What is the JKD philosophy?

Edit - No, the spirit of JKD is to be able to respond intuitively, using techniques of the self (JKD) without the burden of expressing organized despair by allowing expression to be manifested in the form of crammed distortion by replicating someone elses truth devoid of understanding that truth, let alone the fact it is mere mimicry. Despite what people think, JKD is not how Bruce Lee used technique. It was his belief JKD is the most efficient way for the body to execute specific motions, be that person, fat, small, tall, or otherwise. That's a different topic for anyone that wants to disprove it.

Krypt - You've not used anything Lee said, you've used a few key words found in JKD, and you haven't answered the question. It was a simple question, what is the philosophy and what do you use to support that. You've attempted to counter my view, nothing more. I am aware of what he said on styles. You don't understand formlessness or art. Lee is often found stating, "In this art...", so tell me, what does art mean? You don't need to bother answering, I am sure you will say art means philosophy.

Pugs - I'll ask you the same thing, if Lee can be quoted numerous times saying "In this art...", and he is talking about JKD, what is art? If people could actually read, he explained his aversion to regarding it as a style, because then people relegate it to a specific area of functionality, such as being only a philosophy. You say you have been around, so you should know at the time of the writing all styles were classified under the expanse of "martial arts". "Do you study martial arts?" "Is your style karate?" "Karate isn't a style." Judo was known as a throwing or grappling art, boxing a punching art, wrestling a grappling art, karate was widely perceived to be a punching and/or kicking style. These "style" differentiations then led to the "better style" debates, which Lee believed separated man. He was correct, they do, and his sentiments on not wishing it to be viewed under the definition of sty

style, as defined by the majority, is rational, logical, and should be easy to understand. He didn't just say "It isn't a style." He elaborated and put it into context, which you and millions of others have taken it out of.

Lastly, and once again, you have it incorrect. People like me that say it is a "style", are the minority. Anyone that can read, and has actually done some research, knows Inosanto and all those that trace to him are the ones citing absorb is the philosophy, and JKD is only a philosophy. One difference is, people like you say "Sure, add it, that is what it is all about", whereas the Koncepts Klowns at least used to teach, adding had to be satisfied with other criteria, such as simplicity, economy of motion, directness, non telegraphic motion, efficiency and several others things. They then incorrectly decided something like being in a Muay stance adhered, when in fact it doesn't. You on the other hand are saying addi

adding willy nilly is the epitome of JKD.

I'm not offended by the insinuation I prostituted the art (another Lee quote), I have never taught anything other than one on one. Nor have I ever contributed to the the seminar mess, people that give seminars pave the way for fools like KW, you are selling a piece of your art to people you have no control over. I refuse to teach anyone under 18. So when you point that finger, check how many are pointing back at you.

Kokoro - As Mark stated, Tao does not mean philosophy, that is a bit too much over generalizing. It's rationale for examining is found within philosophy, but there is a criteria. "Tao - the absolute principle underlying the universe, combining within itself the principles of yin and yang and signifying the way, or code of behavior, that is in harmony with the natural order. The interpretation of Tao in the Tao-te-Ching developed into the philosophical religion of Taoism"

As it happens, JKD conforms to the investigation of universal principles, and has applications of the Way. You seem to be Japanese, so I am surprised you don't have a better grasp on the "Way", as opposed to numerous ways found in subdivisions of it.

Jim - You're funny, your haiku method of posting is funny, your knowledge of JKD, not so much. It's easy to say you have applied it, and it is possible, but based on your ability to articulate your 40 years of application, no doubt you have applied something else, and call it JKD "concepts", just like so many others.

Mark - It's funny how close you can be and yet be so far off. There is a "Way", as you point out. JKD translates to the "Way of intercepting fist", which would seemingly relegate it to intercepting, yet anyone that has studied, knows Lee was interested in the "totality" of combat which is where he references the shortcomings of "styles". He also went on to acknowledge JKD is "Using no way as WAY, having no limitation as limitation." This is tongue in cheek, he is making fun of the classical mess, while doing a pretty good job of describing the art in a phrase, which can't be done accurately.

The ability to improvise and innovate is contained within the art, without taking anything, from any art. There is some fencing theory, and utilization of similar body mechanics, but to say there is "much" is reaching, if you listed the aspects you think are incorporated without change, you'd be looking at a very short li

list.

There is a ton of evidence that points to an art, inclusive of technique, science, art and philosophy. Absorb would not sum it up nicely. None of the material contains anything that suggests discarding a technique within JKD as useless means finding something from outside JKD, one feels isn't. If there is one principle (and there isn't) to sum it up, it would be, "Be like water". The ability to flow rather than respond with something like kata conditioning is the epitome of "self" actualization in combat. Lee cited absorbing as a facet of viewing arts, he states JKD is a "shedding process". Shedding conforms to the Chinese definition of Way, a universal tendency found in nature, and when examined closely, it is found in success. "haste, not waste", "You take what you need and you leave the rest" (The Band) There is a huge difference between want and need, and absorbing, as presented by most that think they know wh

what JKD is, means want, not need

Pugs - Since I didn't answer it, and it was your first question, I will now. While you don't go around blowing a horn that says "Look how wise I am", 46 years of experience, in the martial arts, had better be indicative of some, wouldn't you say? Subtract 15 years from your life, even 10, and utter the "If I only knew then, what I do now." For KW to subtract 10, say that, what wisdom would a 13 yo really benefit from? Not talking to girls, not really saving money, not that anger results in brash decisions. You on the other hand, and me and anyone older than 30, can reference that and know significant things could have been changed. You also happen to teach martial arts, I've seen you state you still discover things from within that which you thought you knew. Yet, you are certain and would appear to be willing to bet your life that JKD is a philosophy because Lee said "I don't believe in styles." That's a bit shortsighted.

