PDA

View Full Version : Even at Boot Camp...no one can reach inside you and make you feel. Your feelings are


Please visit our sponsor:
 

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


Mary Eastland
09-12-2012, 09:17 AM
Even at Boot Camp...no one can reach inside you and make you feel. Your feelings are in you.

Uke can resist but the resistance that nage feels is nage's feeling


That is exactly what I said.
I still stand by it. I meant no offense to any one.

I am talking about this in the context of Aikido training. I stayed in Aikido to learn how to respond differently to stressful situations.

An important lesson I learned in Aikido class was that if someone screamed at me it did not automatically mean that I was going to be hit. Without training I might never have learned that. It is an important lesson for me.

How we feel in each situation is unique to us. One person who is screamed at and hit might feel angry and combative. Another might feel useless and desperate.

How something feels physically is one thing...like if you grab nage's wrist tightly they could feel paralyzed. Another nage may start moving wildly, trying to escape. Nage might feel all of the power of the grab in the wrist and lose sight that they have a whole body they can move.

Now, about feelings that we feel inside or emotions might be a better word, so it is not so confusing with how it feels and how we are feeling.

Emotions that arise from that grab could be frustration, anger, sadness and hopelessness. Another person may experience exlaration, excitement, and adrenaline. Just examples, I know there is a huge array of responses based on who we are and what we have learned and how we respond to stress.

My purpose in the quoted test was not to disparage anyone's experience.

I was thinking about how a person responds to a situation at any given time. And how they might experience a similar situation after training.

sorokod
09-12-2012, 11:45 AM
When you say "boot camp" is this an actual army boot camp from personal experience
or is it a theoretical "boot camp", the way you imagine it is?

lbb
09-12-2012, 12:24 PM
Even at Boot Camp...no one can reach inside you and make you feel. Your feelings are in you.

Uke can resist but the resistance that nage feels is nage's feeling

That is exactly what I said.
I still stand by it. I meant no offense to any one.

I am talking about this in the context of Aikido training.

The reference to boot camp took it out of the aikido context, that's the problem.

I already said how I feel about "no one can make you feel" statements and their danger of coming across as glib, so no need to say more here.

Michael Hackett
09-12-2012, 01:31 PM
I am the culprit who derailed the thread with my glib attempt at humor. I was referring to Marine Corps Recruit Training when I mentioned "Boot Camp" - largely used to refer to basic training in the Naval services. The other branches of service refer to their initial entry training here as "Basic Training". Yes, I did experience it.

When Takahashi Sensei paraphrased the Roosevelt quote, I provided the correct quotation and noted in my own mind the difference between the terms "disrespect" and "inferior". I thought back to decades ago in San Diego and laughingly noted that Mrs. Roosevelt hadn't experienced Boot Camp.

That took us off on two tangents; Boot Camp, and admiration for Mrs. Roosevelt. Again, I commented that there were those who's admiration for her wasn't nearly as great as others. I can think of several groups besides racists and sexists who didn't hold her in the highest regard. Republicans, those opposed to the formation of the United Nations, and even a significant number of WW2 era Marines who were offended at her comments about the character and nature of Marines in general - that despite the fact that her son James was a highly respected Marine officer and commander of a Marine Raider Battalion.

With your consent, I will bow out and try to avoid derailing the train any further.

Mary Eastland
09-12-2012, 02:32 PM
Thank you all for your responses. I think the topic of the thread is interesting...maybe we could come back to it.

aikishihan
09-12-2012, 03:29 PM
I too experienced "boot camp", but in the U.S. Army, where admittedly it was not quite as harsh or demanding as those of the other Services.
I agree that Mrs. Roosevelt's alleged quotation does little or nothing for those who are exposed to extreme stress, duress and prejudice. I meant the example to be a starting point of taking command of one's situation, learn what is and isn't possible, and to have the courage and self esteem to accomplish real change and self expression.
Thank you Michael Hackett ,for clarifying your intentions, and I do agree that we need to listen more to one another, and to be open to other points of view, personal perspective and life experiences.
And thank you Mary Eastland, for dealing with the noise, the assumptions and the rhetoric. Your patience and persistence are truly appreciated.

Gary David
09-12-2012, 04:00 PM
Even at Boot Camp...no one can reach inside you and make you feel. Your feelings are in you.

Uke can resist but the resistance that nage feels is nage's feeling

That is exactly what I said.
I still stand by it. I meant no offense to any one.

Leaving aside the boot camp experiences, which I also went through, I agree with Mary for the most part.

I was thinking about how a person responds to a situation at any given time. And how they might experience a similar situation after training.

I do think that circumstances and the context of the circumstances you are in can have you lose the moment. Way back when.... I went to my 20 year High School reunion...had a pretty good time and some fun....then next day when I woke up I was so down and upset....couldn't work it out right away. After some thought I realized that everyone had dropped back into their persona from the high school day.s....and for most it didn't work, but it included all of us. It is easy to slip back into habits and patterns if one recreates the environment. Once I understood I had a good laugh and when about the day.

as always
Gary.

gregstec
09-12-2012, 06:01 PM
Leaving aside the boot camp experiences, which I also went through, I agree with Mary for the most part.

I do think that circumstances and the context of the circumstances you are in can have you lose the moment. Way back when.... I went to my 20 year High School reunion...had a pretty good time and some fun....then next day when I woke up I was so down and upset....couldn't work it out right away. After some thought I realized that everyone had dropped back into their persona from the high school day.s....and for most it didn't work, but it included all of us. It is easy to slip back into habits and patterns if one recreates the environment. Once I understood I had a good laugh and when about the day.

as always
Gary.

We are creatures of habit and conditioning - those that wish to manipulate are very aware of this and will use it to their advantage - thoughts of Pavlov's dog just come to mind when I think about all this...

Greg

Gary David
09-12-2012, 08:52 PM
We are creatures of habit and conditioning - those that wish to manipulate are very aware of this and will use it to their advantage - thoughts of Pavlov's dog just come to mind when I think about all this...

Greg

Greg
I think that the context, circumstances, environment can have a "mind of it's own"......in affect manipulates in and of itself......... and to no ones advantage......

Gary

gregstec
09-12-2012, 09:01 PM
Greg
I think that the context, circumstances, environment can have a "mind of it's own"......in affect manipulates in and of itself......... and to no ones advantage......

Gary

agreed to a certain extent - but someone will always try to take advantage in any circumstance if an opening presents itself :)

Greg

Michael Hackett
09-13-2012, 12:08 AM
Sorry, just couldn't resist........

Mrs. Roosevelt stirred up a hornet's nest in the early days of the Second World War by making disparaging comments about the Marines. Whether her opinion changed or she was requested to temper her remarks, she was quoted in 1945 saying "The Marines I have seen around the world have the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank God for the United States Marine Corps!" I guess Mrs. Roosevelt and I have a shared experience after all.

Carsten Möllering
09-13-2012, 02:28 AM
I am talking about this in the context of Aikido training.
Don't you train to try to manipulate or controll uke pschologically?
Don't you train to try to manipulate or control tori psychologically?

Sure, what nage feels is nages feeling. And at first glance he alone is responsible for what he feels. But when there is someone who is competent in affecting the feelings of another persons this becomes really difficult.

