Style OR Doctrine?!

[sensei8]

Please, this topic isn't a religious one, as that isn't my intent, nor is it an implied on either. As well, let us not forget KF User Guidelines #10, and that we all will strive to steer away from that which has been asked of us all.

Let me preface by the following...

Merriam-Webster defines doctrine as...

Full Definition of doctrine

1. archaic : teaching, instruction

2.

a : something that is taught

b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma

c : a principle of law established through past decisions

d : a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations

e : a military principle or set of strategies

Definition of doctrine for Students

1. something (as a rule or principle) that is taught, believed in, or considered to be true

Merriam-Webster defines style as...

Full Definition of style

1: designation, title

2

a : a distinctive manner of expression (as in writing or speech)

b : a distinctive manner or custom of behaving or conducting oneself ; also : a particular mode of living

c : a particular manner or technique by which something is done, created, or performed

3

a : stylus

b : gnomon 1b

c : the filiform usually elongated part of the pistil bearing a stigma at its apex — see flower illustration

d : a slender elongated process (as a bristle) on an animal

4: a distinctive quality, form, or type of something

5

a : the state of being popular : fashion

b : fashionable elegance

c : beauty, grace, or ease of manner or technique

6: a convention with respect to spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and typographic arrangement and display followed in writing or printing

Truly, are they both the same? Only separated by our own equivocal position!?

Shindokan Saitou-ryu is a style of the MA? Is that it?? Nothing else?? However, isn't it also a doctrine, given to each practitioner by Soke Saitou??

Therefore, is every style a doctrine? And if the style is a doctrine, isn't a doctrine a style? If the style is a doctrine more than it is a style, than there must be a spirit attached to it??

A spirit that breaths life into that which is normally void of life, birthed by either a good spirit, or worse, a bad spirit. No technique has life until a practitioner chooses it!! Nonetheless, said chosen technique must have a noble purpose before it can be seen as it being from a good or bad spirit.

Methodologies and Ideologies come from on high and trickle down to and into the student body. How the founder is, so is the student body...Yes or no?? Better way to say it, I suppose, is that the apple doesn't fall far from a tree!

Self-aggrandizement, selfishness, egoistic, egomaniacal, egotistic, narcissistic, self-absorbed, self-centered, self-concerned, self-infatuated, self-interested, self-involved, egocentric, self-loving, self-obsessed, self-oriented, self-preoccupied, self-regarding, self-seeking, self-serving, solipsistic, inner-directed; complacent, conceited, overweening, pompous, prideful, proud, self-complacent, self-conceited, self-contented, self-directed, self-glorifying, self-important, self-indulgent, self-opinionated, self-pleased, self-satisfied, smug, vain, and vainglorious.

Those labels have no purpose in any MA because they cloud and glaze over what's important. Things like rank should mean nothing, nor should rank be sought. Position and/or hierarchy shouldn't mean anything, nor should it be sought after either. These things poison ones MA betterment to such a level that it buries that which is good, and allows the bad to reach a fever pitch.

Beneficent, benevolent, benignant, compassionate, good-hearted, kind, kindhearted, kindly, softhearted, sympathetic, tender, tenderhearted, warmhearted, attentive, considerate, solicitous, thoughtful; affable, amicable, benign, companionable, comradely, cordial, friendly, genial, gentle, good, good-natured, good-tempered, gracious, mild, neighborly, nice, pleasant, sweet, warm; clement, forbearing, forgiving, lenient, merciful, soft; patient, pitying, tolerant, understanding; altruistic, brotherly, charitable, freehanded, generous, greathearted, humanitarian, liberal, magnanimous, munificent, noble, openhearted, philanthropic, selfless, unselfish, unsparing; anticruelty, and cruelty-free.

Those labels speak about the goodness that should be found within the MA, no matter what!! A MAist should be seeking improvement in small volumes within ones techniques and the like. MA betterment is not a tiny corridor to shy away from, but instead, imho, it's as broad as one desires. To climb a rung one rung at a time, means one being honest with themselves first, and to accept that one's not perfect, or even close.

Either of these labels are the by-product of any CI/Governing Body/Founder/Hierarchy as to the manner of which they operate their school, both on and off the floor.

Turning our focus to the overall effectiveness of said Style/Doctrine are as well, affected by the aforementioned labels, but that, if I may, is just a portion of the MA pie.

If what the style and/or doctrine is teaching, and it one perceives it as ineffective across the board, that's the opinion of that practitioner. One has to immerse themselves on the floor to see if the said style is a big quacking duck, or a elegant swan.

One opinion is not another's opinion, for the most. If the style says that their style is effective, do we take it at its word? If the doctrine says that their doctrine is effective, do we take it at its word?

Not only no, but HECK NO!! Practitioners have to taste it to see if it's good, worthy of one's palette during the taste test!! Following blindly either of the style and/or the doctrine is short of insane. But people do that because they believe that the style/doctrine can be trusted. After all, the CI is not only a black belt, but a high ranking black belt, at that, and that CI sounds credible in he/her knowledge of what's being taught, and the CI sounds like all of the 't's' and the 'i's' have been crossed and dotted. A prospective student surely doesn't know more than the CI...right?

