The Muhyeong (No-Form) Principle in ITF Taekwon-Do

On 22 November 2023 I delivered a paper entitled "From Decisiveness to Adaptability: The Muhyeong-Principle in (ITF) Taekwondo" at the 4th International Taekwondo Conference under the theme "Martial Arts Meditations: Philosophical Issues and Contemporary Research on Taekwondo", organized by Youngsan University (South Korea) with the support of Kasetsart University (Thailand), on occasion of the 40th Anniversary of Youngsan University. 

It was an online conference, so the organizer requested us to prerecord our presentations and then join the conference via Zoom for panel discussions. Below is the recording I made, and below that is the abstract of the paper. 

ABSTRACT: 

From Decisiveness to Adaptability: The Muhyeong-Principle in (ITF) Taekwondo

Dr. Sanko Lewis

This paper explores one aspect in the evolution of taekwondo from karate. Karate emphasizes kime (“decision”), manifested as the isometric concentration of the whole body at the final moment of the technique. Taekwondo inherited this concept but named it jipjung (“concentration”). Taekwondo’s jipjung retains the physical aspects of kime, but underlying philosophical connotations differ. Furthermore, the ITF style of taekwondo introduces the concept of muhyeong, meaning “no-form,” which functions as the complementary opposite of jipjung. If jipjung represents the moment when the technique is concentrated into its clearest form, muhyeong represents the unformed state of the technique—the state of potentiality. This emphasis on the relaxed and formless part of the overall movement enhances muscular efficiency and offers strategic adaptability. It may also be interpreted as aligning with East Asian philosophical ideas, such as eumyang (yinyang), muwi (wuwei), and mushim (mushin).

Keywords: Taekwondo, karate, kime, jipjung, muhyeong, East Asian philosophy, martial arts philosophy.

The Tenet of ‘Courtesy’ in Taekwon-Do

Calligraphy by Choi Hong-Hi
of the Tenets of Taekwon-Do

 

General Choi Hong-hi, the founder of ITF Taekwon-Do, composed a list of five tenets that he required practitioners to recite and embody. The tenets, as they are translated into English, are courtesy [예의], integrity [염치], perseverance [인내], self-control [극기], and an indomitable spirit [백절 불굴]. As I pointed out in a previous essay, with some of these terms, there is something lost in translation. This is also the case for the first tenet, “courtesy”.

 

In English, the word “courtesy” suggests polite and respectful behaviour with proper etiquette, which is close to the translations one would get if you search the equivalent Korean word [예의] in a Korean-English dictionary: manners, etiquette, courtesy, politeness, proprieties, decorum, and civility.

 

While this may be a general understanding of the term, the Korean word “ye-eui” has a deeper connotation which one may glimpse when you look at the hanja (Chinese characters) on which the word is based. The hanja for “ye-eui” [예의] is 禮儀. The first character [禮] can translate to manners (decent and respectable behaviour) or ritual propriety (proper actions during rites and ritual ceremonies), while the second character roughly translates to proper etiquette, but can also translate as righteous or lawful behaviour. What I want to point out here is that the Korean term “ye-eui” [예의] has a much more demanding implication than the English word “courtesy”. Courteous behaviour may simply be good manners and one’s adherence or disregard of them does not really have any serious consequences. Whereas the Korean term implies the righteousness or lawfulness of one’s conduct. 

 

Confucius was a Chinese sage-philosopher
whose teachings greatly affected East Asia.
There are still many aspects of Confucianism
that are part of modern Korean culture.

 

Confucianism is fundamental to Korean culture and central to Confucianism is the concept of li (‘ritual propriety’ or ‘sense-of-ritual’). Li covers a wide range of conduct and behaviour from religious rites to state and governmental rituals, to social ceremonies such as at weddings and funerals, to appropriate etiquette for social relations. In other words, it covers every aspect of one’s life: in religious matters, with regards to the State, in society at large, within families, and among all relationships. It is both the adherence to state laws and the respect one shows to one’s parents and elders, including the good manners when interacting with people in daily life, even such seeming trivialities as drinking etiquette and table manners.

Confucianism (cf. Mencius) believes that we have the seeds of li innately inside us, but that a ‘sense-of-ritual’ should be learned and developed. The idea of “ritual” here should be understood more broadly to include all appropriate behaviours: manners, etiquette, lawful deeds and righteous conduct. Furthermore, notice the concept “sense-of-ritual”: it is not merely about adhering to codes and rules of conduct; rather, there should be an internal sense of appropriate behaviour. Thus, “sense-of-ritual” refers to a developed moral sensibility.

The Confucian ideal is to be a junzi [君子], often translated as “a gentleman” or “superior person.” (The Korean equivalent is a gunja [군자], a person of virtue and culture.) When Confucius’ greatest disciple Yan Hui asked his Master about perfect virtue (ren 仁), Confucius answered: “Don’t look in a way that is not li, don’t listen in a way that is not li, don’t speak in a way that is not li, and don’t move in a way that is not li.” It would be incorrect to conclude that it is all about outward behaviours—how one ought to or ought not to behave. Confucius’ answer was in regard to his student’s question about virtue. Virtue is more than just an outward display; in a righteous person, virtues have become internalized. Confucian scholars like Mencius considered li a virtue alongside other virtues such as benevolence, filial piety, and sincerity. To another student Confucius answered: “Let your words be sincere and truthful and your actions honorable and careful.”  