The teachings about metsuke deal with this. On both sides: Where to look to not give the oppenent the possibility to affect one's feelings. Or how to look to affect the feelings of the opponent. (When you see Christian Tissier performing aikidō watch his face. He is such a kind person. Smiling all the time, very humble, nice, soft, and during seminars he cares about everyone on the tatami ... When he performs, his face is like made of stone. His eyes are as if they would cut you ... This he does on purpose.)

There are movements to affect the opponent. Watanabe sensei does this as far as I understand it. I myself experienced this with Ikeda Hiroshi sensei.

Same with bootcamps: In the German army I experienced only a very little brother of what a befriended marine told me about what he survived during his drill. But even this was designed to affect our feelings, our personality, our "inside". When I talked to my company commander later it was their intention to break the personality we brought to the army and to build up real soldier from the pieces. Those where his words.
Having not one private second over a long time. Having only very short periods of sleep for a long time. Persons who only shout when they talk to you. ... Sure, your feelings are in you ...

Mary Eastland
09-13-2012, 07:44 AM
Hi Carsten:

I train to let uke...not to control uke. I have no interest in manipulation.

I think we approach the art in different ways.

Taking responsibility for our feelings gives us the option of changing how we react. It is a process that needs lots of Patience and courage. It is so much easier to blame others for our reactions yet we are the ones that have them.

lbb
09-13-2012, 08:05 AM
Taking responsibility for our feelings gives us the option of changing how we react. It is a process that needs lots of Patience and courage. It is so much easier to blame others for our reactions yet we are the ones that have them.

If you're carrying a cake, and someone trips and shoves you, and the cake ends up on the floor, are you responsible for the fact that the cake is on the floor? You are the one who had it, after all...

Yeah, I understand there's a difference. What I want you to do is bring a finer focus to what you're saying. What exactly do you mean by "taking responsibility for our feelings"? What does that mean in a real situation, not in the abstract -- a real situation where a person is having bad feelings?

For what it's worth, I believe that we have more control over how we feel than most people realize, and I recognize that we humans tend to fuel our own negative emotions. At the same time, I think it's disingenuous to pretend that there's never any outside agency, and platitudinous to imply that this control can be perfect and absolute. If a child is being harassed and bullied by other children, or a worker is being berated and threatened by a boss, or a person has just gotten a diagnosis of cancer, feelings of fear or anger or distress are neither inappropriate nor self-generated.

Brian Beach
09-13-2012, 08:30 AM
Hi Carsten:

I train to let uke...not to control uke. I have no interest in manipulation.

I think we approach the art in different ways.

Taking responsibility for our feelings gives us the option of changing how we react. It is a process that needs lots of Patience and courage. It is so much easier to blame others for our reactions yet we are the ones that have them.

I'm curious about this statement. I can understand it in terms of non resistance and allowing the attack to dissipate but I am having a hard time with the notion control in regard to pins and to a lesser degree locks. Pins are controlling and locks do control but ideally the uke puts them on themselves. If you do not participate in those things they don't manifest. A uke won't be pinned if you aren't there. Your structure controls his.

Could you clarify?

Mary Eastland
09-13-2012, 09:35 AM
If you're carrying a cake, and someone trips and shoves you, and the cake ends up on the floor, are you responsible for the fact that the cake is on the floor? You are the one who had it, after all...

Yeah, I understand there's a difference. What I want you to do is bring a finer focus to what you're saying. What exactly do you mean by "taking responsibility for our feelings"? What does that mean in a real situation, not in the abstract -- a real situation where a person is having bad feelings?

For what it's worth, I believe that we have more control over how we feel than most people realize, and I recognize that we humans tend to fuel our own negative emotions. At the same time, I think it's disingenuous to pretend that there's never any outside agency, and platitudinous to imply that this control can be perfect and absolute. If a child is being harassed and bullied by other children, or a worker is being berated and threatened by a boss, or a person has just gotten a diagnosis of cancer, feelings of fear or anger or distress are neither inappropriate nor self-generated.

HI Mary:

Thank you for your response.

To me there is a difference between blame and responsibility. Let's take the cake example. If someone trips me and I drop the cake. It could their fault or my fault. It would depend on the situation.

However, if it my daughter's birthday and I am responsible for the cake, I would most likely spend very little time deciding whose fault it is and just go get another cake because the cake is my responsibility.

Please don't think I make light of this. You can see in my last post that I wrote about the process. It is a very hard process. I spent much time blaming others or circumstances for the hard things that happened in my life. It really got me no where. Now I look to what or where I can change and move on. I usually don't love having to change. My motivation is not altruistic...it works for me and that is why I do it.

sorokod
09-13-2012, 10:13 AM
HI Mary:
To me there is a difference between blame and responsibility. Let's take the cake example. If someone trips me and I drop the cake. It could their fault or my fault. It would depend on the situation.

However, if it my daughter's birthday and I am responsible for the cake, I would most likely spend very little time deciding whose fault it is and just go get another cake because the cake is my responsibility.


How far will you take this? For example, how about people with PTSD (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttraumatic_stress_disorder)? Would you argue that ultimately is their responsibility and it is up to them, to get their act together and get on with their lives? If not, why?

jonreading
09-13-2012, 11:31 AM
I'll chip in...

I believe in personal responsibility. That is, the responsibility we assume in making our daily choices, the benefits we derive from our choices and the consequences of those choices. I am responsible for making the choice to eat a piece of cake (chocolate, of course), the tasty experience my body enjoys from the cake and the extra weight the cake adds to my body. It is permissible to kill anyone who ruins good cake. :)

However, personal responsible is a sliding scale. A child has less personal responsibility than an adult. The infirm have less personal responsibility than the firm. Legally, we even allow for persons to designate those more able to make better choices than themselves. A soldier with PTSD, for example, has diminished personal responsibility. Is that soldier responsible for herself? Yes. Is she less capable of making decisions then when she was well? That's the argument. Is she expected to resume a "well" life under her own decisions? Arguably no; that is why people diagnosed with PTSD are ushered into programs where others may help them. This is also true of alcoholics, drug-abusers, and other illnesses. The common thread with many help programs is that they do encourage some amount of personal responsibility

In this I believe aikido is about learning our personal responsibilities and living with the intention of accepting our decisions, the benefits and the consequences. I am not sure why it becomes an issue when we acknowledge some of us need more help than others. For example, if I told you that I could not dunk a basketball, most people would concede that is beyond my skill. However, if I do not carry a high grade-point average, then I must be dumb. Why not simply "beyond my skill"?

I do not mean to make light of serious illness that diminishes our ability to control our bodies. I wish to simply point out that we all experience diminishing control of our bodies on a scale. Whether it is MS or old-age, an old injury or presbyopia, we are constantly battling how much control and responsibility we can assume over our bodies.

lbb
09-13-2012, 11:44 AM
To me there is a difference between blame and responsibility. Let's take the cake example. If someone trips me and I drop the cake. It could their fault or my fault. It would depend on the situation.

However, if it my daughter's birthday and I am responsible for the cake, I would most likely spend very little time deciding whose fault it is and just go get another cake because the cake is my responsibility.

