Where do your "concepts" come from?

[anerlich]

Anyone have experience with Jeet Kune Do CONCEPTS they'd care to share?

[t_niehoff]

As far as I am concerned, concepts are nothing more than rule of thumb advice that helps people learn the basics of fighting, technique delivery, stance, movement, and strategy. As I have said many times, if you carry the basic concepts too far you are just "playing WC."

Good. So "concepts" are essentially heuristics. I agree.

So where do they come from? How are they developed?

Ultimately, experience should dictate the final product of your personal style of fighting. If your personal style deviates too far from the concepts set down and explained to you by your instructor then either your WC instructor sucked or you do.

If you think of concepts as heuristics - rules of thumb - that are provisional and not set-in-stone laws (you shall . . . ) and only provide someone with little to no experience limited guidance in their decision-making process but will be superseded and replaced by that experience, then perhaps those heurtics can vary, can be unnecessary, can even be wrong, and in the end, it won't really matter.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Good. So "concepts" are essentially heuristics. I agree.

So where do they come from? How are they developed?



If you think of concepts as heuristics - rules of thumb - that are provisional and not set-in-stone laws (you shall . . . ) and only provide someone with little to no experience limited guidance in their decision-making process but will be superseded and replaced by that experience, then perhaps those heurtics can vary, can be unnecessary, can even be wrong, and in the end, it won't really matter.

Very well said.

[SAAMAG]

Good. So "concepts" are essentially heuristics. I agree.

So where do they come from? How are they developed?

If you think of concepts as heuristics - rules of thumb - that are provisional and not set-in-stone laws (you shall . . . ) and only provide someone with little to no experience limited guidance in their decision-making process but will be superseded and replaced by that experience, then perhaps those heurtics can vary, can be unnecessary, can even be wrong, and in the end, it won't really matter.

Since you want to use the term heuristics lets think about that for a second. Heuristics are rules of thumb created and developed by past experiences [generally by other people].

Like in marketing, there are several hueristics that one can use in their personal interactions with people. These hueristics have been around for sometime and have been proven and scientifically studied to be successful in application, and thus are continuously taught and followed in collegiate studies. These hueristics provide general concepts and techniques that the marketer can use to achieve their goal. They GUIDE the marketer in his or her decision making process to determine what the best strategy would be depending on the situation.

So while yes, a proper hueristic doesn't provide experience at first, the experiences of past individuals using that hueristic provide the supporting data otherwise the rule of thumb wouldn't exist in the first place (unless of course the rule was created from no experience by which the present day application of it would show that it is wrong). Other hueristics can be created based on ones experiences however, and in the end they are what they are...guiding principles. Some people find they help, others don't.

Not that big of an issue.

[t_niehoff]

Since you want to use the term heuristics lets think about that for a second. Heuristics are rules of thumb created and developed by past experiences [generally by other people].

Good, with you so far.

Like in marketing, there are several hueristics that one can use in their personal interactions with people. These hueristics have been around for sometime and have been proven and scientifically studied to be successful in application, and thus are continuously taught and followed in collegiate studies. These hueristics provide general concepts and techniques that the marketer can use to achieve their goal. They GUIDE the marketer in his or her decision making process to determine what the best strategy would be depending on the situation.

So while yes, a proper hueristic doesn't provide experience at first, the experiences of past individuals using that hueristic provide the supporting data otherwise the rule of thumb wouldn't exist in the first place (unless of course the rule was created from no experience by which the present day application of it would show that it is wrong). Other hueristics can be created based on ones experiences however, and in the end they are what they are...guiding principles. Some people find they help, others don't.

Not that big of an issue.

Of course, this still begs the question of where did a particular heuristic come from? Whose experience, doing what?

My point is that I think many of the WCK "concepts" or heuristics come from WCK practitioners -- people commonly called masters or sifu -- that simply aren't skilled at WCK (can't fight using their WCK) and/or are based on unrealsitic practices like chi sao or san sao, and so the heuristic may not be a very good guide to apply to a realistic situation.

