PDA

View Full Version : Ki does not exist ! (Neither do I !)


Please visit our sponsor:
 

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


Nado
12-29-2002, 07:32 PM
But it's the only thing there is !

I've been reading here for a while and I just felt like adding my part to these reflections on Ki.

I believe there is no point trying to figure out the nature of Ki, trying to prove its existence scientificaly, or trying to understand its substance, simply because Ki does not exist ! Actually, our very body doesn't exist either, the blade of my opponent does not exist and my opponent is made of emptyness as well !

"Except for blending with the void,
There is no way to understand
The Way of Aiki."
- Morihei Ueshiba

The only thing there is in this world is my attention and the picture it is focusing on, or in other words, the object of my awareness. The rest is only a mental picture that we commonly keep as an agreement. The mind creates the world. Or as osensei stated :

"A mind of discord, thinking of the existence of an enemy is no more consistent with the will of the kami."
"He who has gained the secret of Aikido has the universe in himself and can say, "I am the universe."
"I am one with the universe and I am nothing else."

Of course this perception of thing may seem too esoteric or not practical for daily life, but since it remains the basics of things, I simply wish to safe a lot of pointless research and thinking on the topic. It's a little bit like these quantum physicists trying to observe an atom and realizing there is scientificaly nothing to observe !

Thalib
12-29-2002, 08:10 PM
It's basically like saying between absolute truth and relative truth. I have yet to find the absolute truth, but I live with relative truth every single day.

The human knowledge of the physical and relative world is still so miniscule compared to the universe. It can't even be compared as a drop of water in the vast ocean that is the universe. It is arrogant to say that humans know everything that there is to know. It is arrogant for humans to say that the system of science that was created and developed by humans is enough to explain everything that there is in the universe.

Humans have yet to find even the tip of the iceberg.

opherdonchin
12-30-2002, 08:46 AM
Not to be making light of your serious comments, friends, but I can't help thinking of these lines from the Matrix, and when I think of them, I can't help smiling:
Spoon boy: Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth.
Neo: What truth?
Spoon boy: There is no spoon.
Neo: There is no spoon?
Spoon boy: Then you'll see, that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.

Thalib
12-30-2002, 09:05 AM
I do like those lines... it's spiritual... in a techno sense.

And you know what, sub-consciously, that maybe what made me think about absolute and relative truth.

Bruce Baker
12-30-2002, 09:33 AM
Fact is ... none of us exists with a few choice keys, and a quick flash or the "delete" key.

What is the void?

Is it that place in our mind that contains the fears, the anger, the unknown factors that distract us from seeing clearly, understanding who we are or why we are here, what we can or can not do in our human form we must live in while we think our little thoughts, live our little lives that are oh so short?

Or is it like the comment I heard that Americans don't understand how oh can be totally different that oh-oh, or oh-oh-oh?

Embrace the void, eh?

Internal note to teach you about yourself, or is it a manifest form or exterior phenonmenon?

No Ki? I do not Exist?

Reminds me of my old Sicilian grandmother? Smack up side the head and '"what's sa matta with you!"

Back to reality with a little physical stimulation.

Maybe Ki, or others don't exist, but that is just because we aren't there to smack you up side the head.

Doesn't mean it could exist somewhere else.

Maybe it is time to turn off the computer and go outside to see if you can fill that void with some input.

Input, input, input!

Not everything you picture in your mind exists, but if you can picture it then it must have some basis in the real world ... what is the reality verses the idea?

In finding the reality, then you will find if it exists in the real world.

Me?

I am just dots on a computer screen. I am not real .... yet.

I comma you house and smacka you head to wake-a you up ... botch-a-ga-loup!

SeiserL
12-30-2002, 11:16 AM
IMHO, Ki is no-thing in particular. Ki just is.

If you say Ki exist, you will be hit. If you say Ki does not exist, you will be hit. Who is the "I" that experiences the Ki as existing or non-existing?

Sometimes, the only way to find the answer is to drop the question and accept what is.

Train. When you expereinece it you know. When you don't, no words can explain or verify it.

Until again,

Lynn

Tadhg Bird
12-30-2002, 12:01 PM
Personaly, I believe in the reality of :ki: Ki. But then again, I beleive in magic, Big Foot, UFOs and Santa Claus.

Though my belief in some of these things are not related to any direct experience, I have experienced Ki.

I don't want Ki to be explained by reductionist science, for I think its an emergent property of a whole system that unites body, heart, mind, and who knows what else.

Its not something to explained, categorized, or conjectured about, it is something to be experienced.

erikmenzel
12-30-2002, 12:12 PM
I believe in Santa Claus.
Me too, but then again in exchange of toys and candy I am willing to believe almost anything :D :D :eek:

Nado
12-30-2002, 09:47 PM
Thank you all for the feedback !

I mainly agree with Lynn Seiser, or again with the Famous (in Japan) Zen monk Takuan Soho : "The mind must not stop at anything, if it stops, it falls."

If you point your attention to a particular idea, you become blind for all the others. So Ki is, it is the projection of my intention, my will, through the picture of my body. Ki isn't, there's no way of catching it and putting it in a bottle to observe it like a snail (or atoms !).

Neither of these answers are right or wrong.

And for those who think some pain would teach me reality, well, I had the chance to oberve and old Hindu monk to get a dental surgery, without any anaesthetic !

And just to apply that to the average of people, I'm sure any of you has experienced going out in the winter without proper clothing and not feeling cold, and in the other hand waking up in the morning and feeling frozen, even though the temperature is still high. All is in the position of your attention.

Or once again, not feeling the pain when the mind is occupied at something else, and suffering like hell for a simple cut that keeps all our attention. It's all in "where" is the attention, and it can go as far as not feeling pain at all, but rather observing it (I've done it).

Conclusion : yes, there is no point trying to confine Ki in a "reductionnist" science, but rather one must accept the idea and use it.

There is nothing, all is here.

(sounds dramatic enough ?!!)

Bruce Baker
01-07-2003, 07:34 PM
The fact that ki does not exist, and neither do you ... well ... that statement has more truth in it than humor.

Every living thing creates some type of energy in its fullfillment of being alive. Call it ki, or call it life, or call it what you will, when life ends, the energy of that life ends and the bits and pieces that make up that life are redistributed, recycled as it were.

The basis description of life, and that of death are to the very heart of "ki does not exist and neither do I." Maybe my view is practical rather than the spiritual aspect of this forum, but doesn't the physical action of life fall within more physical parameters of measurement, while ki is our brain fog which has not cleared enough for us to apply the term in a more scientific manner?

No Ki, eh?

There is only one way you can not have any ki ... you be dead.

Dead is the only condition where life has stopped.

Or is it like the "Princess Bride" where Miracle Max says Wesley is "mostly dead" not all dead?

Degrees of measurement, variations of thespiritual, getting caught up in deep scholarly discussions are fun, but only when you are mostly alive, with some ki? Not mostly dead.

Kevin Leavitt
01-11-2003, 07:53 PM
Yes, but when you die....do you really die?

Remember, energy is neither created or destroyed....it is transferred!

AikiRooster
01-15-2003, 01:45 AM
Hello Kevin.

Do you have a brother or cousin or family member named Jason with same last name?

If so, is he a copper? Also, if so, have him write to me, either here or email or Private message me. I used to work with em.

Jeff R.
05-18-2003, 11:01 AM
The cool thing is that most everybody is correct . . . but not necessarily for the correct reasons. Go figure.

Ki is real, but it does not exist.

Computers exist, but they are not real.

The only truth is Universal, and simple. Nature is real. It is the indisputable manifestation of whatever "Higher Power" created us. It is our foundation. We cannot exist without it, and we are both spiritually and physically borne of it.

Plastic exists, but it was created by a human idea, a tampering or alteration of elements from their natural state. Things that come from the human mind are dreamworks, existing, but having no necessary place in Nature. They provide no benefit, but more often offer some destructive impact to Nature.

Logic and Spirit work together for us when we exercise our inherent role as Caretakers of the Earth, but when one outweighs the other, there can be severe discord.

It's interesting because Ki exists until we try to find it.

If you've ever done any dowsing, or are familiar with the "gut feeling" or intuition, then you may understand how those feelings--Ki impressions--can be clouded with logic, which comes in the form of second-guessing ourselves. (I knew I should have stuck with my original answer on that test . . .!)

otto
05-18-2003, 04:23 PM
Welcome to the real World , Neo :cool: .

Jeff R.
05-18-2003, 05:10 PM
Welcome to the real World , Neo :cool: .
Glad to be aboard, Sir.;)

ian
05-19-2003, 04:55 AM
P.S. for all you Matrix freaks - did you realise that the first film is based (loosely!) on the old testament, and this next one is based on the new testemant.

(re; Neo, Zion etc)

Bussho
05-19-2003, 07:15 AM
The only truth is Universal, and simple.
Sorry to break your bubble, but is not a truth, but an assumption.
Nature is real. It is the indisputable manifestation of whatever "Higher Power" created us.
Sorry also an assumption. You indicate that since we are, something had to create us. No, that's a bleife you can have, but not an indisputable manifest.
Plastic exists, but it was created by a human idea, a tampering or alteration of elements from their natural state.
So what your stating is that the things men think about are unnatural? Everthing we do and make are natural. Just because we cann't find it in nature doesn't mean it's unnatural. To put it in another way, everthing is built up of the same atoms and monlycles (sp?), arn't they natrual then?
Things that come from the human mind are dreamworks, existing, but having no necessary place in Nature. They provide no benefit, but more often offer some destructive impact to Nature.
Natur itself is selfdestructive. One big vulcanic burst can 'clean' out the whole world. Or are you saying the we humans make to manythings that are not good for the blance of things, but how can we logically be are part, and come from, make anything that would work against nature?

Nature itsn't a perfect balance, but a moving system, that pulsates moving through time. Things will change by itself. If you mean that we try and keep THAT stable, it can't happen. It has it's own will, we're just a part of it, good or bad.
Logic and Spirit work together for us when we exercise our inherent role as Caretakers of the Earth, but when one outweighs the other, there can be severe discord.
How can we be caretakers? You state "Things that come from the human mind are dreamworks". We will never be able to be a caretaker...
If you've ever done any dowsing, or are familiar with the "gut feeling" or intuition, then you may understand how those feelings--Ki impressions--can be clouded with logic, which comes in the form of second-guessing ourselves. (I knew I should have stuck with my original answer on that test . . .!)
Yeah and logic can be clouded by "gut feeling". Just look at all the people that fall in love, and leave each other after a couple of years. Goes both ways. But I don't think that it's Ki. Aleast not what I think key is. For me ki is just the thing that keeps you up and running. You can make it "flow" naturally or stop it. Not so much as an all connected power from some superbeing that hovers over our heads (meta-speaking).

This doesn't mean you wrong and I'm right, just using your part of thread to state my meaning.

/Bussho

Jeff R.
05-19-2003, 07:56 AM
Sorry to break your bubble, but is not a truth, but an assumption.
Whether you want to call the existence of the Universe a truth or an assumption is up to you, but it's been around, either way, a lot longer than we have. It's about the only truth we can depend on, or need to worry about.
Sorry also an assumption. You indicate that since we are, something had to create us. No, that's a bleife you can have, but not an indisputable manifest.
Are you actually saying that we aren't created? If so, then there probably isn't enough room in this forum for the discussion we need to undertake for clarification. Otherwise, it's pretty cut and dry as far as we need to be concerned. We come from Nature. Protect Nature. Proven and indisputable.
So what your stating is that the things men think about are unnatural?
Yes; often. If Nature didn't make it, it ain't natural.
Everthing we do and make are natural.[QUOTE]Sorry; it doesn't quite work that way.
[QUOTE]Just because we cann't find it in nature doesn't mean it's unnatural.
(Do you really understand that you are printing this for others to read?)

OF COURSE IT DOES!
To put it in another way, everthing is built up of the same atoms and monlycles (sp?), arn't they natrual then?
Yes, atoms are natural, but Nature has had them in certain orders and combinations for billions and zillions of years for a reason. Then we come along in our infinitesimal, puny existence and start mucking with things.