 

Bowing before training is one
part of showing courtesy.

 

To bring it back to our original discussion of Taekwon-Do’s tenet of courtesy, the Chinese term li is in fact the same first character in the word “ye-eui” [예의, 禮儀]. Often in Taekwon-Do we understand “courtesy” simply as the respectful behaviours in the dojang such as taking our shoes off before stepping onto the mat, or bowing to instructors or to our opponents before sparring; however, as I tried to show here, ‘courtesy’ must be understood in a much broader sense. Like the other tenets, it is not just limited to the confines of the dojang. The courtesy tenet extends to how we treat people in our daily lives—with respect and sincerity—and the way we conduct ourselves in society. It is not merely about behaviour, but rather an attitude (“sense-of-ritual”). It is also culturally sensitive and situationally sensitive, what Koreans call nunchi [눈치], which is the ability to read a social situation and act appropriately. To embody courtesy means that you will conduct yourself in a noble and virtuous manner at all times—like a junzi / gunja, a person of culture and learning.

In an essay I posted on the Soo Shim Kwan-blog in December 2020 I mentioned as a footnote the idea of postmodern martial arts. In the middle of 2021, while on a martial arts podcast about that post, the interviewer asked me about that postmodern martial arts comment. My answer on the podcast was rather sparce because to answer such a question would really require at least a cursory exposition of what Postmodernism is and only then can one attempt to define what a postmodern martial art would look like. Since our time on the interview was already coming to an end, I kept my response brief. However, the postmodern topic again passed by my radar recently when in two of my university classes this past semester I spent a few units on Postmodernism. This made me think about postmodern martial arts again, so I decided now might be a good time to ponder the topic once more—here in writing.  

What is a Postmodern Martial Art?

 by Dr. Sanko Lewis 

Postmodernism

Image Source 
Different modernist worldviews
promised utopias, but delivered
dystopian regimes.

Let me begin with a brief—and very simplified—introduction to Postmodernism. Postmodernism is a Zeitgeist (“spirit of the time”). Zeitgeists are basically a ‘paradigm’ or ‘worldview’ and is detectible in the many ways that it manifests in society, culture, art, and even technology. The postmodern Zeitgeist emerged around the 1960’s out of an earlier Zeitgeist, known as Modernism. The “post-” prefix in Post-modernism does not mean that it appeared after the end of Modernism, but merely that it emerged after the start of Modernism. Aspects of Modernism is still very much active today; nevertheless, Postmodernism has become hugely prevalent in many aspects of society at large. Without going into too much of the history of these Zeitgeists, let’s suffice to say that Modernism promised Utopias but delivered the world wars and the exploitation of natural resources. Against this background of the Holocaust and Hiroshima, a cynicism and scepticism emerged which is at the core of Postmodernism. Put simply, Postmodernism rose in reaction to the ideals and values of Modernism.

Some important postmodern themes are:

• the questioning and doubting of Grand Narratives,
• the breaking-down or crossing of boundaries and borders,
• decentralization and discontinuity,
• and recycling and repurposing.

These themes manifest in many ways. I will discuss the themes and some of their manifestations as they relate to martial arts.

 

Premodern and Modern Martial Arts

However, before we do so, it is important to make a quick distinction between premodern and modern martial arts.

Zhang Sanfeng observing
a fight between a snake
and a bird.

Premodern martial arts are those martial arts that is thought to have developed in “ancient times” and adhere to a premodern worldview; for instance, the believe in an animistic force (such as qi), esoteric tribal (i.e., in-group) knowledge, and techniques inspired by phenomena in the natural world, such as natural cycles and animal behaviour. It is often believed that the martial art and its “secrets” have been handed down in a lineage from master to disciple over hundreds of years and numerous generations. An example of a “traditional” martial art might be Taiji Ch’uan, which adhere to the theory of qi-power, the natural cycles of yin and yang, and the folklore of the Taoist monk Zhang Sanfeng who witnessed a fight between a snake and a crane.  

On the other hand, modern martial arts are based primarily on a modern scientific understanding of motion (Newtonian physics) and the human body (physiology and biomechanics). Techniques are sourced from what “works” (although this is questionable), rather than handed-down secrets. That does not mean that modern martial arts are not transmitted from one generation to the next, but the relationship is one of coach and athlete, rather than traditional master and disciple. Although ITF Taekwon-Do occasionally regresses to premodern customs, as a whole, ITF Taekwon-Do is a modern martial art that was deliberately modernized by its founder. There are no secrets only available to the insiders; credibility through lineages has been replaced by certificates from an international governing body; magic energy made way for Newtonian physics, and poetic animalistic moves became standardized biomechanical techniques.  

Both traditional martial arts and modern martial arts place their faith in their chosen Grand Narratives. The term “Grand Narrative” refers to a “big story”, i.e., a standard explanation, for how things work. The Grand Narrative in premodern martial arts is the lineage and the inherited tribal wisdom and associated philosopy. The ancestral line is the centre of the system and what legitimizes the practitioner’s knowledge and skill. In the case of modern martial arts, the Grand Narrative is often some form of technical manifesto which is legitimized by a governing body. For example, ITF Taekwon-Do has a technical manifesto known as the “Theory of Power” and the related canonical technical explanations which provides a “scientific model” for the system. This is in turn interpreted and supposedly updated by the Technical Committee of the ITF (whether at a local governing body or international governing body level). In theory the Technical Committee is (or ought to be) populated by people that are highly experienced in the system and have relevant qualifications in, for example, physical education, sport science, biomechanics, physiology, physics, etc.

