topic that basically proposes that stripping out all the "fluff" in aikido would make it more effective. You go to his website, and he is doing those things that he himself thinks is irrelevant. My point is that while he may not think he identifies with these things, he pictures say otherwise. Small point, yes, but it is the small things that make up aikido that he is arguing should be removed.

Phillip, I also agree with you that you must train hard. However there is a big difference between hard with the right focus, and hard with the wrong focus. I have trained very hard and serious in aikido. However, I don't propose that aikido is the art that would make you necessarily combat effective. Then again, I don't believe that anyone I have ever studied with has ever said that it would.

If you want to be combat effective (whatever that means, i really don't know!) then go train in something else other than aikido. As I have said in my other post in this thread, if you strip out that what makes aikido, aikido, you have something else entirely different other than aikido. Really what is the point???

I think Red Beatle looks like he has a pretty good school set up for what he wants to do. I have no reason to doubt that he is good or effective based on his writings. However, don't come to an aikido website and propose you know aikido and what would make it better if you don't know aikido and it's goals. Take away what you want from the art, and go away and do it on your own, but don't call it aikido cause it ain't.

[quote]

Keith Kolb wrote: This is fallacious reasoning: appeal to authority.

Sorry, I did not appeal to authority, but you did.

Just because other dojos neglect to teach their students about the legal consequences of using technique does not mean that it is proper or desirable to do so.

Your point was that law cannot be disregarded. I said it clearly can, and now you agree that it can. You need to retract your prior statement.

The actions of other people have no bearing on how a student learns technique.

Not sure how this affects the syllogism we were discussing, but if the partner you are using is not allowing you to learn, study, or practice the technique (so you can better perfect it), then it seems that your partner's actions have some bearing and may even be detrimental towards your learning. You might use this as an example as to why Aikido dojos need strict discipline, but not mysticism.

It is true that the legal consequences of using technique have no effect on the actual execution of a technique, but it has every effect on whether or not the technique even takes place.

Law cannot effect technique, but it can affect it. I think that is what you mean.
Law may be a dominate motivating factor when it comes to a technique being executed, but not always. Not everyone agrees it is wrong to hurt people.

Without legal, or at least moral, context, a technique can never be applied outside of the dojo.

Yes, but again, one person may think that it is morally right to hurt another (although he may be wrong). I agree that everyone thinks that it is the right and best thing to be done at the moment one executes the tactic. If you did not think it right, or the best action, then you would not act. The strongest motive dictates the will.

If the dojo does not provide a legal or moral context as to when a technique can be used, the student will be forced to either compose his or her own context, or never use the technique.

This is a true statement. Also, they of course walk into the dojo with a complete value system before they ever take the first class. For example, I think it is good to take Aikido.

Without context, the technique is useless.

Maybe it would be better to say that the technique cannot even exist.
Understand that I do not consider mysticism to be ethics.

Even in sport competitions, the student must know the rules. If a grappler enters a competition without knowing the rules, he or she my use a technique that is illegal and get disqualified, or he or she my fail to use an effective legal technique and be defeated.

Another true statement.

Knowledge of the rules of competition does not aid in the actual execution of technique, but without this knowledge there is no way to achieve the primary goal: victory.

This is a false statement. You can enter a competition and not know all the rules, or possibly any of them, and still win. Many kyu level Judoka enter their first tournaments without a complete understanding (some without hardly any) and do well.

Without knowledge of when and what is acceptable on the street, the martial artist will again fail to achieve the primary goal: survival.

Are you implying that there are a set of rules for street fighting?
Please list them.

Focus does not aid in proper execution of technique?

Sometimes. I have seen some who were goofing off, but executing perfectly. I have seen others in deep concentration, and mess up completely.
I am claiming that mysticism does not add to the construction of good technique, nor the perfecting of it.

What about confidence (which can also be improved through mysticism)?

What I just wrote applies to this as well.

Then you admit that mysticism can have some value?

Mysticism can be useful. It cannot be true. It cannot aid in the production and perfection of technique, or Aikido. Stories about the tooth-fairy can be useful, but they are not true, and they do not help our iriminage.

