One challenge in martial arts training is how can we become creative, unpredictable, and nurture initiative? The answer is simple but perhaps profound; we learn creativity like we learn anything else, practice. But, how do we practice something like creativity? In order to answer that question, let's first examining the distinguishing features of the creative process.
The cognitive process of creativity requires we understand something about the way we think and learn. The way we organize knowledge in our minds is the process that helps us orient ourselves to our surroundings. Educators have often divided the learning process into at least two types: analysis and synthesis.
Analysis is the process of taking known facts about a given subject or system and seeing how they form and make the whole what it is. For instance, we might study the some of the socio-political factors of Europe and the United States at the turn of the 20th century and see the key factors that led to the first World War. Or, we might study fundamental concepts of mathematics to build our knowledge from basic math to the more advanced algebra and calculus. We do not create that new knowledge, we simply follow the blue-prints of others who built that knowledge initially. This is the lowest level of creativity, following the path of a predecessor to see how they came to their creation. But, in the end, analysis only builds our understanding of what is already known and does not form that knowledge into something unique. Analysis is a helpful tool but relying heavily on analysis inhibits creativity because it is, by definition, focusing on things already known.
Synthesis is the process of orienting new discoveries and forming new conclusions from those discoveries in the context of previous discoveries. Often this process involves re-examination and challenges of our presuppositions to see if they still fit into the logic implied by the new discoveries. Synthesis makes use of analysis but is not limited by it. This is perhaps the most difficult process to define for it is something unique to the individual since all of us orient and interpret new discoveries in the context of our own experiences. Other factors such as our cultural context, our upbringing that formed certain presupposition from childhood, the unique experiences of our life, and possibly an infinite number of other factors. Because of that, we only learn synthesis from practice. Synthesis is the thinking process of creativity, it creates something new from old knowledge synthesized with new discovery or by reexamining rearranging old knowledge into new forms.
The assertion might be made that synthetic thinking cannot be practiced because it is, by nature, spurious and inspired in ways we cannot reproduce. There may be some truth to that assertion but, by the same respect, perhaps there are certain traits that synthetic thinkers possess that will inspire us to their way of thinking. Analytical thinking is easier to teach because it is based on known facts of someone else's discoveries which can be conveyed in a systematic fashion - because, by definition, analytical thinking is about studying a system of knowledge that is already in place. Synthesis thinking, on the other hand, cannot be conveyed, it can only be practiced. To apply synthesis thinking, we have to be auto didactic simply because we are the only ones who know the context of our own unique traits that shape our creative thinking.
A primary distinguisher of synthetic thinkers is experimentation. Experimentation leads to discovery and discovery leads to a synthesis of the new discovery into the findings of prior discovery. And, synthetic thinking is the creative process we want to practice. Experimentation consists of making a hypothesis - an educated guess - at what is reality and then testing with some activity to see if we can confirm the hypothesis.
"Without the need to adapt, without the excuse to become creative, without the puzzles that need to be solved, we would become a mere part of the environment and not a thinking agent of change within it." - The Mind of War by Grant Hammond
Experimentation, by nature, can be a frustrating activity if we do not accept it's inherent worth because "failed" experiments tend to outnumber successful. But, in the creative process, as with most of life, we often learn as much or more from failure as we do from success. The goal of experimentation is not the proof of the hypothesis (success of the experiment), but the learning we gain from the experiment - whether it confirms the hypothesis we are testing or not. To disprove an hypothesis is as useful to our mind-bank of discovery as is our proof of the hypothesis. Disproving an hypothesis leads us to re-examine the presuppositions that brought us to that hypothesis in the first place.
Here is the frustration for some of us in experimentation - failures force us to re-examine presuppositions about the world with which we have grown comfortable and secure. We have oriented our worldview based on these assumptions and when they are challenged it can be frightening, and fear is the real root of frustration. Learning that we might have had a misunderstanding of our world can make us fear that perhaps our mental picture we have built to make sense of the world is collapsing - we literally feel that our world is falling apart. When the fear that we are losing control hits us, we grasp to try and control what we never really had in the first place. Frustration is that grasping to control that which is out of our control. Fear can be the root of frustration but it can also be the root of adventure, exploration, and inventiveness. But, the re-examination of presuppositions and making of a new hypothesis to replace the former is what we are trying to convey when we talk about "thinking outside the box."
Thinking outside the box is phrase that has become quite popular in business during the past century. Businesses can benefit from such thinking because discoveries from their employees can result in new solutions or patents the business can sell. Virtually every business executive board would say they wished to encourage thinking outside the box. The problem is, thinking outside the box is a process that is built on failed experimentation - experimentation can be a costly process. And, in a business where the bottom line is, well, the bottom line; failed experiments are considered too costly to absorbed. And so, most businesses are caught in a quandary between the need for planned failure as the cost for research and development. The cost of failure often becomes an incentive for executives to discourage the free-thinking experimentation required for employees to think outside the box. When employees are are not given the freedom to experiment and fail then they will not feel safe in taking initiative toward new discovery. Analysis takes the place of synthesis because it is safer for both the boss and the employee.
Confusing failed experiments with failure seems equally as common in martial arts. Analysis - perfecting what we already know through practicing what we already know seems far easier than trying something new. Synthesis costs time in training and trying something new that does not work can seem a waste of time.
So how can we apply these ideas about synthetic thinking and initiative to our martial arts training? One method used in most arts, some to a greater degree than others, is the provision for a "play" time where we are not concentrating on just perfecting the techniques required for the next rank. Generally, the time is a time for sparring where the student attempts to apply the techniques they have learned in a constantly changing situation. The changing situation of the drill is the engine that drives the creative thinking.
