Talk:How to write a descriptive martial arts article in the AKBAN-wiki

From AKBAN-wiki, the Martial Arts Database

this is our equivalent of ynet talkback. Just write in everything, it's nice if you login but you can write here even anonymously.

keith wrote:

• (The links have to be external to link directly to the edit page as it requires GET vars)
  

got it now and did the same in the Shoten article.Yossi 09:18, 23 June 2007 (IDT)

The problem I think that preceeding this paragraph we need to have a foreword demostrating or reviewing past methodologies of system description. I think that the weakpoint of most reviews so far was that it was written from the POV of a "practitioner of the DO", thus someone who a-priori accepted the inherent "truth" of the system, whether technically, morally, esthetically or altogether. This POV refuses any deconstructional debate about the system's goals and contents; accepting this approach means that you must practice something for quite a long time before making any opinion. This, in my view, a vital part of the meta-discussion. Sorry for the big words.

Differentiating outline I agree that a general backgroud is the immediate choice for a system's review, but I'm not sure that it must be in the beginningor even be emphasized. It my only be my opinion but I don't think that it is that important. Yossi: it may contain, though, the "seed" of the semiotic POV you're looking to find in reviews, although I'm not sure whether dealing with eastern simbolicism in systems practiced by westerners is very important in every system on its own, maybe only as a footnote. If you remember a few weeks ago, I think that this is a completely different subject, demonstrated, maybe, by the incomprehensibly stupid sentence: "עיקרון היין והיאנג משמעותו שהכל, כמובן חוץ מהקב"ה, מתחלק לשניים"

characteristics I find a great benefit in separating usability and value from self defined. The outer and inners POV can differ substantially.

What's the difference between self defined characteristics and Concepts of the system?

--Ohads 13:34, 24 June 2007 (IDT)

some thoughts on ohad's perspective on describing martial art

Ohad wrote:The problem I think that preceeding this paragraph we need to have a foreword demostrating or reviewing past methodologies of system description. I think that the weak point of most reviews so far was that it was written from the POV of a "practitioner of the DO", thus someone who a-priori accepted the inherent "truth" of the system, whether technically, morally, esthetically or altogether. This POV refuses any deconstructional debate about the system's goals and contents; accepting this approach means that you must practice something for quite a long time before making any opinion. This, in my view, a vital part of the meta-discussion. Sorry for the big words.

I agree, the deconstructional debate about the contextualized POV is something that does not depend on the amount of time done practicing the system viewed. The amount and the quality of time spent practicing a martial art system contribute to the inner goals of the practitioner and the system, not to the ability to academically analyze a human activity

Differentiating outline I agree that a general backgroud is the immediate choice for a system's review, but I'm not sure that it must be in the beginning or even be emphasized. It my only be my opinion but I don't think that it is that important. Yossi: it may contain, though, the "seed" of the semiotic POV you're looking to find in reviews, although I'm not sure whether dealing with eastern simbolicism in systems practiced by westerners is very important in every system on its own, maybe only as a footnote. If you remember a few weeks ago, I think that this is a completely different subject, demonstrated, maybe, by the incomprehensibly stupid sentence: "עיקרון היין והיאנג משמעותו שהכל, כמובן חוץ מהקב"ה, מתחלק לשניים"

Again, I agree, self defined motos and romantic notions should be absent from the opening paragraphs defining a martial art system. Just as when you open the article about France in any good encyclopedia you do not get exposed to the French national anthem and see crying soldiers freeing Paris, you get the necessary facts and only then, in a special section, you can read about the constructing rational and ideas of the french republic - Viva La revolution!

characteristics - I find a great benefit in separating usability and value from self defined. The outer and inners POV can differ substantially.

What's the difference between self defined characteristics and Concepts of the system?

I think a good deal of space and freedom should be given to self described, inner POV. Let's take this Macdojo system -"The ten cutting and slicing hands of the Mongolian Ninja Chefs from Yemen" for example: It might be that it should be written like this:

1. Usability: the system practitioners practice regularly on a mattress, with no weapons, doing mainly one on one drills or singular kata. Little emphasis in comparison, is placed on throws and groundwork
2. Added values: (here is what is not battle-ready-usability but offers other benefits) The T.t.c.a.h.o.t.m.n.i.c.h.e.f.r.o.y.e.m system posters in its practitioners the illusion of invincibility, practicing T.t.c.a.h.o.t.m.n.i.c.h.e.f.r.o.y.e.m for many years will distance the practitioner from cruel reality and foster inner calm. Also, by practicing T.t.c.a.h.o.t.m.n.i.c.h.e.f.r.o.y.e.m for many years the practitioner will get rid of large amounts of money thereby adapting a non-materialistic point of view.
3. Inner, self defined values (maybe this should go on a separate section as it differs from the above two contexts)The Mcdojo practitioners define themselves as powerful heroes and warriors. Using a curriculum made of Hivinzian Fiz-la Lu, Kong-fu and Ninjutsu the Mcdojo practitioners see themselves as the ultimate warriors capable of transcending physical reality.