Jeet Kune Do

[yingampyang]

True but i was talking about the mind and sprit.

[bushido_man96]

Keep in mind that much spirituality has a basis in superstition.

[Malldetective]

Wow so many interesting things here.

Yin and Yang is not entirely wrong in the field I call home. Psychology has only been around in name since 1879 founded by Wilhelm Wundt. It's foundation disciplines are physiology and Philosophy. which means yes we have only been doing what we do the way we now do it for a little over a hundred years. Less than that if your a one-perspective guy. (Like Humanist or Psychodynamic alone. Though few if any good psychologist are so narrowminded anymore as to only view things from a single perspective.)

However, science is old as man. And alot of these things we refer to as superstitions or eastern philosophies are just science in disguise, acurate? Not always but sometimes, more than some might think.

I will state that I think the religion and science debate is funny. They are like an old married couple constantly fighting, both are on a quest for truth and often they come to the same conclusions but can only mention to eachother where they differ.

But in this case my argument is not against the mind and the spirits prevelence and importance or its aplication. I'm a martial artist too, and even if there was only a symbolic nature to what is actually cognitive biological processes the almost supernatural relevence to some things may be necissary at certain times to make the cognition work appropriately. (i.e. what do you think is 'really' happening when you talk to your inner child? Willing suspension of disbeleif is sometimes a necissary and effective clinical tactic).

All I'm arguing is that the deffinitions of mind and spirit are liguistic in nature and are therefore technically irrelevant.

If I decide to call the mind a coka-doodle rooster and the spirit a moo-moo cow but the way I use and exersise them is still exactly the same, it makes little difference what I call them .

[Malldetective]

Let me aid one counter point to that.

The name to deffinition between spirit and mind is often interchangable UNLESS speaking in very specific terms in a very specific setting.

The word 'spirit' itself holds a multitude of deffinitions and therefore is a variable. The same goes for mind.

Unless its in a setting (unlike martial arts where depending on style and teacher and region and school and interpretation its a million different things) the variable is deffined clearly.

For example, in my faith what is often refered to as 'the holy spirit' is called "The Rouch Ha-Kodesh" (Hebrew: Set-apart spirit roughly) It is a proper noun, has a clear deffinition, and so is not a variable. "Holy Spirit" falls into the same category, espcially since its the same exact thing (albiet, I'm not crazy about that paticular linguistic interpretation because its a bit loose) but in eitheir case, we have given it a proper noun.

Spirit in general philosophy, as it is typically used in martial arts settings when one says 'Mind, body, and spirit'. Can be defined a multitude of ways, some of which even contridict. There is no clear citation for a single deffinition, which is why I say it matters little if you liek to call the mind the spirit or the spirit the mind or consider them a hybrid. So long as you exersise them properly the effects are the same.

I'm through trying to pretend I'm smart so you'll all like me now, lol. Thank you for listening to my lecture. Place an email now to recieve the audio-tape!

[Malldetective]

Last one I promise:

Just to make it clear though, I'm not advocating the idea that the mind and spirit are pointless ideas in martial arts. They are VERY important. In respect to Jeet Kune Do, recall that Bruce Lee himself was a Major in philosophy, and those fingerprints are evident in all his publications. lol, I feel like even after his death I'd have to be pretty brave to claim anything he did was irrelevant. Both deffinitions due varriate, application is more important to the styles integrity. After all ,we all know how Master Lee felt about stamping labels on stuff.

