The COSTAC Method: The information structure of Martial Arts (2012)

T H E E S K I R M O L O G I C A L S O C I E T Y MAY 2012

1

THE COSTAC METHOD

By

james wallhausen

2012

P r e p a r e d f o r t h e E s k i r m o l o g i c a l S o c i e t y


2

T H E C O S T A C M E T H O D

The Martial Arts are more than just physical techniques; they are sets of strategies, tactics and

operations based upon the skills of our ancestors. To consider the Martial Arts strictly in

terms of technique is perhaps rather superficial. In which case, I have endeavoured to produce

a Method by which assessment of technique may be established, and how understanding

technique may give rise to deeper understanding of strategy and tactic. There are hidden

depths to the Martial Arts which I hope this Method may aid in others uncovering as it has for

me.

Fundamentally, the information comprising a Martial Art may be categorised as being of two

types: combative and culturally derived. It is essential that any information which is ‘cultural’

is omitted from this course of investigation, and only the ‘combative’ is to be proceeded with

here. That combative information is structured, and the unique way in which it structures this

information relative to other Martial Arts allows us to identify its individuality. In terms of

combative information, I propose that the Martial Art is referred to as a ‘Combat System’

because this term suggests structured information abiding by the rules of good Systemics (as

per the General Systems Theory, or GST) as it applies to fighting, physical conflict or

combat.

The COSTAC Method is a convenient way of pinpointing important factors within the

Combat System in order to assess any martial art in terms of social context, intended

functions, the algorithms and solutions within it which apply to specific martial problems. In

which case, it is a means by which Martial Arts may be constructed, but also academically

de-constructed. This method is part of the concept of a Universal approach to the Martial Arts

to encompass all martial arts invented by the human species, which I refer to as the

“Anthropic” or “Unified Combat System”.

UNIFIED COMBAT SYSTEM

There are perhaps thousands of Combat Systems originating from around the world – each

one articulating the experience of combat in its own language and utilising its own local

cultural concepts to make that experience explicit. Across the body of all human solutions to

combat which we refer to as “the Martial Arts”, there are perhaps many millions of nouns

used by different local groups to refer to the same finite use of the body in combat. Yet, all


3

those naming conventions from all known martial arts are derived from nothing other than the

experience of combat, and the function of the human body within such an event.

Eskirmology appraises combat strictly from the perspective of this physical experience, by

reducing the components of combat down to the experience of the human body, categorising

those movements, experiences and their cybernetics, then we experience martial art outside of

all ‘martial arts’. In effect, we understand combat viscerally, derived from nothing more than

experiencing one’s own body in interaction with another. We solve problems of risk,

developed out of our questions about the ‘most efficient manners of behaviour’. In this way,

we build a ‘kinesthesic’ framework and a set of principles and concepts outside of any and all

‘Martial Arts’ which forms the body of “Eskirmology”. Believing that no single culture has

an absolute view of combat1, this path is then used as a scientific vehicle designed to

approach the combative products of other cultures (making use of the anthropological cues

developed in Hoplology), to cross-reference local terminology from all over the world and to

reconcile it back into an Anthropic and Unified Combat System. This study of the same

Kinesthesic framework from the perspective of other cultures opens up new perspectives

upon that same experience, offering variety and depth to that experience.

Ultimately the Eskirmologist maintains that there is only one Combat System possible and

that is the one using the human body; all others are merely views, perspectives or approaches

derived from specific and individual attributes (most often those of the ‘founder’), expressed

via the conceptual framework available to him.

The ‘Absoluticity’ Concept

When he conceives of combat, the functionalist considers his ultimate aim outside the

constraints of the physical world. Indeed, many people might be considered to maintain a

functionalist world-view2. Deep within us, our psychology naturally “feels” the need to

acquire, a sense of justice, a sense of the need for vengeance or for defence. These feelings

are powerful and to achieve them in the physical world is to manifest them in one’s

behaviours, actions and (in combat) in one’s physical movement. Yet the physical world has

1 their approach is always local to them using concepts present within their cultural belief systems, i.e the Chinese will use Mythological and concepts drawn from their major schools of Thought (Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism), the Medieval Italian will use Aristotelian Scholasticism, or the Englishman will use scientific means.

2 Weltanschauung


4

its constraints. The human body is limited in its mechanics, and so the exertion of force on

another is predefined by the movement of the body. The arm for example can flex or extend,

and gyrate at the shoulder producing many varieties of motion; yet it remains constrained by

the shoulder, the flexion and extension constrained to the planar motion of a hinge joint. We

also have other physical constraints conspired from our finite bodies. We have to be in reach

to exert force. We have to be in a position where our bodies can exert force well. Then we

have the social factors and motivations: we cannot begin to believe that an opponent will

simply allow us to punch him, knock him out and steal his belongings. He may be quite

prepared to fight us for them. And so another realm of constraint appears; that we must cope

with either the opponent’s attempts to attack us, or to resist our attempts to attack him.

