PDA

View Full Version : JD Salinger and Aikido


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


CarlRylander
02-07-2010, 09:13 AM
A bit belated, but I think there is a quote from 'Catcher in the rye', that is relevant:

Mr Antolini tells Holden:

'The mark of an immature man, is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, the mark of a mature man, is that he wants to live humbly for one'

Agree???

aikishihan
02-07-2010, 09:25 AM
The goal of the warrior, is to accomplish both.

mathewjgano
02-07-2010, 12:10 PM
A bit belated, but I think there is a quote from 'Catcher in the rye', that is relevant:

Mr Antolini tells Holden:

'The mark of an immature man, is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, the mark of a mature man, is that he wants to live humbly for one'

Agree???

I agree. This brings to mind the idea of suicide bombers and other nationalists who are willing to cause an effect, but not to stick around and deal with the results...which is where the real bravery takes place in my opinion. Or to echo a great quote which touches a little on this idea: "[any idiot can deal with a crisis; it's the day to day living which wears a man down]."

Michael Hackett
02-07-2010, 02:43 PM
I disagree with Takahashi Sensei. To be willing to give one's life nobly for a worthwhile goal is one thing and to live for that worthwhile goal is another. A modern warrior should be willing to die for a cause, but should seek have his opponent die instead. To want death is an archaic construct. To be willing to die for a noble cause is the mark of a warrior.

This is nothing more than my own personal opinion and that sets its value. In my early days I served with "Old Corps" Marines who had fought on Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Saipan, Okinawa and Iwo Jima. They certainly were warriors and apparently had been willing to die to accomplish the mission, but they didn't seek their own deaths, but rather the deaths of those who defended the islands.

I personally buy in to Patton's view of letting "the other guy die for his country".

mathewjgano
02-07-2010, 03:19 PM
I disagree with Takahashi Sensei. To be willing to give one's life nobly for a worthwhile goal is one thing and to live for that worthwhile goal is another. A modern warrior should be willing to die for a cause, but should seek have his opponent die instead. To want death is an archaic construct. To be willing to die for a noble cause is the mark of a warrior.
Would you say you probably agree with Takahashi Sensei's view, but disagree with the way it was phrased? I guess I don't see the difference between what you said and what he said. I took his meaning to be that it's good to live for a good cause, but that if you must die (and of course we at some point must) that it should also be for a good cause. Coincidentally, I'm planning to die for a good cause: a long, well-lived life. I figure I'm about 1/3-1/4 of the way to accomplishing this goal, but I'm in no rush to complete it.

I personally buy in to Patton's view of letting "the other guy die for his country".
It's certainly more practical for us, generally speaking.

Michael Hackett
02-07-2010, 05:03 PM
Hi Matt,

No, I don't think we are on the same wavelength. Takahashi Sensei is a very articulate man and he chose the word "want" specifically, I think. To me, that implies a goal of dying for a noble cause in this context as opposed to supporting a noble cause to the point of losing one's life. Being willing to do something is a different mindset from wanting to do something. I'll grant that we are arguing semantics and perhaps we are, in fact, on the same page of thought, but Sensei is always very, very clear about what he means when he writes. I could be wrong and I certainly don't want to, nor am I willing to die on this intellectual hill!

aikishihan
02-07-2010, 05:09 PM
I do agree with Michael Hackett, that if given a choice regarding dealing with the same cause, one or the other has to be made.

What if one has different causes to champion over a lifetime, where their basic philosophies do not conflict? I believe that one can live the life of a social worker, dealing directly with impacting positively the lives encountered. Then, heaven forbid, that same person gives up his/her life to uphold the principles cherished over the very same lifetime.

I see no inherent conflict of Michael's view with mine. Perhaps I am being too optimistic with my eyesight, and my metsuke. Forgive me.

Matthew, add me to the list of those wishing you a long, productive and satisfying life in the cause of Aiki, and for your dreams!

In oneness,

francis y takahashi

mathewjgano
02-07-2010, 05:11 PM
Hi Matt,

No, I don't think we are on the same wavelength. Takahashi Sensei is a very articulate man and he chose the word "want" specifically, I think. To me, that implies a goal of dying for a noble cause in this context as opposed to supporting a noble cause to the point of losing one's life. Being willing to do something is a different mindset from wanting to do something. I'll grant that we are arguing semantics and perhaps we are, in fact, on the same page of thought, but Sensei is always very, very clear about what he means when he writes. I could be wrong and I certainly don't want to, nor am I willing to die on this intellectual hill!

I see what you're saying now. Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it!
Take care,
Matt

lbb
02-07-2010, 05:32 PM
As an aside, S.M. Stirling, who has written rather a lot of very good military SF, makes a distinction between warriors and soldiers (and his use of either term is always quite literal, never figurative). I am neither a warrior nor a soldier.

Kevin Leavitt
02-07-2010, 07:25 PM
We (The US Arrmy) tries to inculcate warrior ethos in every Soldier. But, I agree, not all soldiers are warriors.

Michael Hackett
02-07-2010, 07:34 PM
I liken warriors and soldiers to the many types of police officers I served with. They all wore the same uniform, had the same obligations and powers, but often had different mindsets. Upon hearing of a crisis on the radio, the warrior types would press the throttle and say to themselves "Man, I hope I get there before its all over!" while another type would drive reasonably and say internally, "Man, I hope they have it under control before I get there!" The first is a warrior and the latter a soldier.

Today we rarely are confronted with taking a stand that would cost us our lives. Instead, taking a principled stand often can result in lost friends, lost jobs, lost fortunes. In either case the subject can be fully aware of the potential negative (for him) outcome and still be willing to stand by a principle. Both are courageous acts consistent with the conduct of a warrior.

