Provability, and other questions
My co-worker, Keith, is a big guy like myself, but unlike me, he's mostly muscle. And, he knows how to fight. He works out at a gym here in Tokyo, doing mixed martial arts. His background is in karate, wrestling, boxing, judo ... you name it; he trains in the gym where pro Pride and K1 fighters Takada and Sakuraba trained, up until a few months ago. I gather that his practice sessions are pretty intense, too.
Today Keith told me that, as of this weekend, he is now the Japan Heavyweight Amateur Shootfighting champion. And it couldn't happen to a nicer guy! But still, I don't want to make him mad. I feel as though he could take me apart seven ways before I could even beg him to stop.
Which brings me to my point. I was telling him the other day about iaido and jodo, and how we often have "arguments" about what works and what doesn't; people spend a lot of time talking about "if he does this, then you just do this" and "don't stand this way because you can't do that" and "in my style, we do it this way because." Keith smiled a knowing smile and said, "I used to listen to those people, and really think about what they were saying, but nowadays, I just tell 'em, 'Try it on me and we'll see whether it works or not.'"
I envy him having such an efficient "bullshit detector." He does martial arts that are provable in real application: "Oh, you'd slap an arm lock on me, would you? Not so easy when I'm raining blows in your face..."
I'm not really interested in fighting people, but for some reason, my mind does often drift back to the persistent question of "combat effectiveness" and what place it has in iaido. We have inherited a number of styles; nobody knows exactly how old they are, or how much they resemble what was being done 400 years ago, but it's fairly safe to say the answer is "not a whole lot". So, how much made it through? How much of what we are learning is (to use an extremely vague and slippery word) "real"? We know that Oe Masamichi used a sword in battle, and he died less than 100 years ago.
To dwell on this point a little more: we have inherited this knowledge, and we have to presume, from people who know more about "real fighting" than we do now. Is it our responsibility to maintain it, and pass it on exactly as we learned it? Some would argue, vehemently, that this is exactly our duty -- our only duty. But should we transmit it without understanding it fully? (Ever read "A Canticle for Leibowitz"?) Or should we devote our energy to analyzing it and trying to understand it more deeply? What if that means we uncover some inconsistency, some weakness, or some flaw? Do we change the technique to match our understanding, or do we automatically tell ourselves "My teacher is infallible, so this just reveals my flawed, incomplete understanding, so ... back to the drawing board!"?
And furthermore, what does it matter? I feel as though it must matter to some extent, otherwise, we might as well practice however we damn well feel like, which in my case, would be from a chair, with a beer in one hand and a chicken wing in the other. But no, we are supposed to be sword fighting, and when we draw the sword, it is supposed to be for a reason; but this just raises the next question: what reason?
I think the frustrating thing about these questions, for me at least, is that no matter how much I think about them, I never seem to make any headway. I always come back to the same old questions. Hundreds of philosophers over the centuries have devoted countless hours pondering the nature of reality, or what it is to be human, and for my money, none of them has come close to finding a satisfactory answer. I feel as though these are the same kinds of questions - ill-posed from the get-go, and basically unanswerable. So ... Gimme a beer and some chicken wings and let's change the subject. Maybe I should have gotten into MMA.
Naaaaahhhh.
Today Keith told me that, as of this weekend, he is now the Japan Heavyweight Amateur Shootfighting champion. And it couldn't happen to a nicer guy! But still, I don't want to make him mad. I feel as though he could take me apart seven ways before I could even beg him to stop.
Which brings me to my point. I was telling him the other day about iaido and jodo, and how we often have "arguments" about what works and what doesn't; people spend a lot of time talking about "if he does this, then you just do this" and "don't stand this way because you can't do that" and "in my style, we do it this way because." Keith smiled a knowing smile and said, "I used to listen to those people, and really think about what they were saying, but nowadays, I just tell 'em, 'Try it on me and we'll see whether it works or not.'"
I envy him having such an efficient "bullshit detector." He does martial arts that are provable in real application: "Oh, you'd slap an arm lock on me, would you? Not so easy when I'm raining blows in your face..."
I'm not really interested in fighting people, but for some reason, my mind does often drift back to the persistent question of "combat effectiveness" and what place it has in iaido. We have inherited a number of styles; nobody knows exactly how old they are, or how much they resemble what was being done 400 years ago, but it's fairly safe to say the answer is "not a whole lot". So, how much made it through? How much of what we are learning is (to use an extremely vague and slippery word) "real"? We know that Oe Masamichi used a sword in battle, and he died less than 100 years ago.
To dwell on this point a little more: we have inherited this knowledge, and we have to presume, from people who know more about "real fighting" than we do now. Is it our responsibility to maintain it, and pass it on exactly as we learned it? Some would argue, vehemently, that this is exactly our duty -- our only duty. But should we transmit it without understanding it fully? (Ever read "A Canticle for Leibowitz"?) Or should we devote our energy to analyzing it and trying to understand it more deeply? What if that means we uncover some inconsistency, some weakness, or some flaw? Do we change the technique to match our understanding, or do we automatically tell ourselves "My teacher is infallible, so this just reveals my flawed, incomplete understanding, so ... back to the drawing board!"?
And furthermore, what does it matter? I feel as though it must matter to some extent, otherwise, we might as well practice however we damn well feel like, which in my case, would be from a chair, with a beer in one hand and a chicken wing in the other. But no, we are supposed to be sword fighting, and when we draw the sword, it is supposed to be for a reason; but this just raises the next question: what reason?
I think the frustrating thing about these questions, for me at least, is that no matter how much I think about them, I never seem to make any headway. I always come back to the same old questions. Hundreds of philosophers over the centuries have devoted countless hours pondering the nature of reality, or what it is to be human, and for my money, none of them has come close to finding a satisfactory answer. I feel as though these are the same kinds of questions - ill-posed from the get-go, and basically unanswerable. So ... Gimme a beer and some chicken wings and let's change the subject. Maybe I should have gotten into MMA.
Naaaaahhhh.