And so from a simple internal desire to acquire new luxuries or necessities, or to defend

against those who wish to take them from us, we confront a complex realm defined by the

physical world. We cannot just “make it happen”, we must embark on understanding the

technical constraints and how to optimise the deficit between our internal desire and our

physical constraints. The concept of “Absoluticity”, an invented but apt term, means the

“ability to be absolute” or in other words to act to entirely overcome the deficit between

current and perceived circumstances to absolutely achieve those hypothetical desires. If we

should be in a serious encounter against a foe who wishes to terminate our life, then our

internal desire is survival, and the “Absoluticity” is the level to which our physical techniques

and behaviours can efficiently manifest that metaphysical function. In this case, we do not

wish to hit the opponent with some strength to any target; we want to hit the opponent with

all our strength to the weakest target. If we can achieve this with little expense in energy in

terms of number of motions, then this is even more valuable. The contrary would be to

endlessly attempt to “batter” our foe with random blows in the hope that the high number of

blows increases our chances of success. Yet combat is about minimising risk, and with that in

mind, it is important that we act as few times as is possible, to be exposed to as few of the

opponent’s blows as possible; to overcome his resistance with ease, and to be so resistant that

the foe is unable to do the same to us.


5

Definitions

An attempt to articulate combat and particular functions is a predicate for any suitable

discussion on this topic, and therefore it is necessary that I first expound the meanings of

‘Combat’, ‘Skill’, ‘Experience’ etc in a bid to begin upon a firm basis3.

‘Combat’ is the physical competition and interaction of biological organisms in applying their

own physical form and attributes in direct conflict. Evidently, the ‘Risk’ is derived in part

from deficits on one side, or advantages on the other in comparing the two (or more)

constituents. In effect, the entirety of the event is relative – and relative to ‘oneself’. The

opponent is defined as either larger, stronger, weaker in comparison with ‘oneself’ (not

necessary in relation to the entire population), and we might describe him as ‘weak’ only if

he is physically weaker than I. Yet within the context of combat, the fact remains that he will

be ‘weak’ if he is physically weaker than me.

Movement – any motion of the body in time and space, not necessarily combative in

nature.

Technique – a movement which is particularly combative in nature, a movement

designed with the intention to be applied in combat.

Action – A technique performed with a purpose or function dictated by operational

logic, i.e. an intention, drive or motivation.

Operation – A set of actions guided by Tactical and Strategical knowledge to achieve

a defined outcome.

Scenario is a given instance of a Volatile Aggressive-Resistant Event (VARE)

• One’s individual abilities and skills

• The opponent’s comparative skills and abilities

• The environment in which the conflict takes place.

Experience is N number of exposures to Scenario.

3 Whilst I realise that such defintiions may not have consensus, I hope that my defining them here might lead to the initiation of discussions about their meaning.


6

‘Skill’ is the ability to perform or carry out a task with a high probability of success –

often linked to experience.

‘Skill in fighting’ is ‘proven-success experience’ and suggests that ‘Skill’ is proven

success in more than 50% of experiences in VARE. It might be more aptly concerned

with the ability to adapt to external impetus, an ability to overcome resistance or to

resist successfully with a consistent and high probability of success.

Mastery4 is

• Proportionate to experience: Proven track-record of ability and skill

• Control: over oneself as a predicate for control of an opponent

• The ability to adapt to any given circumstance and act according to homo

economicus paradigm.

• The ability to apply skills with a high degree of precision and technique,

o consistent performance,

o proven with consistently positive outcomes.

o The ability to reconcile any opponent, no matter his abilities, attributes

or skillsets.

o To do so with such ease that a layman interprets his ability to be almost

supernatural.

This final definition would require an entire paper to explore it’s meaning completely, but as

a short definition, it may also be stated that a ‘Master’ of any topic is someone who has

assimilated a wide range of data on a topic (both breadth and depth) into one’s very core to

the extent that it’s execution and recall becomes automatic, no longer requiring conscious

effort, seeming to emanate from one’s very being. To have moved from a state of ignorance

to a state of mastery demands behavioural, psychological (including biochemical) and

physical transformation. Because this transformation is akin to refinement, and indeed

requires self-mastery as a predicate, it is quite common that it be shrouded in materialistic

4 The English noun dates to the 12th century, when it took the form “maisterie” from the French “maistrie”, and meant “to have superiority” or capacity for victory and also referred to the intellectual command of a subject. Bloom et al (1956) defines 6 components of mastery: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation.


