Re: Basic elements of Aikido
Grasping at analogies? We _are_ dealing with unknowns here, right?! That is a pretty common thing to do when you are dealing with unknowns in my world. I'm an engineer and I solve new problems. I do it based on my past experiences and those of others.
I simply don't agree that it's a straw-man argument and I went into each element of why I didn't see the analogy as a distortion of the topic at hand. If the thing I bring up for analogy is exactly the same thing then it's not really an analogy is it? I guess the question is what the heck is the point of analogies at all if nothing less than exact can be used meaningfully?! Typically, when you disagree with an analogy you state why you think it fails. You seem to think it fails for a reason I don't agree with. That's okay by me, we don't have to agree.
To me, given the telegraph example and my own personal experience, I conclude that at least some fairly complex things can be discovered independently. And, again, to me; given the Zen master analogy (which I learned at the Zen Mountain Monastery), I conclude that complex things can be rediscovered, especially given surface level information available to help. Mental and physical versus mental and spiritual, well, my opinion is that developing a method to discover/rediscover exists primarily in the mental world. I've been wrong before. I'm just not convinced I'm wrong now, and you don't have to try to convince me either, that's entirely up to you.
Using your logic, which is just fine with me. I would say that my comments about kotodama inspiration for discovering/rediscovering were well within the specific context of the thread - more so than most of the other things mentioned so far - but that's just my opinion. What I said regarding the basic elements of aikido thread in the Spiritual forum was: "I'm open to the idea that some of the ki developing methodology were originally Chinese. I'm equally open to the idea that all of these ideas are manifestations of kotodama. I'm open to the idea that the original study of kotodama didn't have to necessarily be Japanese and that they maybe just preserved that particular understanding better, and that the Chinese just preserved their understanding of how to manifest those ideas better given their culture. I certainly don't know any of it for sure and neither does anyone else. That perspective helps keep me truly open-minded, and avoid mental materialism." I never read that you had some ideas based on your experiences but were open to others - which is fine with me. However, I do take it as a given that you must be open to disagreement if you are posting on an Internet forum.
If you want to discuss fair arguing tactics, I think we need to agree that the whole "you can't prove it is" and "you can't prove it isn't" NEVER MEANS ONE SIDE IS RIGHT. I'm not sure why you never seem to agree with that, but it's a fairly logical conclusion. You didn't prove anything and neither did I. If you want to state your opinion based on what you do think you know, then fine. If I want to state my opinion based on what I think I know - that's fine too. Otherwise, I get the impression that I can just say something absurd like:"Prior to 100 hundred years ago, China had no influence on martial arts at all." and then mention that I don't want to argue, so please don't start disagreeing with me unless you are a Chinese martial artist over 100 years old. You might want to say - but I have met people who trained with Chinese martial artists, and it had to come from somewhere, and I can say well you're not qualified to discuss this... I don't know, maybe I'm taking it too far.
As far as me working all of my things out and arguing from that perspective. All I can say, is I'm working on it, and for now, I'll do the best with what I have. I am actually doing it within the context of actually actively studying aikido and discussing things with Gleason sensei, Saotome sensei, Ikeda sensei, and Suganuma sensei whenever the opportunity arises. I didn't have the impression that you were actually "within" the topic itself...
Last edited by rob_liberti : 05-19-2005 at 04:00 PM.