I don't think it's helped me be able to do anything better with my body.
So are you arguing that martial arts practice is a purely physical endeavor with no academic component worth mentioning?
Following the implied argument a little farther here then, you seem to be suggesting that there is no qualitative difference between:
Instructor A:
- Has absolutely no understanding of the cultural background of his art.
- knows nothing of its history.
- Is completely ignorant of the cultural context it was developed in.
- Is unaware of the the philosophical framework which guided it's development.
- Has no other training or education relevant to martial arts training.
Instructor B:
- Spent time in the homeland where his art was born, (Consdier non-martial arts as well like going to Buenos Ares for Tango or a Chinese kid coming to America to play basketball)
- Can give you both the traditionally handed down history and also an academic critique of such history along with framing not only his own personal view but a decent outline of all the major views out there on the subject and why people hold these views.
- Is completely educated in the philosophical framework which gave birth to the particular art form even though he personally may or may not subscribe to such a framework. If he does not, then he can give an intelligent critique of the original framework and explain why I does not agree.
- Holds an advanced degree in human physiology, physical therapy, philosophy, sports medicine, Chinese medicine or some other relevant field. (education)
- Has done military service and seen combat, is LEO of some sort of perhaps was trained in conflict management (additional training)
How can you honestly say that those two instructors are equvilent?