7

allegories such as sculpting unfashioned materials, tempering metals, distilling liquids,

refining minerals etc. Furthermore, his mastery is measured by application and the product of

this transformation in Action. In combat it means that, in theory and in an ideal world, there

is no stimulus he cannot respond to effectively, no technique in existence from which he

cannot protect himself and no defences or obstructions he cannot circumvent.

This description of the master is necessary to our study, because it is the masters’ motor-

skills, world-view and philosophy which is modelled in a Combat System. It is upon his

personal attributes, personal experiences and particularly successes that his System has been

built.

THE COSTAC METHOD

The COSTAC Method is an attempt to reduce the variables of a Combat System down to

only a few finite components. To articulate Combat Systems in this manner is (as far as I

know) entirely unique to Eskirmology. It is based upon an extrapolation from the General

Systems Theory which structures systemic information into four classes; Philosophy,

Theory, Methodology and Application. From this, the important factors of:

• Circumstance

• Outcome

• Strategy

• Tactic

• Action

• Contingency

are opened up for exposure. Yet the true model of COSTAC might properly be considered as

Strategy (composed of Circumstance and Outcome), with Action being organised in

accordance with Strategy which we call ‘Tactics’. In which case, the COSTAC Method

comprises What needs to be done, When it needs to be done, and How it needs to be done.

Strategy, Tactic and Contingency make up the Theory, whilst Action comprises the

Application. The reason for COSTAC being split in this manner is so that each phase remains

explicit as part of the ‘Bootstrapping Theory’, or the belief that the naming of an idea directly

affects the understanding of the idea.

The terms ‘strategy’, ‘tactics’ and ‘technique’ as well as essentials like ‘principles’ are

thrown around fairly liberally within martial arts circles. Yet discussions surrounding them,


8

outside of expert circles, are fairly superficial. With this in mind, it is my intention here to

elaborate, and more importantly to discriminate and demarcate the bounds of each one.

Circumstances:

When we enter into combat, we have a set of circumstances which predicate the scope of our

action and reaction as well as the intended motivations of both parties. This component of

COSTAC is designed to state the ground rules, and to identify the unique parameters of a

combat scenario. Observation plays a key role, meaning that a large proportion of our ability

to discern the given circumstance is derived primarily from visual stimuli. In a provoked

street scenario, an opponent (who assumes the role of a ‘gratuitous aggressor’) will attempt to

accentuate the visual appearance of his body, falling into a primal ritual stemming from our

evolutionary cousins, the great apes. Plenty of staring (a characteristic of all predatory

behaviour), tightening of the lips and mouth, firming of the body, chest protrusion and

enlarging the frame with head and neck bobbing ensue. These outward signs of machismo are

used both by the extrovert combatant and the introverted combatant attempting to ‘save face’.

Needless to say, the dynamics of a combat’s instigation may well be social rather than down

to an innate inclination to fight. Observing the opponent in this phase and often gaining

insight into his strength during the preliminary ‘provocation push’ may also add to

constructing a mental model of the opponent’s strengths and weaknesses.

Assessing the Opponent’s intentions and commitment to combat is also of vital importance.

Against an opponent intent on combat, to the point where he is unshakeable in his

determination, we must act with much greater intensity to overcome him. So in response, this

means that we must act with greater determination, and further escalating the combat to not

only greater intensity, requiring much greater resources, but also reciprocally increasing the

risk. This assessment of the opponent’s commitment allows us (to a certain extent), to predict

the potential risk in the subsequent combat5.

It stands to reason that, as someone familiar with the use of his body in combat (i.e. a martial

artist), he will have intuitive knowledge of his own skills and weaknesses. He will know

which situations to avoid if he has historically experienced failure in an aspect of combat

(such as joint-locking, ground fighting etc), and therefore he already has a frame in which to

approach the combat. This becomes further filtered during the Observation phase of

5 I have described the factors of Risk in another paper. There are other risks to consider, such as is performed during the ‘Assessment’ phase, such as the risk of the opponents attacks (Action Rating, AR), Risk of multiple numbers of attacks (Exposure Factor, EF), and the number of opponents making those attacks. Presence of weapons, use of Armour etc, as well as lack of skill, experience, endurance etc all increase risk.


9

Assessment, in which we must appraise our strength and weaknesses in comparison with, and

relative to, the opponent. If his strengths match our strengths, then the better of the two will

be successful. If we have strengths which correlate with his weaknesses, then we have

advantage. If the opponent’s strengths also correlate with our weaknesses, then we must

manipulate the combat to exploit our strength and his weakness, and we do so with the use of

‘Tactic’ (as we shall see later). Exploitation of one’s advantages in relation to the opponent’s

disadvantages has historically been the mark of a successful fighter.