Both premodern and modern martial arts are structured within boundaries. Premodern martial arts function as intangible cultural artifacts—like traditional dances. The cultural context, such as an ethnicity, tribe, village, or family is its boundary; it is what separates it from another martial art systems. For instance, Taiji Ch’uan is a Chinese martial art that can be differentiate into five (literal) family styles: Chen Family Style (i.e., the version of Taiji Ch’uan developed by the Chen family of the Chen Village in Henan province); Yang Style; Wi Style; Sun Style; and Hao Style. Modern martial arts often define their boundary by their specialization, such as being a striking art or a grappling art, a combat sport or military close combat system, and so on. Modern martial arts seldom claim to be “everything.” Both Judo and Boxing are sports, but clearly within their own spheres: the one would not claim to be a striking system nor would the other claim to be grappling system. Although Taekwon-Do may have some throws and ground techniques, it is ultimately a striking art. Similarly, Brazilian Jiu-jitsu may have some techniques from a standing position, but it is on the ground where it comes into its own.

 

Postmodern Martial Arts

With the preceding context we are ready to dive into the notion of postmodern martial arts. I will propose three examples of postmodern martial arts: Hapkido, Jeet Kune Do, and what has become known as mixed martial arts. And I will discuss each of these in relation to the postmodern themes that I outlined earlier.

 

Hapkido

Hapkido is a modern martial art in the sense that it is one of the “modern” systems that developed in the early 20^th century out of a premodern heritage.

Choi Yong Sul, the "founder" of Hapkido

During the Japanese occupation of Korea, a young boy named Choi Yong Sul was taken to Japan. There he became a house servant to Takeda Sōdaku, the founder of Daitō-ryū AIki-jūjutsu. At the end of the occupation, Choi returned to Korea and started teaching what he called, among other names, “Yusul” (the Korean rendition of “jujutsu”). As the system evolved, so did its name, and eventually the name “Hapkido” became most popular. While originally based on a Japanese system, Hapkido has evolved dramatically. From early on, techniques that are foreign to the original Daitō-ryū AIki-jūjutsu, such as an extended arsenal of kicks-and-striking techniques, were incorporated from various local (Korean) and foreign martial arts. Hapkido also developed numerous weapon systems influenced from local and foreign, such as Chinese and Japanese, systems. Hapkido is a discontinuous martial art—a bricolage of techniques repurposed from various systems; i.e., “crossing of boundaries and borders”. Additionally, Hapkido still adhere to aspects of premodern martial arts, such as the concept of qi (known as “gi” in Korean) that features centrally in Hapkido’s technical philosophy and practice. Yet it is also acts like a modern martial art—claiming to be a self-defence system based on a technical manifesto of Newtonian physics and biomechanical principles.

Image Source

At first, Hapkido adhered to a strong lineage starting with Choi Yong Sul, but by implication connected to Takeda Sōdaku and his Japanese system. However, Hapkido quickly reimagined itself as a Korean system, and incorporated not only Korean techniques but also Korean philosophical concepts. The lineage with Choi Yong Sul is still acknowledged but as of today there are over 60 governing bodies in South Korea alone, making it very much a fragmented system. It is not a surprise, then, that the technical syllabi are practically unique from school to school, with little standardization worldwide.

Most Hapkido schools present themselves in the way of premodern martial arts with a long lineage, a particular ethno- and cultural quality (i.e., Korean), a master-disciple pedagogy, and even qi-cultivation techniques. However, these elements are questionable, and may rather be understood from the postmodern theme of “recycling and repurposing.” It is difficult to say to what degree Hapkido is Japanese, rather than Korean, not to mention the incorporation of techniques from other systems such, for example, Sambo (Russian wrestling) and various Chinese styles. The master-disciple pedagogy of tribes and villages is not how Hapkido is taught today—rather, Hapkido schools are mostly often businesses and the students are clients. And it is not quite clear how many instructors actually believe that qi is essential to Hapkido techniques. In many Hapkido schools the idea of qi and even qi exercises such as abdominal breathing exercises, often performed at the beginning or end of a class, seem more to be an addendum than truly part of the system. Techniques are better explained through physics, biomechanics, and physiology rather than Taoist principles.

 

Jeet Kune Do

Jeet Kune Do is the martial philosophy of Bruce Lee.

Apart from martial arts, Bruce Lee 
was also a cha cha dance champion.
Image Source

Lee’s family was involved in Cantonese opera, which includes various disciplines ranging from acting to singing to martial arts. Hence, Lee was exposed to these performing arts and even performed in some rolls as a child. While in school, Lee learned boxing and as a teenager he started learning Wing Chung Kung Fu under a grandmaster of the style Yip Man, who claimed to be part of the direct lineage to the Yim Wing-chun after whom the style was named. Lee also added the Cuban dance cha-cha-cha to his extracurricular activities. Lee relocated to the United States where he started to teach martial arts—basically his version of Wing Chun, but here Lee would be exposed to various other martial arts. For instance, Lee learned Taekwon-Do kicks from Grandmaster Jhoon Rhee (father of Taekwon-Do in the USA).