Splitting atoms, creating things that don't readily absorb back into Nature, creating things that enable the perpetuation of genetically weak species--all unnatural. In fact, just by creating most of the crap we need in society we kill Nature. Are you calling that beneficial? If so, I call that self-centered (societally).
Natur itself is selfdestructive. One big vulcanic burst can 'clean' out the whole world.
If Nature is self-destructive, it's really up to Nature, not us. Plus, in Nature's self-destruction there is creation. In our destruction of Nature there is only self gain, no benefit to Nature. Nature is pure yin and yang, no selfish endeavour, no alterior motive. In Nature there is no good or evil, only chaos and logic, death and creation. It has been shown that the human species has done more damage to the earth in 100 years than has been done by anything else in the past 10,000 years.
Or are you saying the we humans make to manythings that are not good for the blance of things, but how can we logically be are part, and come from, make anything that would work against nature?
Well, it's pretty obvious and self-explanatory. Just look at plastic. And it's not that we necessarily "create" anything, so much as we alter what shouldn't be altered. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that tampering with Nature is going to ruin us.
Nature itsn't a perfect balance, but a moving system, that pulsates moving through time. Things will change by itself. If you mean that we try and keep THAT stable, it can't happen. It has it's own will, we're just a part of it, good or bad.
That's kind of a contradiction. Nature IS always changing and shifting, yes. In and of itself it is perfectly balanced. Nature is eternally existing, our earth having been around for billions of years has been doing fine without us. But look at what we've done to it. And you're really saying that's good? We can't make Nature static of course, but we can help maintain balance in the shifting. It's been done.
How can we be caretakers? You state "Things that come from the human mind are dreamworks". We will never be able to be a caretaker...
So the Indians were wrong? The Aborigines of Australia, the Native people of any country--all wrong living in harmony with the earth? All wrong for taking only what they needed to survive, and then taking care of nature to ensure their survival?
Yeah and logic can be clouded by "gut feeling". Just look at all the people that fall in love, and leave each other after a couple of years. Goes both ways. But I don't think that it's Ki. Aleast not what I think key is. For me ki is just the thing that keeps you up and running. You can make it "flow" naturally or stop it. Not so much as an all connected power from some superbeing that hovers over our heads (meta-speaking).
Ki is the spiritual energy of the universe. It is very strong, but different from other energies that make things work. It's pretty easy to learn how to work with it, but it seems that many people would rather worry about whether it exists or not.

Anyway, the whole superbeing thing is your statement; I didn't bring up anything about personifying deities.
This doesn't mean you wrong and I'm right, just using your part of thread to state my meaning.

/Bussho
Cool. Not a problem. Back at 'ya.;)

Bussho
05-19-2003, 08:30 AM
Whether you want to call the existence of the Universe a truth or an assumption is up to you, but it's been around, either way, a lot longer than we have. It's about the only truth we can depend on, or need to worry about.
You said the only truth is Universal, not the univers. I feel thats two different things.

We can discuss the exsistense of the univers, but you stated that there is only a Universal truth, which in my book means that there is only one truth that covers all. And that is an assumption.
Are you actually saying that we aren't created? If so, then there probably isn't enough room in this forum for the discussion we need to undertake for clarification.
Yes, that would take up a lot of bandwith. Discussing exsistens is difficult, since people are realtivaly reactional. Which measn that are whole thought about the world is perceived though are senses, and in that sense you can quesiton the exsistance of the whole world. Matrix was quoted before, just the same thing, just on a personal level.
Otherwise, it's pretty cut and dry as far as we need to be concerned. We come from Nature. Protect Nature. Proven and indisputable.
I dont agree.
Yes; often. If Nature didn't make it, it ain't natural.
OK, you way of defineing things. I do it differntly.
(Do you really understand that you are printing this for others to read?)
Yes, and I dont see that as a problem, but it does concern me that it's a problem for you.
In fact, just by creating most of the crap we need in society we kill Nature. Are you calling that beneficial? If so, I call that self-centered (societally).
I dont disagree with the fact that things are done that have a bad effect on other things.
If Nature is self-destructive, it's really up to Nature, not us. Plus, in Nature's self-destruction there is creation.
Nope, that's an assumption again, that nature destruction is it's way of creation. The earth will die one day, with or with-out our help. It's on it's way. I agree that we dont have to speed up the process, but assuming that nature knows best, is a romatisation of nature.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that tampering with Nature is going to ruin us.
Leaving it alone could ruin us too....
That's kind of a contradiction. Nature IS always changing and shifting, yes. In and of itself it is perfectly balanced.
How do we know if it's pefectly balanced, when we don't know what the balance should be?
Nature is eternally existing, our earth having been around for billions of years has been doing fine without us. But look at what we've done to it. And you're really saying that's good?
Nope, but romantinizing earth an't going to help us either.
We can't make Nature static of course, but we can help maintain balance in the shifting. It's been done.
That sounds interessting, since when is a thing a equalizer or out of balance? When a desert moves into a city isn't that a natural way of life, or waters flood over? Doing farming in itself isn't natural, you've never seen it grow natrual like that in natur. So all farmers are doing something unnatural?
So the Indians were wrong? The Aborigines of Australia, the Native people of any country--all wrong living in harmony with the earth? All wrong for taking only what they needed to survive, and then taking care of nature to ensure their survival?
They weren't caretakers. There tried to be a part. A caretaker has a responsability, but the indians and aborigines just "blended", and I think that is two different roles.
Ki is the spiritual energy of the universe. It is very strong, but different from other energies that make things work. It's pretty easy to learn how to work with it, but it seems that many people would rather worry about whether it exists or not.
I dont agree on the first statement, but the second I agree on.
Anyway, the whole superbeing thing is your statement; I didn't bring up anything about personifying deities.
Yes that is true , I did, but I was thinking meta. Not excat picture, but the way people talk about ki, like it's something over us.

Nice dicussing with you!

/Bussho

Jeff R.
05-19-2003, 09:46 AM
You said the only truth is Universal, not the univers. I feel thats two different things.

We can discuss the exsistense of the univers, but you stated that there is only a Universal truth, which in my book means that there is only one truth that covers all. And that is an assumption.
Simply put: The Universe exists (for real, or relative to us, or in the freakin' matrix--whatever; it's there) and we are part of it. No matter where or when in the Universe you may be, everything is intertwined and related just because it's part of the Universe. That is the simple truth. If you don't agree, then you will either have to reasonably show me how it's incorrect, or we'll have to leave this particular part alone.
Yes, that would take up a lot of bandwith. Discussing exsistens is difficult, since people are realtivaly reactional. Which measn that are whole thought about the world is perceived though are senses, and in that sense you can quesiton the exsistance of the whole world. Matrix was quoted before, just the same thing, just on a personal level.
And where do your senses come from? And how do you know you have them? Relative to what? In fact, animals in Nature have more finely tuned senses than we. Ours are weakened by separating ourselves from Nature. In the Natural scheme, without our technology--IN THE REAL WORLD--we would die if we depended upon our senses. That is unnatural.
I dont agree [about the cut-and-dryness of the whole thing . . .].
Again, prove it wrong. I have lived not only in, but WITH the wilderness for years. I know that survival, especially in a group (tribe) means protecting and taking care of the source of your food, shelter, and clothing. That means living in balance with Nature. Taking care of it so it takes care of you. Now, with our technology, we are moving ourselves physically and spiritually away from Nature. Nature suffers, and ultimately, so do we.
OK, you way of defineing things. I do it differntly [concerning Nature didn't make it; it ain't natural].
Not my way; just pretty much the way it is. It doesn't get much simpler than if Nature didn't make it; it ain't natural.
Yes, and I dont see that as a problem, but it does concern me that it's a problem for you.
I just really have no idea of your background and resources. I get into lots of discussions with armchair philosophers, and I usually find them extremely stubborn, unwilling to see other perspectives, happy in the bliss of technology and being blinded to the ruin of future generations, and just plain absurd in unfounded statements that lead to non-productive endings. It's nothing personal; I have been studying this stuff and teaching it for decades, and though I relish productive, educational conversation, I am not interested in a pseudo-debate with anyone who has only read a book, formulated an opinion based only upon one way of thinking, or only relates life to what modern society doles out in movies and self-help guides.

If you are not one of these people, then I have no concern at all with the trade of info.
I dont disagree with the fact that things are done that have a bad effect on other things.
A little broad, but I guess it's something. It's just that I can't even say if we're in the same playing field, because I don't even know if we mutually agree that there IS a playing field.
Nope, that's an assumption again, that nature destruction is it's way of creation. The earth will die one day, with or with-out our help. It's on it's way. I agree that we dont have to speed up the process, but assuming that nature knows best, is a romatisation of nature.
I challenge you to find any natural destruction that doesn't lead to creation. If you look at any Natural disaster, nature is never destroyed; it always recycles as a new ecosystem or makes an alteration for better workings of things. The only destruction is what we've made, i.e., houses, roads, cars etc. Only what we have created--especially that has monetary value--is destroyed. The Universe has no need for money.
Leaving it alone could ruin us too....
I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Doing damage is definitely ruining Nature, therefore, ruining us. Not doing damage is a good thing.
How do we know if it's pefectly balanced, when we don't know what the balance should be?
We know what the balance should be first of all because we pay attention and live with the earth. Secondly, as long as we are striving for the benefit of all living things--Total Prosperity--then the rest is up to the Universe. How can you go wrong by protecting Nature?
Nope, but romantinizing earth an't going to help us either.
Come on. Romanticizing? Don't cop-out on me; this has the potential to be a decent discussion.
That sounds interessting, since when is a thing a equalizer or out of balance? When a desert moves into a city isn't that a natural way of life, or waters flood over? Doing farming in itself isn't natural, you've never seen it grow natrual like that in natur. So all farmers are doing something unnatural?
BINGO!
They weren't caretakers. There tried to be a part. A caretaker has a responsability, but the indians and aborigines just "blended", and I think that is two different roles.
So a caretaker doesn't blend? Then how does a caretaker take care? Remember that these people depended upon the well-being of Nature for their survival. There was no going to the supermarket or turning up the thermostat. If they didn't stay in tune, they died. If they were destructive or careless, they died. Plus, family was esteemed, the spine of tribal existence. The people of one generation weren't so selfish as to think only of their own survival, they tried to ensure the survival of their future generations (seventh is the rule-of-thumb) by helping Nature thrive.
I dont agree on the first statement, but the second I agree on [regarding Ki . . .].
Okay. I'd be interested to get your take on it, though. I'm trying to keep elaborations short, but there is definitely the potential to cover a ton of area here.
Yes that is true , I did, but I was thinking meta. Not excat picture, but the way people talk about ki, like it's something over us.
I don't see it as a dominating super power with any personified conscience. I see it to be similar in concept to the water that surrounds and moves through the fish. We're in an ocean of Ki, which extends beyond our perception, and we can tap into it anytime.
Nice dicussing with you!

/Bussho
Back at 'ya. But we sure do make a boat-load of points to respond to.

happysod
05-19-2003, 10:08 AM
Jeff, quick question for you from a paid up member of the pop-culture brainwashed masses (who actively supports and feels technology can do good as well as bad), how would you go about deciding who lives and dies?

Now, I'm quite willing to be proved merely ignorent of the truth, never having lived "with the land" or experienced being natures caretaker first-hand - but don't most of the groups you describe not only need a large area of land to survive, but also have an incredibly short life-span as a norm? Doesn't most of the world's current population only survive through advances in technology?

I'm afraid I couldn't bring myself to declare genocide on the human race with a good "back to nature" ethos, glad someone out there has the moral rectitude for it...

Back on topic, disagree with you about Ki (but from previous threads I know you're closer to the norm than I am). I don't believe ki is either external or particularly spiritual, just efficient use of your bodies own resources.

Jeff R.
05-19-2003, 10:37 AM
Jeff, quick question for you from a paid up member of the pop-culture brainwashed masses (who actively supports and feels technology can do good as well as bad), how would you go about deciding who lives and dies?
Yeah; I get this one a lot--especially the, "What if your child was deathly ill? You wouldn't use conventional medicine to save him?"

Why would deciding who lives or dies rest on my head? It's up to Nature, and many elements apply i.e., how distant we are from being able to survive in a pure environment in the first place, how much our senses have degraded, and plain survival of the fittest.