Outcomes/Objectives:

I have mentioned that the Risk in a combat, as well as subsequent behaviours in combat will

be predicated principally by the level of commitment from the constituents. Yet

‘commitment’ is a fairly loose term unless we define “commitment to what?” Our

commitment is of course to our intended set of outcomes. These desired outcomes become

the foundation for Strategy, so much so that Outcomes and Strategy are actually the same

thing. However, they are exposed here as their own category as part of COSTAC to ensure

they are not forgotten.

Objectives are separate from Circumstances, since Circumstances deal with the Categorical,

whereas Outcomes refer to the Hypothetical. It is within ‘Strategy’ that these two become

reconciled. Our current circumstances (State A), measured against our desired circumstances

(‘Outcome’, or State B) allows us to identify the constraints and barriers which act against us

in moving from State A to State B as well as consider what specific Action to take. What do

we wish to achieve? What are our most desired outcomes? These questions are prerequisites

to everything in combat. They logically follow consideration of the outcome on both sides of

a conflict:

• For me:

o I want to acquire resources

o I want to defend resources

o I want to acquire someone (i.e. immoral acquisition).

o I want to protect my life or loved ones

• For my opponent:

o I don’t want to hurt my opponent in the process

o I’m not concerned about my opponent in the process


10

o I want to eliminate my opponent from the process

o I want to terminate my opponent

In combination, there are then 16 potential outcomes ranging in combination of the above

from “I want to defend resources, and I don’t want to hurt my opponent in the process” to “I

want to rape that woman, and I will kill her if I need to”. We would say that the former

outcome is highly moral, and represents a good member of society, whereas the latter is

almost certainly a sexual predator, or even socio/psychopath. Of course, every Subject will

consider these “For me” list from his own perspective. When the cost of the “For me”

increases in Value, most often the “For my opponent” often experiences a decrease in value.

So if I wish to protect my loved ones, then I may be more likely to terminate the opponent if

he represents a high risk.

As we can see, these outcomes are often based upon moral considerations within an

Industrialised Society, wherein it is common for a person training in self-defence to not injure

the opponent whilst defending oneself, but merely neutralise him by affecting his combative

behaviour. This kind of morality takes its cue from liberal philosophy which values the long-

term aims and life of those around them, and considers combat the result of conspiring

circumstances which manipulate people into the direct conflict with each other. An example

with a mugger is that his personal circumstances motivate him to acquire resources from me

to improve his well-being. The fact that my opponent wishes to take something from me is a

result of his circumstances and it is ‘nothing personal’, he acts because he wishes to improve

his circumstances in the easiest manner possible (outside of institutionalised means) – to take

it from someone who holds a resource. The ‘crossing’ of the paths of a mugger and victim are

therefore impersonal.

Within pre-industrialised societies, or at least pre-legislative societies, it was common for the

outright termination of an opponent if he represented a significant and perpetual risk. For

example, villagers experiencing the repeated attempts by Vikings to raze their village and

plunder it for themselves (i.e. acquire resources for themselves), might be inclined to attempt

to defend themselves by initiating attacks upon the Vikings6. Plundering attacks by the

6 Such was the case with King Alfred, who, after having experienced many of the raids across Britain, formed a government designed to defend Britain from the attacks by the Vikings. In 878 AD, Alfred successfully defeated the Danes at the Battle of Edington. The presence of a seceded part of England known as Danelaw meant that accosts from the Vikings occurred during the reigns of Edward the Elder (899-924), Athelstan (924-939), Eadred (946-955), Aethelred II (978-1016), Canute (1016-1035) ), Harold (1037-1040), Harthacanute (1040-1042) and Edward the Confessor (1042-1066). This volatile time meant that ‘kill-or-be-killed’ combats occurred quite often between competing sides.


11

Vikings upon villages in 9th century England and modern muggings are similar, apart from

the number of people involved as well as the multiple attempts on the same village instead of

a singular attempt on an individual by a mugger. The risk involved in the Viking raid is

therefore greater than the mugging, and the threat to long-term well-being may well have

provoked the villagers to terminate the Vikings outright (to prohibit future risk).

Needless to say, martial arts which are products of liberalist and post-legislative societies

often account for neutralisation, increased presence of ‘sporting’ ventures and values

prohibiting murder. A good example of this might be Aikido, which has a philosophy derived

from post-legislative values of passivity and non-aggression. In contrast, products of illiberal,

aristocratic, feudal and pre-legislative societies often generate the opposite form of Combat

System, one which has techniques designed for quick and effective killing, uses sport as a

means for training for quick and effective killing; and has a framework derived to sanction

and justify killing.