Walter Martindale
02-08-2010, 02:22 AM
(snip) Upon hearing of a crisis on the radio, the warrior types would press the throttle and say to themselves "Man, I hope I get there before its all over!" while another type would drive reasonably and say internally, "Man, I hope they have it under control before I get there!" The first is a warrior and the latter a soldier.

(snip.)


Is there another type that says, "Damn, another one, better go shut it down." and if so, what "type" are they?
Walter

CarlRylander
02-08-2010, 05:57 AM
I think Salinger meant dying in a 'hamlet' sort of way, I think.

I didn't think of the military aspect of this. Maybe he did mean it that way. I didn't mean to insult anyone in the forces.

Michael Hackett
02-08-2010, 09:54 AM
Hi Walter,

Yeah, there is that type as well....the one who drives as slowly as he can or finds a jaywalker to cite in the meantime, all the while thinking "Boy, I hope this is over before they notice I haven't arrived yet!" I used to think of those folks as "fearbiters" in that they were extraordinarily brave when they clearly had the upper hand on a suspect. Neither warrior nor soldier, the names for them were usually profane and always prejorative.

David Orange
02-08-2010, 10:28 AM
We (The US Arrmy) tries to inculcate warrior ethos in every Soldier. But, I agree, not all soldiers are warriors.

And not all warriors are soldiers.

But the most important point is that not everyone who calls himself a warrior (like those who call themselves Christian) really is.

I don't generally identify myself as "Christian" because it means "like Christ."

I feel it's really presumptuous to tell people, "Hi. I'm David. I'm like Christ."

Well. Anyone would laugh at that (though Jesus always was one with a snappy comeback and some pretty sharp put-downs when the situation called for it).

So I'll let others say what they will.

But once I was teaching a police trainer some things and someone came into the room and said, "Who's this? One of your trainees?"

The guy said, "No. That's David Orange. He's a warrior."

Shook me up. I've never said that about myself. Though when trouble starts, I'm more likely to go toward it than away from it. Maybe that's just stupidity.

Anyway, I know you are a warrior, Kevin and the kind we need. So thanks for that and for your insights.

But as for living and dying...let's just all remember that it could come at any second for any of us, care for our loved ones and our country and try not to bring it on ourselves by doing something stupid. (all prayers appreciated).

Best to all.

David

dps
02-08-2010, 04:50 PM
I don't generally identify myself as "Christian" because it means "like Christ."

I feel it's really presumptuous to tell people, "Hi. I'm David. I'm like Christ."


No, Christian means "Follower of Christ", from the Greek word "christianos"

http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/5546.htm

David

Walter Martindale
02-09-2010, 02:41 AM
Hi Walter,

Yeah, there is that type as well....the one who drives as slowly as he can or finds a jaywalker to cite in the meantime, all the while thinking "Boy, I hope this is over before they notice I haven't arrived yet!" I used to think of those folks as "fearbiters" in that they were extraordinarily brave when they clearly had the upper hand on a suspect. Neither warrior nor soldier, the names for them were usually profane and always prejorative.

You sure? Then there must be a fourth type who busts his butt to get to the crisis because it's his job, really doesn't want to be there, but sucks it up and does it anyway? I'm not a LEO or a soldier but....
Walter

Boris Spassky
02-09-2010, 02:59 AM
Well said!

Hooah

Boris Spassky
02-09-2010, 03:00 AM
The goal of the warrior, is to accomplish both.

Satori

Hooah

Michael Hackett
02-09-2010, 11:21 AM
Walter,

That is the second type. He goes fast, but not exceedingly so. He doesn't necessarily want to go, but does suck it up. He doesn't waste any time and does what is necessary at the scene. There is nothing wrong with this type of officer - he does his job properly and professionally, but doesn't enjoy the storm in the same way the "warrior" type does. Neither type gives me heartburn as an administrator, but the third type does; those are the bullies who over-react and are badge heavy. Thankfully they are a small minority.

David Orange
02-09-2010, 12:06 PM
Neither type gives me heartburn as an administrator, but the third type does; those are the bullies who over-react and are badge heavy. Thankfully they are a small minority.

So, how would you like to have someone on your force who models himself after some of the characters Steven Seagal portrays--in Exit Wounds, for instance?

Best wishes.

David

Michael Hackett
02-09-2010, 05:49 PM
Well David, I wouldn't be very happy about it. The iconic loner cop is a classic movie character, but doesn't last very long in police work. I freely admit that I used to love watching Dirty Harry and the others and rooted out loud for them, but they weren't real then or now. A guy who pulled that stuff would be fired and prosecuted pretty quickly. I'm not terribly impressed with Seagal Sensei in his current role as a Reserve Deputy Sheriff either.

Kevin Leavitt
02-09-2010, 06:24 PM
Agree Michael. We don't like that stuff either in the Army...it will get you or others killed in the wrong situation.

Although every now and then in a group there seems to be no one willing to kick the door in and everyone stands around a debates it...at some point, someone needs to step up, take charge and move out.

I think this is much different than "Rambo-ing" it that you referred to above though!

Michael Hackett
02-09-2010, 08:04 PM
If they only realized that it is always the SECOND guy who gets shot going in the door.......

We commonly refer to over-exhuberent rookies as "Rambo" and have to keep them on a short leash until they get some experience under their belts. In police work it is one of our deadly sins called Tombstone Courage. There's obviously a time and place for everything, but its something like the old story of the young bull and old bull sitting atop the hill, looking down at the herd of cows below.....