I like this -- both the distinction you make between blame and responsibility, which are so often conflated...and also, responsibility for having caused the situation vs. responsibility for fixing it. You are quite right -- our focus is so often who's to blame, and while I think that sometimes it does matter to establish who that is, it's often (mostly? nearly always?) a side discussion to the matter of sorting things out.

In terms of feelings, also, I think that blame is more likely to be a waste of time than in something tangible like the cake example, because your power to get the agent to try and make things better is less -- not to speak of their ability. If I knock someone's cake to the floor, I can usually do something about it -- if I do something that's emotionally hurtful, that's harder to fix.

Please don't think I make light of this. You can see in my last post that I wrote about the process. It is a very hard process. I spent much time blaming others or circumstances for the hard things that happened in my life. It really got me no where. Now I look to what or where I can change and move on. I usually don't love having to change. My motivation is not altruistic...it works for me and that is why I do it.

I hear ya. I understand what you mean. I think for most of us, it's good medicine. Experience has also taught me that it's not a medicine that everyone is ready to take...and also, there are cases where it's not sufficient by itself. If someone is violent towards you, you have to take as much control over your own healing as is possible...but you do also have to deal with the violent intent.

sorokod
09-13-2012, 11:56 AM
However, personal responsible is a sliding scale. A child has less personal responsibility than an adult. The infirm have less personal responsibility than the firm. Legally, we even allow for persons to designate those more able to make better choices than themselves. A soldier with PTSD, for example, has diminished personal responsibility.


This is saying that sometimes one is responsible and sometimes one isn't. I think that is a reasonable position to hold and different from "Even at Boot Camp" statement which I take is the worst thing the OP could imagine.

Tom Verhoeven
09-13-2012, 12:35 PM
I train to let uke...not to control uke. I have no interest in manipulation.



This is for me an important point - controlling and manipulating someone is just another form of aggression.

Tom

phitruong
09-13-2012, 02:03 PM
This is for me an important point - controlling and manipulating someone is just another form of aggression.

Tom

but we do this all the time. our parents did it to us. their parents did it to them. we did it to our children. if your son/daughter said "i don't want to go to school because i don't feel like it!", tell me your next action(s)/word(s) that aren't going to be controlling/manipulating, because i will guarantee the end result would be your kid end up in school, one way or another, against his/her will.

ever since we walked this earth, we have learned to manipulate and control the environment around us, sometimes using direct means, other times, indirect means. the only way that we don't controlling/manipulating one another is when we each live alone on separate planets, even then, we might build rockets to take pot shot at each other. lets us not kid ourselves.

personally, i would like for everyone to be responsible, with the exception of moi! :)

Tom Verhoeven
09-13-2012, 03:13 PM
but we do this all the time. our parents did it to us. their parents did it to them. we did it to our children. if your son/daughter said "i don't want to go to school because i don't feel like it!", tell me your next action(s)/word(s) that aren't going to be controlling/manipulating, because i will guarantee the end result would be your kid end up in school, one way or another, against his/her will.

ever since we walked this earth, we have learned to manipulate and control the environment around us, sometimes using direct means, other times, indirect means. the only way that we don't controlling/manipulating one another is when we each live alone on separate planets, even then, we might build rockets to take pot shot at each other. lets us not kid ourselves.

personally, i would like for everyone to be responsible, with the exception of moi! :)

You control and manipulate your children? Really?

Human beings as a species tries to control and manipulate the environment, that is obvious. But the costs to our environment, to nature, to our planet and to human lifes are tremendous! Control and manipulation of the environment is just an illusion.

I do not try to control or manipulate others, does not make any difference whether they are children or grown-ups. I would not even consider trying to control my wolf or horse.

The Asian hornet has recently settled here in France - it is killing our honeybees. How do you think we control that? It cannot be done. The hornet is here to stay.

I consider it Aiki to try to live with the environment, with nature, with the animals, with human beings.

Tom.

Anthony Loeppert
09-13-2012, 03:28 PM
You control and manipulate your children? Really?


Yes, the opposite is neglect. They don't have to be aware of it, though if they are that isn't a tragedy either. There is a reason we primates nurture our children for many years instead of other animals sending them on their way 20 minutes after birth or hatching.

Please...

I would not even consider trying to control my wolf or horse.

You OWN an animal?!... OPPRESSION!

James Sawers
09-13-2012, 03:37 PM
For some reason we seem to be viewing the words "control" and manipulative" as negative. Certainly they can be, but they are just words used to convey actions with certain intents, that's all. We can all think of examples from either point of view, as we have already seen here, some, I think, equally valid, but they are just words.....the intent matters most. Granted, intent can have its own unintended consequences, but perfection is perhaps, for another thread.

Tom Verhoeven
09-13-2012, 04:25 PM
For some reason we seem to be viewing the words "control" and manipulative" as negative. Certainly they can be, but they are just words used to convey actions with certain intents, that's all. We can all think of examples from either point of view, as we have already seen here, some, I think, equally valid, but they are just words.....the intent matters most.

Sure, lanquage changes, the meaning of words changes. Nowadays anything can mean anything. If I want to shut down my old computer I have to press "start".
We may find this unavoidable or even acceptable. However, when we have a conversation, especially in writing, email, etc., it is important that we try to give meaning to the words that we use. If we would have a conversation about horses, then we may very well use different words like equus or cheval, but in order to progress in our conversation it is important that each of us has the same animal in mind.

If we use the words "manipulate" and "control" then in general these words have a negative sound to it. In a more philosophical sense there is a distinction that we can make between western thinking, that emphasizes control over our environment (and control over others things, including our own mind) and for instance Chinese Taoist or Japanese Shinto way of thinking that places more importance on going with nature instead of controlling nature.

Of course the intent matters most.
But no one can "read" intent without being face to face with another human being.
That makes it all the more important to try to use the appropriate words.

If someone wants to say "nurture" then that someone should not use words like "manipulate" or "control" . Or when he does and wants to give his words a different meaning, he should explain that beforehand.

Communication between human beings appears to be difficult enough - it would help if we would at least agree to the meaning of the words that we use.

Tom

Tom Verhoeven
09-13-2012, 04:39 PM
Yes, the opposite is neglect. They don't have to be aware of it, though if they are that isn't a tragedy either. There is a reason we primates nurture our children for many years instead of other animals sending them on their way 20 minutes after birth or hatching.

Please...

You OWN an animal?!... OPPRESSION!

The opposite of nurture is neglect
The opposite of manipulation and control is harmonie and a mutual bond - most people call it love.

Where does it say that I own an animal?

If I would have said that I have a wife, you would interpret that as "you OWN a woman"?

Tom

Anthony Loeppert
09-13-2012, 04:53 PM
The opposite of nurture is neglect
The opposite of manipulation and control is harmonie and a mutual bond - most people call it love.

Let me guess... you either don't have any children or they ride the short bus to school.


Where does it say that I own an animal?


You used the word "my", as in my wolf, my horse. Did you reason with these animals, and of their own accord, they joined your family? Or do they stay with you because you feed them? Did you pay some money to someone else and now they are yours? If it was a hypothetical, fine, but the point still stands.


If I would have said that I have a wife, you would interpret that as "you OWN a woman"?
Tom

No, I'd say you entered into a legally binding, contractual obligation, with a woman.