The thing is that people don't usually like the answer, because many are afraid of death. Our society is committed to fighting death instead of embracing it as part of life. We have synthetics, prosthetics, and life-lengthening methods that make us live much longer than may have been intended. It's hard to say what the "normal" life-span should be because some cultures lived only into their early forties, yet others lived into their eighties. Either way, living in harmony with the earth is still the only way to level whether we should live or die. It's obvious we are overpopulated as it is. Imagine how it would be if thousands of people DIDN'T die every day. Our society says something like that is sad, and though it may be, in the great scheme it's just continuity.
Now, I'm quite willing to be proved merely ignorent of the truth, never having lived "with the land" or experienced being natures caretaker first-hand - but don't most of the groups you describe not only need a large area of land to survive, but also have an incredibly short life-span as a norm? Doesn't most of the world's current population only survive through advances in technology?
Yes, and that's a good point. By depending on technology, we weaken ourselves as a society. We seem to strive for immortality. For example, when the wolves were all but eradicated from north american territories, the moose herds (natural prey of the wolf) began to suffer. Their offspring became weaker, and there was too much competition within the herds. When the wolves were reintroduced, they removed the sick, the old and weak, the genetically deficient, and that left only the strong to breed. The herd became healthy again.

Our technology affords us the opportunity to become lethargic, unaware, and caters to weak genetics.

It's a tough truth.

Then there is the whole spiritual aspect. When we separate from nature, we do so by living IN the technology, surrounding ourselves with false, controlled atmospheres--cars, houses, televisions, etc.--things that "protect" us from the elements and the reality of Nature. When we disconnect from Nature, our spirits also suffer, because the bond between all life is in Nature. It's like being in a boat on a lake. If we don't get wet, we lose some of the most intimate connection with life.
I'm afraid I couldn't bring myself to declare genocide on the human race with a good "back to nature" ethos, glad someone out there has the moral rectitude for it...
I think this may be an unfortunate jab. Regardless, as I've stated before: I don't make the decision, and I don't expect everyone to give up their computers, televisions, and cell phones today, in order to erect dome-huts tomorrow. But it is vital to teach the children how to do so. It's only fair to them to provide the option. Then maybe they won't end up saying what many of us say, "Our grandparents made the mess, and we have to clean it up."
Back on topic, disagree with you about Ki (but from previous threads I know you're closer to the norm than I am). I don't believe ki is either external or particularly spiritual, just efficient use of your bodies own resources.
Okay. But at least we agree that there IS Ki!;)

happysod
05-19-2003, 11:11 AM
Jeff, ok, so I was jabbing, ya caught me... I think the major problem I have with your stance is that, to me, developing tools and techniques is as natural for us as lil ol wolf eating mr bunny. Train your kid in survival skills? Great idea for a hobby, train the same kid in how to develop technology that will work with nature/improve life, much better use of time (of course, being as I am one of nature's survival failures I may be biased :) )

As for Ki, I'll agree the term exists in that there's room for debate on the nature of a phenomena that is oft referred to, sometimes (erroneously?) experienced that has been identified in aikido by the name "ki".

Jeff R.
05-19-2003, 04:16 PM
Jeff, ok, so I was jabbing, ya caught me... I think the major problem I have with your stance is that, to me, developing tools and techniques is as natural for us as lil ol wolf eating mr bunny. Train your kid in survival skills? Great idea for a hobby, train the same kid in how to develop technology that will work with nature/improve life, much better use of time (of course, being as I am one of nature's survival failures I may be biased :) )
Okay. I don't think we're going anywhere. This is one of those instances where I am going to have no impact in trying to convince you of something that only time has the ability to do.

I mean, I am really sorry, I am not being crass when I say that that statement sounds simplistic and way understudied.

In fact, it phenomenally blows my mind that when someone says, "Nature good, protect Nature; protect species," that there are others who actually say, "nuh uh."

There is no such thing as technology that supports Nature. There never will be. I mean really think about it. Even bicycles. People say, "ride bicycles because they don't pollute nature." That's wonderful, but consider what it takes to make a bicycle. Acres of land stripped. Infrastructure built for factory. Pavement installed for employee parking. Electricity, fuel, smoke stacks . . . blah blah and etc.

Tools, yes. Bone, stick, stone--what more do you need than that? And who is anyone to decide that the grandchildren shouldn't have the option? It's everyone's birthright to live in Nature. It's our own death if we choose not to.
As for Ki, I'll agree the term exists in that there's room for debate on the nature of a phenomena that is oft referred to, sometimes (erroneously?) experienced that has been identified in aikido by the name "ki".
Okay. I'll go with that, although I have to admit that I don't quite understand everything following the comma. Sorry.

Bussho
05-19-2003, 05:27 PM
Hi

Just wanted to say that I'll be off line the next week or so. My wife just went into labor. We have to wait until mornign before we'll go to the hospitle.

I dont want us to stop this discussion, just dont want you to think I "ran away".

But I'll tell you so much that I've been educated into both western medicine and easter, not as a doctor but a foot specilist and Shiatsu massage. So I do know a bit about ki. But I havn't studied philosophy in university. But i've readmore than one book.

But I'll try and get back to you later...

/Bussho

otto
05-19-2003, 06:12 PM
Best of luck for you and your wife Terje

and Ian Pal...Free your mind :cool:

and jump from that rooftop :D

JK..Plus KI!

W^2
05-19-2003, 08:34 PM
Jeff,

If you think about your terms & definitions thoroughly beforehand, you may avoid a pointless debate over semantics in favor of a conceptually productive exchange of ideas.

I just thought I'd point out that if something comes from nature - such as Homo Sapiens - then it is natural. So if our technology is 'unnatural', then it would by definition, have to come from an unnatural source. So, are we natural or unnatural beings, because in this instance they're mutually exclusive terms?

It would be better to say that every species on this planet is interdependent, and this symbiosis is also present between the species and the planet itself, so when that continuum is perturbed sufficiently an 'imbalance' may occur. These relationships aren't linear, but rather, they form a Complex System that is in a constant state of flux. Some perturbations may cause a 'hiccup', and some may push the whole System into a different cycle. Within this context Homo Sapiens may use it’s dominant ability of abstraction to perturb the current ‘world-cycle’ into a different and perhaps self-destructive one. In addition, due to the non-linear complexity of nature, any species current influence on the world-cycle is impossible to predict accurately over long periods of time.

In this regard technology is a natural byproduct of our growth as a species. If you want to argue that without 'us' technology wouldn't exist, and therefore it is unnatural, then you would have to apply that reasoning to the behavior of all species - in which case the results of all our behaviorisms would be unnatural.

If the arguments presented are valid, then we must accept that whatever the future holds for us is natural.

I apologize for the off-topic post.

~Ward

PS Of course, if Homo Sapiens technology is unnatural then Aikido is unnatural as well. ;)

Thalib
05-19-2003, 08:35 PM
Is this reality a dream?

Or, is the dream the reality?

We live in a relative truth. Our physical body, our logical mind, our scientific world, they all have limitations.

Limitations that make us comfortable with the present life. Ignorant of what may be, what could be, what will be.

We deny ourselves of the absolute truth just because of its inconvenience. So long has it been forgotten, we don't even know what it is anymore.

Why is it when I dream it feels more real?

Jeff R.
05-19-2003, 09:39 PM
Jeff,

If you think about your terms & definitions thoroughly beforehand, you may avoid a pointless debate over semantics in favor of a conceptually productive exchange of ideas.
It's true; thank you.
I just thought I'd point out that if something comes from nature - such as Homo Sapiens - then it is natural. So if our technology is 'unnatural', then it would by definition, have to come from an unnatural source. So, are we natural or unnatural beings, because in this instance they're mutually exclusive terms?
So it seems that you're saying that unnatural things cannot come from a natural source. But by the definition of natural, it is not possible for man to create natural things. Man can ONLY create unnatural things (yes, save for offspring and waste products). Further, by your line of reasoning:

Man can create.

Nature was created by a "God."

Man is a God.

Basically, if Nature didn't put it here, and if in its creation a "thing" does any damage to Nature at all, then it does not fit into Nature, and it shouldn't exist.
It would be better to say that every species on this planet is interdependent, and this symbiosis is also present between the species and the planet itself, so when that continuum is perturbed sufficiently an 'imbalance' may occur. These relationships aren't linear, but rather, they form a Complex System that is in a constant state of flux. Some perturbations may cause a 'hiccup', and some may push the whole System into a different cycle. Within this context Homo Sapiens may use it’s dominant ability of abstraction to perturb the current ‘world-cycle’ into a different and perhaps self-destructive one.
Precisely, thank you. And it's amazing that we've been blessed with the ability to think, to love and care for things, yet we still choose to push the system into a different, self-destructive cycle.

If we were absolutely unable to make the distinction, and if we were unable to change our selfish "perturbations" into the more productive cycle of Total Prosperity for all of Creation, then I would totally be with you. But we could change. We choose not to.

And it sounds as though many people are trying to make excuses for it instead of trying to fix it.

In addition, due to the non-linear complexity of nature, any species current influence on the world-cycle is impossible to predict accurately over long periods of time.
And even after we've surpassed prediction and have plummeted straight into the manifestation of imminent turmoil, destruction, pollution, and death, we still don't change. Besides, no other species damages the Earth as we do, so it's pretty irrelevant to make any long-term predictions of relative damage to Nature.
In this regard technology is a natural byproduct of our growth as a species. If you want to argue that without 'us' technology wouldn't exist, and therefore it is unnatural, then you would have to apply that reasoning to the behavior of all species - in which case the results of all our behaviorisms would be unnatural.
Nah. Just us. We are the only species that poisons our own water. We are the only ones who synthesize things into non-biodegradable substances. We made the technology, why try and pass it off as excusable based upon the biology of other species? However, if all of the premises and conditions (biological and otherwise) were similar between us and other species, then, yes, I would have to conclude that they would be doing unnatural, destructive things as well, if it were so.
If the arguments presented are valid, then we must accept that whatever the future holds for us is natural.
You got that right, bud. Nature rules; we have no chance if we fight. But why fight? Why not live in harmony with Nature? Why not preserve the future by protecting the present? Why not apply Total Prosperity to all living things? Isn't that what being the 'dominant' species is all about? The ones in charge, the caretakers. Especially true for Aikidoka, right? Preserve all life?
PS Of course, if Homo Sapiens technology is unnatural then Aikido is unnatural as well. ;)
That's like saying that apples are unnatural because man thought of eating them.

Dude, most martial arts are movements from nature. In fact, most of them teach us to emulate the animals and the cycles, and to get closer to the natural world. (Check out Mitsugi Saotome's: Aikido and the Harmony of Nature.) They aren't synthesized and destructive to Nature in their purest form, and they are about the closest connection, along with other forms of dancing, that we still have to our primitive roots.

I appreciate your calm and collected communication. Thank you for that.

Jeff R.
05-19-2003, 09:41 PM
Hi

Just wanted to say that I'll be off line the next week or so. My wife just went into labor. We have to wait until mornign before we'll go to the hospitle.
Congratulations and I'll be looking forward to your return!

:D

happysod
05-20-2003, 05:06 AM
Otto, I’ll leave the roof jumping to you, but I’ll gladly hold your coat when you do.

Jeff, very interested in your arguments, particularly in the way you manage to attribute attitudes that have not been stated and respond to them. I admit I was attempting to be brief in my rejection of your particular take on a solution to world problems and may have misled. However, perhaps I can clarify myself.

As I understand your argument, we should reject all technology above subsistence level, reduce our population drastically (preferably through a third party you term nature to avoid any of the non-pc areas) and generally make room for other species. Please feel free to correct any misapprehension on my part.

1. I agree with your take on other species, man should live more harmoniously with other life on this planet. However, this can be taken to extremes through well-intentioned, but misguided zeal. The example I’m thinking of is some of the national parks in Africa, where the only humanity allowed are the rangers (and of course poachers). This type of “setting aside” was based on the descriptions by early western explorers in Africa who described a land without man – this was actually often caused by the wiping out of the indigenous tribes by the diseases carried by earlier explorers.

2. Population reduction. Again, I agree with you, but I think your solution is naive. The only areas of the world which have shown population decrease are, ironically, the most technologically dependant. This decrease has been linked with two main areas.

a) Widespread, broad-based secular education. This is itself dependant on a firm economic, technologically advanced base – education in more subsistence level society has to be specific, often ritualised and rarely addresses such issues as how not to increase your population

b) Longevity: again, the result of increased technology

3. Reducing technology: Technology, traditionally, has been driven by competition and war, with the less technological society being driven under (with the obvious exceptions where numerical superiority outweighed the technological advantages). While technology has successfully been halted in its “advance”, I can’t think of a single time where technological progress has voluntarily been regressed. The only examples of a technological regression I can think of are:

a) The “dark ages” which current research indicates was a result of a volcanic eruption engendering the equivalent of a nuclear winter

b) The plagues which wiped out most of the Moorish civilisation

So, all you could actually hope for is a natural disaster of biblical proportions. Even then, the time scale between the darks ages and modern day is the merest blip in the world history.

