This study aims to clarify the structure of sports games in order to analyze soccer games. In this paper, we paid our attention to “gymnos agon (bodily movement competitions)” of ancient Greece that are the origin of sports, and particularly considered “agon (competition)” which is the basis of the meaning of this word.
We focused on the structure of “competition” as “play” to clarify the concept of “competition” that is the basis for the meaning of “bodily movement competition”. By doing so we were able to formulate the function of this structure by the following comparative function.
On a condition of r, AG = cf(a,b) = a›b, a=b, a‹b
(where, r : rule, AG : agon, cf : comparative function, a : contestant, b : opponent, › : win, = : draw, ‹ : loss)
In this paper, we put various functions that convert all bodily movement of contestants into the numerical formula in the above function of competition, using the concept of “nested functions (to put a function in another function)”, for the consideration of “bodily movement related to competition” that is our future topic of this study. We were able to connect the function of competition with “bodily elements” of sport structure that Tomihiko Sato had presented.
Since the bodily movement of sport is prescribed by the above function of competition, it is not very effective to consider the bodily movement regardless of the “competition” by taking out the bodily movement from the sport. Our future topic is to consider the concept of “bodily movement” that is an attribute of “bodily movement competitions”, and the last aim of this study is to clarify the entirety of “bodily movement competitions (sports)” on the basis of the results considered in this paper.

View full abstract

The purpose of this paper is to understand “seeing” sports by interpreting Hasumi's “criticism on sports” through Wittgenstein's arguments on “aspect”. In arguing on “aspect”, Wittgenstein showed some figures such as “duck-rabbit”, “double cross” and a “triangle” which we can see as two or more different things. In this paper we pointed out three important features of such arguments as follows:
1) If you want to tell someone what aspect you see, you should say “I see it as...” rather than “I see this” pointing at it with your finger.
2) Seeing an aspect is not a “perception of a property of a thing” but “perception of a thing”, so it is a matter of “what it is”.
3) When you see a thing, it is in a context of familiarity that you know what that thing is. This is called “context-ladenness of perception”.
From such viewpoints, we can interpret Hasumi's words “see movement as movement” as “see an aspect of movement” or “see movement in its nature”. When we see a movement or a play in fascination, we see it in this way. This is distinguished from seeing just the result of the movement, which is external to the movement.
However, Hasumi's word “movement” seems to be vague and to have multiple meanings. It can be aptly and consistently understood as “movement seen in its nature” or, in Wittgenstein's terminology, in its “inner relation”. This is a kind of circular argument but it is the essential nature of the structure of our perception i.e. “context-ladenness of perception”.
We can also point out that although Hasumi is a “nonprofessional”, not an athlete or a coach or even a professional sport critic, he sees movement. Nevertheless, there is a difference between a professional and nonprofessional in what they see. A professional sees an event in the sport with more knowledge compare to a nonprofessional. Knowledge here is the context of the event, and we can understand this as that they see different things from the viewpoint of “context-ladenness of perception”. Through acquiring more knowledge and practice with using it, we can see sports in the same way as a professional.
In short, of our perception is there a structure of “context-ladenness” and thus we can say as follows.
1) Seeing sports is seeing sports itself in its inner relation to the context.
2) A nonprofessional can see sports as well as a professional but in a sense they see different things because their knowledge, which are parts of the context, are different.

View full abstract

The purpose of this study is to clarify what “learning one's own self” means for a person. This research is based on the literatures written about Masters of Budo, and Geido. Masters have maked a thorough learning by themselves. These literatures have introduced Mushin (the state of no thought, no mind) as the goal of Budo, and Geido. And, there is a close relationship between learning and Mushin. For example, we learn when we devote ourselves no matter what we learn.
The word “learning” seems to include two meanings of learning. One is to learn the person's own self. The other is to learn a piece of knowledge that exists in outside of the person. This study clarifies the former meaning of “learning”.
The materials used for this study are three books written about Masters of Budo, and Geido. The two are the writings about the stage of master swordsman (17th A.D.). The one is the Chinese old book of philosophy (4th - 3rd B.C.).
Mushin that “Heiho-kadensyo” insists on is to find what one really wants to do through watching oneself deeply enough. “Hudochishinmyoroku” insists that Mushin is to watch oneself deeply, and to decide how to act honestly. “Zhuangzi” insists on the existence of the order of the nature. “Zhuangzi” thinks that the world is just moving along the order of the nature. The order is neither fair nor unfair. So, “Zhuangzi” insists that when one thinks one's destiny is unfair, it is because one's affliction. “Zhuangzi” insists on the need to give up any affliction to live strongly, constructively. The process to give up any affliction is the process to be Mushin.
“Heiho-kadensyo” and “Hudochishinmyoroku” focus on the inside of a human being. “Zhuangzi” focuses on the outside of a human being. Both of them explain the process of learning one's own self. This process needs to overcome the hardship and to watch oneself deeper than known already. The meaning of “learning one's own self” is to know who oneself is, to think about it, and to decide one's way to live.

View full abstract

The purpose of this research is to clarify the use of language and its limitation required for movement practice by considering on the relationship between both of them. Especially in the scene of movement acquisition, there always exists some concern with the decrease of useless linguistic explanation and increase of efficiency in the movement practice. Therefore, research is needed towards the solution of this subject. It will be also inquiring for the possibility and limitation of linguistic thinking in movement practice.
First, it is considered how the language has been used in PE class. Then, the use of language in movement practice is considered. It is also considered on the relationship between movement practice and indication of the specific performance. Although it is natural to use language in movement practice, too much reliance on the language may cause some negative effects. Hence, it is important for us to be aware of the use of language so that one can complete the effective acquisition of movement. That is to say, on which level of practice and that of language we may use with words.
To conclude, although language with abstraction can explain movements rationally, it is extremely difficult to produce “acticept” which means Gestalt of movement perception. Therefore, we should change our attention from the use of language for scientific explanation to the usage which draws out of practice. Furthermore, the language should have a nature of time. Hence, there are two essential points of the use of language in movement practice. One of the usages is to make the selection of words indicating “acticept”, and to articulate “acticept” required in the practice is the other. For its completion, it is necessary to discern the limitation of linguistic thinking in movement practice, to assure the logic of bodily thinking required for movement acquisition and movement practice, and to consider the role of language in the scene of movement acquisition.

View full abstract