In 1964 Lee had a fight with a Chinese martial artist, Wong Jack-man, in Oakland, California. According to Lee the reason for the dual was because he was teaching martial arts to “outsiders” (i.e., Americans), which was not allowed by the Chinese community. Although Lee claimed to have won the fight, he was disappointed with his performance and concluded that his traditional martial art skillset was too formalized and, hence, limiting. This led to a journey of abandoning tradition for what he called a “style of no style.” His goal was not to create yet another system of fixed techniques, but rather a “philosophy” that embraced the idea of “using no way as way”; i.e., not being limited to any particular martial system but rather incorporating whatever works from any system, based around a number of technical and strategic principles such as efficacy and interception.

Bruce Lee learned Taekwon-Do kicks from Jhoon Rhee

This exemplifies the postmodern questioning of Grand Narratives. Lee questioned both tradition and lineage (“discontinuity”) and started to research and incorporate other martial arts into his system, including those of European origin such as European fencing and savate (a French martial art). Thus, Lee manifested another postmodern theme: “the breaking-down or crossing of boundaries and borders,” which he was also doing, according to his account, by not only learning from other cultural systems but also teaching “outsiders”. Sourcing from different martial arts also exemplifies the postmodern theme of “recycling and repurposing.” Bruce Lee was clearly a postmodernist, and his methodology was one of deconstruction. Lee named his approach Jeet Kune Do.

Today, many people who practise “Jeet Kune Do” are not doing it as a postmodern philosophy. Rather, they have reverted to premodern martial arts notions of lineage and other fixed training methodologies. Nevertheless, there are still people who follows Lee’s postmodern “way of no way”.

 

Mixed Martial Arts (aka Hybrid Martial Arts)

As the name suggest, mixed martial arts are literally the result of sourcing skills from different martial arts to form a hybrid or eclectic system. In other words, it is the individualized practice of mixing techniques together, often to create a personalized “rounded” skillset that can defend at different spheres of engagement: striking, clinch, and ground. One might combine Boxing, Taekwondo, and Judo; or Muay Thai and Brazilian Jiujitsu; or any other combination.

Image Source

This mixing of styles from different systems and even different cultures is a manifestation of the “crossing of boundaries” theme in Postmodernism. Furthermore, as there is no respect for an actual ancestral lineage nor a true governing body, mixed martial arts is essentially decentralized. Practitioners can jump from one school or system to another at whim as soon as they have “collected” a skill or technique that they wish to add to their skillset collage. Mixed martial arts training is discontinuous in nature—this doesn’t mean that the practitioner is not continually training, but simply that they are not necessarily loyal to a continuous lineage as is the case with premodern martial arts or the dedicated specialization in modern martial arts. There is a scepticism in mixed martial arts that questions the validity of traditional (i.e., premodern) martial arts as well as the myopic focus of the modern martial arts, but when valuable techniques or skills are identified, they are dislodged from their original context and repurposed to the new non-traditional context.

A sport known as “Mixed Martial Arts” (MMA), epitomized by the UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championship), has emerged. This sport is in many ways similar to modern martial art combat sports—it is nevertheless postmodern in its mixing of a serious sport with the pomp and pageantry of the entertainment industry.

 

Embracing a Positive Postmodernism

I’m certain, that many martial artists would feel offended if I were to say that their practise is postmodern or even that they could benefit from being more postmodern in their training. For many people, Postmodernism has become a swear word, often associated with Relativism and Nihilism; hence they associate anything “postmodern” with meaninglessness. Unfortunately, this is due to a common misunderstanding and inadequate understanding of Postmodernism. It is not the case that Postmodernism is anti-truth, as is often claimed. Postmodernism’s protest of Grand Narratives does not mean that there is no truth, but rather that reality is too multifaceted to be explained by a singular framework (i.e., one Grand Narrative).

The parable of "The Blind and the Elephant"
exemplifies the postmodern understanding of truth
that is approximated through different points-of-view.
Image Source

A postmodern pursuit of knowledge is one that allows for many points-of-view. In martial arts terms we may call it “cross-training.” It is the realization that there is no ultimate martial art, but rather that we can learn from many martial arts. And in fact, it is such an ability to view the world from different points of view that brings us closer to reality. As such, simple “cross-training” is not enough. For instance, mixed martial arts are postmodern in their cross-training, but they are often spiritually superficial, as they still tend to cling to singular goals, such as a modernist ideal of winning at all cost. Mixed martial artist could benefit from expanding their “cross-training” to other “spiritual” disciplines such as finding ways to include a “spiritual discipline” or “moral culture” or even meditation in their training so that they don’t just train how to fight, but also pursue becoming better human beings (goals often pursued  within premodern martial arts). It is here then where I want to connect this essay with the essay which I wrote just over a year ago on “Pre-Rational, Rational, Trans-RationalViews of Martial Arts”.

It is my conviction that there is value in becoming transmodern martial artists that incorporate the best of both premodern and modern martial arts paradigms and develop systems that are truly beneficial at various levels. I believe that one can do this within existing systems or individually within one’s personal martial arts journey. It requires, however, honesty, humility, and open-mindedness. Honesty to admit what doesn’t work within your system; humility to learn from other people and other sources; and open-mindedness to explore the unfamiliar.

