Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.
If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!
So after having finished my research and taking a few days for the generic winter celebration we here in Northern California used to call Christmas, I thought I'd reply to some of the posts addressed to me on the 'Science/Etherial' thread.To my surprise I found it missing. I looked on my own history and found no trace of the thread. I can only assume that it had been stricken from the forums area because it was considered too controversial.
I am left with a monologue rather than the preferred dialogue. I prefer the latter even if it is fraught with conclusion jumping, ad hominem, and grand standing. There is always potential for synthesis, for understanding, and every once in a while a paradigm shift from either perspective.
So the title of my journal entry is ‘Spirit of the Intent' for a reason, I should jump into that. What I was trying to get across in the ‘Science/Etherial' thread is that the manner in which a person addresses an argument (regardless of ‘side') is important. To attack a person with great disregard for common courtesy, or the most minimal amount of respect is worthy of reflection. As I had said it before, I am guilty of this action as well. The question is purpose. What purpose is served by using disparaging adjectives while making an argument? Is this short-term therapy for some who feel impotent in their daily lives? Could it be that conflict resolution for martial artists can only be that of martial rhetoric? Is it possible that there is a self-perpetuating need for conflict which manifests itself as rhetorical, profanatory, randori? I hope not.
I remember more than one person citing ‘freedom of speech' as the driver of such discourteous conduct and it made me sad. Yes, we have the freedom to speak in any manner that we choose with very few exceptions. Yes, there are more than a few countries in which this is not an option. But does this mean that we eventually reach a ‘norm' of derision which is frighteningly close to Jerry Springer?
Please understand, I am not trying to wrangle control of speech, I'm really just asking why it must go there. For those of us who have had physical confrontations/ abuse/ assaults or whathaveyou; was there not a moment when we discovered that in aikido, we did not -=have=- to destroy our ‘enemy' in order to keep ourselves safe? Could there be a parallel in rhetoric?