In effect, my disagreement with you is twofold. Firstly, you seem to place the world’s ills purely at technology’s door. Technology is a tool, which can be misused or used properly, it’s the application and motivations of use that are important. Secondly, you seem to have a different take on human nature to myself. You believe people should and would voluntarily suffer hardship, high child mortality and low life expectancy, happily sacrificing themselves on the altar of world balance. I don’t, I believe most people are not evil or that many would sanction the extinction of other species. However, I do think many are often short-sighted and addicted to comforts, even if it’s just a new type of spear chucker that means they can hunt later in life. I would prefer to work with humanity as it is which means technology and its uses.

Apologies to other readers for the length of this missive, but brevity seemed to be a route far too open to misinterpretation and condescension.

Jeff R.
05-20-2003, 07:36 AM
Jeff, very interested in your arguments, particularly in the way you manage to attribute attitudes that have not been stated and respond to them.
Please be more specific.


As I understand your argument, we should reject all technology above subsistence level, reduce our population drastically (preferably through a third party you term nature to avoid any of the non-pc areas) and generally make room for other species. Please feel free to correct any misapprehension on my part.
Okay. Once again, I'm not suggesting that everyone relinquish their televisions and set up tipis. That's unrealistic. I'm suggesting that since living in harmony with Nature cannot possibly be wrong, whereas the creation of technology is proven to be damaging, that we take the responsibility to offer our grandchildren the option.

Just because we act stupidly doesn't mean we need to pass it along.
1. I agree with your take on other species, man should live more harmoniously with other life on this planet. However, this can be taken to extremes through well-intentioned, but misguided zeal. The example I’m thinking of is some of the national parks in Africa, where the only humanity allowed are the rangers (and of course poachers). This type of “setting aside” was based on the descriptions by early western explorers in Africa who described a land without man – this was actually often caused by the wiping out of the indigenous tribes by the diseases carried by earlier explorers.
Native Indians live for thousands of years in harmony. Explorers come along for selfish reasons, through technology. Natives contract deadly diseases, then are raped, enslaved, and murdered in masses.

Yeah. We ROCK.
2. Population reduction. Again, I agree with you, but I think your solution is naive. The only areas of the world which have shown population decrease are, ironically, the most technologically dependant. This decrease has been linked with two main areas.

a) Widespread, broad-based secular education. This is itself dependant on a firm economic, technologically advanced base – education in more subsistence level society has to be specific, often ritualised and rarely addresses such issues as how not to increase your population
It shouldn't have to. Only in a society that separates itself from Nature do we need to even address issues as overpopulation. In the real world, in Nature, the issue takes care of itself.
3. Reducing technology: Technology, traditionally, has been driven by competition and war
Yeah. There's a good reason to keep technology. It also stems from "necessity" but the extension to that necessity is that it's a need to overcome weaknesses, such as genetic deficiency, or to cater to greed and spiritual deficiency, in the form of all of our "toys," i.e., televisions, cars, etc.

While technology has successfully been halted in its “advance”, I can’t think of a single time where technological progress has voluntarily been regressed.
Ya' think?
The only examples of a technological regression I can think of are:

a) The “dark ages” which current research indicates was a result of a volcanic eruption engendering the equivalent of a nuclear winter

b) The plagues which wiped out most of the Moorish civilisation

So, all you could actually hope for is a natural disaster of biblical proportions.
Hope for?

It is interesting though, how Nature in its course of being natural, has these devastating effects on our technological advances, but we still keep fighting it.
In effect, my disagreement with you is twofold. Firstly, you seem to place the world’s ills purely at technology’s door. Technology is a tool, which can be misused or used properly, it’s the application and motivations of use that are important.
Not at all. The world's ill come from our stubborness and our dependency upon technology. It's not a real need.

I can't believe that people refuse to see that all of our needs are met in the natural world. Technology is excessive. It totally separates us from Nature. How much spirit do you get from a video game? How sharp are your senses from living in a house, driving to work in a car, then spending the day behind a desk? How free are we by tethering ourselves to the routine of:

After birth, go to school;

Graduate;

Go to college;

Graduate;

Get a job;

Get a house;

Get married;

Have children;

Retire;

Die.

That's the norm in our society. In fact, in the tribal societies, the word "vacation" didn't exist. We have pumped it up to be a powerful concept, because we can't deal with the stresses of the constant pursuit of "technological advancement" and chasing the almighty dollar.

And you're defending this?
Secondly, you seem to have a different take on human nature to myself. You believe people should and would voluntarily suffer hardship, high child mortality and low life expectancy, happily sacrificing themselves on the altar of world balance. I don’t, I believe most people are not evil or that many would sanction the extinction of other species.
Indigenous people lived with Nature for THOUSANDS OF YEARS! In fact, figureheads of major religions even lived WITH Nature.

Plus, you're talking about a species that commits genicide, has sanctioned the extinction of other species, kills for sport, pollutes air, land, and water . . . etc., etc.

However, I do think many are often short-sighted and addicted to comforts, even if it’s just a new type of spear chucker that means they can hunt later in life. I would prefer to work with humanity as it is which means technology and its uses.
Well, when you get old and are on your deathbed, I'm sure you'll be happy with yourself, and that your grandchildren will thank you for what you've left behind.
Apologies to other readers for the length of this missive, but brevity seemed to be a route far too open to misinterpretation and condescension.
Which is ironic because it seems that several people skim the posts rather than really read them. I am totally aghast. I can't believe that it's so blatant that humans damage nature with technology, yet many only want to defend it.

I'm not talking about human nature, or societal economics, or sociology. I'm stating simple, undisputable facts:

Technology is excessive. Indigenous people lived for thousands of years without it in perfect balance with Nature. There was no pollution, no mass destruction, no wiping out of species.

Technology caters to our weaknesses and separates us physically and therefore spiritually from Nature.

Our dependency on technology is doing more harm than good if you look at the larger scale beyond the selfish "what's good for society."

How is it that people are not grasping these things?

happysod
05-20-2003, 08:42 AM
Jeff, I’m now becoming confused on what you’re actually arguing for. You are very enamoured of both nature and “native cultures” and despise technology in all its forms. But, I’m still unclear on how you actually wish things to change or, more importantly, how you believe this should be accomplished.

However, just to keep the ball rolling, if I can come back to parts of your last reply

“Only in a society that separates itself from Nature do we need to even address issues as overpopulation. In the real world, in Nature, the issue takes care of itself.” By this do I take your meaning to be almost “Spartan-esque” – expose the child at birth, the strong survive and (by extension) the most minimal child-care and medicines for common ailments. In short a society that has no place for the healer?

“Native Indians live for thousands of years in harmony.”: by harmony I presume you meant remained within what you’re expounding as our rightful niche in nature, or do you mean spiritual harmony? Also are you including South American Indians in this (Mayans spring to mind for what can be accomplished with just a stick in terms of ecological damage)?

“Technology caters to our weaknesses and separates us physically and therefore spiritually from Nature”. From your own posts, you feel you have a good spiritual bond with nature. Despite this, you’re obviously a well educated child of a technological society. Is it this dual nature that you wish everyone to experience? Also, all technology caters for a weakness, your bone or stick is a crutch for our lack of claws etc.

Final point for us to disagree on, “Technology is excessive. Indigenous people lived for thousands of years without it in perfect balance with Nature. There was no pollution, no mass destruction, no wiping out of species.” I have two problems with this statement. Firstly, how do we know this, what records are you basing this on? Core samples taken from the pole indicate heavy concentrations of carbon and other pollutants way in the past, perhaps this was one campfire too many? Secondly, we do have fossil records of species that are no-longer with us – are you positive we weren’t to blame. Certainly, it looks as though we did “do” for Neanderthal man and how would you explain the demise of the Moa?

Yes, I support technological progress, mainly because, in my own way, I am probably as much an idealist as yourself. To me, our technology just hasn't gone far enough in the right direction as evinced by the damage our current practices are doing. However, I think the damage can only be properly addressed by (yes you guessed it) more progress...

Jeff R.
05-20-2003, 09:20 AM
Jeff, I’m now becoming confused on what you’re actually arguing for. You are very enamoured of both nature and “native cultures” and despise technology in all its forms. But, I’m still unclear on how you actually wish things to change or, more importantly, how you believe this should be accomplished.

However, just to keep the ball rolling, if I can come back to parts of your last reply
Of course.
“Only in a society that separates itself from Nature do we need to even address issues as overpopulation. In the real world, in Nature, the issue takes care of itself.” By this do I take your meaning to be almost “Spartan-esque” – expose the child at birth, the strong survive and (by extension) the most minimal child-care and medicines for common ailments. In short a society that has no place for the healer?
Not quite. It's harder these days in the matter of ailments, because many of our modern ailments didn't exist in the tribal society. Back then, they had natural medicines and methods that could deal with the ailments they had. But the people also had a closer relationship with death than we do. They embraced it as part of living, and didn't strive for immortality in the obsessive way that we do. They obviously tried to survive, but they understood that death was natural and not to be fought.

Tribal society was family oriented. Children were raised by all of the tribe; all of the mothers were mother to every child.

Natural Selection is the way of Nature, and humans have taken too much of the reign in the decision of mortality, therefore, we do have massive overpopulation, overcrowding, and a huge impact of devastation on the environment in the forms of pollution and eliminating ecosystems.

The solution? Education.
“Native Indians live for thousands of years in harmony.”: by harmony I presume you meant remained within what you’re expounding as our rightful niche in nature, or do you mean spiritual harmony?
The natives of any continent who lived close to Nature had to be very aware of their surroundings, food sources, dangers, etc. Their senses were highly in tune, and that honing opens the "veils" to the spiritual senses. We all have this ability, and many often feel it in spurts. It can be in the form of deja vu, "coincedence," the gut feeling, intuition, etc.

Without this spiritual connection to Nature, we begin to separate ourselves and lose track of the cycles. This is when we begin to develop crutches (technology) to make up for the spiritual gaps.
Also are you including South American Indians in this (Mayans spring to mind for what can be accomplished with just a stick in terms of ecological damage)?
Either way. Anything created that does damage to Nature in its creation or separates us from our connection to the Natural world, is not healthy.
“Technology caters to our weaknesses and separates us physically and therefore spiritually from Nature”. From your own posts, you feel you have a good spiritual bond with nature. Despite this, you’re obviously a well educated child of a technological society. Is it this dual nature that you wish everyone to experience?
I wish I still had a solid spiritual bond with Nature. That I don't anymore is the very reason that I try and teach the Aikido principles of giving options and protection all life. I can't live in Nature right now, but I can still pass on the old lessons to the next generations and give them the chance.

As for duality, that's an interesting point. The duality that the Shaman lived was a perfect balance between the logical world and the spirit world. In our society, I believe science classifies it as the Delta state of brain activity. It is being open to all messages and stimuli in both worlds. That, I believe, it the Satori we Aikidoka are striving for. But, the thing is, the only way to achieve it is by being connected to Nature.
Also, all technology caters for a weakness, your bone or stick is a crutch for our lack of claws etc.
Exactly. We started early, didn't we? However the bone and stick do no damage to the cycles of nature in their conception. The tools we create now literally wipe out ecosystems, and in some cases, societies.
Final point for us to disagree on, “Technology is excessive. Indigenous people lived for thousands of years without it in perfect balance with Nature. There was no pollution, no mass destruction, no wiping out of species.” I have two problems with this statement. Firstly, how do we know this, what records are you basing this on? Core samples taken from the pole indicate heavy concentrations of carbon and other pollutants way in the past, perhaps this was one campfire too many?
Or volcanoes, forest fires . . . In fact, the forest fire is an important part of the natural cycles. Believe it or not, the forest fire is important in carrying on the proper function of some ecosystems. Without the forest fires in some places, the ecosystems would collapse. But once again, we come along and try to extinguish them all.

It's interesting. We tend to either do too much interaction with nature, wiping it out, or none whatsoever.

It has been proven, in fact, that the Natives who depended upon Nature actually IMPROVED their environment by removing the sick and the weak, and they helped the ecosystems thrive because of their intimate connection.
Secondly, we do have fossil records of species that are no-longer with us – are you positive we weren’t to blame.
Nope. But it would figure if we were. But I am positive that it wasn't because of the technological advances of some other species.
Certainly, it looks as though we did “do” for Neanderthal man and how would you explain the demise of the Moa?
Moa? Enlighten me.
Yes, I support technological progress, mainly because, in my own way, I am probably as much an idealist as yourself. To me, our technology just hasn't gone far enough in the right direction as evinced by the damage our current practices are doing. However, I think the damage can only be properly addressed by (yes you guessed it) more progress...
But, my friend, by the time it is properly addressed, it may be beyond proper repair. And as long as we keep "making" things, and living for the dollar, I don't see how the issues will ever be properly addressed. Hidden and subverted perhaps.