I do make a distinction between simply a postmodern martial artist and a trans-modern martial artist. The former can easily become haphazardly fragmentary, without any over arching cohesion. Or, simply busy with deconstruction* without reconstruction. However, if the postmodern journey is a positive one, where the deconstruction is also generative, then it may be of the trans-modern sort: a creative journey of development that synergistically brings together principles and ideas across various styles and disciplines to create something deeper and richer.

*Deconstruction is a postmodern methodology for analyzing the underlining assumptions and contradictions within a system.

Pre-Rational, Rational, Trans-Rational Views of Martial Arts

This year I haven't had much time to contribute to the Soo Shim Kwan blog. Practically of the posts were material I prepared for academic purposes such as academic articles, conferences and symposiums. However, before 2020 comes to an end, I decided to write one essay. I'm guessing that this essay may rub some people the wrong way, but I think the concepts are very useful and will hopefully help some people in understanding the martial arts better.

Pre-Rational, Rational, Trans-Rational Views of Martial Arts

By Dr. Sanko Lewis

I sometimes find myself bumping heads with rational people over certain aspects in Taekwon-Do because they seem to think my acceptance of some elements of Taekwon-Do is an irrational clinging to tradition or a cult-like following of the principal founder of Taekwon-Do, Choi Hong-Hi. I came to realize that there is a Pre/Trans fallacy at work. Therefore, for this essay I want to explore three paradigms for understanding martial arts, which we can name Prerational, Rational, and Transrational paradigms. We may also name these paradigms Premodern, Modern, and Transmodern.[1] I will apply these respective terms (Prerational:Premodern; Rational:Modern; Transrational:Transmodern) interchangeably.

An understanding of these three paradigms may help us to clarify and distinguish between various martial arts systems and the work of martial arts instructors and scholars.

 

Prerational Martial Arts, i.e. Premodern Martial Arts

Prerational martial arts—specifically within the East Asian martial arts context—are those martial arts that we usually group under the heading of “traditional” martial arts. These martial arts often have an exceptionally long historical claim, with a mythical or legendary origin or founder. Instructors’ authority is based on an unbroken lineage and their knowledge is supposed to be the accumulated wisdom passed down from one generation to the next, from master to disciple. Such martial arts claim to possess “secret” knowledge, secret techniques, maybe even secret manuals, that was passed down from the previous generation to only the most deserving disciples. The forms (patterns) are often believed to contain hidden or secret techniques that are only known or understood by the initiated. Thus, prerational martial arts may be defined as esoteric.

These martial arts’ pedagogies are often not very structured. Generally, there are no clear ranks (i.e. grades or belts). Rank distinction is very rudimentary. There is the master and his or her disciples, and the students’ seniority is based on their length of study and loyalty. In the most traditional systems, before a master dies, he would appoint his successor—usually the most loyal and longest studying student, who it is believed have learned everything the master knows, including the system’s secret knowledge. Premodern martial arts are also often tribal, believing their system is the best and other systems are weaker since they do not share the same secret knowledge. Not surprisingly, there tends to be a distrust of outsiders. 

 

A Chinese painting from the 2nd Century BC,
depicting Qigong (Doinsul) exercises.

Often, the theories of power in these premodern martial arts are based on an animistic worldview, such as Daoism (China) or Shintoism (Japan). Animism refers to a belief that everything (from stones to mountains to people) is permeated or animated with a life force or spiritual energy. In East Asia this life force is known as 氣 [Qi (Chi) in Chinese, Gi in Korean, and Ki in Japanese.] It is believed that humans can manipulate 氣 through certain training such as Qigong (China) or Doinsul (Korea). By cultivating and manipulating 氣, the practitioner can improve their own health and increase their physical strength—even, acquire supernaturally powerful martial arts techniques. 氣 cultivation training often involves meditation and/or breathing exercises, particular poses, and pose sequences (forms or patterns). Furthermore, if one knows the secrets, one can also inhibit the life force in your opponent, for instance through the striking of secret points on their body to create energy blockages. It is important to note here that these prerational martial arts are not necessarily ignorant of physics and physiology, although such knowledge is sometimes based on outdated scientific models.

Premodern martial arts are also known to include other quasi-religious teachings. The martial art is often used as an ascetic discipline for spiritual development. Thus, the martial art is viewed holistically. It is not just about learning how to fight, but also a means to better health, moral growth, and spiritual enlightenment. The student is an apprentice and disciple, and the instructor is a skilled artisan and spiritual teacher.

 

Rational Martial Arts, i.e. Modern Martial Arts

Jigoro Kana, the Founder of Judo, and pioneer of modern martial arts

 

The degree to which the label “rational” applies to different martial arts differs, since many rational martial arts also include some prerational elements because modern martial arts usually developed out of premodern systems. Rational or modern martial arts are those that developed during the 20^th century and culminated in MMA in the 21^st century. Probably the earliest modern martial art is Judo, which was created by Jigoro Kano in 1882. Kano had a Western education and it is believed that this greatly influenced his systematizing of Judo’s pedagogy. He was the first to introduce a belt ranking system in the martial arts. Most of the martial arts that developed in the 20^th century such as Taekwon-Do, Jeet Kune Do, and even kickboxing may be considered rational or modern martial arts.