Either the doctrine's spirit is good or it's bad; I see no middle ground!! Either the style teaches effectiveness or it doesn't; I see no middle ground!! Either the bottom line is more important than the student or the student is more important than the bottom line; I see no middle ground!!

The MA is just a thing. In that, things can be either important or too overly important, that's left to the practitioner to choose over the style and/or the doctrine.

I suppose, Shindokan is a style that is grounded in its doctrine, but it's doctrine spirit is good. We expel that which isn't good because one bad apple does spoil the whole bunch. Does the doctrine exist? Does the style exist? Can they both be intertwined? Is, that which you're a practitioner of, a style or a doctrine or both??

Are you/we/me learning a style or a doctrine or both? And if both, how does one train in both while keeping both separate, if it's even possible to do so with a clear mind and conscious??

Your thoughts, please!! Sorry for the dissertation-like being so long.

[bushido_man96]

Doctrine is what we might teach: style is how we teach it.

[LLLEARNER]

Doctrine is what we might teach: style is how we teach it.

The way I see it.

Doctrine is the rules we live and train by. Not necessarily equal to codified law, but having a more rigid structure.

Style is how we accomplish the doctrine. It can be as involved as one wants or is needed for defined (doctrine) mission.

Take Kung Fu. One needs to train. One does not need to live as a Buddhist monk to learn Kung Fu. However, one can choose to.

[sensei8]

How does one separate the two?

bushido_man96 wrote:

Doctrine is what we might teach: style is how we teach it.

I believe that Doctrine is how we teach, and style is what we teach!!

Soke Saitou has laid out the foundation of Shindokan through how we're to teach it according to his directions. In that, any deviation should be curbed and avoided at all times for the fact that Shindokan is his creation, and we students only interpret his teachings as accurate as we can. Shindokan is our ideology!

Shindokan, the styles, is what we teach, but we're allowed, and encouraged, to make Shindokan ours in a personal way. Shindokan is our methodology!

[JR 137]

I personally think the definition of style vs doctrine is more of a semantic argument than else. Being a school teacher, I view the curriculum as doctrine and the way I present it as style. We naturally (and often unintentionally) emphasize certain aspects of the curriculum over others; we have our own strengths and weaknesses after all. A major part of our job as educators (regardless of what you're teaching) is reaching everyone who walks in through our door. Teaching the exact same thing the exact same way our mentor(s) taught us isn't very effective. Furthermore, there's no growth that way. Our mentor(s) may very well have known far more than we ever will. But if we try to be them, we'll always be trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. We'll never be our mentor. But they'd have never been us either. My mentor's way of doing things definitely worked for him. It definitely didn't work for me. Trust me, I tried. And I kept trying until another mentor a few years later why I was trying to be someone else, when being myself was far more successful for me. Definitely one of my "becoming an adult" moments.

Just my opinion. Hopefully I didn't steer the topic too far off.

[sensei8]

I personally think the definition of style vs doctrine is more of a semantic argument than else. Being a school teacher, I view the curriculum as doctrine and the way I present it as style. We naturally (and often unintentionally) emphasize certain aspects of the curriculum over others; we have our own strengths and weaknesses after all. A major part of our job as educators (regardless of what you're teaching) is reaching everyone who walks in through our door. Teaching the exact same thing the exact same way our mentor(s) taught us isn't very effective. Furthermore, there's no growth that way. Our mentor(s) may very well have known far more than we ever will. But if we try to be them, we'll always be trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. We'll never be our mentor. But they'd have never been us either. My mentor's way of doing things definitely worked for him. It definitely didn't work for me. Trust me, I tried. And I kept trying until another mentor a few years later why I was trying to be someone else, when being myself was far more successful for me. Definitely one of my "becoming an adult" moments.

Just my opinion. Hopefully I didn't steer the topic too far off.

Solid post, JR 137!!

You didn't steer the topic away at all, and I always welcome opinions. The bold type above was, imho, a fantastic way to view either.

[cheesefrysamurai]

Wow good topic!

Deep.

after pondering the definitions, I've come to this conclusion. It is both a style internally, expressing outward and a doctrine externally going inward.

Does that make Sense?

[Nidan Melbourne]

I feel like it can be both a doctorine and a style. Because in my view the instructor teaching the system that was passed down to them by their own instructor.

But then the Instructor or even the students putting their own interpretation through how they perform or behave in class from the pre-existing rules and guidelines of what they were taught.

But i love this topic!

[Alan Armstrong]

Be yourself because everyone is taken.

I don't teach a style or follow a doctrine. The individual is more important than the style and the doctrines for me are limitations and not goals.

If you want to eat in the same fast food restaurant twice a week; good for you. While wearing a uniform that makes you feel special; go right ahead.

There are those however that take a different path or like your founders, create new paths... some without stopping to name it or to carve a doctrine in to stone.

[sensei8]

Then why has a founder defined either??

What's the point of them doing that, because after all, they do that??

They might label 'it' this way and that way, but they define 'it' one way or another, and they expect others to adopt 'it' or go away.

Imho!!