I thought this might be a good separate thread, in case anyone has further thoughts.kyudo wrote:Some additional musings on how wado 'fits' into my life…
Over the years I learned that In wado everything, every movement, every position has a purpose. If a foot or hand is positioned in a certain way, it's not for looks, it's for a specific purpose.
However, in the West we lived (and still live for most part) according to the maxim: form follows function. On first glance, this sounds very wado like. But it's not. In wado form doesn't FOLLOW function, rather form IS function. In the west 'modernism' was bred on the notion of form follows function. Modern cars, towns and products look the way they do (and have their flaws) beause of that. With the grand exception of Apple products. Steve Jobs, Apple's founder, had a whole different maxim, which he probably derived from his many trips to Japan (he loved Japan and was much into zen). Jobs said: design is how it works. And fundamentally that's the difference between an iPod and an MP3 player. Between an iPhone and a mobile phone. Between Mac and Windows. Not trying to fuel a technology debate here, but doesn't the same apply to wado? The way it looks IS the way it works.
As for me, I'm obviously not Steve Jobs. But already as a kid and a young man I had serious doubts about 'form follows function'. I asked myself: shouldn't form BE function? I looked at the professional tools I used during my stint as a carpenter and furniture designer. And I asked myself: why are these tools so beautiful? No designer ever bothered to design a claw hammer. Yet, a well balanced claw hammer is a marvel of beauty. Why is that? Because its shape IS its purpose. The one doesn't follow the other. They are one. The claw hammer got shaped over the course of generations. All superfluous forms were eliminated to arrive at its beautiful essence.
Therefor, carpentry is how I got on the same track as Steve Jobs and Hironori Ohtsuka.
But it took me a while to realize that the same goes for wado. I can't say wado influenced my view on design. Rather the other way round: my look on design influenced the way I practise wado. But wado was a perfect fit. My MA journey didn't start out in wado. But I'm pretty sure that one day it will end there.
My thoughts differ a little, but it seems it has to do with the definition of "function", so my opinions could very well be similar. I think in Wado form follows function. My way of seeing "function" is application in real life.
The application for Wado has been for me something that happens in social situations and many more. I live in a relatively safe place so there is very little need for physical confrontation. Perhaps Wado has helped in preventing conflicts to end up physically violently. Following the kumite formality is a valuable lesson in behavior. Still it is a formality bringing up the essentials, while real application hopefully finds a more practical form suitable for the situation.
Same goes for the technical stuff. Formalization is usually made in the more traditional arts in a way that some stuff are exaggerated on purpose, while others are made small; some incidental stuff are left out because man is not stupid and it is thought to be a better idea to concentrate on the essentials. Also some formalization give a good middle path while the actual application might deviate from this. The formalization has evolved over the years so that all this becomes a better package for a way of training.
Discussing with many people in modern systems of self defence gives the impression that their systems are more concrete, while at the same time many of the newer ones also have a clever background thought. Also my impression is that some modern jujutsu schools are pretty much a huge combination of techniques. Anyway, both of these seem to be more concrete. Then for example some Chinese arts seem to be very abstract in the sense that their main focus is on developing a combative mind-body combination partially by training techniques. (Of course they too study application.) We might be somewhere in the middle, being semi-concrete.
I would like to add that the concrete-abstract differentiation in the sense that I mean does not indicate effectivity. I would guess in the lineages of the arts many times abstraction is a product of evolution and concretion a product of revolution. What is important is functionality.
The point here is that in concrete arts lots of techniques are needed while by abstraction a way of training fundamentals more effectively can be found. (The amount of techniques might still be big but there might be a better hierarchy.) In this way I don't think form is function in Wado.
A few comments about the text:
- I know at least one very abstract and probably effective modern art and would guess that on the other hand there are many very concrete Chinese arts, so I don't mean to generalize.
- I'm not sure if I can use the word "concretion" in the way I used. :)
- Putting Wado on a line that deals with the amount of abstraction is of course an oversimplification to demonstrate a point.
- I do realize this is an "Omote, ura & henka" -discussion again.
I don't mean to question your point, kyudo. I am curious if the reason for why my words seem to contradict yours has to do with how we understand "function". Because of course function can also relate to "function in training for application" instead of "function in application". Did you mean that or something else?