Many people hold these Outcomes in [subconscious]mind by default, such that one might say

“if someone threatens to take my property, I don’t want to hurt him but I will try to stop

him”, or “if someone wants to hurt my friends and family, I am not afraid to hurt him first”. It

is likely that such objectives will not change during training in a martial art possibly because

they are assumed by someone as a ‘member of society’ (by moral obligation) rather than as a

member of a martial arts school.

The level of commitment to an outcome is therefore linked with moral considerations, but it

must also take into account ‘at what cost’, i.e. at what point does my commitment become

reduced or increased – if my life becomes at risk, or if my family become at risk? In other

words, I am happy to combat with this opponent whilst he ‘insults my honour’, but if he hurts

my family I will either escalate my commitment to terminate him, or reduce my commitment

to give up (i.e. “I give up - you win: just don’t hurt my family”). It is during the Strategy

phase that we consider ‘at what cost’ we will operate for our own outcomes, and at what

point we abandon our goals.

Strategy:

The term ‘Strategy’ stems from the Greek word Strategos meaning “General”, or “Director”,

and its modern use is almost certainly derived from its use in war and the battlefield. The

General was often the figurehead of the whole operation, recognizing the absolute aims and

outcomes of the event as well as having dominion over each subset of components beneath

them (i.e. the actual tactics, the actions etc). Understanding at once his position,


12

understanding his circumstances as well as what he seeks to achieve; and then setting out to

overcome challenges to make that plan a reality was the hallmark of all good Generals.

As a ‘General’, it was often ‘top-level’ and ‘higher concerns’ which he managed and

concerned himself with. As a result, Strategy may well be considered to have been often

derived from reconciliation between existential outcomes, and social/moral responsibilities.

Westbrook & Ratti (1970, 33-34) describe the case of ethics used to generate Aikido. Their

breakdown consists of:

1. Unprovoked killing

2. Provoking someone then killing him

3. Being provoked and killing him

4. Being provoked, and neutralisation of the gratuitous party.

This simplistic breakdown is useful, though it doesn’t quite take into account the kinds of

moral considerations we should consider when deriving ‘Strategy’ in combat. This

breakdown defines our actions, suggesting that unprovoked aggression is worse than

provoked aggression, which is certainly morally supportable. However, we see that killing is

more justified when it is provoked, not - as 19th century Liberalists such as John Stuart Mill

would argue - that killing is ever morally justifiable. In fact, there are two considerations

observable from this outline by Westbrook & Ratti which may be described thus:

1. Instigation - Who instigated the combat in the first place?

2. Outcome – is the outcome absolute?

Based upon these components, we have reason to define different types of combat:

Instigation:

• I instigate the combat, my opponent reacts

• My opponent instigates, I react

But unfortunately, provocation and action are not so easily separable in this example, so we

must take instigation a step further:


13

• My opponent provokes with the intention to act (Hawk)

• My opponent provokes, with no intention to act (Bully)

• My opponent provokes, with no intention to act until I react (Prober-retaliator)

Then we might consider the same behavioural attributes in myself.

• I provoke with the intention to act (Hawk)

• I provoke, with no intention to act (Bully)

• I provoke, with no intention to act until my opponent reacts (Prober-retaliator)

Of course, all examples of my provoking is morally dubious unless I have a high-moral

reason for doing so (i.e. my opponent has broken into my property and is threatening my

children, or he has already ‘crossed-the-line’7 morally, so I am acting in a state of

‘vengeance’8)

To move now onto our consideration of outcome, we must consider two sides to the equation.

The first is the most immediate, and that is the outcome of the combat. Is one of the

constituents of the combat,

• Caused physical pain

• Caused ‘neutralisation’ (knocked-out, or can no longer fight)

• Caused short-term physical trauma (injury affecting capacity to fight which is

recoverable)

• Caused long-term physical trauma (maiming, or injury affecting capacity to fight

which is irrecoverable)

• Caused ‘termination’ (killed)

In some cases where an opponent has caused long-term threat, long-term opposition or

encroaching on long-term safety or wellbeing, then ‘termination’ may be morally supportable

(such is the case for ‘warfare’9), but these are in extreme cases. In pre-legislative societies

where individual rights were not protected, then killing of an obstructive member of society

7 Which is of course Subjective. 8 In order to avoid further complexities, I shall not consider ‘legal’ obligations. 9 Utilitarians, after Bentham, state that if suffering of the many may be avoided by removing the risk caused by a few, then those few should be removed.


14

was not only morally recognised, it was in some cases socially sanctioned (such as the

Bourgeois rights to kill peasants who endanger their status etc, seen in Feudal societies of the

East and West). The example here is that in extreme circumstances, it can be morally

acceptable to kill, but only in extreme cases. Nevertheless, exercising restraint in combat

(even in the most escalated of scenarios) has always been a trait associated with the expert

fighter.

