IF I HAD A HAMMER - The Illusion of Dependence on Tools
In any area of life where we acquire a set of skills, techniques, or tools it can be easy to become lost in the skill and loose the original creativity that drove us to the learning in the first place.
What good is a carpenter without a hammer? What good is a carpenter without carpentry?
What good is Bruce Lee without his amazing kicks? What good is Bruce Lee without martial art?
What good is the Buddha without his teachings? What good is the Buddha without enlightenment?
We, each of us, is a creative force in potentiality. And that creativity is stuck inside until we learn a method for getting it out, and acquire the techniques and tools to make it happen. When the artist gets too focused on the techniques and tools however, the creativity gets stifled there.
In martial art we find creativity in conflict. But we can become stuck in the hand positions, foot work, and snazzy tricks we learn. In a self-defense situation, in its rawest basic structure, we have exactly two choices in our response to an attack - collapse or expand. Collapse can take the forms of freezing or physical collapse. Expansion can take the forms of ‘flight’ or ‘fight’. But, at the base level these are your two options - collapse or expand .
In martial art we aim for expanding. This is where different schools diverge wildly. Bruce Lee would expand his foot right through the attacker’s face. O’Sensei (founder of Aikido, which I study) would expand to join with the attack and lead the attacker away, down, or into a pin. The techniques of martial art (which ever one catches your fancy) are absolutely essential , without them you have no refinement of the use of your tools, but they are only a means to an end. A way to expand creatively in dealing with a situation.
Just like the difference between a painter who has never learned painting formally and one who has years of tutelage and guidance. They can both express their creative urge in the medium of paint, but I am willing to bet the trained painter will do a better job of it.
In Aikido, by my thinking, the basic method is to reach out to touch our attacker, and to keep moving. What options we have then are predicated by the tools we have learned and perfected, but without first touching and moving we have nothing.
The tools are critical, but they are not the aim.
October 13th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
> They can both express their creative urge in the medium of
> paint, but I am willing to bet the trained painter will do a
> better job of it.”
What do you mean by better?
October 13th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
I mean - Execute the painting with more skill and finesse. Anyone can put paint onto a canvas, and some can produce something at least pleasing at the very first attempt. But, to produce a work with more skill takes training and/or experience.
I can play the piano after having had one summer’s lessons at a summer school musical intensive. I’m just no ver good at it. And, Liberache would knock my socks off.
October 14th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Yes, Liberace would knock your socks off, but he also would have knocked your socks off before he had any formal training. If I had played piano for thirty years, he would have knocked my socks off at age 5. Training and experience does not necessarily imply better, IMHO.
October 16th, 2006 at 9:48 am
AH, I see your point.
Yes, talent counts for something. Liberace, before he ever received a piano lesson probably would not have knocked your socks off however. Training and experience do imply better. Actually they mean better. Better than not having training and experience. They do not make up all of the equation but they are a factor. Without training Liberace would suck at the piano, what his talent means is that the training appears to mean more for him.
Talent + ability + training + experience = full package.