All Wado Karate Forum

Background
A few years ago the 'Wado Collective' was initiated in the Netherlands. The collective gathers once a month for training and discussion. It comprises of (mostly senior) wadoka in Holland. An average training session will aggregate 100 years of wado experience at the very least. Everyone is welcome, but shodan is the minimum to get in the door. The attendants compare their 'notes', that is: techniques are compared and discussed to arrive at the best possible quality of wado. There is no hierarchy. Everyone takes turn in 'leading' the training. Dan grades have no meaning. However, currently there's dicussion within the collective about how to continue. Some stress the importance of suhari, but there are also other ideas.

Socrates
As you probably know, Socrates was a philosopher in ancient Greece, who lived some 2500 years ago. The basic presumption of Socrates was that there's no such thing as an absolute truth. Truth is something that exists only within a person and is therefor personal by definition. Truth is discovered by discussion and comparing knowledge. And this is exactly what we've been doing within the Collective.

Suhari
Obviously, the ideas of Socrates do not sit well with the concept of suhari. To put it bluntly: in suhari you just do what the master tells you to do. There's hardly room for discussion. You follow the lead of the master and do not act on your own hunches. So this makes it pretty much the opposite of Socrates' method.
There's no denying that the concept of suhari has worked well for ages and it has been quite successful. However, it does imply that there's one person who is the 'keeper' of the style. In TSYR, for instance, it is quite clear that there's only one 'keeper' who tells everyone what to do and how to do it. In Wado, on the other hand, the style in its purest form ceased to exist with the demise of Ohtsuka sensei. We are now left with a number of keepers to follow. And even at the highest level, where wado is at its purest, there are still differences. Worse: going down the hierarchy, the differences are increasing.

In Holland we're pretty much stuck with round eyed natives who have very little opportunity to touch wado in its purest form. With a bit of luck we can attend a few seminars a year with one of the international seniors and that's about it. We're like natives in the Amazon, eagerly awaiting the catholic priest who roams the jungle to teach all the tribes the ins and outs of christian religion. These are not the best circumstances to adhere to suhari. Therefor we revert to the tried and tested methods of Socrates instead. We compare our insights to arrive at the best possible quality of wado. Which will inevitably be quite personal. Though we do arrive at some sort of common demeanor. Because If the next guy has a more effective junzuki than I do, I will adapt my own junzuki to mimic his.

The way I see it, the Collective fills a natural niche in the hinterland. Where suhari fails, Socrates comes to the rescue. There's not one senior in Holland with sufficient authority to act as keeper of the style to all wadoka. But a group of seniors combined might fill the void.

So what do you wado dragons say? Have the natives gone mad?

Hi Kyudo,

One obvious flaw in your argument is that you seem to be talking of only the ‘shu’ aspect of Shu Ha Ri where an initial truth (or truthing shaped by principles) is being passed on to the acolytes. Within and beyond this of course there is the facility for change due to natural and idiosyncratic evolution. It - in itself - is not a static thing but will have a life of its own and when this vital stage is absorbed the process continues.

The Shu Ha Ri process is measured by maturation not simply by time so an aggregate of 100 years is of little use in a dojo filled with 100 people.

oneya

PS, can you get rid of that damn dog.

Thanks, Oneya.

Dialectics (dialogue) as part of the shuhari process? It seems quite natural to have an exchange between master and acolytes to explain things. However, Socrates' method implies personal interpretations. And his type of dialectics is not so much between master and acolytes as it is between peers. I would guess that ventures well outside the traditional boundaries of shuhari.

oneya wrote:The Shu Ha Ri process is measured by maturation not simply by time so an aggregate of 100 years is of little use in a dojo filled with 100 people.

Point taken. The typical collective gathering is attended by 5 to 10 people...

Perhaps I should explain some of the more practical implications of the current discussions. Some say the collective should adopt a formal curriculum and describe quality requirements that everyone involved should adhere to. Others say this would run counter to open dialogue. Because open dialogue implies personal interpretation and open standards. Instead of imposing quality requirements, the Collective might remain an open platform for discussion which could then feed into the national karate federation. In theory, the federation could use this input to finetune its own curriculum and requirements.

The collective sounds like a very interesting and positive idea. I say positive because if you can get a bunch of martial artists in the same room and from the same style and not have any posturing or ego skirmishes you are doing very well indeed. I’d love to see it in action.

It is interesting that you position a typical Western form of established philosophical discourse against a very Eastern system. It sounds like it’s certainly a fascinating experiment.

I went over to Holland last year for the first time and met with some of your luminaries, and will be over again in September.

Re; Shu Ha Ri.
I think it is an academic theory which although it gives us a set of reference points is largely irrelevant to modern martial artists. We just need to strive to work on that very first aspect (Shu) the rest is generally out of reach.

