principle v. technique

[cloudz]

Trying to approach language use with a scientific head and demanding evidence seems innapropriate to me. language is a tool and we fashion it to how we want to use it. There may be precedent but ultimately there's no right or wrong to it. The whole point of it is to make something or other communicable.

All specialist fields often apply language differently to the coloquial uses.

There's a false dichotomy between the terms principle and technique as they are applied in martial arts in one sense and this applies elsewhere too.

If we take the principle and technique seperation as it is applied in martial arts and try to apply it in a coloquial use it still makes sense and is applicaple in the same way in my opinion. Theory and practice can never be mutually exclusive, hence the dichotomous nature inherent in the terms used this way.

Take a given persons moral principles (theory). Doesn't he apply them in his daily life? (practice) or are they forever exclusively in his head never acted upon in any way. That simply isn't true. Specific ways of interacting with people that uphold his principles would be in perfectly understandable language the "techniques" he uses to live by his principles. the principles are contained within just the same.

It sounds wierd perhaps only because we aren't used to applying this coloquially to behaviours, communication (language), body language and actions etc - calling them techniques.

However it doesn't make it "wrong" and demanding evidence seems innapropriate to me and somewhat of a category error. All you need to modify language or use it in a sense not seen or been common before, is a good enough reason.

I'm sure body language has been coined with the term techniques. You can probably go find a course that will teach you body language techniques - so we can find precedent there. Lets' say I'm talking to someone and they start talking about stealing in a very blase manner, I can tell that their principles on the subject don't match mine. The language, verbal and physical I use to communicate my reaction to this difference that reflect my principles can rightly be thought of as technique(s) or to use a definition - principles in application. I'm just practicing my principles or "practicing what I preach". The way we use and structure language to our own ends can be said to be full of techniques also (sophism used by lawyers and politicians for example), how we use our voice etc. to convey our feelings.

Ultimately I see little difference to how these terms are talked about in martial arts and how they can be applied coloquially, if any.

just my 2 cents.

[GrahamB]

What's the difference between training in "principle" vs. training in "technique"?

I just made a video that shows what I think most people mean when they say 'principle' as opposed to a 'technique' -

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=9726

[Chris_McKinley]

George,

RE: "Trying to approach language use with a scientific head and demanding evidence seems innapropriate to me. language is a tool and we fashion it to how we want to use it. There may be precedent but ultimately there's no right or wrong to it. The whole point of it is to make something or other communicable.". There is already a field that applies science to language that also allows for your excellent point that language can be fashioned. It's called linguistics. Science doesn't demand that we set our understanding in stone and never change it. On the contrary, it's presupposed that the understanding will change in the face of new evidence. In the case of this particular thread, though, we don't have a situation where someone initiates the conversation by saying, "Hey, I've got a new definition for the word principle...whaddya think?"

What happened here is that I made an assertion of a nondisputed axiom from learning theory. MartialDev poo-pooed my assertion without ever giving reason or evidence of why it is wrong. He further counter-asserted that the word "principle" has but one definition, again without providing the slightest whiff of evidence or reason, a notion which was demonstrably shown to be false by simple reference. IOW, in this case, evidence became appropriate to request the moment he declared my assertion wrong and hinted that he held the real truth of the matter. That's simply a matter of courtesy long before it becomes a matter of legitimate inquiry.

RE: "All specialist fields often apply language differently to the coloquial uses.". Indeed they may, which is why, instead of dismissing MartialDev's claim of only one definition (already demonstrably shown to be false) out of hand as a crackpot notion, we, or at least I, asked for evidence or reasoning to support the notion. I left open the possibility that perhaps he had simply come up with a more colloquial functional definition that might apply exclusively to martial arts practice or something similar. In any event, he was given ample opportunity to explain his position and to have it considered fairly by his readers. He declined and instead of engaging in topical discussion, he made a series of ad hominem meta-comments of increasing hostile and paranoid tone.