Context matters,
Anthony

Tom Verhoeven
09-13-2012, 05:29 PM
Let me guess... you either don't have any children or they ride the short bus to school.

You used the word "my", as in my wolf, my horse. Did you reason with these animals, and of their own accord, they joined your family? Or do they stay with you because you feed them? Did you pay some money to someone else and now they are yours? If it was a hypothetical, fine, but the point still stands.

No, I'd say you entered into a legally binding, contractual obligation, with a woman.

Context matters,
Anthony

Context matters, intent matters.

Is there actually a point that you are trying to make within the context of this thread?

For as far as I am concerned this is becoming a discussion that is drifting into nowhere-land.
As far as I understand it, manipulation and control seems important in your life. And you prefer to see manipulation and control as nurture.

I disagree with you.
Let us leave it at that and get back to original subject of this thread.

Tom

Anthony Loeppert
09-13-2012, 05:38 PM
Context matters, intent matters.

Is there actually a point that you are trying to make within the context of this thread?


I follow the threads where they go... I originally started reading this thread because I was interested in the original post.

You brought up children and manipulation, and I followed it. [edit: or the objection to]


For as far as I am concerned this is becoming a discussion that is drifting into nowhere-land.


OK.


As far as I understand it, manipulation and control seems important in your life. And you prefer to see manipulation and control as nurture.


Evasion and retreat seem to be important in your life, and that is fine. For the record, I am not above "controlling and manipulating" in the effort of nurturing.

Regards,
Anthony

lbb
09-13-2012, 07:47 PM
Let me guess... you either don't have any children or they ride the short bus to school.

Wow, that is really not called for. Not at all.

Anthony Loeppert
09-13-2012, 07:56 PM
Wow, that is really not called for. Not at all.

I take the raising of children very seriously. Someone that claims children shouldn't be controlled or guided is an idiot (with respect to child rearing) and their children, should they have any, would reflect such a standpoint.

But you're correct, no one called for that.

Anthony

Dave de Vos
09-14-2012, 02:25 AM
Guiding, controlling and manipulating are similar, but they could convey a difference in intention.
Guiding could imply patient benevolence, controlling could imply impatience or indifference and manipulating could imply calculation (or worse).

I'm a father and I've been a high school teacher for some years. Guiding may be the ideal for a parent or a teacher, but I think that some controlling and manipulation is unavoidable in practice.

thisisnotreal
09-14-2012, 06:48 AM
I'll chip in...
In this I believe aikido is about learning our personal responsibilities and living with the intention of accepting our decisions, the benefits and the consequences.
Jon - that is a very interesting thought I never had. Thanks for sharing- always appreciate your posts.
Cheers

jonreading
09-14-2012, 11:03 AM
You control and manipulate your children? Really?

Human beings as a species tries to control and manipulate the environment, that is obvious. But the costs to our environment, to nature, to our planet and to human lifes are tremendous! Control and manipulation of the environment is just an illusion.

I do not try to control or manipulate others, does not make any difference whether they are children or grown-ups. I would not even consider trying to control my wolf or horse.

The Asian hornet has recently settled here in France - it is killing our honeybees. How do you think we control that? It cannot be done. The hornet is here to stay.

I consider it Aiki to try to live with the environment, with nature, with the animals, with human beings.

Tom.

Not to go backwards but...

First, of course we manipulate the environment. We wear clothing, we build structures, we farm, we consolidate into social groups, we follow laws. If you do not do these things, then you are not a member of society (and that is not necessarily bad). You may argue that you believe the consequences to these actions are grave and you try to minimize your impact on your surroundings, but you allow these controls in your life.

Second, to possess animals here in the US and not control them is considered poor care at best. Of course, the thought of allowing a wolf to do as she pleases in an urban or suburban environment... We inherent the responsibility of those under our care. We are responsible for the actions of our children, animals, employees. And again, of course you control and manipulate others in the course of your day. Down South, we have a secret driving technique - if you make eye contact with another driver, you may cut them off. Stupid thing is, it works. The other driver sees your intention and accommodates for your move in order to avoid a collision. [I]You can any color car you want, as long as its red, blue, or yellow. Would you like to pay in cash or credit? Well, why not turnups? You can have any size Starbucks coffee as long as it is small, medium or large. Or, for you New Yorkers, you can now have as much soda as you like, but no more than 16 oz. at a time.

As an earlier response indicated, I am inclined to contest that people are susceptible to manipulation and control. Some have more personal responsibility and independence than others, but we all are susceptible. The psychology behind basic conditioning camps was intended to alter parts of soldiers to make them prepared and able to war. There is a guy here in the US, Cass Sunstein, a former Obama administrative official, who has several published pieces on societal (and governmental) progressive change. My favorite is "Nudge, Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness". He is not the primary author for this one, but it will change the way you think "that you aren't controlled by anything".

Mary Eastland
09-14-2012, 02:15 PM
I looked up the following three words and came away amazed that we ever understand anything anyone writes.

Manipulate - 1. to move, operate, or handle something, especially a machine or mechanical parts
2. to work with data on a computer
3. to control or influence somebody or something in an ingenious or devious way
4. to change or present something in a way that is false but personally advantageous
5. to treat a part of the body, or to move a part such as a joint during examination, using the hands only

Control - 1. To exercise power or authority over something such as a business or nation
2. to work or operate something such as a vehicle or machine
3. to limit or restrict somebody or something, e.g. in expression, occurrence, or rate of increase
4. Finance to regulate the financial affairs of a business or other large organization
5. accounting to examine financial accounts and verify them as correct

Let - 1. to allow something to happen or somebody to do something
2. to give somebody permission to do something
3. used to express a suggestion, an offer, or an order
4. to allow or cause something to pass from one place to another
5. used to indicate indifference to what happens or what somebody does, even though it may be unpleasant
6. Environment to release or cause something to release water from a lagoon or pond by breaching a sandbar or other obstacle so that the water drains into a larger body such as the sea
7. to allow people to use land, rooms, or a building in return for rent
8. Ireland to utter something
9. Mathematics logic used to introduce an assumption or hypothesis

Chris Knight
09-14-2012, 02:32 PM
I own my wife and on a recent trip to egypt tried to sell her for fifty camels . Unfortunately couldnt close the deal .

Note to self . Must try harder

Tom Verhoeven
09-15-2012, 03:31 PM
I looked up the following three words and came away amazed that we ever understand anything anyone writes.

Manipulate - 1. to move, operate, or handle something, especially a machine or mechanical parts
2. to work with data on a computer
3. to control or influence somebody or something in an ingenious or devious way
4. to change or present something in a way that is false but personally advantageous
5. to treat a part of the body, or to move a part such as a joint during examination, using the hands only

Control - 1. To exercise power or authority over something such as a business or nation
2. to work or operate something such as a vehicle or machine
3. to limit or restrict somebody or something, e.g. in expression, occurrence, or rate of increase
4. Finance to regulate the financial affairs of a business or other large organization
5. accounting to examine financial accounts and verify them as correct

Let - 1. to allow something to happen or somebody to do something
2. to give somebody permission to do something
3. used to express a suggestion, an offer, or an order
4. to allow or cause something to pass from one place to another
5. used to indicate indifference to what happens or what somebody does, even though it may be unpleasant
6. Environment to release or cause something to release water from a lagoon or pond by breaching a sandbar or other obstacle so that the water drains into a larger body such as the sea
7. to allow people to use land, rooms, or a building in return for rent
8. Ireland to utter something
9. Mathematics logic used to introduce an assumption or hypothesis

I agree and am just as amazed.