I foresee a lot of regret in our society.

Anyway, what I am 'fighting' for are some of the most important principles of Aikido:

1.Preserve all life. Not all human life, but ALL life.

2.Always provide options.

3.Educate.

Col.Clink
05-20-2003, 06:30 PM
Moa? Enlighten me.
Quoted from Encarta:

"Moa, common name, originally used by the Maoris, for about 20 species of ostrichlike birds that inhabited New Zealand. All are extinct, although one species may have persisted until early in the 19th century. Most moa bones have been found in swamps, others in sands, riverbeds, and in dry caves, where bits of skin and feathers have been preserved. Many pieces of their thick-shelled eggs and a few whole eggs have been found, one containing a large embryo. Moas varied greatly in size, from about 1 m (about 39 in) to 4 m (13 ft) in height. Unlike ostriches, moas lacked even the rudiments of wings. Their legs were massive and relatively short. Moas were widespread in New Zealand when it was colonized by the Maori people about 800 years ago, but were extinct or extremely rare by the time Captain James Cook first visited there in 1769.

Scientific classification: Moas belong to the order Dinornithiformes."

Enjoying this discussion, thanks guys!

Jeff R.
05-20-2003, 08:18 PM
Quoted from Encarta:

"Moa, common name . . .

Thank you very kindly, sir.

Now that I have some info, I'm not sure exactly how my counterpart's question pertains.

happysod
05-22-2003, 06:45 AM
Robert, please tell me you looked that up or are a zoologist, or I’m going to feel really inadequate...thanks for the definition.

Jeff, the moa comment was with reference to your claims that indigenous peoples worked in harmony with nature. The Maori culture has a very rich, very spiritual background with a high regard for nature. However, even such enlightened cultures can make mistakes without technology. I think that this is the root of our disagreement; you regard technology as the overweening factor is our detrimental effects on the world.

To me, technology is just a tool, problems we manufacture through being whom and what we are. Furthermore, technology is also an integral part of us, we are hardwired into being tool users as we’re so woefully lacking in other natural benefits. Now I can agree the balance may have tipped too far, but I still have problems with your sorting society into the weak and the hale as a solution, as I certainly don’t feel I have the right to make that decision about another human being (who is also a unique, precious animal in their own right), even if you’re “just” talking about removing certain technical advances in medicine. Next we’d have to go down the route of defining humanity and what makes for a functioning human being in order to compromise (if possible) on what technologies are permissible. So although I can respect your viewpoint (if not your over-use of declarative statements - sorry, couldn’t resist) and agree with points 1-3 I am unlikely to join your crusade.

I’m afraid I’m now going to make the almost unpardonable sin of saying that’s all I will type on this thread (but at least leaving you the option of the final word). Sheer cowardice on my part as I have the sneaking suspicion that Jun may be considering a bar on further discussion so divorced from aikido.

Jeff R.
05-22-2003, 08:36 AM
Here it is, plain, straight, simple:

Aikido is about preserving all life and developing spiritual energy (Ki) so that we may all have a common, unconditional bond.

Technology kills nature and inhibits our spiritual connection with each other and Nature.

All indigenous cultures that depended upon Nature for survival, only survived if they lived in harmony with Nature.

Indigenous cultures that lived in harmony with Nature also had an intimate spiritual connection, i.e., Shamanism.

Therefore, since all of the above statements have been proven to be true, not by me, but by hundreds of years of research, and thousands of years of life, that makes them indisputable fact.

I make no claims, no grandstanding, am basing nothing on heresay, conjecture, or half-truth. Everything I've stated about the philosophy of preservation and energy has been stated at one time, in some similar way by all major spiritual/religious figureheads.

If we continue to harm nature and separate ourselves with technology, we can depend upon demise by our own doing, which seems unfair to our grandchildren, and we can expect a very difficult--if not impossible--time trying to achieve the ultimate goal of Aikido, which is Satori or enlightenment.

It's all about Aikido, all the way around.

Now instead of telling me I'm biased, opinionated, stubborn, restricted in view, or whatnot, anyone reading could offer something new to add to the information.

I honestly don't understand how so many people can be following the Ways of all these spiritual leaders, yet still turn around and say that everything they represented, taught, strived for, is crap.

I'm only passing down information, not making it up. It's common sense, obvious, proven. Why is this so difficult?

It works like this: Anyone can argue these points into the ground, but nobody has shown any inclination of proving the concepts invalid, misgiven, or incorrect. In fact, what I mostly see is fear of the truth, guilt, redirection into unrelated issues, and just plain denial.

It's not MY philosophy. I didn't manufacture it. If you have a problem with it, talk to your God, whomever it may be. The only way to find out if it's crap or not will be to see what happens to the earth and all the species (that we're wiping out BTW) and see what your great grandchildren say.

Col.Clink
05-22-2003, 10:57 AM
Robert, please tell me you looked that up or are a zoologist, or I’m going to feel really inadequate...thanks for the definition.
Don't feel inadequate, I'm a New Zealander!

Thought it best to quote from Encarta than come into this convo with my own views etc. It was a good example you gave actually.

oh...and your both welcome.

Cheers

Rob

:ai: :ki:

W^2
05-22-2003, 11:54 AM
Hello again Jeff,

It is obvious that you are very passionate about your beliefs, just don't let that blind you - keep an open mind. If we aren't flexible in mind, we will be easily unbalanced in life...

I did indeed add a new perspective with my last post; purely logical actually - I don't have any personal investments in your philosophical/spiritual statements. My last post pointed out the flaws in your use of terms that lead to a fallacy. I then restated it without your use of terms leading to a similar yet slightly different result. Your rebuttal consisted of arguments which you later contradict with statements of belief having no logical foundation.

What I was trying to do was encourage you to present your ideas better; I was under the impression that you were open to discussing concepts, etc., just as I am.

Ciao,

Ward

kironin
05-22-2003, 01:37 PM
IMHO, Ki is no-thing in particular. Ki just is.

If you say Ki exist, you will be hit. If you say Ki does not exist, you will be hit. Who is the "I" that experiences the Ki as existing or non-existing?

Sometimes, the only way to find the answer is to drop the question and accept what is.

Train. When you expereinece it you know. When you don't, no words can explain or verify it.

Until again,

Lynn
So beautifully put! Worth repeating.

More words than this just becomes nonsense.

Train.

Craig

Jeff R.
05-22-2003, 08:27 PM
Hello again Jeff,

It is obvious that you are very passionate about your beliefs, just don't let that blind you - keep an open mind. If we aren't flexible in mind, we will be easily unbalanced in life...

I did indeed add a new perspective with my last post; purely logical actually - I don't have any personal investments in your philosophical/spiritual statements. My last post pointed out the flaws in your use of terms that lead to a fallacy. I then restated it without your use of terms leading to a similar yet slightly different result. Your rebuttal consisted of arguments which you later contradict with statements of belief having no logical foundation.

What I was trying to do was encourage you to present your ideas better; I was under the impression that you were open to discussing concepts, etc., just as I am.

Ciao,

Ward
And I'm pretty sure that I returned logic with logic and sufficiently left the ball in your court. My points are, once again, ignored, and still another person claims that my method of argument is faulty.

I address everyone's points, effectively offer logical rebuttal, or at least facts (which everyone seems vehement to dispute), and though I'm actually discussing concepts and making points, I'm being told that I'm not open to discussing concepts.

If your logic and concepts don't hold up, don't make it my fault.

PROVE ME WRONG OR PROVE ME RIGHT. Stop griping and beating around the bush with, "well then what about this culture or that species? Doesn't Nature destroy?"

Why is everyone so afraid of the Aikido philosophy?

Try READING THE OTHER POSTS. Either you live the Aikido philosophy, or you don't.

Are you an Aikidoka or a hypocrite?

And of course I'm passionate about this philosophy. Once again, every major spiritual leader spoke of or utilized these principles in a very serious way. And where all of our grandchildren are concerned, maybe EVERYONE should be passionate about preserving all life.

My last post to Ward pointed out the flaws in the "logic" that was used to subvert my reasoning.

Where at all did I ever contradict my statements?

And why is everyone evading the point of the issue with semantics and stonewalling?

My logic is unsound . . . Tell that to O'Sensei.

PeterR
05-22-2003, 10:21 PM
Why is everyone so afraid of the Aikido philosophy?

Try READING THE OTHER POSTS. Either you live the Aikido philosophy, or you don't.

Are you an Aikidoka or a hypocrite?
The thing is Jeff that you are stating absolutes about what Aikido philosophy is and frankly speaking you seem to have latched onto a few quotes here and there and made them your own.

I have read your posts and can't help be feel you are missing the point of the Do. I sure don't have any fear of Aikido philosophy as taught to me by an Aikido master, that philosophy is permeating my life and I surely am not a hypocrite because my view of what I do does not mesh with yours.

I'm curious. How long have you studied Aikido and with whom?

One of the shocking things to many who come to Japan to train is how many of their preconceptions of what Aikido is get tossed out the window. We all learn something new every day but we do want to know the source of the information.

Jeff R.
05-22-2003, 10:55 PM
The thing is Jeff that you are stating absolutes about what Aikido philosophy is and frankly speaking you seem to have latched onto a few quotes here and there and made them your own.

I have read your posts and can't help be feel you are missing the point of the Do. I sure don't have any fear of Aikido philosophy as taught to me by an Aikido master, that philosophy is permeating my life and I surely am not a hypocrite because my view of what I do does not mesh with yours.

I'm curious. How long have you studied Aikido and with whom?

One of the shocking things to many who come to Japan to train is how many of their preconceptions of what Aikido is get tossed out the window. We all learn something new every day but we do want to know the source of the information.
Once again, ignoring the points, telling me how to do things.

How about giving a little bit of insight as to what these preconceptions are, and what your view is. Maybe they mesh maybe they don't. I'm sure you aren't misinterpreting anything at all. So, since my information, based on twenty years of martial arts and philosophy study, particularly focused on the universal truths, is so hard to swallow, maybe all you masters should finally speak up, enlighten those of us who are desperately seeking useful information instead of postulating and claiming that passiveness is a viable allowance for either ignorance or simply not caring.

Is your Aikido Master Enlightened? Why is his way the right way? Is his way different from O'Sensei's? If not, then we must agree. If so, then what is the difference, and how do you know it's still Aikido?

How long have you lived in the wilderness, starting with no tools and only the clothes on your back?

How much study of the human impact on the environment have you done?

Do you have a car? A house? Do you buy your food? Do you work? Do you depend on society for your survival? Do you watch t.v.?

Explain why we don't need Ki to make Aikido work.

Explain why O'Sensei said that preservation of all life is crucial, but we say, "no, it isn't."

Explain why most of the responses on this topic defend pollution, species extinction, moving away from our connection with Nature and Spirit.

Everyone makes these grandiose, mock-logical arguments and tosses around million-dollar words, but nobody is willing to discuss any of the points. It's almost like everyone would rather egg me on instead of diving into these unfathomable issues. If you can't prove these issues wrong or prove them right, what are you doing?

Pretoriano
05-22-2003, 11:17 PM
Good Jeff Rychwa, show some, naecrapsayers wont get it anyway, thats plenty for 30 years you know.

I second your thoughts

Praetorian

aubrey bannah
05-23-2003, 03:22 AM
In Aikido or otherwise is not nature in the realm of the gods.

Plastic was found in the tail of Hallies comet

by scientist's last time it pasted earth.

All things are in nature, what we are trying to do is know the way to the truth of nature etc.

Jeff R.
05-23-2003, 07:59 AM
In Aikido or otherwise is not nature in the realm of the gods.

Plastic was found in the tail of Hallies comet

by scientist's last time it pasted earth.

All things are in nature, what we are trying to do is know the way to the truth of nature etc.
Plastic in Halley's Comet? Ya' know, that's fascinating. It may or may not be true. As the polymer is created by massive heat and pressure upon substances like coal-tar, who knows what could exist out there? But how much plastic existed on Earth before we got here?

How much good does plastic do for the Earth?

Is it showing up in Natural form, or is it being introduced into the wrong ecosystem?