"There's more to the picture, than meets the eye, hey hey, my my"

BBQ - I realize your answer is based on your initial comment of not being sure, but the question was and is, what is the philosophy? You've seen it stated as such a million times and it is always validated by the absorb thing. As I said, Lee said many things, and they weren't randomly stated. Strong side forward, economy of motion, simplicity, directness, efficiency, non telegraphic motion, closest weapon to the closest target, shedding process, flowing...these are all associated with Lee by anyone that has actually studied the art, and known by most of the JKD "scholar" types that learned from magazines. They are all interwoven and the basis for lead side weapons.

I am aware Lee said he wished he never named it. Have you ever given any thought to why a person says something like that? Why would you? Ever thought about that? Could it be he said that because he was aware once a thing is identified, there are always 10 new experts? Could it be he taught of the

classical mess, part of which is acknowledging most "blackbelts/experts" are most likely ill prepared for a street encounter? How about the fact most people knew him from the Green Hornet, and he went on to be famous while alive, though he did not know the impact he would have, and he knew there were those that would be more than willing to cash in on his name?

If you developed something you believed had great value and it was a process of turning information into knowledge of a specific kind, (whether or not you believe he did) how long do you think it would take you to regret naming it? For identification purposes, if a thing is different from another, it needs an identifying label. If it's not the same, it is different, and if it is different, it needs to be identified. we use names to identify styles, people, are the ones that misunderstand the context he was using. When he said JKD isn't a style, he had clarifying remarks, citing he believed the stigmatizat

stigmatization behind the styles created separation, and used religion as an example.

Yeah, I know your opinion on it being a set style, and I say you don't understand the context of how style should be used, nor do you understand how it was taught as a style without predetermined responses. It does have a foundation which cannot be changed, as does any art. If JKD is a shedding process, and it is, suppose you apply it to your income. Now, absorb what is useful, discard that which is useless, and add that which is specifically your own. The goal is to save x amount in a year. Now you are forced to simplify, use economy of motion, become direct to your needs over wants. That's JKD. Can you move things around to fit your needs, yes, but you aren't adding to your style, you are refining it.

Edit - Yeah, the shedding process and economy principles can be applied to any art, as can the philosophical aspects of the art, but you can't isolate principles, call it the philosophy and say you applied it to any art. As I stated, when applying absorb in the manner I described, you get a completely different result. If someone says I took the wing chun stance, I use boxing punches and copoeira kicks, according to those here, that is absorbing and JKD, as long as they can make it work. No, Copoeira wastes a ton of gas, it's highly telegraphic, it is not direct, it is not simple. The WC stance is not mobile, and firing boxing punches when the weight is distributed in that manner, loses power, and therefore the efficiency. You can't tell me when you read the savings example it didn't make sense, and suddenly absorbing might not be adding.

JKD is not modified WC, though if you asked the first 5 students that worked out with Lee, in Seattle, what they learned, they

would say modified WC. Taky Kimura and those at the first school would say at first it was modified WC, then changed to Jun Fan Gung Fu, then JKD. The people in Oakland would say they learned JFGF, then it changed to JKD. The LA people say it is JKD.

There was a thought process governing the selection of tools, as you suggest, always with a resisting opponent in mind. Slapping crap together is exactly what people say JKD is, it is what everyone in this thread is saying.

I didn't say it can't be a philosophy, I have always said it is not merely a philosophy. People sling that word around like they are knowledgeable. Take the "philosophy" of "I live my life to the fullest". That isn't sitting around talking about how to apply it to women, parties, and whatever else, it entails putting theory into action, as does most philosophy. JKD HAS a philosophy, but it is not limited to a theoretical system designed to broaden the mind. Lee also said, "

, "Knowing is not enough, we must do, willing is not enough, we must apply." Again, this wasn't some random bit of fortune cookie declaration, he put into practice what he preached.

I'm not saying it is an art based on a hard and fast rule, such as strong side forward. For one thing, while he made that statement about not believing in styles, the Tao has several instances of him saying "in this art". Do you think he didn't know the difference between saying in this philosophy and in this art? He studied philosophy in college, I think it is safe to say he knew the difference. One of his first comment is, "there is nothing much in this art" There is plenty of evidence that indicate art/style. Is BJJ a style? Is it also an art? What about system, could it be called a system? What about method, could I say I used a method from the style of BJJ which is a system of martial arts? Sorry, but to the world at large, those words all mean the

same thing, which is why Lee can open his book stating there is nothing much in this art and have idiots claim it isn't a style. Is shotokan an art? What about style, is it that too? He's very clear why he disapproved of the word style. Why don't you read that article again, and decide if he is saying he didn't like the idea of being lumped together with "style" mentality, or if he was denying creating physical responses that occur in what is called fighting, commonly known as martial arts?

How about this? I don't really care what some instructor on youtube is doing. Ed Parker had Lee at the internationals to showcase JKD, that is him sparring. In it you will see strong side forward, stop hits executed to the face, body and leg, the lead hand jab, the on guard stance. It doesn't matter if you would have taken him to the ground, if you think he is wide open or if you think he hits like a girl. You asked for evidence pointing to a method/style/