There are a lot of words that could be added to your list - we may never have a complete overview of all the possible meanings.
And they can differ greatly. For instance a magician uses manipulation to make his cards disappear and appear again right in front of our eyes, great fun to look at, great fun to do. On a more negative side there is something like genetic manipulation, where an alteration is being forced on a species.

We could argue that manipulation can therefore have positive and negative meaning. It may even be different per culture or language. Maybe americans see manipulation more as something positive. In my native language Dutch the general feeling is more negative, someone who tries to manipulate you is a cheat, it is someone who deliberately misguides another person or his company or the government to his own benefit.

Perhaps control is not per se a negative word. I remember watching a game where you had to cross a field on a bicycle, if you made it you would get a certain amount of money. Nobody managed to cross the field because everytime someone would steer to the left the bicycle would go to the right, steering to the right made the bicycle go to the left. In other words; they were out of control. Great fun to watch and nobody felt that there was anything wrong here in being "out of control".
But in a negative way control can also mean that someone is forcing his will upon someone else. It gets the meaning of forcing, overpowering, dominating. There is nothing positive there.

But understanding each other does not always have to do with the meaning of a word or the positive-negative value that we give these words. Often it is more about a willingness to understand, a willingness to listen.

I think that that is lacking here, in this part of the thread at least.

Also it does not help if people react to words that were not originally used; "nurturing", "guiding" (I am all in favor of nurturing and guiding), make derogatory and insulting remarks and start calling someone names - all good examples of control and manipulation in the most negative sense of the word.

Presenting this list with different meanings in this thread was a good effort to take the sting out of this "conversation", thanks for that.

kind regards,

Tom

jonreading
09-15-2012, 05:31 PM
But understanding each other does not always have to do with the meaning of a word or the positive-negative value that we give these words. Often it is more about a willingness to understand, a willingness to listen.

I think that that is lacking here, in this part of the thread at least.

That is the trouble with rigid ideology, you have to make everything else flexible in order to fit within it. As we used to joke, who are you going to believe, comrade, your lying ears or me?

William Shakespeare was able to say far more with fewer words. Everytime we allow someone to use a word that is not accurate, we contribute to the confusion. I am being more of a stickler here because we (on this forum) do not challenge the use of words as often as we should, probably out of politeness. This thread began because the original post was unclear and several posters voiced clarification.

If I allow someone to call a chicken a duck, then I contributed to the confusion when duck and chicken are used interchangeably. Say what you mean, mean what you say.

graham christian
09-15-2012, 07:11 PM
That is the trouble with rigid ideology, you have to make everything else flexible in order to fit within it. As we used to joke, who are you going to believe, comrade, your lying ears or me?

William Shakespeare was able to say far more with fewer words. Everytime we allow someone to use a word that is not accurate, we contribute to the confusion. I am being more of a stickler here because we (on this forum) do not challenge the use of words as often as we should, probably out of politeness. This thread began because the original post was unclear and several posters voiced clarification.

If I allow someone to call a chicken a duck, then I contributed to the confusion when duck and chicken are used interchangeably. Say what you mean, mean what you say.

Another trouble is you may say what you mean and mean what you say only for it not to be understood.

Very common actually, ask any Aikido or other martial arts instructor. One day the student finally grasps the meaning.

The original post to me, the concept being offered, seemed clear enough.

Feelings and emotions can only be changed by you yourself and I would say that is vitally important in the progress and deeper understanding of Aikido.

Peace.G.

Tom Verhoeven
09-15-2012, 08:18 PM
That is the trouble with rigid ideology, you have to make everything else flexible in order to fit within it. As we used to joke, who are you going to believe, comrade, your lying ears or me?

William Shakespeare was able to say far more with fewer words. Everytime we allow someone to use a word that is not accurate, we contribute to the confusion. I am being more of a stickler here because we (on this forum) do not challenge the use of words as often as we should, probably out of politeness. This thread began because the original post was unclear and several posters voiced clarification.

If I allow someone to call a chicken a duck, then I contributed to the confusion when duck and chicken are used interchangeably. Say what you mean, mean what you say.

Your first remark seems to contradict your last remark. To an extend I agree, if you try to explain something it is best to do so as "claire et distincte" as possible.

This is even more important if you work with a systematized structure like a computer. One word - one meaning will simplify working with it. A certain amount of rigidity or discipline will improve the system.

But this cannot be applied to philosophy. Words can and do have different meanings. This is also true in a dialogue or any kind of conversation. If you decide that a word can only have one meaning; "to manipulate means to nurture", "control is a legal requirement" then you create for yourself a doctrine or as you say rigid ideology.

It is in the dialogue itself that you figure out what the other person really means, whether you really understand what the other person is saying, whether you can follow his definitions, argumentation, conclusions.
For that we need a quality that is called listening or an open mind. Holding on to a doctrine is nothing but a closed door or a brick wall to hide behind.

To add to this there is also a "build up" or structure if you like in each dialogue. Not following that structure leads also to a lot of confusion. To give an example from my posts in this thread; if I state something like; "control and manipulation are a form of aggression" then that is a statement that you can agree with or not. But is also a definition. If you then respond with "I control and manipulate my children and the environment" then from that follows only one logical conclusion.

In such a case it would be wiser to come up with a question, like "what is the basis of your definition?" That is challenging the poster to come up with an explanation. That explanation will either clarify things or show a mistake in reasoning.

Jumping to conclusions will also contribute to confusion. And starting from the premiss that no matter what, you are always right or worse the other is wrong and therefor the enemy, will not only lead to confusion but to frustration and much animosity.

Tom

Tom Verhoeven
09-15-2012, 08:52 PM
Another trouble is you may say what you mean and mean what you say only for it not to be understood.

Very common actually, ask any Aikido or other martial arts instructor. One day the student finally grasps the meaning.

The original post to me, the concept being offered, seemed clear enough.

Feelings and emotions can only be changed by you yourself and I would say that is vitally important in the progress and deeper understanding of Aikido.

Peace.G.

Graham,

Very true - it has happened to me often enough that I taught a technique or a principle month after month or even year after year and that people did not grasp it.
But it also has happened that when I would ask a friend over to give a class or invite my sensei for a seminar everyone seemed to understand the same technique or principle within what felt like minutes.
It is how the learning process works - someone understands at the moment that everything, so to say, comes together.

A forum like this has its limits. Sometimes it is really impossible to share your good intentions or experiences or acquired knowledge, no matter how you express them.

Greetings from the Auvergne,

Tom.

jonreading
09-16-2012, 11:32 AM
Another trouble is you may say what you mean and mean what you say only for it not to be understood.

This is true. Dissemination of thought does not necessarily guarantee consumption and retention. I could lecture algebra to elementary school children. I would not be wrong in my dissemination, but the children would not be able to consume and retain my lecture. Also, the ability to consume and retain does not guarantee the quality of dissemination. For example, technical engineers like programmers have a poor stereotype of their ability to interact with others.