By example, your very own claim that principle and technique are ultimately inseparable was followed immediately by providing reasoning for how one might arrive at that conclusion, as is not only customary and courteous, but frankly necessary if one does not wish to force the readership to simply accept the claimant's word at face value. Whether one is ultimately swayed by your reasoning or not isn't really the point, though I personally feel it was quite thought-provoking. The point is that you did at least provide the reasoning for consideration, and you did so without engaging in off-topic ad hominem attack. This can, if anything, only bolster the trustworthiness in the sincerity of your argument. I state all that simply to point out that that is precisely what MartialDev was invited, and later nearly begged, to do instead of continuing to engage in derisive sarcasm and leveling ad hominem critique. At the end of it, it's too bad, really. He may have had a valid point in there somewhere, or at least a perspective which might have given us further insight into our own understanding of the term. By collectively insulting the rest of the thread's posters, his behavior has now so alienated anyone who might have been willing to listen to his ideas that any valid point he may have has likely been sabotaged by his insulting delivery.

That he was merely phishing for a chance to cross-post a new blog entry on the subject to increase his website traffic rather than simply discussing the topic on this forum for its own value appears more and more likely now. Unfortunately it wouldn't be the first time he's joined a thread to post hints that he has the real truth of an issue and that we can read all about it over at his blog. He's had several days to clear his head, dispense with the insults and rejoin the discussion in a more mature and respectful way if he so wished, and he has not done so. Perhaps he still may. It would be a welcome alternative in his behavior and even at this point I, and perhaps others, would still be willing to discuss the topic with him more objectively.

[MartialDev]

To be banned for what I have written thus far, would be an honor. Sooner or later we all end up where we belong.

Chris McK, I am not inviting you to read my blog, but if you had compared my last twenty posts with the last twenty threads here, I'm sure you would not find any meaningful overlap. To repeatedly assert otherwise in the face of such an obvious test is an act of...you fill in the blank. (Calling that by its name might appear rude, and apparently that is a privilege reserved for a select few here.)

My "evidence" that martial principle does not follow technique (or vice versa) except in the sense of rationalization, was already presented in exceedingly plain and simple terms, by analogy to moral principle. This "evidence" was never addressed with any depth, but declared out of bounds with the flimsiest of excuses.

"We aren't talking about that." No shit, that is why I brought it up.
"He is just collecting our (worthy and important) ideas to repost on a blog." False charges from a paranoid narcissist--see above.
"The dictionary proves..." Tautologies. For which I am too high and mighty, yes, absolutely. I thought everyone was. And I was wrong?

I don't read every thread here (except for John Wang's), and I don't visit every day. Now everyone can see why. There is clearly a mutual dissatisfaction moving to disinterest. Maybe the next time I come back, I'll wear glasses and a fake mustache, and bring a bag of "great post" stickers to affix in a liberal fashion? Probably not though. That would violate my principles, and serve only those who aim to feel superior.

[Daniel]

D.

Sarcasm. Oh yeah, like that´ll work.

[GrahamB]

To be banned, to sleep—
No more—and by being banned to say we end
The heartache, and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to. 'tis a consummation(70)
Devoutly to be wish'd. To be banned, to sleep—
To sleep—perchance to dream. Ay, there's the rub!
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,

[Chris_McKinley]

MartialDev,

Nah, unless and until your ad hominem attacks get really out of hand, I wouldn't want to see you banned. Who said anything about banning anyway? Sounds like more paranoiac rhetoric. I believe you're the only one that's even brought up that word. You're just being asked to return to respectful non-ad hominem discussion and to actually defend, or at least explain for the first time, the conceptual merit of your point and to answer Deus's questions that he respectfully posed to you. Claiming to have provided reasoning to support your view merely by misinterpreting what I was claiming doesn't cut it, especially when I explicitly clarified exactly what I was claiming, and made clear that it did not include any reference to the moral definition of "principle" whatsoever. Now, the reason I get to declare it "out of bounds" is because it is my point that I was making, and whether right or wrong, only I get to define what that is.

If you wish to make your own separate claim or point, then by all means do so, and provide some sort of reasoning for it the way both I and Deus did for our respective points and be ready to defend it if someone brings up questions, exceptions or counterpoints, but don't simply attempt to mistakenly rewrite my point to have me claiming something I explicitly have stated that I did not intend. And don't substitute insults and meta-comments about how stupid we all are or how we're all out to get you instead of actually responding to specific points of discussion, especially when you have been repeatedly asked to rejoin the conversation on a more civil basis.

Oh, and BTW, I have read your blog. It's an interesting read and quite worthwhile.

[shawnsegler]

This is all I have to say on the subject.

[GrahamB]

"Her gutter mouth, and the widow in an opium stupor. A conversation for the ages.”- EB Farnum

[shawnsegler]

I want to be the one in the Opium stupor!