Modern martial arts instructors’ get their authority from governing bodies (organizations) that certify their rank. Techniques are generally explained, not through lineage, philosophical metaphors, or esoteric notions of energy, but Newtonian physics and biomechanics. Research in Physical Education and Sport Science are embraced to enhance the athletes’ performance. In fact, the martial art is often streamlined to a singular focus, such as combatives (e.g. Krav Maga) or sport (e.g. Judo, WT Taekwondo).

Probably the pinnacle of modern martial arts is Mixed Martial Arts. MMA has nearly completely thrown-off its obligation to lineage and tradition. Techniques are aggregated from many different martial arts based purely on their efficiency within the MMA ruleset (most notably the UFC). Techniques are explained by means of a Western scientific understanding of physics, biomechanics, and sports physiology. There is no ascetic goal or focus on spiritual growth or development of the character. Instead, the focus is to become a better “fighter” (i.e. athlete), physically and technically.

Rational martial arts tend to reject and look down on prerational martial arts, viewing them as useless, outdated, and superstitious or fake.

 

Trans-Rational Martial Arts

For this section on transrational martial arts, I am going to talk more about transrational martial artists in particular, rather than transrational martial arts in general. The reason is there are very few martial arts systems that as a whole can be considered transrational because most practitioners within these systems are often blends of Pre-Rational and Rational.

Transrational refers to a transcendence (and inclusion) of the rational. It is the ability to use the rational, without fully rejecting everything that the prerational represent. It is an ability to re-investigate the prerational and reinterpret and re-apply premodern ideas and techniques from a new paradigm. Note that the transrational practitioner is not a blend of Pre-Rational and Rational, but a transcendence of both. I will provide some examples later which will help to clarify the distinction.

 

Applying these Paradigms to Taekwon-Do

To make these concepts more tangible, I will now apply these paradigms to (ITF) Taekwon-Do.

Taekwon-Do developed in the 20^th century. It was built on a foundation inherited from mostly Shotokan Karate which in turn came out of prerational martial arts. However, from the start, Taekwon-Do based its teachings on Newtonian physics. In all 15 volumes of the ITF Taekwon-Do Encyclopaedia, there is only one short passage referring to 氣 (“Ki” / “Chi”), and not within the context of power generation. Power generation is understood through such equations as Force = Mass x Acceleration or Kinetic Energy = ½ Mass x Velocity².

Even the language has been demystified. Nearly all terminology has been stripped of their poetic and metaphoric nuance. There are no techniques with names like “monkey steals peach”, “pulling the tiger’s tail”, or “silk reeling”. Instead, techniques are conspicuously descriptive: front punch, side strike, low block, back kick, joint break… There is no “secret” knowledge in Taekwon-Do that are only available to the grandmasters. At a technical level, Taekwon-Do instructors are simply coaches that help the practitioner achieve their athletic goals.

Taekwon-Do is a modern, rational martial art; however, occasionally we can find some prerational / premodern aspects within Taekwon-Do.

Considering WT / Kukki Taekwondo for a moment, the idea that Taekwondo has a 2000-year Korean history is still propagated by some members of World Taekwondo and the Kukkiwon. Even though this 2000-year history narrative has been thoroughly debunked, there are still people who cling to this notion because such a long lineage claim provides a sense of legitimacy. (And it sidesteps the inconvenient truth that Taekwon-Do has its roots in a Japanese martial art.)

While ITF Taekwon-Do has thankfully not taken up this untruth, there are nevertheless people with similar prerational views within ITF. One example is the unwavering loyalty to the Choi bloodline and lineage proximity to General Choi Honghi, who was the principal founder of Taekwon-Do and first president of ITF Taekwon-Do. There are some people within ITF who are obsessed with their lineage proximity to General Choi; in other words, the idea that if you trained directly under General Choi or if your instructor trained under General Choi, then your Taekwon-Do is more legitimate than someone who is a third or fourth or later generation practitioner. Before General Choi passed away, he appointed North Korean IOC member, Chang Ung, as his successor. Dr. Chang Ung was succeeded by Grandmaster Ri Yongson. Some people are of the opinion that those who do not follow this lineage are not really doing authentic ITF Taekwon-Do. Similarly is the idea that there is “magic” in the Choi bloodline; the notion that General Choi’s son, Grandmaster Choi Junghwa, is the only true embodiment of Taekwon-Do and that people who are not following him are not practicing true Taekwon-Do. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not disrespecting General Choi or the Choi-family, I’m just pointing out that this type of thinking is prerational and tribalistic. One is definitely able to practice real ITF Taekwon-Do—and be great at it—even if you have never trained directly with General Choi or Grandmaster Choi Junghwa. You can also be a true practitioner of the ITF system, even if you are not affiliated with any of the mainstream ITF branches. There is no magic in the lineage, bloodline, or organization. General Choi broke with that prerational lineage notion when he made it clear that Taekwon-Do is a new invention based on Karate and a few other sources and by teaching Taekwon-Do not to a few selected students, but all around the world to anyone willing to learn. There are no secrets passed down to a select few. Taekwon-Do has been democratized. Anyone may have access to the Taekwon-Do knowledge as provided in the ITF Encyclopedia and other sources.[2]

A further example of prerational martial arts thinking you may have come across are those people who search for “secret” applications from the patterns and go through great pains to show applications from the patterns—sometimes the applications are ridiculously contrived but they are presented as “hidden” discoveries. Rational martial artists often fall into this trap because they want to explain the inclusion of the patterns within the system in a rational way. They want to legitimize the training in patterns, since it is so obvious that the patterns are unnatural and do not reflect actual combat.