Let us take, for example, a hip throw. I can describe why it is necessary to have your hips lower than the person you are trying to throw with physics and with ki.

If by ki you mean mysticism, then I deny this.

Physics: Your hips form and axis of rotation about which you will rotate your opponent's body. His center of gravity is about the level of his hips, so if you place your axis of rotation below his center of gravity you need only start the initial rotation and then the tangential component of the gravitational force vector will aid the torque and facilitate the rotation with greater ease.

A good start. You will need to define your terms for your students.

Ki: By getting your Dan Jun (Korean word, I forgot the Japanese word for this) closer to the earth than his, you will draw greater ki from the earth and you will have the power to throw him with ease.

You will have to define your terms here too. Such as 'ki'. If the definition is 'mystical' it will be rejected. For example, I have done the hip toss many times, but have never drawn, absorbed, or attracted any thing from the 'earth' (whatever this means, maybe floor). What i did do was change levels, and roll the guy over my hip. My legs supported him, while pushing into the floor, but I drew nothing from the floor. Such 'drawing' would have to be demonstrated, not assumed.

Both explanations will allow the student to execute a successful hip throw.

I doubt it. I would like to see the student with trouble say, "Sensei, I am having trouble drawing ki from the earth." How would he know this in the first place? Maybe he is drawing the ki fine but his opponent is drawing it from him. Or maybe he is drawing it fine, but it is flowing out his butt in green vapor form.

However, ki explanation may be easier for some students to understand.

I really doubt this.

In fact, I could construct a whole system of rules for ki, which may mimic the laws of physics but be simpler to understand, that would allow students to understand the principles behind technique and successfully execute and formulate said technique.

Wouldn't it be easier just to define the terminology in physics?
But if not, here is a suggestion for the name of your book:
Learning Aikido from the little ki fairies.

This would be a great learning aid:

And funny too.

students would be able to understand technique without having to study the extensive and complicated field of physics.

They will be just as ignorant of physics when they finish your book as when they begun it. And they will owe it all to you.

Many successful martial artists say that their techniques are founded in physics, but very few of them have actually studied physics in depth enough to really have a good understanding of the physics behind much of what they do.

Some people reject the scientific method and empiricism. And they do an even better job teaching than others.

Explaining technique in terms of ki accomplishes this same goal and is just as valid as some of the physical explanations I've heard.

We will just have to wait for your book to come out before we can judge it. Here is an idea for the forward to your book:

Once I was doing Randori, and I could not project my Uke, but then the good ki fairy appeared and waved her mystical ki wand, and the next thing that happened was that fountains of ki burst from the earth up into my legs, through my belly, and behold Uke was thrown clear out the dojo back door and landed into the alley. My head glowed radiantly from all the ki my body absorbed. Then we all went to Denny's and got the breakfast bar.

Red Beetle
www.kingsportjudo.com

Good post, Kevin. I still disagree with some of it, but we've already been there.

Just a question though, does the military encourage team sports? IMO that would help achieve a lot of qualities that you talked about (leadership, teamwork, etc.).

[quote]

Kevin Leavitt wrote: Red Beetle, Why do you think the Army and the Marine Corps are putting a big emphasis on Martial Arts training right now????

After "don't ask--don't tell" the armed services will try just about anything.

For the Army at least, those things are Leadership, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service,Honor, Integrity, Personal Courage.

This can all be taught without mysticism, and without Aikido. Our armed services have done so long before the 20th century.

If you read a few books on Aikido you will also find that many view the seven pleats in the hakama represent the seven values of aiki spirit.

Aikido numerology....it is just cute, but do we really need it to teach it?

You will find that the claps we do at the beginning of class serve as a reminder.

You can remind students without using the clapper.

In the military we have customs and courtesies...we salute, we call each other sir and sergeant. We do many things that make the system work.

But where is the Army mysticism?

You don't study them for the technique you learn, but for the friendships you gain, the values the art emulates, the spirit it evokes so on ans so on.