Would it be wise to bring radioactive waste into your home just because it makes a nice light?

Are we trying to find the "scientific" truth of Nature, or the Spiritual?

If the former, then it seems we are going to destroy it before we understand it.

If the latter, then, to quote Mr. Rhese:
I have read your posts and can't help be feel you are missing the point of the DO.
The problem is, most seem to believe that the DO doesn't even exist, or don't care.

If you know what the DO is, enlighten. O'Sensei knew. It's a way of living, not just training. You either live it, or you don't.

If you aren't living it, don't dare tell me I'm missing the point. I'm reiterating what O'Sensei was teaching about spirit.

Thank you for the posts, folks!

Jeff R.
05-23-2003, 09:18 AM
Another interesting thing to think about:

If there was plastic in the tail of the comet, and the basis of plastic is carbon--i.e., fossil-fuels--then it begs the question, "Mustn't there be other life out there?"

Or it could be from the garbage that we jettison into space.

What a wonderful, far-ranging impact of destruction our species has, eh?

Bussho
06-05-2003, 11:50 AM
The cool thing is that most everybody is correct . . . but not necessarily for the correct reasons. Go figure.
I'm back. It's a girl, and her name will proabaly be Marie. She weighed 3880 grams, and was 52 cm.

I promised I'd answer and here we go. I can see the thread really moved, but I havn't read it all. I just answer were I think we left off.

You stated in a later "mail" that you didn't know who I am. I presented my self. Just to add, I've Doen MA for nearly 25 years, and Aikido for nearly 15. Do you need more to feel that I'm valid? How about your self? Who are you and your credentials?

You also stated that the playing feild wasn't set. I'll set it as the words we use should be understood by everbody,a nd by that meaning that the encycopidia should be OK. I'm using Websters.

Now lets start.

You first statement:
The only truth is Universal, and simple.
The word Universal means everwere. What your saying is that the only truth would exsist everwere. That is an assumption, since nobody has been everwere. Beside that I belive there are many truths, and that initself is two belifes and truths, thus your assumption cannot exsist.
It is the indisputable manifestation of whatever "Higher Power" created us.
Indisputable? You said it, prove it. You can't, and I can't disprove it. There for it becaomes an assumption. You can belive it, and that is OK. But to be indisputable you have to prove it, or everbody has to belive it, and I don't belive it, so it's not everbody.
Things that come from the human mind are dreamworks, existing, but having no necessary place in Nature. They provide no benefit, but more often offer some destructive impact to Nature.
From Webters: unnatural is something either not from the wild, or manufactured. Is has nothing to do with being destructive. I belive that everthing in life is natural. But from the Webters definition I'm wrong. But that's because I define natural as things are.

If we keep to Webters definition, everthing that is made would be unnatural:

A toothbrush

Soap

beds

houses

roads

maps

cars

heating

alot of foods (they are manufactured, as even farming is)

and so on.

The trickey part is are ideas manufactured? Are the from the wild? If yes then one thought is no more natural than the other. If no, then there is nothing wrong in the though it self.

SAo when you state that thoughts of humans are dream works your stating that human thought is unnatural. Then anythought even that they are dream works is wrong. That kinda bits itself in the tail, right? So from this you can't say that human thoughts are dreamworks(unnatural).

No if all thoughts are natural, then the ideas an concepts we make should be natural. They have consequences, as you point out, and some of them sever, but they are still natural.

In a later part of the thread you stated that there is only logic and chaos. I challenge that, since they are the same, and at the same time have nothing to do with each other.Logic is a way of thinking. Chaos is a situation. But you might be meaning system contra chaos?? But to that I would have to say that there is a third , and that is in between system and chaos.

Thanks for waiting, and I'm looking forward to hearing you answer.

/Terje

George S. Ledyard
06-05-2003, 12:06 PM
One of the things I have noticed over the years is that many of the people who are most inclined to champion the spiritual side of Aikido, who seem most entranced with what they see as O-Sensei's vision of Peace and Love etc. are often the most contentious, have little respect for other people's views and manage to be in a state on coflict with their fellows much of the time. I think this is fairly ironic. There are folks posting here who do very martial versions of this art, don't have a tremendous interest in the spiritual side and yet seem to better embody the values that these other folks say are so important to them.

Jeff R.
06-05-2003, 12:57 PM
I'm back. It's a girl, and her name will proabaly be Marie. She weighed 3880 grams, and was 52 cm.
Congratulations! Tea parties and boyfriends who will be afraid to knock on the door.:D
You stated in a later "mail" that you didn't know who I am. I presented my self. Just to add, I've Doen MA for nearly 25 years, and Aikido for nearly 15. Do you need more to feel that I'm valid? How about your self? Who are you and your credentials?
It's not a question of validity on a personal level, for me. I just like to know that the people who offer info have some vested interest and time to back up their thoughts. Armchair philosophy and rudimentary perspective warrants more listening and less offering on the part of the offerer. Regardless, check out my profile. I've been studying bioecology and martial arts as a system (actually living in/with the wilderness for over a year, primitively), combined as a "trinity" with the third element being philosophy or spirit. All three come together seamlessly, and compliment one another in any direction. Movement, spirit, nature--all form the foundation of balance and living in harmony with all of creation.
The word Universal means everwere. What your saying is that the only truth would exsist everwere. That is an assumption, since nobody has been everwere.
I've not been to Jupiter, the center of the Earth, the Horse-head nebula, a black hole, but they exist. I've not seen love, save for its manifestation, and I've not been to the edges of the Universe (if there are any), but none of it matters. We are all created from the same stuff. We are part of the earth, part of the solar system, part of the Universe. It's all connected. Love can be felt, expressed anywhere in the Universe, but gravity and time can be altered or even omitted. Spirit is a Universal truth. A circle is a circle no matter where in the universe one travels, although it may be named differently. Anywhere in the Universe there exists somethingness, even in the realization of void. By its nothingness, it is a relative something. Spirit is boundless, everywhere, and we are all part of it; we embody it, and we can all tap into it and connect Universally.

For example, there was an experiment performed (and I apologize because I don't have the text present, but I will search) in which case two elementary particles [electrons?] that existed together around a shared nucleus, were separated by some distance [a physical distance relative to our common frame of reference, i.e., several feet, meters, miles, etc.]. An influence was applied to one of the particles. It responded in a certain way. But the cool thing was that the other particle also responded symmetrically, but had no influence applied upon it. It portrayed a connection on a level beyond measurement, beyond common apprehension. An example of how fundamentally connected all things are by spirit.

Beside that I belive there are many truths, and that initself is two belifes and truths, thus your assumption cannot exsist.
There are definitely many truths, but few are applicable universally. If the truth is subjective, then it can be a falsehood to another.
Indisputable? You said it, prove it. You can't, and I can't disprove it. There for it becaomes an assumption. You can belive it, and that is OK. But to be indisputable you have to prove it, or everbody has to belive it, and I don't belive it, so it's not everbody.
Do you breathe? Are you made of the same things as the rest of us? Do you depend upon the bounty of the earth, to survive? Does the life on earth depend upon the sun? Do you have thoughts? Do your thoughts exist on a level beyond the physical? When someone smiles at you, or smacks you, do you feel anything beyond the physical sensations?

If you can answer "no" to any of these questions, then it is up to you to prove the reasoning behind your answer. I may have phrased them poorly, but in essence they are not disputable. The Universe exists. Energy exists. We are part of it. Indisputable.
From Webters: unnatural is something either not from the wild, or manufactured. Is has nothing to do with being destructive.
Show me something manufactured, and I'll show you something destructive.

I belive that everthing in life is natural. But from the Webters definition I'm wrong. But that's because I define natural as things are.
Even things that come from nature--fossil fuels, for example--when applied in an unnatural way, are destructive to nature, and, therefore, to all life.

For example, over ten-billion gallons of oil are deposited into the oceans about every eight months. This is due to run-off not only from vehicles, but just from the asphalt that is laid for parking lots and roads. This is destructive, and therefore, unnatural. Why would anyone want to argue in favor of pollution and destruction?


If we keep to Webters definition, everthing that is made would be unnatural:

A toothbrush

Soap

beds

houses

roads

maps

cars

heating

alot of foods (they are manufactured, as even farming is)

and so on.
Precisely. Although there are fundamental things that are perfectly natural, and assist in the caretaking of Nature. Fire, for example, in its purest form has been utilized for heat. In nature, fire literally cleans out an environment, releases crucial nutrients from soil, charcoal, debris, opens some seed containers--pine cones--and fosters a thriving ecosystem. When the indigenous people of north america took responsibility for taking care of nature (as they depended upon it for their very surival) they actually burned the forest twice per year. The ecosystem stayed healthy, open, and mast trees were productive, animals thrived. And they could do this effectively because they were linked to the cycles of nature in an intimate way. Now, we are not. Now, even the manufacture of a toothbrush is destructive. It boils down to being a society that craves material wants instead of natural needs, and money.
The trickey part is are ideas manufactured? Are the from the wild? If yes then one thought is no more natural than the other. If no, then there is nothing wrong in the though it self.
Ideas are natural. It's what we do with them that counts. If we were connected with nature, we would make responsible choices and know that creation is better left to whatever created the world before we got here. Again, it's indisputable that the world was in an active equilibrium before we got here, and that humans have done more damage in the past one hundred years than has been done in the past ten thousand.
SAo when you state that thoughts of humans are dream works your stating that human thought is unnatural. Then anythought even that they are dream works is wrong. That kinda bits itself in the tail, right? So from this you can't say that human thoughts are dreamworks(unnatural).No if all thoughts are natural, then the ideas an concepts we make should be natural. They have consequences, as you point out, and some of them sever, but they are still natural.
No. I'm saying that the manufactured house you live in, the car you drive, the toothbrush, deoderant, television, etc. are all created from the human imagination. Therefore, we live in a dreamworld. The only real world is the world that existed before our dreams had an impact. Would you really say that nature isn't real? Sure, your television is made of real things, derived from nature, but they are synthesized, bastardized, altered and processed, and televisions have no natural purpose; they only cater our own laziness, boredom--spiritual voids.
In a later part of the thread you stated that there is only logic and chaos. I challenge that, since they are the same, and at the same time have nothing to do with each other.Logic is a way of thinking. Chaos is a situation. But you might be meaning system contra chaos?? But to that I would have to say that there is a third , and that is in between system and chaos.
I'm sorry. I shouldn't have said logic, so much as order.

When a maple tree loses its samara, the winged seed drops because of gravity from some random height. It may be sunny, it may be rainy. A gust of wind from the east moves the seed to the west; a blue jay flies by and alters the course of the seed by a couiple of inches. The seed lands in a random spot, and a hawk flies overhead. The rabbit that sees the hawk scurries for cover and inadvertedly steps on the seed, pushing it into the soil. Over time, rain and sun randomly exchange positions, temperature and water change randomly. Eventually, if the conditions are favorable, the seeds takes root, and forth springs another maple. This is the process of altruism, a function of nature, and subject to order that forms from chaotic events. And in its own way, the tree is part of other chaotic processes that ripple from its existence. This is life; it is nature. Chaos and order is the function of "the Great Spirit." But chaos and order are in equilibrium. What we are doing is blatant destruction. And for the sake of your daughter's, my three sons', and everyone else's childrens' children, it needs to stop.

Best wishes to you and yours, my friend.

Jeff

Jeff R.
06-05-2003, 01:29 PM
What Mr. Ledyard says is an unfortunate truth. I have been victim to subscribing to the untempered release of my passion for finding spiritual connection and harmony in living with nature. I may be a sap, I guess, but I am really one of those people who strives for finding those connections and passing them on to the grandchildren, as it is their birthright to live with nature and one another without bias and destruction.

Once again, I have to say that I believe one of the shortcomings of forums, and a reason that many discussions turn into argument and sarcasm, is based upon our interpretations of cold, digital communication. We don't have the advantage of getting the "vibe" from each other without the personal contact. You don't see my posture, my smile, my questioning expression behind my words, and perhaps my writing is simply lacking, but incomplete reception can lead to harsh interpretation.

And I think it may be relevant to question why this happens. I believe that ego is a pressing factor. When things are presented on screen, I may take them personally or with criticism if I don't release ego. I think it is vital that we all establish a common ground, a common thread, so that ego can be excused and all interpretations are objective. The only common thread I have learned is spirit.