But this cannot be applied to philosophy. Words can and do have different meanings. This is also true in a dialogue or any kind of conversation. If you decide that a word can only have one meaning; "to manipulate means to nurture", "control is a legal requirement" then you create for yourself a doctrine or as you say rigid ideology.

The choice to narrowly define a term is not equivalent to "doctrine", nor are either words equivalent to "ideology", rigid or otherwise. Words have limited definition; within the context of its usage one ascertains its meaning and the rest of possible meanings are dismissed. Our dialogues are intended to clearly provide for the dismissal of possible meanings, leaving our consumers with strong direction as to how we want the meaning of our message consumed.

In such a case it would be wiser to come up with a question, like "what is the basis of your definition?" That is challenging the poster to come up with an explanation. That explanation will either clarify things or show a mistake in reasoning

This is a good question to ask when the meaning of the message is unclear. Of course, in doing so we are confirming that the original message did not sufficiently communicate the meaning of the message...

Jumping to conclusions will also contribute to confusion. And starting from the premiss that no matter what, you are always right or worse the other is wrong and therefor the enemy, will not only lead to confusion but to frustration and much animosity.

First, if my message required my consumer to jump to a conclusion, that means I left the path unclear. I can blame the consumer, but I was the one who was unclear enough as to cause them to make an educated guess. Unless it was Spock, because I trust Spock's educated guesses more than most people's facts (sorry, some Trekkie humor).
Second, to begin from an infallible premise is often the best way to begin most debates, if not dialogues. For example, many debate arguments begin with a factual statement, around which the debate is focused. I think it is obvious that equating "wrong" with "enemy" is a poor association; if that was the case my house would be at war (I love you honey).

Sometimes when our uke's give us a hard time, I'll ask nage, "what did you do to cause uke to hunker down?" We often blame uke for bad energy or bad partnership. We sometimes forget that nage's role is to communicate too. Expressing ideology is difficult because we are often emotionally attached to the message. Rejecting the message is in some respect considered personal rejection. This forum tends to express ideological perspectives often, much of the time without adequate evidential support. I think we try to accommodate these perspectives with greater tolerance than many other forums.

Anthony Loeppert
09-16-2012, 01:48 PM
Normally, I abstain from posting to threads on which I have received my aikiweb moderation spanking... however not today.


But this cannot be applied to philosophy. Words can and do have different meanings. This is also true in a dialogue or any kind of conversation. If you decide that a word can only have one meaning; "to manipulate means to nurture", "control is a legal requirement" then you create for yourself a doctrine or as you say rigid ideology.


I thought clarified myself with control and manipulation as a means to an end (nurture). Not that controlling and manipulation are the definition of nurturing. I also gave you a hint at the intention of such control, by saying the child doesn't need to be aware it is happening. Does that context indicate to you aggression? Simply the fact of talking about control in the children context vs. the martial context should have conveyed the intent. While there are parents out there that don't abide an instinctual connection of love and bonding with their own children, maybe I could have been given the benefit of the doubt as to my (normal) intentions towards my own children.

But you choose to parse language much like a computer, needing things spelled out explicitly. One of the pleasures of conversing with humans vs. instructing computers is you DON'T have to spell things out, or shouldn't have to. One can marvel at all the multiple definitions of various words and how we understand one another (and indeed it is amazing - as any computer scientist researching natural language parsing might tell you), however it is in our nature to use the context of a word to pair down the possible meanings into an understanding, again, within the context.


It is in the dialogue itself that you figure out what the other person really means, whether you really understand what the other person is saying, whether you can follow his definitions, argumentation, conclusions.


And when that dialog devolves into quibbling about the definition of "my" and what it means in different context, that speaks volumes in and of itself.


To add to this there is also a "build up" or structure if you like in each dialogue. Not following that structure leads also to a lot of confusion. To give an example from my posts in this thread; if I state something like; "control and manipulation are a form of aggression" then that is a statement that you can agree with or not. But is also a definition. If you then respond with "I control and manipulate my children and the environment" then from that follows only one logical conclusion.

In such a case it would be wiser to come up with a question, like "what is the basis of your definition?" That is challenging the poster to come up with an explanation. That explanation will either clarify things or show a mistake in reasoning.


Which gets back to my assertion above, you seem to need things explicitly spelled out, and here you offer your schema how a conversation works. What an unnecessarily tedious method of communication, especially in an informal setting such as this.

lbb
09-16-2012, 05:34 PM
William Shakespeare was able to say far more with fewer words. Everytime we allow someone to use a word that is not accurate, we contribute to the confusion.

Are you sure you don't mean "precise"?

Not entirely tongue in cheek,

Anthony Loeppert
09-16-2012, 05:37 PM
Are you sure you don't mean "precise"?

Not entirely tongue in cheek,

And yet one more example of tediousness.

phitruong
09-17-2012, 07:50 AM
I looked up the following three words and came away amazed that we ever understand anything anyone writes.



add on top of that with differences in experience and cultural, you will find how difficult it is to communicate. i found that this lesson seemed to work well https://www.stephencovey.com/7habits/7habits-habit5.php, at least when i paid attention to it.

phitruong
09-17-2012, 08:02 AM
You control and manipulate your children? Really?
Tom.

thought i would respond to this. short answer: yes, i did and do and will continue until they are 18 years of age, out of my house, and gone to college.

my grandfather to my father: you don't want to go to college? fine. the army will draft you. i will prepare a plot for your grave. (this is during the vietnam war)
my father: i believed the medical college will accept my application. (dad became a doctor)

father to me (took me to hospital where they treated drug addicts and long time smokers): see those people with only skin on bones that looked like corpses? druggies! see those people with tubes ran out of their body to drain their lung fluids? smokers!
me: haven't touched or went near drug or ciggarettes eversince. i still remembered the images after all these years.

manipulation and control are just tools. by themselves have no evil or good. it's the people who wield it that determines its association. same goes with power.

gregstec
09-17-2012, 09:10 AM
manipulation and control are just tools. by themselves have no evil or good. it's the people who wield it that determines its association. same goes with power.

Well said....

lbb
09-17-2012, 09:53 AM
And yet one more example of tediousness.

Actually, it's more "hoist by your own petard". Shakespeare, ya know. Or something.

graham christian
09-17-2012, 09:54 AM
And yet one more example of tediousness.

Tedious? In this case I wouldn't say so. I too was thrown by the statement as if he was a man of few words. Quite the opposite, so precise would be more apt.

Apart from all this the meanings of control and manipulation can be looked at from the view of good control or bad control, or many other forms of control and then onto intention behind the control etc. Thus the debate could go on.

Now to add one more thing which I feel is pertinent to Aikido and indeed pertinent to the types of things Ueshiba said.

For some I get them practicing the principle of non-control. This is neither control nor not controlling. Yet it is eye opening. Here again in communication especially on a forum it would lead to various assumptions and yet it is a precise term use by me.

Peace.G.

Tom Verhoeven
09-17-2012, 02:06 PM
add on top of that with differences in experience and cultural, you will find how difficult it is to communicate. i found that this lesson seemed to work well https://www.stephencovey.com/7habits/7habits-habit5.php, at least when i paid attention to it.

