From: "Tom Saunders"
Date: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:51 pm
My good friend Marilyn Fierro talked about Sherman Harrill and I asked her if she knew about his 'balance point' theory. She asked, "What is a balance point?" The following is the explanation I have so far. I learned it at the Oceanside Enbukai.......
John Peterson and John Kerker demonstrated the application of "balance points" as developed as a throwing technique by Master Sherman Harrill. I was amazed at the proficiency which throws could be administered by the applied theory. Second, the theory can be applied to others which are relevant to throwing and takedowns, and most important understanding the strengths and weaknesses of your opponent's balance.
As I studied the moves Kerker and Peterson demonstrated I marked the "balance points" on a human caricature composed of squares. A square for the head, on top of a square torso, etc. Even as I drew the figure, I realized a relationship between the balance points on the body, and to the "Square of Opposition" used in logic by philosophers like Plato, Socrates, Philo, and
Aristotle. Although the similarity of the mechanics can be seen, it may be a very complex similarity. It may also explain why certain mental characteristics appear and develop in Karate-ka.
As a tool of logic the Square of Opposition was believed to have been used and developed by Aristotle, and certainly applied in the development of Plato's theory of forms. There are variations in the use of the square. As a tool of logic one example gives the relevant points of the square as primary and predicate themes. As a measurement device the square can be used where the
points of the square might indicate something like Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal.
The basic tool is a square, with an 'x' or a '+' drawn in it. On a human the points of the square indicate the 'balance points' located around hinged joints. In the application of the theory, balance points are effected by the direction, usually push-pull, against the juxtaposition ,opposites, of balance points. One example is to throw a person by grasping at the balance points,
points of the square on the body, the shoulder, and hip. You push the shoulder back and down, and you pull in the hip, at the opposite point of the square. The result can be a very powerful throw.
The use of the square of opposition for application in analyzing martial technique, propaganda and logic should not be confined to one type of application, tied to one model. There may be variations of the application no one person has yet thought of. The uses, models, and tools that can be applied here are probably only limited by human imagination. For instance the square itself can be two or three dimensional.
There are questions of how the square of opposition theory might be applied to the current judo theories of kazushi (balance). There are considerations for how this theory might be used to explain karate techniques, especially those that are meant to effect an opponent's balance. Probably every concept applied
to karate can be tied to the square of opposition theory, including atifa, and fesa, even the Karate Code.
Intrinsic to the theory of the square, is the 'point of centering.' There is a point in the middle of the square which indicates dead center. It is logical that this center would indicate the most effective point of ultimate balance. For the human it is easy to imagine the entire body in the square, the tanden is indeed the center. Putting this point outside this center area would create
an imbalance. Perhaps pushing the center point outside the square means, you just got dumped.
In the torso, the center point would be that point in the middle of the points of the square, the 'balance points' are located at the opposite ends. Balance points include the top of the head, the shoulders, the hips, both just above and below the knees, and the ankles. Throws, blocks, punches, and kicks have been employed in the applications of the balance point theory.
The square works in body mechanics in a similar fashion seen in the square's use in thought. The stress points are very similar as to how the square itself is seen to work when applied, whether it is body mechanics or thought. As the square of opposition may increase the mental capacity of a person in the philosophical form, it probably works to help one grow when applied in the
structure of karate practice. The body and mind truly work as one in this model.
It is my hope that the 'square of opposition theories' and Sherman Harrill's "Balance Point" theory can be taken to a knew level of understanding. We could all benefit from the understanding these applications have to both martial
practice and everyday life. Below is an explanation of the square's use in logic......
John Kerker's Examples of striking the off balanced opponent
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hWXfhZ8gok
The Square of Opposition
When two categorical propositions are of different forms but share exactly the
same subject and predicate terms, their truth is logically interdependent in a
variety of interesting ways, all of which are conveniently represented in the
traditional "square of opposition."
"All S are P." (A)- - - - - - -(E) "No S are P."
| * * |
* *
| * * |
*
| * * |
* *
| * * |
"Some S are P." (I)--- --- ---(O) "Some S are not P."
Propositions that appear diagonally across from each other in this diagram (A
and O on the one hand and E and I on the other) are contradictories. No matter
what their subject and predicate terms happen to be (so long as they are the
same in both) and no matter how the classes they designate happen to be related
to each other in fact, one of the propositions in each contradictory pair must
be true and the other false. Thus, for example, "No squirrels are predators"
and "Some squirrels are predators" are contradictories because either the
classes designated by the terms "squirrel" and "predator" have at least one
common member (in which case the I proposition is true and the E proposition is
false) or they do not (in which case the E is true and the I is false). In
exactly the same sense, the A and O propositions, "All senators are
politicians" and "Some senators are not politicians" are also contradictories.
The universal propositions that appear across from each other at the top of the
square (A and E) are contraries. Assuming that there is at least one member of
the class designated by their shared subject term, it is impossible for both of
these propositions to be true, although both could be false. Thus, for example,
"All flowers are colorful objects" and "No flowers are colorful objects" are
contraries: if there are any flowers, then either all of them are colorful
(making the A true and the E false) or none of them are (making the E true and
the A false) or some of them are colorful and some are not (making both the A
and the E false).
Particular propositions across from each other at the bottom of the square (I
and O), on the other hand, are the subcontraries. Again assuming that the class
designated by their subject term has at least one member, it is impossible for
both of these propositions to be false, but possible for both to be true. "Some
logicians are professors" and "Some logicians are not professors" are
subcontraries, for example, since if there any logicians, then either at least
one of them is a professor (making the I proposition true) or at least one is
not a professor (making the O true) or some are and some are not professors
(making both the I and the O true).
Finally, the universal and particular propositions on either side of the square
of opposition (A and I on the one left and E and O on the right) exhibit a
relationship known as subalternation. Provided that there is at least one
member of the class designated by the subject term they have in common, it is
impossible for the universal proposition of either quality to be true while the
particular proposition of the same quality is false. Thus, for example, if it
is universally true that "All sheep are ruminants", then it must also hold for
each particular case, so that "Some sheep are ruminants" is true, and if "Some
sheep are ruminants" is false, then "All sheep are ruminants" must also be
false, always on the assumption that there is at least one sheep. The same
relationships hold for corresponding E and O propositions.
John Kerker on Balance Points
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3t7RnVjS_M
Personally while I understand what Sherman and John are explaining
I am still trying to work this out for myself.
No comments:
Post a Comment