Concepts, Theories and Principles
By Rich Hale
The Outer Rim; is it a Concept, a Theory, or a Principle?
As listed in Mr. Parker's Encyclopedia of Kenpo it's called the Outer Rim Concept and is described as: An imaginary egg shape circle that is used as a visual aid. This egg shaped pattern starts at the eyebrow level, and ends slightly below the region of the groin. This concept teaches you to confine the defensive movements to those areas within the imaginary circle. You learn never to overextend, nor over-commit, beyond the circle with your arms and hands.
At face value, because Mr. Parker called it the Outer Rim Concept, this would seem to put the question to rest, but not really? Not to be argumentative, but I consider the Outer Rim to be a principle. So who am I to argue with Mr. Parker? Nobody really, but I'm not actually arguing with him anyway, I'm agreeing with him. And how can I possibly say I'm agreeing with him when, right there in black and white, he says the Outer Rim is a Concept? Easy, because if you continue to study the Encyclopedia of Kenpo, and eventually get to Zones of Protection, you'll see that Mr. Parker tells you, "when considering Zones of Protection, refer to the Outer Rim Theory". Which, in itself, really doesn’t prove my case, but if you go back a ways and look up Outer Perimeter you'll see that Mr. Parker said "not to confuse the Outer Perimeter with the Outer Rim Principle".
So there you have it; according to Mr. Parker, who's certainly the final authority on the subject, the Outer Rim is a Concept, a Theory and a Principle, but I'm sticking to my guns and saying that (to me) the Outer Rim is neither a Concept nor a Theory, but definitely a Principle.
Let me explain by first going back and looking at Mr. Parker's descriptions of Concept, Theory and Principle.
Concept:
An abstract idea, conceived in the mind, that is neither protected nor trademarked.
Theory:
An idea needing further research and analysis to prove its validity in order to make it a factual Principle.
Principle:
A comprehensive and fundamental rule stemming from a theory which, through devoted analysis, developed into the proven
characteristics and facts that made it a doctrine.
Without trying to speak for Mr. Parker, I don't think it's a big stretch of the imagination to speculate that Mr. Parker first thought of the Outer Rim as an abstract idea, or Concept. Then, as his concept took on more clarity (in need of further research and analysis) it became the Outer Rim Theory. Finally, after devoted analysis, the Outer Rim Theory became the Outer Rim Principle. So why didn't Mr. Parker change every instance of the Outer Rim to describe it as a principle instead of leaving all three descriptions in place? All I can suggest is that Mr. Parker was a busy guy and it's possible that he just didn't have time to update everything he was working on. Another consideration is that maybe he thought of the Outer Rim, at different times and under different circumstances, as all three – I don't know. The bottom line is nobody can say for sure why he referred to the Outer Rim as a Concept, a Theory and a Principle, all in the same publication. What I can say is through my own devoted analysis; I've proven (to myself) the Outer Rim to be a Principle.
Hopefully I haven't confused anyone beyond repair, but there really is a method to my madness. First is to suggest Mr. Parker may not have completed his work by the time he passed away. As much as many of us would prefer to think he had, it only stands to reason this may not have been the case (which is why we'll always have a certain amount of conflicting information available to us). Second is to suggest there's an inherent risk in having a limited amount of information and thinking we have the entire answer. And third is to suggest we all follow Mr. Parker's lead and use this same Concept/Theory/Principle method of analysis as we study American Kenpo for ourselves.
This is especially important in this day of cross-pollination instruction. By that I mean there was a time when the bulk of everything we knew came from one instructor. We didn't have the Internet, e-Mail, or Facebook; even seminars and training camps were relatively unheard of. We could go all the way from white belt to black belt, relatively, unencumbered by overlapping information.
Today we have a fairly large number of men and women who've studied American Kenpo for thirty and forty years. With that comes the opportunity to train with, or learn from, many very qualified instructors. Only these opportunities come with a certain amount of confusion. With all these instructors, and our access to them, comes as many ways to a technique as there are logins and passwords. So who should we listen to; the guy who studied with Mr. Parker fist, last or longest? Should we listen to the guy who's written the most books, or posted the most YouTube videos? The comparisons are limitless, but I think the answer is simple; we should listen to all of them, but not without applying some logic when processing the information.
What I'm going to tell you now is about the most important thing Mr. Parker ever told me. He said, "I want to make you self-correcting, because when I'm gone I don't want you to go to another famous instructor and do what he says just because he's famous." As always, he said more than that, but I think that single statement goes a long way by itself. He made it very clear that the most famous person isn't always right and if you can't think for yourself, you could easily be led astray.
Now, when I'm teaching a seminar I ask those in attendance to consider what I have to say as being concepts; even those things that Mr. Parker has already proven and labeled as principles. Then I ask that they, themselves, prove or disprove what I've said to be true or not. I admit, that when I'm teaching, it may sound as though I consider everything I say to be a proven fact, but that's only because "in my mind" they are facts. The key phrase here is "in my mind" not in your mind. If the only reason you did something, in a certain way, is because I told you to, I'd totally expect you to change how you do it, the moment someone of higher rank, or more notoriety, told you to. So, is that how anyone wants to study Kenpo? Changing everything they do every time a well known or higher ranking instructor tells them to?
In the long-run each and every one of us will eventually have to decide, for ourselves, what's fact, what's fiction and what may be fiction based on fact. Therefore, I suggest we all consider using the same analytical process of studying American Kenpo as Mr. Parker did when he created the system of American Kenpo. This could be a viable option to the "This is how I do it, so this is how it's done" method of teaching Kenpo.
To finalize and clarify:
I think one of the reasons Mr. Parker was so successful in spreading American Kenpo around the world was his approach to sharing the art. Yes, he believed what he had to say was correct and was positive in his approach to teaching, but on the other hand he said things like:
"Rules generally refer to moves that must be followed to the letter. Strict adherence to the performance of such moves restricts flexibility of thought and action. Therefore, Kenpo emphasizes Ideas or generalizations of movements rather than Rules."
"Ideas are one of the philosophical views of Kenpo that consider defensive and offensive moves to be no more than concepts that vary with each and every situation."
"Variable Expansion is the ability to randomly select solutions, or build upon precepts, as a result of having a thorough knowledge of the principles and concepts of the Martial Arts."
So if we're going to consider ourselves students and teachers of Ed Parker's American Kenpo we should embrace his entire body of work and not isolate ourselves to a few examples of Kenpo that fit comfortably within what we already know and believe. I feel the best way to do that is to look at everything we know (or think we know) as Concepts, that in Theory, could be proven to be a Principles. And then allow everyone else the same opportunity.