It sounds as good advice, although normally I'd steer away from anything that has to do with Covey and his organization.

Tom

Tom Verhoeven
09-17-2012, 02:43 PM
thought i would respond to this. short answer: yes, i did and do and will continue until they are 18 years of age, out of my house, and gone to college.

my grandfather to my father: you don't want to go to college? fine. the army will draft you. i will prepare a plot for your grave. (this is during the vietnam war)
my father: i believed the medical college will accept my application. (dad became a doctor)

father to me (took me to hospital where they treated drug addicts and long time smokers): see those people with only skin on bones that looked like corpses? druggies! see those people with tubes ran out of their body to drain their lung fluids? smokers!
me: haven't touched or went near drug or ciggarettes eversince. i still remembered the images after all these years.

manipulation and control are just tools. by themselves have no evil or good. it's the people who wield it that determines its association. same goes with power.

If you reread the thread then you will see that there was no mention of parenthood until you did.
As far as I know the OP talked about Aikido. So did I (although I was also thinking about the way people control and manipulate nature - a professional habbit, I am alweays thinking about nature).

I could have told you a similar story about my father.
But I do not understand why you would call that control or manipulation - it is a confrontation with reality, harsh maybe, but nevertheless a good lesson. The purpose of it is to teach. Not to tighten the reigns. So where is the control? Or the manipulation?

I remember a children's class in the Aikido dojo where a parent hit the child on the head because the child forgot to bow at the entrance of the dojo. On another occasion a child was yelled at because he could not tie his obi. One parent went as far as to call his child names like stupid and idiot. All examples of parents using control and manipulation the make the child do something that see as important.

Considering this, is it really that strange that I define control and manipulation as a form of aggression?

But perhaps Covey is right after all and do we indeed react from our "autobiographical" experiences.

Tom

Tom Verhoeven
09-17-2012, 03:48 PM
Normally, I abstain from posting to threads on which I have received my aikiweb moderation spanking... however not today.

I thought clarified myself with control and manipulation as a means to an end (nurture). Not that controlling and manipulation are the definition of nurturing. I also gave you a hint at the intention of such control, by saying the child doesn't need to be aware it is happening. Does that context indicate to you aggression? Simply the fact of talking about control in the children context vs. the martial context should have conveyed the intent. While there are parents out there that don't abide an instinctual connection of love and bonding with their own children, maybe I could have been given the benefit of the doubt as to my (normal) intentions towards my own children.

But you choose to parse language much like a computer, needing things spelled out explicitly. One of the pleasures of conversing with humans vs. instructing computers is you DON'T have to spell things out, or shouldn't have to. One can marvel at all the multiple definitions of various words and how we understand one another (and indeed it is amazing - as any computer scientist researching natural language parsing might tell you), however it is in our nature to use the context of a word to pair down the possible meanings into an understanding, again, within the context.

And when that dialog devolves into quibbling about the definition of "my" and what it means in different context, that speaks volumes in and of itself.

Which gets back to my assertion above, you seem to need things explicitly spelled out, and here you offer your schema how a conversation works. What an unnecessarily tedious method of communication, especially in an informal setting such as this.

First of all - when someone says as I did; let us just agree that we disagree - then he is offering a gentle way out. It is meant to prevent a conversation becoming toxic.
I thought that someone like you who is skilled in natural language and prefers a conversation where not everything needs to be spelled out would surely appreciate the subtlety of such an offer.

Second, if you choose to come back in a conversation after you have been using derogatory words, insults and even calling me names, don't you think an apology is appropriate and in effect even acquired?

To answer your points in short, despite your rudeness: No, you did not clarify that you mean control and manipulation as a means to an end. But even if you would have, what does that involve?

I was not quibbling about the definition of the word "MY". That is what you do!
I have never counted them, but I probably have tens of thousands of animals and I feel very responsible for all of them. And yet I cannot say that I OWN them. I most certainly do not control them and it is impossible to manipulate them. Of course for you there should be no need to spell out how this can be.

I was not aware of any AikiWeb moderation on you. But now that you despite this moderation and my offer to agree that we just disagree and leave it at that, have come back with more non-issues, I think I have to concede that I probably have been wrong all along.
Contrary to more considerate people it takes apparently a lot of moderation, control and manipulation to get trough to immature, insensitive and dominating people.

Warriors have left, I will leave the field to you.

Tom

phitruong
09-17-2012, 08:18 PM
If you reread the thread then you will see that there was no mention of parenthood until you did.
As far as I know the OP talked about Aikido. So did I (although I was also thinking about the way people control and manipulate nature - a professional habbit, I am alweays thinking about nature).

I could have told you a similar story about my father.
But I do not understand why you would call that control or manipulation - it is a confrontation with reality, harsh maybe, but nevertheless a good lesson. The purpose of it is to teach. Not to tighten the reigns. So where is the control? Or the manipulation?



i mentioned parenthood in respond to folks mentioned that they don't "control or manipulation". to me, control and manipulation are required being a parent. the story between my grandfather and my father, that's control. my grandfather wanted my father to go to college, my father rebelled against that. in the end, my father did what my grandfather wanted. the story of my father and i, is manipulation. he used real life scenarios to change my view of things to come. and to the topic of thread "...no one can reach inside you and make you feel", your love ones can and would. some are more subtle than other. my father can still get inside my head even when he had long since gone from this world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGDA0Hecw1k i heard my father voice talking to my sons. they can and will reach inside you and make you feel. it's a price for being a human. glad to pay it.

as far as aikido goes, there are folks who can get inside your head before physical contact made. you bowed in, right? already inside your head and made you do things.

cloudshapes
09-17-2012, 11:01 PM
I could be wrong but I believe that Mary was simply trying to say that how we respond to or feel in a situation may be impacted after training...that our response and perceptions are shaped by our experiences and that Aikido/Martial Arts training may change how we respond, view to or feel in a situation...however, that seem to have gotten "lost in translation." I've read it and re-read the thread and it seems that several words have triggered something beyond a healthy debate. The collective wealth of Aikido and Martial Arts experience represented here is better than that. When we enter into the realm of harsh words, we are not honoring our communion with one another. We are a community in Aikido practice after all. That is a sacred honor we share with each other. When we use harsh words with each other that violates our responsibility to one another to honor each other's Aikido/life journey. I am not saying that we shouldn't disagree or having various view points, that simply adds flavor to life. However, how do we practice Aikido inside the dojo if we don't practice it outside the dojo as we relate to and interact with each other? And how do we practice Aikido with each other if we don't practice it within our inner selves? We are all one Aikido community after all.....when we are harsh with each other, we are harsh with ourselves... Peace and light, Marium

Anthony Loeppert
09-18-2012, 01:19 AM
First of all - when someone says as I did; let us just agree that we disagree - then he is offering a gentle way out. It is meant to prevent a conversation becoming toxic.
I thought that someone like you who is skilled in natural language and prefers a conversation where not everything needs to be spelled out would surely appreciate the subtlety of such an offer.


Oh I heard that and was willing to let things drop, though usually in such a case, both - metaphorically - turn around and go their separate ways. You continued on your argument.