This mysticism you talk about is tied up in that.

And we can untie it and get rid of it.

Trust me, I have very little room for wasting my time. I find the way we practice aikido relevant to my profession. Not sure what you do for work, but I can vouch it works for me personally.

But how does mysticism improve Aikido. I claim that it doesn't. It can be disregarded.

There are much more to Martial Arts and Budo than technical skills to be gained.

I challenge this.

I find it ironic that there is a picture of you in a swariwaza pose "thinking bout judo and jujitsu".

It would be ironic if I was performing some mystical trance, but I was not.

Also one of you in seiza doing what looks like a "heaven and earth" and posture related to kokyu...the very essence of KI.

This was done on purpose. In order to show the contrast of what most think of when they consider a martial system, and what a martial system really is. The statements at the bottom of the picture are the main point.

What do these two pictures have to do with the technical skills of judo?

The pictures, it could be argued are wrestling postures, but I think the point is the statements that are made at the bottom. Read them again please.

You also have several pictures of you striking a pose with "attitude".

The "attitude" pose is an inside joke. But I suppose it could serve to encourage mental toughness.

The one where we challenge striking systems is no joke.
We accept challenge matches at our school.

Are they technical skills, no they are mental skills....those mental skills can be learned through training.

I would say that all skills are mental, or intellectual.

They make you feel good and strong.

Maybe, sometimes they make you feel otherwise. Feelings are subjective, but technique is objective.

That my friend is "mysticism" at it's best.

Sorry, but your wrong.

what we have is ourselves and what makes us up as a whole person...and it is more than techniques.

I would say that we are the sum of propositions that describe us.

Red Beetle

www.kingsportjudo.com

I'm reminded of The Karate Kid. Cobra Kai "Sweep the leg!"

Check out Marc Laimon's Cobra Kai Jiu-jitsu.
www.marclaimon.com
I have a purple belt under Marc Laimon at my school.
He is very very good.

Morality is not mysticism.

I agree with you.

Red Beetle

Ted Ehara wrote: After looking at your web site, I noticed there wasn't any aikido classes listed. Have you studied aikido and with who?

Yes I have studied, and for some time.
But we have already been through the "credential-background- search-in-order-to-determine-if-I-am-qualified-to-make-statements- about-Aikido" part of the thread. Regardless if Ueshiba himself was my teacher, and I studied for 150 years straight, please try to deal with the arguments being given on this thread. Thanks.

Red Beetle

www.kingsportjudo.com

[quote]

Michael Gallagher wrote: By the same token, if they are right, they are right.

Appealing to a person's credentials is not dealing with an argument.

Red Beetle

Paige Frazier wrote: Red beetle, apparently you are just a beginner in aikido since you wont let anyone in this forum know your credentials. Typical of people who go about rambling nonsense of things they have no clue about. why dont u leave? Why do u have to come on here and start fights with everyone? As you can see you are out numbered by far so just go away. No one cares enough about you to want to talk to or about you. "Wisdom is knowing what to do next, skill is knowing how to do it, and virtue is doing it" Apparently you lack all three of these traits.

Mysticism is irrational and can be disregarded for the improvement of Aikido.
Why don't you clue us in with all your wisdom and explain how something irrational can make sense.

Red Beetle
www.kingsportjudo.com

[quote][quote=Michael Gallagher][quote=Monty Collier
Fine. Then how do you tell which techniques to apply? If sensory input doesn't tell you what to do, then what does?[/QUOTE]
Please read the following for a full explanation of how people learn.

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=48

Well, then what are you talking about?

I am saying that you can disregard mysticism and spend more time improving and developing Aikido technique.

Red Beetle

Rebecca Montange wrote: Hmm, yes. Well, to each their own but apparently he thinks anyone can learn a physical skill simply by watching and listening. I've never had much luck with that approach but like I said, to each their own.

Rebecca, I am the only one here who believes you cannot learn from your senses. You have to understand the propositional explanation of each technique before they can be applied.

I am advocating serious study over and against mystical trances and "spiritual energy".

