There has always been a sort of reluctance to change in both martial arts, and or any of its counter parts.
We realize that certain aspects of martial arts or fight-systems must change with time, and cannot remain the same if we are going to keep up with an ever- changing efficacy of times.
Martial arts have not been immune or an exception to the postmodern philosophical influences, and its superfluid outlook which mainly says that truth is whatever you want it to be, or as Nietzsche once said, “truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are”. [1] Of course, I couldn’t disagree more with Nietzsche on that.
Martial arts have also been shaped through the influence of the forces of traditionalism which adhere to the doctrines or practices of the ancients. Thousands of movements and cults have come out of traditionalism, some of which have had few positive elements, but most are very corrosive and unhealthy. This group of martial artists who are adherents of this philosophy do not care about efficiency, logic, or the ever-changing world. To them, what matters is preserving the tradition at all costs. They derive and merely seek power, credibility, fame, and prestige by associating themselves with certain traditions. This group is the opposite extreme end of the postmodernists.
When looking at their historical records, both of these philosophies tend to distort and retard the human potential to differentiate those areas of the foundational principles that must remain constant and unchanged, as suppose to technical approaches, delivery systems, methodologies, and behavioral patterns which are subject to an inevitable change if healthy progress is to be pursued.
Not all traditions on the one hand, and not all the modern martial arts ideas on the other hand are good or healthy or even effective in self-defense fighting——this also includes some of the ideas that have come out of some of the MMA circles.
How do you know what needs to be changed? Or changed to what? Or how is it supposed to be changed? This is where you need to tangle up with sparring sessions, or at least some measure of realism and resistance must be present in order to have some limited amount of certainty. But the mere personal experiences derived from sparring are still not sufficient, because there may well be biases and distortions in the interpretation of our personal experiences or the way we have configured our sparring sessions. JKD guys are notorious for this. The history is filled with those who have been 110% certain about the accuracy of their personal experiences and later they were proven to be wrong. So, what are you supposed to do, you may ask? What you should do is compare your personal experiences during the sparring sessions, with the collective experiences and results out there in the fight-world. This would act almost like a peer reviewed scientific journal papers in order to reduce and differentiate wishful personal opinions as suppose to factual data. This is why you should take into consideration the collective wisdom and experiences, and not just rely on your own likes and dislikes, or your personal opinions and formulas, as important as they may be.
In short——change is essential and good, but it should not be based on a superfluid postmodern philosophy, nor should it be paralyzed or choked out by the stubborn voice of traditionalism and all its arbitrary authorities.
“… the times never remain the same, for change is a necessary quality and an essential attribute of this world, and of time and place.”
—‘Abdu’l-Bahá
[1] Nietzsche, Friedrich (1954) [1873] On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense. In W. Kaufmann (ed and trans) The Portable Nietzsche (pp. 42-47). New York: Penguin.