As suggested in the opening paragraphs of this section, we saw that Strategy is about

achieving outcomes from a super-objective level and that such a plan needs to take into

account Outcomes and Morality. For these reasons, have further seen that morality is derived

from whether I instigate or whether my opponent instigates, and also whether I injure, or at

the opposite extreme, kill my opponent.

As we might observe, morality in combat derives from a combination of instigation and

outcome. So let us consider these components combined to derive their examples and variety:

Tactics:

Taking into account the physical framework through which all human movement is made, we

must now unite the ‘hypothetical’ with the real constraints of the physical reality. Actualising

a Strategy must be done in ‘Tactics’. The word ‘Tactic’ stems from the Greek word “taktike”

meaning “to arrange for war”, as we can see all the above mentioned terms find their origin

from warfare, to refer to the office of the general, the arrangement and the actual waging of

war (Wallhausen, 2009, 135-142). As such, we may witness that Tactic refers to ‘order’,

‘structure’ and ‘hierarchy’, not only in movement but also in approach to combat.

Dependent upon our Strategic predicates, tactics create a structure upon ‘Action’, and

hierarchy behaviours based upon their appropriateness for the outcome. For example, if our

strategy is to kill our opponent, then the types of actions which will be of most importance

will be much more lethal in both technique and intent than those used in a combat where we

intend only to neutralise the assailant.

Moreover, Tactics is often the singular factor which blinds the majority of martial artists from

witnessing the universality of Combat Systems. A thorough appraisal of the martial arts

details that ‘techniques’ are often universal, manifesting in many different varieties

dependent upon the orientation of the Centre of Gravity (COG), the extension or flexion of

the arm, the ponderation of body-weight and the expansion or contraction of the Base of

Support (BOS). Forming technique in an out-of-range proxemic often requires different rules

from the within-range proxemic, and so too does the within-body-contact proxemic. These


15

physical rules are universal, and we shall describe them in due course. The distortion occurs

when such techniques are ‘arranged’ (in accordance with ‘Tactic’: to arrange) into a format

which favours the individual and often unique skills and abilities of the founder of the school.

His skills, attributes and ‘tactics’ are modelled within the Combat System, allowing students

to mould themselves within the framework of that particular school. Yet ‘tactics’ when

considered correctly should be unique not only to the individual, but also unique to the

situation, to the circumstances (as we discussed). A martial art often outlines a singular

course, a specified set of Tactics which ignore the individual traits and abilities of the student

in the attempt to overlay the founder’s skills onto the student.

The arrangement of action is therefore based upon:

• The fighter in-isolation

o Attribute Factors: strengths and weaknesses

Physiological (endurance levels, reaction times, pain thresholds et al)

Anatomical (vulnerable areas et al)

Technical (ability to carry out physical operations, such as attack and

defensive manoeuvres)

o The behaviours favoured by one’s somatotype

o Psychological factors

Commitment to objectives

Cognitive function

Ability to learn and adapt, and to be receptive to changes

Versatility and ingenuity.

• The fighter in-relation (perceived)

o Relative strengths and weaknesses

Physiological relative to opponent

Anatomical relative to opponent

Technical relative to opponent

o Behaviours favoured relative to opponent’s somatotype

o Psychological factors

Relative commitment to objectives

Relative cognitive function


16

Relative ability to learn and adapt

Relative versatility and ingenuity

It is on the basis of these factor that Tactical operations are arranged, and it is from potential

deficits that a Combat System is designed to counter. We will have assessed many of these

aspects during the Circumstances phase and our Tactics for action will arrange accordingly.

In terms of the actual types of stimuli we might encounter, and therefore the set of experience

which we must predict and overcome, there are four types, based upon the presence or

absence of Force and Obstruction. In combination, we deduce:

1. In presence of obstruction, in presence of force

If the opponent is anticipating blows, then he will naturally obstruct your attempts at

attacks. Therefore a combat which is predicted will always have greater obstruction

than one which takes the opponent by surprise. i.e. the opponent is guarded and

attacking, as per the Duelling combat. In this example, the opponent is applying force,

and consequently, this is the most difficult set of components to deal with because we

must not only overcome obstructions and resistance to our attacks, but we must also

deal with the opponent’s attacks upon us.

2. In presence of obstruction, in absence of force

If the combat is of no surprise, but there is little instigation to attack (often because of

the high-risk involved), then the combat may well enter into a state of attrition

whereby each will stand motionless, guarded and awaiting the other to attack first. i.e.

the opponent is guarded, but is not presenting an attack – so we must endeavour to

attack and also overcome his obstruction. We may well attempt to orbit outside his

Range of Motion (ROM), but if this does not work, then we must begin to consider

other tactics for removing the obstructions.

