Bringing KWON BEOP into the 21st Century

Well, we have to look at who is doing the asking... In this case one who wants to know the answer, in most cases this is the same person that wanted to learn the art, in this case a Korean art, already stteped heavily in its own history, culture, customs, and traditions.

Then we have to look at to whom the questions are posed, in this case a teacher that may or may not be of Korean ancestry but could also be a person who also learned the art by way of a Korean art that left the boarders, or was exchanged and meshed with other customs arts and traditions across other boarders, or one could be asking a technical comittee or group of persons in charge of these aspects these very questions, more like issues you have with the evolution of the art.

If part of a larger orginization, one must abide by those guidelines, or at least itbetter look like one has been when it comes time for testing or events in which the technical directors are present, or for sure in front of the GM.

If one is independent, then it really does not matter what they do to or with the art. This might go so far as not to even resemble the art any longer.

Control can be implemented, and those at the top of an orginization can indeed say because I said so.... Doesn't mean you have to like it, or stay with the group or bring up these issues with the next guy in line, r change groups, or remain independent.

In anycase with the development of the art, and the MYDTJ as an incomlete reference, wide open to interpretation from those that have set forth and developed the art long ago, it really matters not what you choose to practice out of it, or what style you create from it if those are your intentions, but do realize it is Korean, with predecession in china and that would be the style you are borrowing from.


There it is, and that's how it goes. Hope that helps...

 

Yes indeedy! And I think the points that you raise are what make for great discussions. For instance over on the "STANCE" thread there is quite a range of contributions and it makes for fascinating exchanges. I commented on the relative nature of "Inside" and "Outside" arts and it turned out that one of the people there had trained in an "Inside Art" and could comment about the kinds of stances they were using. Certainly I could make a comment about the Chinese version, but American practices tend to be filtered through ---well--- the American Experience.

In this way, we can't talk about KWON BEOP without considering the various arts that General Qi drew on, the selection process for which Methods were adopted by the Koreans (and why), and which of these Methods are still "vital". Then, just to muddy the waters further, there is the matter of whether any folks who are not Korean would be interested in learning material of great age with---or without-- pragmatic applications for our time. Consider for a moment that TANG Hao and his partner reflected on over 100 arts and produced a syllabus for the same size as any typical MA school. That may easily tell us something about how much arcane, redundant and just plain useless information is floating around. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

In my mind that last statement, Bruce, is quite telling indeed!

And why arguing about certain things with certain people is a huge waste of time...

 

Given the amount of name calling on the thread, I've locked it pending mod review.