The first purpose of this study is to introduce the new concept of Ki to the field of the philosophy of Sport and Physical Education. Certain physical effects of Ki are striking. Utilizing it properly and effectively, one can throw another person without direct contact. These effects have been observed by many scholars and scientists, and are regarded as fact. The second purpose is to explain these phenomena in original way. The scientific studies have their own limitations. In order to pursue the Ki study, the inner situations of the producer of Ki must not be disregarded. The Ki study should be focused on various phenomena in the experience of the producer, from the viewpoint of producer-self, not from that of the outside observers. This study takes a viewpoint of producer, like a phenomenologist.
As a result of descriptions and interpretation, it was disclosed that these phenomena are clearly explained, using the paradigm of the “Body Domain” and the “Ki Domain”. Based on the description and interpretation, some speculations were made. Consequently it was concluded that the concept of Ki should be applied to the field of Sport and Physical Education.

抄録全体を表示

This paper considers on the rule-following concept which constitutes sport games through the discussion on the others. It is meaningless to inquire why one will abide by the rules in sport. At the same time, it is disregarded to ask the motive which urges one to obey the rules from outside of sport. We consider it to be sufficient to do one's best at any rate. If the aim of rule-following was not asked, however, it would lead to a kind of tautology as follows: rules should be followed because they should be followed. Furthermore, Wittgenstein developed the skepticism about the possibility of the justification for an action by its rule. The necessity arises as to find such a condition that makes the state of rule-following possible, the condition that the necessity and the contingency coexistence in that state. For the rule-following has no sense anymore when an action accords with its rule in any case, nor the rule fill the role of itself when the accordance between an action and its rule is quite contingent. This paper, then, attempted to solve this problem by introducing the notion of the self and the others. The others take on contingency against the self in the sense that the others might do or not do the same act as the self accidentary. In the case that the self and the others coexistenced in the same dimension (e. g. the present tense), the latter were contingent as it were. If the others were in the different dimension (e. g. the past tense) from the self, they appeared as the being that the self could not deal with at one's will (the absolute other). The absolute other in this sense is grasped under the aspect of necessity. Consequently, the state of rule-following depends on whether the self could set these others in oneself.

抄録全体を表示

The purpose of this paper was to clarify the fundamental framework of “somatics”. The word “somatics” was invented by T. Hanna to describe the emergent field which consisted of the theoretical and scientific components of various somatic enterprises since 1960's. In order to pursue this purpose, the meanings of several concepts which seemed to be important constituents of the framework of somatics were analyzed.
The findings were as follows;
1) The word “somatics” was derived from the Greek word “soma” which indicated the living body. The “soma” was organic and energy system enclosed within its membrane. It was not a “mind” nor “body”. Nor was it a “spirit” or “soul”. The “soma” was comprised of interarticulated these functions and was recognized as a “process” with homeostatic stance toward the surrounding universe. This living “process” was a self-monitored activity that was recognized as “experience”.
2) The “experience” occured in the modes of first-person, second-person, and third-person experience. It was recognized that first-person experience was the medium through which second-person and third-person experience was processed. Within these three modes of experiences, “awareness” was focused in somatic science as the first-person experience of the function of intending. Humans were the only living creatures capable of focussing their awareness inward as well as outward.
3) “Awareness” had the exclusionary function that was regarded as an ordering force which suffused the entire “soma”. The difference between “to be conscious” and “to be self-aware” was that the former was in the mode of unreflective and the latter was in the mode of reflective.

抄録全体を表示