Another example is the ‘sinewave motion’, which is a teaching aid that conveys a number of useful principles, which I will simply reduce to (1) as far as possible begin each movement from a state of relaxation, (2) accelerate all of your body mass in the direction of the technique, (3) when possible move with gravity. Apart from these technical functions the ‘sinewave motion’ also have a cultural funtion; it provides a Korean cultural character to the techniques by including Korean Body Culture elements such as ogeumjil  오금질  (knee-bending / knee-spring), three-beat rhythm, gokseonmi 곡선미 [曲線美] (Korean curved line aesthetics), etc. Unfortunately, there are some people who consider the ‘sine wave motion’ in a prerational manner as a “secret” or “magical” way to increase power. They use it as a tribal identifier to look down on other martial artists who do not know and use this “secret” method. Also, they often apply the ‘sinewave motion’ not as a teaching aid to convey certain principles of movement, but in all contexts even when it would be illogical to do so. For instance, the full ‘sinewave motion’ contains a relaxation, rising, and execution or falling phase, often mnemonically chanted as “down-up-down”. Doing the falling phase during an upward technique such as a high punch is counterproductive, nevertheless, these practitioners apply the ‘sinewave motion’ in a blanket fashion to nearly all techniques. 

Tribal premodern thinking is also evident when certain organizations prohibit their members to train with non-affiliated members (i.e., “outsiders”) or prohibit them to compete in tournaments or participate in seminars of other organizations. Nearly a decade ago, a friend and I who both practice ITF Taekwon-Do and Hapkido used to train together. At the time, we could freely train Hapkido together, but not Taekwon-Do because the ITF organization he belongs to did not allow members to train with “outsiders.” One would hope that such tribalistic and esoteric thinking would be something of the past; however, I heard of a recent case where one ITF group expelled a master who opened his private seminar to members outside of the ITF group he was affiliated with.

Moving on, I believe, based on General Choi’s continual evolution of his system, that Taekwon-Do was intended not to be simply a rational martial art, but rather a transrational martial art. Rational martial arts, as I mentioned before, are usually myopic. They tend to have a single focus such as competition or combat exclusively. MMA as exemplified by the UFC or Krav Maga are such examples. At the very beginning, even General Choi viewed his new style in such a manner—primarily as a combat system for the ROK military.

Like the holistic prerational martial arts, transrational martial arts also acknowledge that the martial arts may have many different goals. ITF Taekwon-Do is foremost an “art of self-defence,” but it can also be a means to improve health and develop character, be a recreational sport, a way to promote Korean culture, and even a soft diplomacy tool. In his further development of Taekwon-Do, General Choi started to include these and other goals for Taekwon-Do. Instructors are therefore not reduced to sport coaches only, but to life coaches—and based on the ITF Taekwon-Do terms for instructors, they are conceived as teachers of moral wisdom.

Rather than disregarding everything prerational as irrational, as proponents of rational martial arts tend to do, transrational martial artists revisit prerational aspects and reinterpret them from a new enlightened vantage point. Meditation and danjeon-breathing are a common part of prerational martial arts, which is often disparaged by modern martial artists because these breathing exercises are part of the 氣-development curricula of premodern martial arts. Transrational martial artists, however, are aware of the contemporary scientific research on the numerous benefits of meditation practices such as visualization for performance enhancement, mind-training for focus, and conscious breathing techniques (aka “breathwork”) that can be used to achieve various physiological and psychological states.

The patterns are similarly upcycled by transrational martial artists. The patterns are not viewed as 氣-cultivation poses, as in the case of prerational martial arts, nor do they pretend that the patterns are combative manuals as sometimes happen with rational martial arts. They accept that the patterns are cultural artifacts inherited from the prerational martial arts and has value as part of the intangible cultural heritage of the system. Transrational martial artists are honest about the fact that patterns do not reflect real fighting and that we do not fight like we do patterns. Instead of trying to derive hidden secret applications from the patterns, transrational martial artists rather use the patterns in a more general way to teach certain movement principles or use sequences of the patterns as inspiration for dynamic context drills. Note this is different from searching for secret or hidden applications, because generally these secret-technique hunters try to find specific applications for a movement sequence. Whereas, applied to dynamic context drills, these sequences are used to find combative or tactical principles, rather that specific applications[3]. A good example of someone who use the patterns in a transrational way is Master Colin Wee[4]. Transrational martial artists will also employ the patterns for purposes beyond combat; for example, the patterns are great for suhaeng 수행, a type of movement meditation practice.

Moving on to the ‘sinewave motion’: instead of seeing the ‘sinewave motion’ as bad science, as so many of the modern martial artists do, transrational martial artists understand that the ‘sinewave motion’ is simply a tool for teaching particular principles about movement and Korean culture; and they use these principles not dogmatically but as they are situationally apt. 

