More and more in recent years there has been a growing awareness for requirement of a legitimate scientific study of fighting. However, when most martial artists make this kind of suggestion, they are essentially asking for more scientific understanding of how their techniques work. They investigate how to generate more power, or trimming down their movements to make them quicker. What I am interested in, on the other hand, is investigating the practicality of technique (by means of strategy). We cannot know anything about practicality if we only know how to make a movement more powerful or quicker. We need to know the function of the movement; what is its intention and how is it then performed to meet this intention? We might then know when and where to be quick, and when and where to be powerful, and identify the different effects of the two. We are thus talking about the dynamics of action within Time and Space itself. Thus the inevitable difference; when people discuss Martial Science, they mean (by and large) the meeting of two separate subjects; martial arts with modern science (usually Physics).

 

What I propose is something entirely different. As far as I am aware, it is the first time in which a specific Method has been proposed to understand fighting rather than the scientific investigation of martial arts techniques. I am more interested in how fighting directs the creation of martial arts techniques. In this way, the general view of martial science is turned on its head; we use science to understand the function of movement in fighting, and thereby how techniques would have to be performed in order to meet the function. This means that the techniques are directly integrated with their purpose rather than being routinely practiced in absence of their function (i.e. as “movements”, rather than “actions”).

 

Method is a function of theoretical (and logical) predicates about fighting. In other words, we must know what fighting is before we can design a method suitable (and capable) of further exposing its secrets. My work on the Eskirmological Method is intended to be proposed as a (initially tentative) standard formula for the verifiable and falsification of human knowledge concerning the event of fighting as it is experiencable by all living organisms. By no means is it an absolute and conclusive method of understanding. Rather, it is a tentative and preliminary formula from which anyone might be capable of applying Eskirmologics to their Combative System. Using the Eskirmological Method, its users may transcend the subjective barriers created by human cognition and begin to understand fighting as a universal event. It is by using this Method that we might comprehend suitable tactics which exist and may be used within anthropic fighting – and we may use this knowledge to create Combative Systems.

 

Science’s highest aim is Wisdom. Wisdom comes from the ability to understand, and from that understanding allow us the capability to predict. This is the vital difference between Knowledge and Wisdom; the former is retention of past events, but the latter is the use of the former in order to understand the future. In fact, the term “Science” comes from the Latin Scientia meaning “wisdom”. As a method of understanding, it stems from Great Philosopher’s who determined to find the truest method to pursue their love of knowledge. What they came up with was called the “scientific method”, which is based upon the use of logic to discern the most genuine objective knowledge about the world around them. However, the advantage of science is in prediction – knowledge and understanding may belong in past or present participle, but wisdom (and Science) resolves to predict the future based upon that knowledge.

 

Since the most genuine understanding (as possible) about the world around them was their aim, Science is characterised in parts by the complete abandonment of old ideas, as well as constant revision of new ones. A philosopher of Science, Karl Popper once mentioned that a science should be a constant process of beginning over. Therefore, unlike dogma which dictates a version or opinion of the truth, science maintains a view to fully understand the world around it, and it is therefore willing to begin again in order to reach the truth. This is its highest aim, and therefore should any scientific knowledge later be found to be false then it is meaningless. Since the definition of knowledge depends upon truth; anything otherwise cannot be defined as knowledge.

 

This is the kind of process we bring to the Eskirmological table. We are willing to begin again; and we are willing to test our ideas and discoveries. The meaning of truth is that which is universal and does not depend upon position or perspective; it is true for all, no matter where and when we view it. This is the motive behind Eskirmology; and its process towards true understanding of fighting, as a phenomenon experienced by both animals and mankind.

 

A methodology is defined by the Dictionary of Philosophy as being made up of the following components:

 

(a) the proper object of the discipline, (b) the manner in which it develops, (c) the type of statements or generalizations it involves, (d) its philosophical foundations or assumptions, and (e) its relation with other disciplines and eventually its applications.

 

According to these requirements, we may recognise that the Eskirmological Method certainly complies with the dictates of this definition in that we have already made some considerable head-way on these matters in the previous sections of the work.

 

We should not expect the Eskirmological Method to generate conclusions, but to be a coherent and recognised basis from which to establish our ideas and to raise our questions. Accordingly, Winograd and Flores (1987) continue our considerations that;

 

A methodology is a kind of “coaching” — not a formula for producing a result, but a set of practices that can lead to appropriate questioning and to appropriate change.

 

In support of this method for investigation, rather than a path to conclusion, Krippendorff describes that the aim of methodology is to:

 

“…describe and analyze not the objects or the products but the processes of scientific inquiry, to investigate the potentialities and limitations of particular techniques, to reveal their presuppositions and epistemological consequences, to suggest structural reasons for successes and failures, and to develop, test and offer generalizations about scientific procedures.”

This is of course a perfect description of what we might expect an Eskirmological Method to achieve.

Share Your Thought