[Johnlogic121]

The life and work of Bruce Lee is fascinating. Through the work of Dan Inosanto, the Jeet Kune Do legacy of Bruce Lee has applied lessons from over thirty different styles, according to an estimate I read recently. However, what makes me curious is what Lee and later Inosanto decided NOT to include in their synthesis of effective martial arts methodologies. Superficially, one might suppose that Jeet Kune Do covers everything, but in reality, it seems to bear little resemblance to Aikido, Judo, or even modern Brazilian Jujutsu. My impression of Jeet Kune Do is that the techniques resemble kickboxing even though the applications are generally more advanced than what you ordinarily find at a kickboxing studio and the trapping and grappling manuevers proceed naturally from stand-up positions rather than a "mount and guard" position. Would you practitioners of JKD agree? And, why does the art not draw upon Aikido or Judo more closely? What do you think Lee would have thought of those arts? Can a "Style that is not a style" exclude the things that are deemed worthless by oneself, even though those techniques may be celebrated by others? Just some questions.

[Malldetective]

If there is any style that Jeet Kune Do is similar to, I'd say first it's Krav Maga in philosophy.

Bruce Lee had alot of respect for most styles and I don't think grappling techniques were elliminated (I'm frankly glad BJJ was left out). I think in understanding the answer to your question you have to look back at some of Lee's key principles.

The simplist way is usally the correct one. Much of what is in there that would normally look like Judo doesn't because of the nature of its simplicity.

But on the other hand recall that JKD is an evolving art that Bruce Lee didn't want to stay stagnant. There is still room for new technique as long as it doesn't change the face of the style or force it into the same misgivings as other "styles" which is why Lee feared naming it in the first place.

That said, in all honesty, Lee himself was largerly a strike fighter. And his initial influence was Wing Chun. So with that in mind, dubbing down the classical wing chun techniques one could see how it would end up looking like a higher level of kickboxing. But to say there are NO groundfighting or judo-esque techniques would be inaccurate too. He simply didn't derive them from any of the styles you mentioned. I'm sure he had respect for and researched in those styles because his martial arts library was huge.

[bushido_man96]

The fact that Lee may have passed on before he was able to spend as much time as he would have liked working with styles like Judo and Wrestling may be part of the answer as well. Perhaps he had just not made it that far yet.

[glockmeister]

why does the art not draw upon Aikido or Judo more closely? some questions.

I often wondered why more Judo wasn't more apart of the over-all mix in JKD. As for Aikido, I can only speculate. I think because to be proficient with Aikido, it takes years of study. Also if you have ever watched them perform, there are a lot of choreographed moves and techniques in a very sterile environment. This somewhat goes against Lee's philosophy. With my JKD instructor, we do occasionally work on some wrist locks, standing arms bars and such but in reality, spending too much time on them can be a waste if you're often dealing with someone coming at you and throwing powerful and wild punch combinations.

We do practice grappling that is often based on BJJ but when we are free rolling, we do a lot of things that aren't legal in my BJJ class such as fish hooking, groin attacks and pressure points. if you tap, you tap. There are few rules, heck my one partner bit two guys. The idea behind it is to be more of a "dirty" fighter because rule number one is: There are no rules.

[gbells]

The life and work of Bruce Lee is fascinating. Through the work of Dan Inosanto, the Jeet Kune Do legacy of Bruce Lee has applied lessons from over thirty different styles, according to an estimate I read recently. However, what makes me curious is what Lee and later Inosanto decided NOT to include in their synthesis of effective martial arts methodologies. Superficially, one might suppose that Jeet Kune Do covers everything, but in reality, it seems to bear little resemblance to Aikido, Judo, or even modern Brazilian Jujutsu. My impression of Jeet Kune Do is that the techniques resemble kickboxing even though the applications are generally more advanced than what you ordinarily find at a kickboxing studio and the trapping and grappling manuevers proceed naturally from stand-up positions rather than a "mount and guard" position. Would you practitioners of JKD agree? And, why does the art not draw upon Aikido or Judo more closely? What do you think Lee would have thought of those arts? Can a "Style that is not a style" exclude the things that are deemed worthless by oneself, even though those techniques may be celebrated by others? Just some questions.

Dan Inosantos maybe drawing from 20-30 different arts , but jkd is based on WC,fencing and western boxing!!

And don't you think, BL being so into finding what works best, would'nt have experimented and studied arts such as BJJ.He was always evolving!!