For example, if someone attacks me, and I take it personally, then my response will be based upon my own morality, ethic, justice. But in a pure sense, ego dismissed, the attack becomes an action--nothing more. As we are all bound together by spirit, if someone hurts me, they hurt themselves, and if I hurt them, I hurt myself. With that in mind, their attack being an action, I strive to blend with the attack and it becomes a simple, harmonious movement toward resolution with nobody being harmed. When the self is invested, we may harm another because of emotional impetus. Unconditional love is another way of explaining the connection.

I do have to apologize, as well. I have literally experienced and felt the effects of destruction and pollution on a primitive level. I have seen firsthand what biomagnification does. I am vehemently anxious about opening doors and avenues of education and options that may help us to bring the pursuit of balance beyond human relation, and back to all of creation. It seems that whenever we do something harmful to the earth, we try to remedy the effects but still keep the initial problem. With every "solution" more problems are created, and we've gotten ourselves into a rather large snowball on the downward side of a steep mountain.

So, I'm sorry if I seem crude, harsh, or frustrated. I do not intend to attack personally or otherwise, but it is important that we really think about what it is we choose to debate, and whether debate is appropriate, or instead, positive action toward a common goal of total prosperity.

Alan
06-06-2003, 06:30 PM
To give something a name is to create separation. We are not seperate from anything from which we create.We are GOD in all his glory.We are... and that is all, accept it! Your mind will try to name, explain, figure out ie.(chi/ki/qi/prana/energy/bioelectricity etc..) Yet it is only a part of us.

Words are only a part, so that which I write cannot fully explain to us the meaning and purpose...? is there any reason for an answer? Is this not a beautiful way to express yourself(GOD)? Are you not happy within yourself?, ask yourself be within yourself peace already exists, acknowledge this!

Ego...another seperation, not acknowledging that small part of yourself...The mind..another seperation not acknowledging a small part of yourself....The Body...another seperation not acknowledging a small part of yourself...Love....another seperation not acknowledging a small part of yourself..etc. etc. How many do we wish to create and talk about? Use your Emotional intelligence!:circle: :circle: Stop AAAH

Bussho
06-07-2003, 09:57 AM
Congratulations! Tea parties and boyfriends who will be afraid to knock on the door.:D
Thank you!
Show me something manufactured, and I'll show you something destructive.
A walking stick

An apple

A dog

You could even argument that a human is manufactured...

;-)

Don't get me wrong. I dont belive in pollution, and I belive in taking care of natur. And I belive in love also. But with love follows respect and tolerance. Which are porbably some of the hardest lessons.

Our discussion is great. I will not follow it more, since I think we'll stand our own grounds, but none of them are destructive for us, so peace with it. T
Best wishes to you and yours, my friend.

Jeff
You too.

/Terje

Bussho
06-07-2003, 10:00 AM
One of the things I have noticed over the years is that many of the people who are most inclined to champion the spiritual side of Aikido, who seem most entranced with what they see as O-Sensei's vision of Peace and Love etc. are often the most contentious, have little respect for other people's views and manage to be in a state on coflict with their fellows much of the time. I think this is fairly ironic. There are folks posting here who do very martial versions of this art, don't have a tremendous interest in the spiritual side and yet seem to better embody the values that these other folks say are so important to them.
Yes, I agree.

It's a strong light needed to look into ones own "soul", and see if that is what one is doing. I hope not I'm just doing the talk, but living it also.

Take care

Terje

Charles Hill
06-07-2003, 11:36 AM
In the quote in Terje's post, Mr. Ledyard divides most Aikidoists into two groups; those interested in the spiritual side and those into the martial side. This concurs with what I have seen, too. For those interested in integrating the two sides, I HIGHLY recommend checking out Mary Heiny. She was a student of the Founder, and (in my opinion) one of the most interesting and effective teachers around. I attended a seminar of her's years back and also took a private lesson. I also have her video which I've probably watched a hundred times. Through her, I have come to realize that the spiritual and martial sides of Aikido are not just complimentary but are essential to progress far in either one.

Charles

Tijmen Ramakers
06-08-2003, 08:20 AM
Love can be felt, expressed anywhere in the Universe, but gravity and time can be altered or even omitted.

Care to explain this for us humble armchair philosophers?
A circle is a circle no matter where in the universe one travels, although it may be named differently.
Ofcourse, but depending on your point of view, you may see it as a straight line. Or maybe you're seeing a circle, when it is in fact a sphere. So, how do you know it's a circle?
For example, there was an experiment performed (and I apologize because I don't have the text present, but I will search)

(...) An example of how fundamentally connected all things are by spirit.
If you can find the url, I would appreciate it. To see if the people who came up with, and performed the experiment, also think it can be explained by some "Spirit" that "we embody, and we can all tap into and connect Universally".
If you can answer "no" to any of these questions, then it is up to you to prove the reasoning behind your answer. I may have phrased them poorly, but in essence they are not disputable. The Universe exists. Energy exists. We are part of it. Indisputable.
Nobody is disputing the fact that we breathe, or are part of the universe.

Anybody can come up with hundreds of other such 'universal truths'. I don't see how this has anything to do with, let alone proves, your statement that "Spirit is a Universal truth".
Again, it's indisputable that the world was in an active equilibrium before we got here, and that humans have done more damage in the past one hundred years than has been done in the past ten thousand.
In my view, there still is an 'active equilibrium'. Only, it's a lot more active right now, than ever before.

I think nature isn't so much about the 'preservation of all life', but rather 'survival of the fittest' (and since there are no rules, we're not breaking any by using 'technology'). Species have arised and became extinct ever since life began. I'm not saying we shouldn't strive to minimize pollution or destruction, but the goal isn't to protect all life, just our own long-term existence. And I don't think we'll reach that goal by giving up on technology and returning to life in huts again.

Although you may argue that, in your view, using your definitions, we're living in a world that is not 'real', a 'dreamworld', it doesn't change anything.

(Come to think of it, you're using one of the highlights, one of the most unnatural things of this 'dreamworld', a thing that's even eliminating the need for people to have 'real' contact, 'real' interaction, the internet, to communicate your ideas (and as you said, ideas are 'natural'). Interesting.)

Tijmen

Thalib
06-08-2003, 07:10 PM
KI does exist.

It is just how one defines it.

Strength is KI.

Speed is KI.

Focus is KI.

.

.

.

the list goes on

.

.

.

Knowledge is KI

Alan
06-09-2003, 01:24 AM
What?..... will die by the sword?

Who?..... will do so with honor?

George S. Ledyard
06-09-2003, 04:33 AM
In the quote in Terje's post, Mr. Ledyard divides most Aikidoists into two groups; those interested in the spiritual side and those into the martial side. This concurs with what I have seen, too. For those interested in integrating the two sides, I HIGHLY recommend checking out Mary Heiny. She was a student of the Founder, and (in my opinion) one of the most interesting and effective teachers around. I attended a seminar of her's years back and also took a private lesson. I also have her video which I've probably watched a hundred times. Through her, I have come to realize that the spiritual and martial sides of Aikido are not just complimentary but are essential to progress far in either one.

Charles
Hi! Since I trained under Mary Sensei for many years I'll make a quick comment here. First, she wasn't a student of the Founder. He was alive only for a short time after she first got to Japan and not when she had started Aikido. She was a student, fisrt at the Aikikai Honbu dojo where she trained under a variety of teachers, my own teacher included, but she found what she was looking for when she found the training at Shingu under Hikitsuchi Sensei and the talented instructors he had trained there (Anno, Yanase, and Tojima Senseis).

Mary's technique is very advanced. She is an outstanding Aikidoka and one of the most inspiring teachers you could come across in terms of giving you a take on the Spiritual side of the art. But I wouldn't say that she is particularly interested in the martial side of the art at all. She does virtually no weapons (although she can do some bo when she is of a mind). I think she would be completely unconcerned with the issue of how to handle a boxer's jab or non-traditional attacks in general. She is completely uninterested in any martial skills from other arts to complement her Aikido. Her personal practice led her to a very serious practice of Tibetan Buddhism and she is now engaged in getting trained in a system of non-violent communication. She has used her Aikido to direct her own personal development as much or more than any other person I know but I don't think she is interested in fighting in the least. Masakatsu Agatsu. True victory is self victory. Mary Sensei lives that but she's not someone I'd take with me if I had to fight. I'd be more likely to pick Bookman Sensei.

George S. Ledyard
06-09-2003, 05:07 AM
Well the software wouldn't let me add this to my original so here are some additional thoughts...

The teachers I have had who most seemed to embody the Spiritual side and the martial side in equal measure have been Saotome Sensei, first and foremost, followed by William Gleason Sensei and Tom Read Sensei. I put Ikeda Sensei in a different class since he rarely talks about spiritual matters but walks it in his life every day.

Gleason Sensei, the author of the Spiritual Foundations of Aikido, did some classical sword while in Japan and can really walk his talk on the mat yet he has a very developed spiritual outlook, much informed by his Zen practice. He teaches in Boston.

Tom Read Sensei is less accessible. He teaches out of Arcata, CA but over the years has become something of a yamabushi. His stuff is arcane, eccentric and some of the most inspiring Aikido I have ever seen. He hardly goes anywhere to teach and isn't well known but he is definitely worth taking the time to seek out. (He and Mary Heiny Sensei are great friends and have had a great influence on each other's practice; they both trained at Shingu under Hikitsuchi Sensei).

One other friend comes to mind here as well and that is Clint George Sensei in Helena, MT. Another student of Hikitsuchi Sensei, he was given all of the spiritual training that is an essential part of training in Shingu. But he has a more martial set of interests than some of the other Shingu folks and has become a police defensive tactics instructor in addition to teaching Aikido. A top notch martial artist whose aikido is wonderful (his demo at the Expo last year was outstanding).

There are certainly others one might mention, like Bruce Bookman Sensei, Dennis Hooker Sensei and Chuck Clark Sensei, but these are the people I have trained with a fair amount. I have also trained with people who seemed only interested in effective technique and still others who only wanted to do a form of moving meditation. That's one thing about Aikido, you shouldn't have to look too far to find a teacher who fits your own predisposition.

Hanna B
06-09-2003, 06:06 AM
One of the things I have noticed over the years is that many of the people who are most inclined to champion the spiritual side of Aikido, who seem most entranced with what they see as O-Sensei's vision of Peace and Love etc. are often the most contentious, have little respect for other people's views and manage to be in a state on coflict with their fellows much of the time. I think this is fairly ironic. There are folks posting here who do very martial versions of this art, don't have a tremendous interest in the spiritual side and yet seem to better embody the values that these other folks say are so important to them.
Absolutely.

opherdonchin
06-09-2003, 10:39 AM
One of the things I have noticed over the years is that many of the people who are most inclined to champion the spiritual side of Aikido, who seem most entranced with what they see as O-Sensei's vision of Peace and Love etc. are often the most contentious, have little respect for other people's views and manage to be in a state on coflict with their fellows much of the time. I think this is fairly ironic. There are folks posting here who do very martial versions of this art, don't have a tremendous interest in the spiritual side and yet seem to better embody the values that these other folks say are so important to them.Unless you count yourself in the 'spiritual' group, George, I would suggest that this is self-aggrandizing and represents a poor example for the point you are trying to make.

In any case, I'm sorry if you've been disappointed with us 'spiritually seeking' Aikidoka. If we ever meet, I will do my best to be uncontentious, respectful, and conflict-free. I suppose one good example, even if I can manage it, would do little to change the general impression accumulated over the years, but I will, honestly, do my best.

Of course, there is always the possibility that we are 'spiritual seekers' because we come to Aikido less spiritually full than others. Certainly it makes sense that each person will seek in Aikido what he feels he needs most to learn. The physically insecure will seek strenth and physical power; the spiritually weak will seek spiritual answers.

Still, when I think about what you said again I am left feeling that it is just a silly generalization that is unlikely to have much substance.

Charles Hill
06-09-2003, 10:53 AM
Opher,

I think it is important to note that Mr. Ledyard uses the words, "many" and "often" in his post, not "all" and "always." With that, I don't see any self-aggrandizing. If you look at his later posts it is clear that he holds a number of instructors who emphasize the spiritual aspect of Aikido in very high regard. The disappointment that I read in his posts is not that people emphasize one thing or another, it is that there are too many people who don't walk their talk.

Charles

Charles Hill
06-09-2003, 11:24 AM
Mr. Ledyard,

I'd like to make some comments on your comments to my comments on Mary Heiny. I get the feeling that you have been careful to associate with Aikidoists of a certain level of quality. It seems to me that you are unaware of the general low quality of Aikido that exists from a martial arts standpoint. I was taught good basic Aikido technique by very kind, good people. However, the first time I heard of being aware of openings and using atemi was from Mary Heiny. I see now that this is the best basis to approach Aikido as both a martial and a spiritual art.