3. In absence of obstruction, in presence of force

In some surprise combats, such as one in which i.e. the opponent is open to attack

(has no resistance to our attack), but is himself attacking – this was the origin of

concepts of “counter-time”, or “time-hitting”.


17

4. In absence of obstruction, in absence of force

i.e. the opponent is open to attack, and is also not attacking himself. In the prefight

machismo of street brawling, during the initial ‘eyeball staredown’, then we have the

perfect opportunity to take advantage of the fact that his posture leads with his eyes,

often chest opened out and arms down. This is then a simple case of launching an

attack rather than having to come to terms with obstruction and/or force.

Understanding these types of ‘Action’ allows one to plan subsequence. At the basis of these

postulations may be found the relativity of force in terms of Time, such as:

• Before an opponent’s motion

• During an opponent’s motion

• After an opponent’s motion

As well as in terms of Convergence;

• An open trajectory to a target

• A closed trajectory to a target.

It is therefore these five components, and in combination as the four previously established

combinations. It is from those combinations that all Combat Systems have been generated, as

solutions to their encounter.

Actions:

Actions are the manifestation of all that we described thus far, being the only visible sign of

those metaphysical components. When we observe combat, we can interpret technique to be

guided by an intangible purpose, and such observation is evidence of the theoretic aspects

previously mentioned. To ‘act’ comes from the Latin term actio, meaning ‘to do, carry out, or

put into motion’. In accordance with our definitions stated at the beginning of this paper,

Action is actually made up of Movement, in which the material body carries out the functions

and objectives of the psyche. But Movement refers to any motion of a Body, and as such we

need to be a little more specific when we speak of Movement in the context of Combat. In

which case, it is common to use the term “technique”.


18

‘Technique’ is a term stemming from ancient Greek tekhne meaning ‘shape’, or ‘form’, and

therefore is often associated with ‘craft’, and ‘Art’, believed to stem from the Sanscrit taksan

meaning ‘carpenter’, and is also related to the Latin texere ‘to weave’. It is therefore not

without justification that one may correlate the term with the Chinese term Xing, also

meaning ‘form, ‘appearance’ etc, as well as other oriental equivalents (Japan: kata, Korea:

hyung etc).

The latter culture is of interest here, because of the Oriental tradition of naming techniques

using mnemonics. Such a tradition is designed to account techniques beyond merely the

physical action, but designed to refer to an action by its tactical meaning, as well as

commitment and ‘energy’. Such a description, such as “A golden dragon plays in the water”

(Wong Kiew Kit, 1976, 25), “golden duck emerging from beneath a lotus leaf” (Leong &

Draeger, 1997, 47), “two dragons playing with a pearl” (Liu Hai Chao, 1993, 523) or

“posture of drawing a sword on encountering a thief” (Kim, 2000, 131) are specified to

transcend the strictly physical and to encompass as much as the metaphysical (i.e. Objective,

Strategic, Tactical dimensions) as possible, often by utilising motifs and symbology familiar

to the local culture10. These kinds of traditions may well stem from the conditions of a feudal

society, wherein such information was vital to the survival of the social group. Similar

mnemonic traditions may be found in Europe under similar social conditions.

In the West, naming conventions were highly materialist. With the dawning of intellectual

heights during the latter stages of the Renaissance, such mnemonic traditions were

abandoned, and a strictly physical set of naming conventions succeeded. In Western Fencing

(of the French school) for example, techniques are defined within the category of Simple

Actions, being defined as offensive ‘attacks’, or defensive ‘parries’, each technique within

these sets is then further termed dependent upon its relationship with ‘a line’ or trajectory of

convergence toward a prospective target. There are then Second-intent Actions and

Compound Actions which refer to the use of individual techniques being applied with tactical

motive (often based upon resistance to direct action).

Techniques can therefore be arranged in a combat in any particular manner according to

attributes and commitment values, but the actual techniques – or how the body produces

utmost force, or how it may protect the vital organs, or how it may act in less Time than the

opponent are all Universal. The biomechanics of producing Force with a mechanical object 10 McCarthy (1995, 28) notes that such a naming convention was not taken to Okinawa from China, and therefore we can understand why such naming conventions may not be found in decendants of Karate Do (such as Tang Soo Do, Tae Kwon Do etc).


19

such as the human body must manifest particular rules of physics, and exploit them to

generate utmost force, or utmost obstruction. In which case, all techniques – no matter who

they are performed by – should always retain these mechanical standards. All Combat

Systems have teaching and training methods designed to optimise human movement, and to

increase the volume of power which may be generated. These mechanical standards are

always the same around the world, because the human body always has the same form (two

arms and two legs) and the scientific rules for Potential and Kinetic energy, biomechanics

and application remain the same11.