Is it a big issue? Only if you believe WCK is conceptually based -- then it is a critical issue. If, on theother hand, you see WCK as skill-based (and the heuristic being simply an unnecessary expedient), then it's not.

[SAAMAG]

Good, with you so far.



Of course, this still begs the question of where did a particular heuristic come from? Whose experience, doing what?

My point is that I think many of the WCK "concepts" or heuristics come from WCK practitioners -- people commonly called masters or sifu -- that simply aren't skilled at WCK (can't fight using their WCK) and/or are based on unrealsitic practices like chi sao or san sao, and so the heuristic may not be a very good guide to apply to a realistic situation.

Is it a big issue? Only if you believe WCK is conceptually based -- then it is a critical issue. If, on theother hand, you see WCK as skill-based (and the heuristic being simply an unnecessary expedient), then it's not.

No argument there. That's what I was saying when I mentioned that the heuristic is no good if its not based on successful application. That's thing about history...we don't know when or from whom the original concept came from, only that its been passed down as a guiding principle...so you try to follow the guiding principle in your usage of the techniques. You try to maintain centerline control, you try to attack on the centerline, you try to maintain forward pressure, you try to never step back, but rather to redirect. If it works...great! If it doesn't--that means someone needs more practice or the theory doesn't have any foundation in real combat.

[t_niehoff]

No argument there. That's what I was saying when I mentioned that the heuristic is no good if its not based on successful application.

Right. So then, shouldn't someone that is teaching a heuristic be able to consistently and successfully apply that heuristic in fighting? Or, do you think these things can just be passed down even though we can't do them?

That's thing about history...we don't know when or from whom the original concept came from, only that its been passed down as a guiding principle...so you try to follow the guiding principle in your usage of the techniques.

Why? Why follow some guiding principle that you can't see work in action?

You try to maintain centerline control, you try to attack on the centerline, you try to maintain forward pressure, you try to never step back, but rather to redirect. If it works...great! If it doesn't--that means someone needs more practice or the theory doesn't have any foundation in real combat.

In my view, the centerline theory is nonsense. I don't try to control a centerline, I try to control my opponent. I don't try to attack on the centerline but attack while controlling him, and my control will provide the opening. I don't try to maintain forward pressure but use various pressures (pushing, pulling, lifting, sinking, etc.) to break my opponent's structure and control him. My stepping is determined by what I need to do to get or maintain control. Why do I need "concepts" when I can just focus on what I am REALLY trying to do?

[SAAMAG]

Right. So then, shouldn't someone that is teaching a heuristic be able to consistently and successfully apply that heuristic in fighting? Or, do you think these things can just be passed down even though we can't do them?

Of course, as should anyone else if it is a proper one.

Why? Why follow some guiding principle that you can't see work in action?

In my view, the centerline theory is nonsense. I don't try to control a centerline, I try to control my opponent. I don't try to attack on the centerline but attack while controlling him, and my control will provide the opening. I don't try to maintain forward pressure but use various pressures (pushing, pulling, lifting, sinking, etc.) to break my opponent's structure and control him. My stepping is determined by what I need to do to get or maintain control. Why do I need "concepts" when I can just focus on what I am REALLY trying to do?

What I mean by the rest of it is that when you first learn something...like wing chun...you go into it not knowing anything about the system. You try to apply what you're being taught, and if it doesn't work -- you either need more practice or you question the validity of it. That's the normal pragmatic process of things.

[canglong]

Concepts are derived directly from the Principle to which they relate.
For instance Gravity being the principle. What goes up must come down being the concept.

For the purpose of this thread and your other How can you tell . . . ? thread Fighting is the principle and wing chun the concept.

When humans are fighting in principle it is a finite situation. There are however; a whole host of variables to the concepts they can apply in their efforts to achieve their desired goals of any fight. Which means there are just as many variables in the answer to the question of How can you tell . . . ?
. . . when someone isn't using WCK principles or concepts? no matter how poorly worded the question.

Because of the nature of wing chun and all its different forms to answer this question one can only speak to the concepts as they have learned them not to the whole of wing chun and all its varying styles unless they have learned all those styles.