You have written about the number of people who approach Aikido as a spiritual art yet fail to let it allow them to become better people. I think, however, that the number of people who practice it as a martial art, yet fail to let the art allow them to become better skilled on a physical conflict level is much greater.

This is how I practiced for a number of years before encountering Mary Heiny. I think there are a large number of people reading these posts who practice as I used to. I think a very good thing for them to do would be to expose themselves to her teachings, namely buy her video. I also think that the people whom it would help the most probably aren't even aware of it.

As an example, I recently read your article on atemi. I am completely convinced that I would not have been able to understand and appreciate it to the degree that I did without having seen Mary Heiny's video and attending her seminar.

Charles

George S. Ledyard
06-09-2003, 12:07 PM
Mr. Ledyard,

I'd like to make some comments on your comments to my comments on Mary Heiny. I get the feeling that you have been careful to associate with Aikidoists of a certain level of quality. It seems to me that you are unaware of the general low quality of Aikido that exists from a martial arts standpoint. I was taught good basic Aikido technique by very kind, good people. However, the first time I heard of being aware of openings and using atemi was from Mary Heiny. I see now that this is the best basis to approach Aikido as both a martial and a spiritual art.

You have written about the number of people who approach Aikido as a spiritual art yet fail to let it allow them to become better people. I think, however, that the number of people who practice it as a martial art, yet fail to let the art allow them to become better skilled on a physical conflict level is much greater.

This is how I practiced for a number of years before encountering Mary Heiny. I think there are a large number of people reading these posts who practice as I used to. I think a very good thing for them to do would be to expose themselves to her teachings, namely buy her video. I also think that the people whom it would help the most probably aren't even aware of it.

As an example, I recently read your article on atemi. I am completely convinced that I would not have been able to understand and appreciate it to the degree that I did without having seen Mary Heiny's video and attending her seminar.

Charles
Yes, I have been extremely fortunate in the teachers to whom I have been exposed. When I left DC for Seattle way back in the '80s, Saotome Sensei told me to train with Mary Heiny Sensei. When I got to her dojo I found the training was of very high caliber. The training Mary Heny sensei and the other Shingu folks received in Japan was definitely a balance of the spiritual and the martial. So the concepts that Mary Sensei put forth were quite familiar to me after training with Saotome Sensei.

But the emphasis generally here in the Northwest is different than in the East. There is much more interest in Aikido as a personal process, an internal art than there is in the overtly martial side of things. In Saotome Sensei's we had an array of folks who had substantial backgrounds in other martial arts: karate, boxing, judo, etc. It was a place where people who saw themselves as martial artists went when they became dissatisfied with what they were getting out of their previous arts. I think they went there because of the Spiritual side but they stayed because of the fact that the training made sense to them martially. Saotome Sensei could definitely walk his talk on the mat.

Aikido in the Northwest is not generally someplace that you find ex-high level karate folks or judo practitioners etc. It has more of a slant towards the Spiritual side and most (not all) the instructors have much more interest in that side of things. I would venture to say that in the Seattle area the majority of the dojos are run by people who have not done any other martial arts, have never looked at a UFC, and are not at all interested in the issues involved with applying Aikido technique against folks who know other martial systems. It is simply a matter of individual preference.

I could contrast this with a number of dojos I have encountered on the East Coast which are quite the opposite. There the practice tends to be much more martial in content, the teachers often have other martial arts background, there is a lot of interest in how Aikido techniques apply outside the controlled atmosphere of the dojo. But in many areas the Spiritual side is being lost. As Saotome Sensei is apt to say "Where is O-Sensei?" In a lot of Aikido folks are perhaps reacting against what they see as too much New Age influence and they are going the other way. In some sense they are devolving Aikido from what O-Sensei arrived at towards the end of his life back to something that they see as more martial. This can even show itself in the number of folks who have actually left Aikido and are doing Daito Ryu because the see it as more martially effective.

When I talk about the split between the martial and the spiritual which I see taking place GENERALLY but NOT UNIVERSALLY, it is not meant as a value judgment. I have my own preference. My students train with me because they have that same preference. Each person must find the Teacher that represents the kind of training which they wish to do. My only problem is that people need to understand exactly what they are and are not doing.

There are folks out there who think they are doing something martially effective and they are not. There are folks out there who are persuaded that the Teacher they are training with is some sort of Spiritual guru simply because he can break arms at will. The people who can bring it all together are rare. And I guess I must say that if I had to train someplace which didn't have what I see as the perfect balance between the spiritual and the martial, I'd go for the spiritually inclined teacher every time. That may not be evident from the tone of my posts since I happen to think that Aikido is in danger from the martial standpoint, but it's true. Fortunately I never had to choose. I've always been able to find the balance.

George S. Ledyard
06-09-2003, 12:43 PM
Unless you count yourself in the 'spiritual' group, George, I would suggest that this is self-aggrandizing and represents a poor example for the point you are trying to make.

In any case, I'm sorry if you've been disappointed with us 'spiritually seeking' Aikidoka. If we ever meet, I will do my best to be un-contentious, respectful, and conflict-free. I suppose one good example, even if I can manage it, would do little to change the general impression accumulated over the years, but I will, honestly, do my best.

Of course, there is always the possibility that we are 'spiritual seekers' because we come to Aikido less spiritually full than others. Certainly it makes sense that each person will seek in Aikido what he feels he needs most to learn. The physically insecure will seek strength and physical power; the spiritually weak will seek spiritual answers.

Still, when I think about what you said again I am left feeling that it is just a silly generalization that is unlikely to have much substance.

Actually, Opher, I count myself in the group of spiritually seeking Aikidoka. When I used the term in the context which you quoted I merely meant that there are folks who make a big deal about the fact that they feel that the Spiritual side of the art is getting lost or they champion the side of the art that has to do with personal growth, the more spiritual side of the art. These folks are very often quite committed to O-Sensei's vision of world peace etc. My comment was merely that, in my experience, MANY but not all, of these folks tend to defeat the very values they are championing by fighting against what they see as tre opposite point of view. Their desire to have people see the values they are espousing ends up putting them in precisely the place which they don't wish to be in, namely, in conflict with others.

I am sorry that I give the impression at times that I am denigrating the folks that are pursuing Aikido primarily as a spiritual pursuit. That is not my view actually. In the public forums I tend to focus on the technique side of things and especially the martial side of our art since that is where I think Aikido is in trouble. I do not think it is in trouble from the spiritual standpoint. There are a vast number of teachers who are taking the lessons from their Aikido and applying them to every aspect of daily life. The work being done by the Aiki Extensions people is a good example.

But having been blessed by the good fortune to train with amazing martial artists like Saotome Sensei and Ikeda Sensei along with the many others I have encountered over the years, I feel that is something of a mission for those who have had such training to share what they have been taught to the widest possible number of people. In the same way that the uchi deshi like Saotome Sensei feel a huge debt of gratitude towards O-Sensei for what they received from him, I have that same feeling towards my own teachers. The only way I can pay them back is to keep what they taught me alive. The forums are one way of doing that. I think that many of the other contributors with their tremendous body of experience in the different styles of Aikido and the different teachers are motivated in a similar manner.

So I point out that there is in fact something of a divide taking place between the spiritual seekers and the fighters, so to speak, in Aikido. I do not think that that is what O-Sensei's Aikido was about. In fact I think that Aikido is like a great big Koan (those Zen questions used to tie up the logical functions of the monks). At the heart of the art is the fact that it is both a martial art and a spiritual path. Holding both of these things simultaneously and trying to master both is difficult but represents one of the things that make aikido unique in many ways. But none of us can figure it out, solve the Koan so to speak, if we split up the art into pieces and remove seeming contradiction. O-Sensei said that Budo is Love. That is a truly radical notion. I don't think that that can be understood by focusing on one aspect or the other but in trying to reconcile the seeming contradiction for oneself through training that maintains the balance between the martial and the spiritual.

opherdonchin
06-09-2003, 01:26 PM
Wow. Very nicely said. Thanks.

Bussho
06-10-2003, 06:43 AM
At the heart of the art is the fact that it is both a martial art and a spiritual path. Holding both of these things simultaneously and trying to master both is difficult but represents one of the things that make aikido unique in many ways. But none of us can figure it out, solve the Koan so to speak, if we split up the art into pieces and remove seeming contradiction. O-Sensei said that Budo is Love. That is a truly radical notion. I don't think that that can be understood by focusing on one aspect or the other but in trying to reconcile the seeming contradiction for oneself through training that maintains the balance between the martial and the spiritual.
I agree totally.

/Terje

andrew
06-10-2003, 11:19 AM
So what will the third be?
P.S. for all you Matrix freaks - did you realise that the first film is based (loosely!) on the old testament, and this next one is based on the new testemant.

(re; Neo, Zion etc)

Jean-David
06-11-2003, 10:07 PM
I find the subjet of discution between Bussho and Jeff R. interesting.

Here is the way I see things:

I believe that the central question in this discution is probably one of the most important philosophical questions : How should I act? How should I live my life?

I believe that there are no right and wrong, no good and bad answers to these questions for the simple reason that values are not truths just as truths are not values. Good and bad are not objects of knowledge but objects of desire. It is not because something is good that you want it, on the contrary, its because you want it that it is good.

Why shoud I act a certain way and not the other? because I want to act one way and not the other way... but why? Because of my education, experience, parents, philosophy class, a book, etc. How you want to live your life and the way you think others should live there lives is not based on the truth, or on reason but on your will. Sad to say but that is what I believe to be the truth. Since the world is made up of mater, I dont see how values could fit in. Plato understood this too and that is why he had to invent another world. Personaly I dont believe in that other world (but who knows I could be wrong).

Yes, I can just here your reply : that means people can do what they want, kill, rape, genocide, etc. Yes they can and no truths have ever stoped them from doing so... What's the truth against a tank? Try to convince a racist that he is wrong to be a racist by telling him how the concept of race is not scientific... what if he replies that you're probably right but that it doesnt stop him from hating black people.

There are no garanties, or justifications(proofs), only our will and our power to defend it.

But I dont need a proof, or a garanty to save a drowning child, or to fight racism, murder. I havn't turned in to a serial killer either. The only thing we have to oppose to other's is our will.

Bussho and Jeff R. disagree on how things are: about the simple facts and the philosophical ideas (much more complicated) that try to explain (descriptive point of view) the world. But even if they finaly agreed on those ideas they whould still have to agree on what should be done. And on this I'm afraid they will not agree, because it's not a question of being right or wrong, but of being able to impose ones views by force of will. Jeff R. has a alot of work to do if he wants to radicaly change todays society. That's a plus for Bussho

What was never told me what should be done. What is never does and never will.

John Boswell
06-11-2003, 10:51 PM
So I point out that there is in fact something of a divide taking place between the spiritual seekers and the fighters, so to speak, in Aikido. I do not think that that is what O-Sensei's Aikido was about. In fact I think that Aikido is like a great big Koan (those Zen questions used to tie up the logical functions of the monks). At the heart of the art is the fact that it is both a martial art and a spiritual path. Holding both of these things simultaneously and trying to master both is difficult but represents one of the things that make aikido unique in many ways. But none of us can figure it out, solve the Koan so to speak, if we split up the art into pieces and remove seeming contradiction. O-Sensei said that Budo is Love. That is a truly radical notion. I don't think that that can be understood by focusing on one aspect or the other but in trying to reconcile the seeming contradiction for oneself through training that maintains the balance between the martial and the spiritual.
Sensei Ledyard,

This was so very well written, I had to quote the whole paragraph. And I see it too. I try not to laugh when I see or hear someone explain Aikido in a purely technical fashion so as not to walk on the "spiritual" side of it (to avoid any potential contraversy) only to then lean heavily on the spiritual aspect of Aikido to explain the technique.

Reminds me of the M.C. Escher drawing ( http://www.worldofescher.com/gallery/A13.html ) of a hand, holding a pencil that is drawing a hand holding a pencil... drawing the first hand.

Can't have one without the other.

Aikido is Martial. Aikido is Spiritual. The GOOD news is Aikido transends the realm of speech in that you can teach and learn visually and everyone... eventually, will come to know Aikido as O'Sensei intended. I believe this about Aikido above all other philisophical ideas I may have regarding the art.