Second, if you choose to come back in a conversation after you have been using derogatory words, insults and even calling me names, don't you think an apology is appropriate and in effect even acquired?


I will apologize as soon as you tell me you have human (normally I wouldn't feel the need to clarify) offspring and have experience being a parent. Those derogatory words were under the heartfelt assumption you don't have children yourself. Slights on hypothetical children I will not apologize for, nor will I apologize for demeaning hypothetical parental skills.


I have never counted them, but I probably have tens of thousands of animals and I feel very responsible for all of them. And yet I cannot say that I OWN them. I most certainly do not control them and it is impossible to manipulate them.



I was not aware of any AikiWeb moderation on you. But now that you despite this moderation and my offer to agree that we just disagree and leave it at that, have come back with more non-issues, I think I have to concede that I probably have been wrong all along.
Contrary to more considerate people it takes apparently a lot of moderation, control and manipulation to get trough to immature, insensitive and dominating people.


I thought it was somehow appropriate to this thread which is why I purposefully included that information.


Warriors have left, I will leave the field to you.


Doctor Dolittle (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118998/) has left the building, I repeat Doctor Dolittle has left the building.

Anthony Loeppert
09-18-2012, 02:12 AM
Actually, it's more "hoist by your own petard". Shakespeare, ya know. Or something.

Feel free to comment on this thread, it was created just for you:
http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21761

Anthony Loeppert
09-18-2012, 02:22 AM
Yet it is eye opening. Here again in communication especially on a forum it would lead to various assumptions and yet it is a precise term use by me.


Feel free to comment as well. (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21761) I meant the distinction between accuracy and precision as applied to words which I'm not sure I conveyed properly in that post. Anyway, I hope this message finds you well.

Anthony

lbb
09-18-2012, 07:03 AM
Feel free to comment on this thread, it was created just for you:
http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21761

Anthony,

I see that my efforts to communicate are failing. I was trying to poke some gentle fun at your rather grim determination to nail down definitions and create a consensus understanding. My attempted point was that we all hear and use words through our set of filters, no matter how we may strive to do otherwise, and that none of us has perfect diction (the use of "precision" and "accuracy" as interchangeable terms being one example of poor diction that sails right over the heads of most people). I agree that we have a responsibility in communication to use words in a mindful manner, but I don't believe that we can ever entirely discard our filters, or hope to use language that is so brilliantly clear that there can be no possible ambiguity or misinterpretation in how it is received. At a certain point, I believe, we must simply acknowledge that there's some slop in the process, and factor that into our efforts to communicate (giving and receiving) effectively. I'm sorry if my mild attempt at humor was offensive.

graham christian
09-18-2012, 03:34 PM
Feel free to comment as well. (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21761) I meant the distinction between accuracy and precision as applied to words which I'm not sure I conveyed properly in that post. Anyway, I hope this message finds you well.

Anthony

Hi. I'm well thanks. Hadn't read that link but have now.

My view is that a word has a precise definition and conveys thus a particular concept. Many say how Japanese or whatever other language may have 'numerous' meanings for words but again I would say what's new? None more so than English, many definitions of a particular word and like you say each with a specific meaning.

I wouldn't apply the term accuracy to a word so much but more to the statement which contains the word.

Having said that I think we should allow for the opportunity for another to misunderstand what we have said for it will usually be based on them using a different definition for the word used.

If I told you I am a bit worn out because I have been boxing 20 chickens what concept would you see? Someone no doubt would misunderstand and reply in what to me would then seem to be uncalled for manner. Thus a downward spiraling communication ensues.

There again some may just be being facetious but generally it's the former.

Knowing all this it is then even more important to hold to a rule of staying polite and not being rude. That's step one I would say.

Anyway, it's all interesting stuff. In alignment with this thread....nothing to get annoyed about. Be happy about it, it's all good for it's a chance to learn.

Peace.G.

Anthony Loeppert
09-18-2012, 04:17 PM
Anthony,

I see that my efforts to communicate are failing. I was trying to poke some gentle fun at your rather grim determination to nail down definitions and create a consensus understanding. My attempted point was that we all hear and use words through our set of filters, no matter how we may strive to do otherwise, and that none of us has perfect diction (the use of "precision" and "accuracy" as interchangeable terms being one example of poor diction that sails right over the heads of most people). I agree that we have a responsibility in communication to use words in a mindful manner, but I don't believe that we can ever entirely discard our filters, or hope to use language that is so brilliantly clear that there can be no possible ambiguity or misinterpretation in how it is received. At a certain point, I believe, we must simply acknowledge that there's some slop in the process, and factor that into our efforts to communicate (giving and receiving) effectively. I'm sorry if my mild attempt at humor was offensive.

Then we do understand each other now. My confusion was "Not entirely tongue in cheek," taking the meaning to of that line to be "I also believe you to be incorrect" in using the word accuracy.

Contrary to what people might derive from my posts, I have an active sense of humor.

Anthony

Anthony Loeppert
09-18-2012, 05:45 PM
Having said that I think we should allow for the opportunity for another to misunderstand what we have said for it will usually be based on them using a different definition for the word used.

If I told you I am a bit worn out because I have been boxing 20 chickens what concept would you see? Someone no doubt would misunderstand and reply in what to me would then seem to be uncalled for manner. Thus a downward spiraling communication ensues.

There again some may just be being facetious but generally it's the former.

Knowing all this it is then even more important to hold to a rule of staying polite and not being rude. That's step one I would say.


In general, I agree. I would add, the assumptions of others we enter into discussions with should be as positive as possible as well (until proven incorrect), as doing otherwise starts the downward spiral as well. That said, I'll take something from this exchange and attempt to grow from it.

I'm not so petty or small that I believe I can't improve myself.

Patrick Hutchinson
09-18-2012, 05:51 PM
Just to prove (and approve of) your point Graham, I'll make the following lame joke:

Aha! boxing 20 chickens! Now the secrets of Graham's style start to come out...

graham christian
09-18-2012, 06:05 PM
Just to prove (and approve of) your point Graham, I'll make the following lame joke:

Aha! boxing 20 chickens! Now the secrets of Graham's style start to come out...

Ha, ha..... Luv it! Now that's what I call good humour.....Now when I'm big and strong I might even take on a wild flower.

Peace.G.

jonreading
09-19-2012, 12:31 PM
I remember a children's class in the Aikido dojo where a parent hit the child on the head because the child forgot to bow at the entrance of the dojo. On another occasion a child was yelled at because he could not tie his obi. One parent went as far as to call his child names like stupid and idiot. All examples of parents using control and manipulation the make the child do something that see as important.

But making the decision for a child to practice aikido is not a form of manipulation? Why not soccer? or baseball? Knitting? When I talk to parents, they ultimately make the decision to enroll a child in aikido; predominantly, this decision is made because the parent believes enrollment is in the best interest of the child.

We grant authority to manipulate others when we feel that authority will better serve us. Adults have authority over children, police have authority over civilians, etc. This authority is granted, that implies we do hold some power to choose who can affect us. Some of us are better or worse at granting authority, for a myriad of reasons. Ultimately, we are all susceptible to some form of manipulation - that is why Super Bowl ads cost like $1,000,000/minute or something crazy...