The purpose of Action, to refer back to the concept of Absoluticity, is to manifest the internal

desires of the psyche into the physical world – it means to make the intangible (our desires

and goals), tangible.

Contingency

Contingency actually is a subclass of Strategy and Tactic, though it has been exposed here as

its own separate element as part of COSTAC. When we consider contingency, we derive the

basis from which we shall process stimuli which falls outside of our skillsets, referring to

when an intended technique, Strategy or Tactic fails in practice. These heuristics are used as

the basis upon which we change from one strategy, tactic or technique to another.

Conclusion

It is clear that combative behaviour may be expressed using a hierarchical structure in which

changes to Technique affect those choices higher up, and vice versa. The demarcation allows

for discussion to be made explicit and to seek clarity.

Within each of these categories may be traced specific ‘Principles’12, which might refer

specifically to any singular category or to all categories. The application of the COSTAC

Method is essential for systematic investigation into the composition of a Combat System,

allowing for statistical analysis based upon skillset propensity. This statistical analysis allows

for categorisation of Combat Systems based upon their behaviours and physical solutions to

11 I refer readers to my paper on Eskirmology: Unifying Terminologies in Martial Culture.

12 The Cybernetic definition covers three criteria: 1) Primitive or root cause (from the Latin Primo, meaning “First”, and Principes, meaning “that which goes before all else”), 2) Simple, 3) Universal, or a single statement which refers to the entirety of specific incidences. This latter criterium is in accordance with Popper’s framework for Theory (Popper 2008, 37-56)


20

combat rather than by superficial similarities derived from cultural origin. In which case,

Martial Arts may be appraised based upon the merits of the System and the structure of the

information presented to a student. This approach inevitably allows for a deeper appreciated

for the variety of Combat Systems due to perspectives on the universal human experience of

physical conflict.


21

Bibliography & References:

Archer, John & Benson, David (2002); An ethnographic study of sources of conflict between

young men in the context of the night out, Psychology, Evolution & Gender 4.1 April 2002

pp. 3–30.

Archer, John & Benson, David (2008); Physical Aggression as a Function of Perceived

Fighting Ability and Provocation: An Experimental Investigation, Aggressive Behavior,

Volume 34, pages 9–24.

Archer, John & Thanzami, Vanlal (2009); The relation between mate value, entitlement,

physical aggression, size and strength among a sample of young Indian men, Evolution and

Human Behavior 30 (2009) 315–321.

Archer, John (1994), The Dynamics of aggression: biological and social processes in dyads

and groups, Routledge.

Archer, John, (1994). Male violence, reprint Published by Taylor & Francis.

Bloom; Engelhart, Furst, Hill, Krathwohl (1956); Taxonomy of educational objectives: the

classification of educational goals; Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York.

Buss, A. (1961). The psychology of aggression. New York: Wiley.

Buss, A. (1963). Physical aggression in relation to different frustrations. Journal of Abnormal

and Social Psychology, 67, 1-7.

Buss, A. (1966). Instrumentality of aggression, feedback, and frustration as determinants of

physical aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 153-162.

Cheong & Draeger (1997); Phoenix-Eye Kung Fu, Weatherhill, New York & Tokyo.

Jones, J H (2008); Evolutionary Game Theory, Department of Anthropology, Stanford

University, Journal for Sport and Society 3 (1): 55-61

Kim, Sang H. (2000); The Comprehensive Illustrated Manual of Martial Arts of Ancient

Korea, Turtle Press.


22

Liu Hai Chao (1993); Shaolin Gong Fu - A Course in Traditional Forms. Vol.2, Henan

Scientifc and Technical Publishing House.

Mauss, Marcel (1936); Les techniques du corps, Journal de Psychologie, XXXII, p3-4.

McCarthy, P (1995); Bubishi: The Bible of Karate, Tuttle Publishing.

Popper, K (2008); The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Routledge Classics.

Walker, J (1980a) The Physics Of Forces In Aikido: Making The Weak Equal To The Strong,

Scientific American

Walker, J. (1980b) The Physics Of Forces In Judo: Making The Weak Equal To The Strong,

Scientific American

Walker, J, (1975). Karate Strikes. American Journal of Physics 43, 845-849

Westbrook & Ratti, (1970); Aikido and the Dynamic Sphere; An Illustrated Introduction,

Charles E. Tuttle Company, Inc. 1970.

Wiener, H (1973); Cybernetics, or Control and Communication in the animal and the

machine, MIT Press.

Wilk, S.R. et al., (1983).The Physics of Karate, American Journal of Physics 51, 783-790

Wong, Kiew Kit (1976); Shaolin Kung-Fu, Paul Crompton.

The COSTAC Method: The information structure of Martial Arts (2012)

Documents

Transcript of The COSTAC Method: The information structure of Martial Arts (2012)