Red Beetle
www.kingsportjudo.com

Phillip Kirkan wrote: If I reached a high level in aikido and started teaching, I Wouldn't teach my students that I was teaching them "love". I wouldn't force them to wear hakama. It would probably be a really informal class... Most bjj'ers also do no-gi and quite of a bit of them do vale tudo training as well. The gi in bjj or judo and the kurtka in sambo seem more like a piece of equipment for those sports. If people could agree on what exactly 'ki' is, then disproving it (or proving it depending on the defition... as I said some people think it is just good technique) would be a lot easier. You might actually get better results teaching people without using the term 'ki' because they might understand it faster. What does the term 'master' mean to you? I've seen plenty of demonstrations where so-called 'masters' performed party tricks or demonstrated on compliant students. I've yet to see any of them in a fight. You're confusing your reason for training with the reason these martial arts were developed. You seem to be caught up in the mindset where martial arts aren't about hurting people, but self improvement. That mindset was an attempt to get rid of the bad image jujitsu etc. had during the early 19th century. People thought jujitsu was only for thugs, so Kano developed judo and claimed it was for self improvement. You see this trend again after WW2 with aikido. Well the Army isn't trying to teach people that the techniques they are learning to maim or kill their enemies are "love". From what I've heard and read, martial arts training in the military is more about developing aggression and confidence. How does submission grappling, boxing, etc. (which the Marines do) develop leadership, duty, selfless service, etc? Maybe that's why you train but many, many people don't. If you know what the essence of ki is, you must also know what ki itself is. Care to explain your flawless defintion that everyone can agree on? The mental attributes necessary for fighting (confidence etc.) are more easily achieved through hard training than through what you might find in a lot of aikido dojos. It's hard to be sure of yourself if you've never tested yourself...

Good post Phillip

Red Beetle

[quote=Monty Collier][quote]

Michael Gallagher wrote: Please read the following for a full explanation of how people learn. http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=48

I wasn't talking about how you learn; I was talking about how what you keep track of what your training partner is doing during sparring or randori. If you can not use your five senses to keep track of what he's up to and plan a counter, then what do you use? Especially since I've had the need to develop touch sensitivity for every range inside punching range for several years now. But even kickboxing, how do you respond to what he does if you don't go by what you see?

I am saying that you can disregard mysticism and spend more time improving and developing Aikido technique. Red Beetle

No, you can't.

In Best Aikido: The Fundamentals, O Sensie's son and grandson write that "the concept of ki is central to Aikido, and the Founder [O Sensei] always emphaszied the importance of ki." (p. 16) Let's consider that statement and see where it takes us: If ki is, as you claim mystical, then mysticism is central to Aikido by design -- that's the way O Sensei wants it. Which means if you take the mysticism out, then yes, you can still teach the throws and joint locks, but you've torn out something central, so maybe you can not call it Aikido.

Which means Aikido without mysticism wouldn't be a step forward: Aikido without mysticism wouldn't be Aikido.

Of course you can -- and probably will -- argue that they are wrong. But that assumes that you and your friend at the trinity foundation haven't stretched the deifnition of "mysticism" to the point where it can cover damn near anything. But if you have, then maybe you're wrong.

How you attain budo purely from learning bujitsu I don't know. Budo is love I can understand, how you attain that from repeatedly smashing an uke into a mat I don't understand.

Martial arts are for dealing with martial situations. Put simply, for decking someone who is trying to deck you. That's it.
Martial arts don't make you into a better person, you make you into a better person and the things you learn from martial arts can help.
Things like confidence, self knowledge, self discipline. Indeed these lessons learned in martial arts can lead you to make yourself full on evil. Confidence can easily become ego and arrogance can mask itself as self knowledge.

If you're in MA to become a better person, then you're spending a lot of time and money to achieve something that can be achieved simply by being mindful of what you do, what you say, what you think and by continually challenging yourself to improve.
When you can do that, in my opinion, you really are practicing Budo and that can be achieved without even knowing how to take a proper fighting stance or entering a dojo.