 

Pre/Trans Fallacy

At the start of this essay, I mentioned the Pre/Trans Fallacy. This fallacy occurs when rational martial artists mistake transrational martial artists as prerational. The problem is that transrational martial artists sometimes use the practices, terminology, and metaphors of the prerational system. Rational practitioners have a knee-jerk reaction to this, and then simply dismiss transrational instructors as prerational. The difference between prerational martial artists and transrational martial artists is vast. When a transrational martial artist use aspect from prerational martial arts, they do so from a completely different paradigm. They are not working from a prerational “magic” paradigm, but from one that is rational and open-minded. They view the martial arts in a broader context, for instance not simply as a means for fighting but as a tool for enhancing individuals’ lifes and affecting society—informed by modern science, personal experience, and cultural awareness.

For example, I am an ITF Taekwon-Do practioner who performs the ‘sinewave motion’ during patterns. When someone tells me that what I’m doing is “too slow” and will never work “in the streets” I can only shake my head. This is obviously a case of Pre/Trans Fallacy. I know full well that it is too slow and that doing such a block/punch/kick sequence is not reflective of actual fighting. I don’t perform patterns because I think ‘it’ is ‘reality’. There are many other valuable reasons for training in the patterns and doing the the ‘sinewave motion,’ which I have written about extensively elsewhere on my blog. And truth be told, I’ve come to realize that doing the patterns simply because they connect me with an intangible cultural heritage is of value in and of itself. (Although I definitely think that there is useful skill transfer when the patterns are properly employed as part of a sensible pedagogy.) Similarly, I am aware that General Choi Hong-hi was a flawed man, so I do not venerate him in a cult-like manner, as so many ITF practitioners do. Nor do I participate in contemporary “cancel culture”, which is an approach followed by many non-ITF people. Instead, I am appreciative of the great legacy of General Choi Hong-hi and other Taekwon-Do pioneers and as a martial art scholar I try to objectively contribute to correcting the narratives with regards to the history of Taekwon-Do. In this sense, I have an appreciation of lineage and those that came before me, without having an unhealthy obsession with it.

 

Take Away

Firstly, I’d like to encourage you to evaluate your training practices and to make sure that you are not doing Taekwon-Do as a premodern martial art. I don’t think most people who practice Taekwon-Do are practicing it in a prerational way, but I am convinced that many people do cling to some prerational notions, such as the examples I mentioned earlier. Furthermore, Taekwon-Do had its major development between the 1950s and 1980s. Since then, there has been ground-breaking research within the fields of Physical Education and Sport Science that can dramatically enhance your training practices. We should embrace the best of what scientific research can offer. There are many resources you can consult to make your training practice more scientifically sound[5].

Secondly, if you are already a rational or modern martial artist, there are two things to watch out for. First, be careful not to box-in the martial arts into your myopic idea of what it is supposed to be. For instance, I have interacted with great martial art scholars who said that Taekwon-Do should rid itself of all this extra traditional baggage and become simply a combat sport. This is such a blinkered view of what Taekwon-Do is and can be. People take up martial arts for many reasons. There is no reason why a martial art cannot be used and trained for different purposes. Second, be careful not to simply dismiss certain practices, and by implication certain instructors and practitioners, because you think that they are busy with prerational / premodern exercises. For instance, some people may completely dismiss pattern training or the use of the ‘sinewave motion’ as it is trained in patterns because it doesn’t prepare someone for a real fight. And, at face value I agree with this. However, I train and teach patterns—including the ‘sinewave motion’—not because I think they are good templates for fighting. There are lots of other value that can be derived from the patterns and certain ways of moving. The patterns can teach many principles that one cannot easily learn when sparring, when training at a faster pace, and so on. Some of these principles do indeed contribute, albeit in an indirect way, to actual combat. Just as skipping rope and speed ball training contribute indirectly to a boxer’s skill but are useless for fighting in and of themselves. Furthermore, the patterns may be used for all kinds of additional purposes, such as suhaeng or movement-meditation, breath-work practice, coordination practise, etc. Just because I teach patterns does not mean I’m stuck in a prerational / premodern paradigm. Quite the contrary.

Finally, I encourage you to become a transrational, transmodern martial artist. One that is rational, but intuitive; logical, but open-minded.

---

[1] My use of the term “transmodern” should not be confused with “postmodern.” I believe that postmodern martial arts do exist, but for the purpose of this essay I’m not going to make that distinction as it would make the essay too long and complicated and is not necessary for my argument.

[2] While it is true that Taekwon-Do has been democratized, that does not mean that there are not some instructors with a better understanding of the material and underlying principles and who are better at teaching the material. Teaching is itself a talent and skill, and some people are better at it than others. Finding a good instructor is a great advantage.

[3] I should add here that I don’t mean to say that there are no applications for pum [i.e. movement sequences] in the patterns. There often are and it may be useful to teach them to students as long as they are mostly obvious rather than contrived applications. However, an obsessive search for “secret” or “hidden” techniques are a sign of prerational martial arts thinking.

[4] Joong Do Kwan Taekwon-Do, Perth, Australia. http://www.joongdokwan.com/

[5] Some recommended resources you can start with are Steven J. Pearlman’s The Book of Martial Power, Jason Thalken’s Fight Like a Physicist, Jung K. Lee’s The Science of Taekwondo, Larence Kane and Kris Wilder’s The Little Black Book of Violence, and Rory Miller’s Meditations on Violence, to name just a few. The Combat Learning Podcast by Josh Peacock is also a great entry into methodologies of effective training based on Physical Education and Sport Science research.

To my friends, students and readers of Soo Shim Kwan, I wish you all the best for 2021!