Martial arts differ in the balance of creative sparring time and analytical requirements time. Some seem to provide very little time for practicing synthesis thinking and stress the need to perfect specific techniques through continuous study of those techniques already known (analysis thinking). Analysis can be a good tool for providing the foundation for synthesis but it can never be a replacement for it.
An unbalanced dependence on analysis thinking can even lead to discouraging synthesis thinking. Let's consider an example of a traditional art such as karate. It is the night where class is concentrating on one-steps. One-steps are wonderful tools for taking "one step" from a pretend fight where an aggressor provides a slow attack to which you can practice a set of techniques to counter that form of attack. But this night, you have a spark of imagination and think of another response that may work or may not and you want to try it so you do. Whether or not you are encouraged in this experimentation depends on the school and the and the understanding of the instructors present. More often than not, you are discouraged from such experimentation because the time has not been set aside for experiment synthesis. The time has been set aside for analysis. If experimentation is encouraged then it will cost time that needs to be spent in requirements and can be disruptive to class order. Rather than encouraging creative thinking, an analytical focus has discouraged synthetic thinking.
If creative thinking is not a requirement for rank, it will be all the more difficult to justify the extra time it requires to train. And, the end result will not necessarily be greater skill in the requirements that have been practiced nor in the ability to apply them in self-defense situations. For example, perhaps the one-step technique is easy for you because it follows your unique character and physical development; but, perhaps it does not. On the one hand, it will be easy to perfect and will seem easy and natural. On the other you will find it difficult and unnatural or counter-intuitive and even something you would never imagine yourself using in the situation presented in the drill. No matter, it is a requirement for advancement so you have to practice the technique and perfect it to the degree required at your rank level or you do not advance. Perhaps there is a better technique that would fit your unique abilities better but there is no time in class to try the one-steps that are instinctive to you. If you do experiment and find success, you may more likely find encouragement. If you experiment and fail, then it will often be used to instruct you in the fact that you should really stick with perfecting what you are taught.
Because of the time and apparent failure rate inherent in the creative process, martial arts often build on techniques that are known to work and concentrate their effort on perfecting those known techniques. When there are requirements that need perfecting for advancement, it is difficult to find time for creative play.
When creativity is not a stated requirement for advancement, the incentive to unbalanced focus on analytical thinking is a natural result. Analytical thinking should be made the tool of creative thinking, not the master of it.
"[Systema is] not a martial art you learn, it's a martial art you've forgotten." Martin Wheeler
Systema is one of the very few arts that concentrates almost exclusively on creative thinking. If there was a criticism in this regard, it might be argued that there is not enough time for analytical study of fundamentals. Systema has no belt requirements to distract from the creative time practiced in every meeting. There are no techniques to learn. The basic premise of Systema is not that there are things the student is a blank slate who needs to learn something s/he did not already know. The basic premise instead is that the student has been granted from God all the tools s/he needs for self-defence. Learning is not obtaining and perfecting new skills that may or may not be natural movements and techniques of the student. Instead, learning is a discovery of unique skills that are already present. Experimentation is not only allowed, it is required. Experimentation and creativity are as essential to Systema as kata and one-steps are to other arts. There are drills that appear very similar to karate one-steps but there are not predetermined attacks or responses. Instead, the student is given a random attack and must improvise a response. More often than not, especially at the beginning, the response is ineffective - a failed experiment. Not to worry, failure is part of the creative process. Creativity is not just part of the art or a goal of the art, it is the art.
Because of the emphasis on free-play creativity, some students, especially those used to the structure of other arts, find it difficult at first. Since there are no formal requirements, some students have difficulty understanding the goal. The absence of requirements means a student cannot compare themselves with other students and so the competition, often part of other arts, cannot exist. Some may become confused and give up thinking it too simple to be of any value. Students who have experience with other arts are most susceptible. It is a common misunderstanding when we have come to expect certain elements in other arts that we expect them in Systema. We hear the Systema people say that there are no techniques but we have no context for such statements and so we keep looking for something in the art that must replace techniques or be techniques by some other name. Such assumptions will lead us to further frustration which might result in skepticism about the art or the belief that it is beyond our abilities of comprehension. As with the creative process, new discoveries are challenging the presuppositions you hold about your martial arts worldview. It is important to keep in mind that Systema is not just "Russian karate" or "Russian Jujitsu" or other analogy. It is a unique art that has little in common with most other arts.
Another confusion often comes because we have lacked either the discipline or the opportunity to think creatively in the past. It is an uncomfortable feeling to learn a process we have not practiced a to the degree required in class. Just take that fear of the unknown and direct it toward the excitement of exploration. Learning a martial art can be challenging physically and mentally. It is also very serious study for a very serious subject. But learning should never cease to be fun. Do not be afraid to feel silly or to laugh at yourself.
Analytical thinking is present in Systema but only as a suggestion for guiding us to think about another creative approach to what the student is attempting to accomplish. A training partner might suggest a possible move or strategy for approaching a given situation but never is it a required task to be practiced. For instance, Systema practitioners will often limit their responses to only use their shoulders or only use their elbows. This is not to learn specific shoulder or elbow techniques, its to develop tools that are part of a response. The idea is similar but not the same. We do not practice the same responses over and over again attempting to perfect them. We practice particular skills in order to help the student discover which ones might be useful to them.
Do not be discouraged. Keep experimenting and remember that the disproportion of failures to successes are only fodder for learning. If experiment only confirms a hypothesis we have, then it is, in essence, only confirming something we already knew or suspected. Practicing the creative thinking processes with your unique skills will make your art unpredictable, flowing, and dangerous. If the skills you develop are those truly unique to you, no one will know what to expect from you in a fight. Such unpredictability will give you an incredible advantage. And remember in class, failed experiments are the fuel that fires the furnace of creative thinking.