The first chapter of PPT explains some metaphysical concept of Taekwondo. The presupposed questions of Chapter 1 is; What is Taekwondo?; Is Taekwondo a principle or patters of activity; What is the characteristics of Taekwondo as a principle if it were one, and so on.

I'm answering to the first question; "What is Taekwondo, i.e. what is the essential and the most important aspect of Taekwondo?" saying that Taekwondo is a system of priciples over system of human actions. Then some questions will follow this answer. There are many kinds of principles except Taekwondo. What is distinctive characteristics of Taekwond as principle?, i.e. in what Taekwondo differ from anothers? My answer is; Taekwondo is same with anothers in some aspects while different inanothers. In this point, I introduce the traditional concept of "Do" in discussion, which is well-known to westerns as "Tao". Do is realy important and central concept in metaphysics as 'Tao'. <Do> is really important and central concept in metaphysics of oriental philosophy. Thus, it has been interpreted in various ways by numerous philosophers. I'd like to interpret it is my unique way, which presents how this concept can be understood compatibly with logical standpoint, which occupies main core of werstern philosophy. My inerpretation of <Do> can be said; <Do>, or the reference of this name, is the fundamental principle under the distinctions of everything. Everything can be itself on the discinction of what it is. If we cannot discern this from that, we cannot say anything of this or that thing. Only after this sort of distinction we can say something, of course, logically. The logic stands on this first-level distinction. It is evident that, for logic is possible only whith names, which can be attached to a thing with also only distinction. So every western philosophers have continued theri thinking on the base of logic or mathematics. This is why the western civilization could succeed in its scientific power.

Now then, this merit of distinctiveness confines itself in its own limitation. Parmenides, a presocratic philosopher, who made very deep influence on the beginning of western philosophy, emphasized that everthing is and something that is not is not, thus something that is belongs only one whole of existence, because there can be nothing between two things that are. With some careful reflection, we can know that our distinctions we need for our daily like is not fixed as it is originally or genuinely. Gestalt psychology can present some impressive example for this kind of argument. And I believe this is the very point the old oriental philosophers have been arguing for, like Buddha, Lao-ztu, and so on.

Can it be some constant prinicple? If it were constant, thus it were unchangeable, it should not depend on mankind's standpoint inclusive of distinction. What is beyond man's contingent distinction? We cannot say of it logically while oriental philosophers have talked of it with the concept of "Do". "Taekwondo" includes "do" in its name. Thus the correct refernce of "Taekwondo" should be a sort of "Do". Then how many things can there be beyond man's distinction? Only one. For ther is no distinction there. To be honest we cannot say even of the one either, because "the one" assumes some distinciton again. But here, tring to go over distinction in contradiction, we should not be attached to the logic so we can accept evident contradiction in our talking. This is, I believe, why some fundamental discussion of oriental philosophy talks with rather contradictory dialogue.

Then, the epistimology based on this kind of ontology contains some unique steps or process of recognition of truth. It is sudden enlightment instead of step-by-step understanding. Rational understanding also relies on logical process of thinking, so it cannot be applied to getting undistinguishable knowledge. Thus, we come to say "if you know one, you know all." This explanation is the easiest and most logical one that can be provided by me.

Though Do is undistingushable, so it is none-distinctive truth, it can be conceived in some distinctive schema. But since it is genuinely beyond distinction, the more we add precise explanation the more contradictory it would be. Any way, Taekwondo man can be said in distinctive words with names and lgic on the more fundamental understanding none-distinctive truth. In this aspect, we can ask what is difference between Taekwondo and what is not Taekwondo. And we have to answer to this question. My answer is that Taekwondo is a principle of using your body inclusive of hands and feet against you opponent who threatens your peaceful likfe and security of your family. This is distinctive focus on what is the characteristics of Taekwondo, which makes Taekwondo differ from what is not Taekwondo. But since we know already that, concerned with 'Do', nothing can be discerned in its essence, this distinction has no natural substance. So we also come to say, the way of Taekwondo is same as those of birds or planets.

When we consider two aspects of Taekwondo as principle; non-distinctive and distinctive aspects, though we know they are same, we can say of them as different things. So I come to refer to them with Taekwondo and TAEKWONDO. The former is distinctive feature of Taekwondo, which is concrete principle of fighting skills, while the latter is metaphysical one in the level of Do, which is smae as any other feature of Do. Thus the sounds of those two names are same, since the substance of the reference of the names are smae, too.

Then how can we assure ourselves of that there is some constant principle called "Do"? The following can be a simple proof for that. If there is some whole that is, then there can be nothing out of it. Then if the whole contains some change on or in it, then there cna be nothing either that can stop it from outside. Then the change of the whole cannot bue be confined into those changes produced by causes from inside. So, the change relies on only itself. Therefore, the change cannot be different from itself, i.e. it is constant in the meaning that it cannot be another change as a whole and it cannot be stopped.

In the change of the whole everything can be discerned by one another. So this whole change is what makes everything be what it is. Thus, it can be said to be a principle that penetrate everything. And this change enables everything to be distinguishable as it is, from behind the disctinction. so it can be said it is beyond every distinction. This is why the principle of the whole change cannot be a part of a knowledge. Now then, I wish you can understand the reason that an enlightened man only knows everything, whereas he can say nothing correctly.

Let me comment on the stress given on the necessity of mind and body. Since Descartes had said 'I think, so I exist", the tradition of western philosophy have been focussing only on the mind as consciousness. Then everything about physical body came to belong to mysterious riddle that we cannot be sure of its existence in spite of our evident daily experience with it. On this matter, I think we can solve this problem only when we move to another standpoint of philosophical reflection on mind and body. This is why I stress the necessity of mind and body, in the first sentence. of the text.