I suppose the idea of a collective is a good concept, I wonder how it works in practice. I mean, if you come to an agreement as to how a simple technical aspect should be understood and performed then as long as it is not just a theoretical understanding and it can actually be performed by the individual then it carries credibility and may have significant positive impact for the transmission to the next generations.

You mention some kind of universally agreed way as a possible route forward and then in the next breath say that this stifles creativity. I wonder what you are referring to. If you are talking about the decision to include or exclude a particular technique or series of set piece techniques then I think that may be a moot point, as it’s not what you do it’s how you do it that counts.

Creativity or individualisation can be a good thing, but only if it is backed up by real knowledge and does not fly in the face of the core principles.

Tim

Hi

I would have to think: ‘personal interpretation’ is beyond the ‘Shu’ aspect of shuhari so this may well be throwing rocks into one’s own path. Ah but the traditional boundaries of shuhari have been taking a battering for some considerable time now kyudo, Many would have its translation modified to suit their own reasoning but for its part Shu Ha Ri isn’t malleable or dependent on dialogue because it is, in essence, a process of study, development and maturation. Part of which - in its initial stages – seeks to establish a dynamic foundation of somatic and intellectual knowledge based on the principles and practice of movement within its design. This foundation is essential to ensure its identity, growth and preservation over the years whilst it remains faithful to its design and purpose. I would suggest that during this transmission period we would see ‘instruction and direction’ as being more accurate between sensei and students rather than dialogue as such.

I would think that without the clarity of the “ instruction and direction” the small group dynamic tends to search for a leader of sorts and ego would again enter the equation. Without firm direction from someone who has experience, that old problem of many concepts of Japanese genus having no precise translation to any western counterpart will ensure the road will become indistinct. Many attempts to crowbar concepts that have a distinctly Japanese yusei/musei existence into the Latin based western alphabet and western mindset can only leave it further battered and bruised.. Your experiment will no doubt be interesting but without that periodic experienced oversight and instruction I wonder if it will remain clearly wado ryu.

I wonder too why it needs to change from its current form as a collective.

oneya

Tim49 wrote: I went over to Holland last year for the first time and met with some of your luminaries, and will be over again in September.
Tim

Let me know next time you're in Holland. I'd love to meet you.

Tim49 wrote: I suppose the idea of a collective is a good concept, I wonder how it works in practice. I mean, if you come to an agreement as to how a simple technical aspect should be understood and performed then as long as it is not just a theoretical understanding and it can actually be performed by the individual then it carries credibility and may have significant positive impact for the transmission to the next generations.
Tim

In most cases we do come to an agreement as to how a technical aspect should be understood. Basically, the understanding is established through a process of ohyo kumite. In other words: you just need to show that your view works.
However, while we may agree on a certain aspect, it is difficult to verify if this consensus alligns with the way wado is understood in the rest of the world. For that we'll have to wait for the next travelling wado master to arrive in our neck of the woods and have a good look.

Tim49 wrote: You mention some kind of universally agreed way as a possible route forward and then in the next breath say that this stifles creativity. I wonder what you are referring to. If you are talking about the decision to include or exclude a particular technique or series of set piece techniques then I think that may be a moot point, as it’s not what you do it’s how you do it that counts.
Tim

Agreed. It's how you do it that counts. But Socrates stated that there's no universal truth. In that case, there can be no universally agreed way. A group a people in a room may agree on a certain issue, but that's about as universal as it gets.

oneya wrote:Without firm direction from someone who has experience, that old problem of many concepts of Japanese genus having no precise translation to any western counterpart will ensure the road will become indistinct.

You rightly point out that the process of shuhari requires a 'firm direction from someone who has experience'. But as we found out in recent years, wado experience in Holland doesn't necessarily amount to a firm knowledge of the innards of the style. This has to do with the history of wado in our country. As a result, 'firm direction' from a local senior may actually lead us astray.
Therefor I see no other option than to 'compare notes' at home and test our insights as often as possible under the guidence of an international travelling master

oneya wrote: I wonder too why it needs to change from its current form as a collective.

The current collective is Socratesian in nature. It therefor has no 'firm direction'.

Hi Kyudo,
Link to a flyer for when I am next over in Holland:
http://www.shikukai.co.uk/sugasawa%202011.pdf
It would be nice to say hi.

When you mention about testing or ‘verifying’ some things by their nature are very difficult to test, because some aspects of our training are on a very long fuse. I think that individuals can become very set in their ways and therefore may possibly not have the motivation to modify their technical approach. It is also possible that there are contradictory practices competing within the same individual practitioner which can complicate things further. Now I’m not saying that is the case in your collective; in fact I am actually thinking of it from a UK perspective, but maybe this is a universal thing.

Re; Truths,
Yes, but there are some practices that run contrary to Wado principles so from our perspective are wrong.

Tim