Rob Liberti wrote:
Grasping at analogies? We _are_ dealing with unknowns here, right?!
Not that I'm aware of. I know, can demonstrate, have demonstrated, have trained, etc., with the things I'm talking about. I do have bona fides that can be vouched for by recognized experts who deal with ki/qi things. These are not "unknowns" to me.
You publicly display credentials as an expert in Aikido and you represent that you are qualified to teach... AND you charge money for the product you publicly claim credentials for. And that's not a "personal" remark about your character, etc.... it's a comment about something you publicly advertise. We're talking about an essential, according to Ueshiba, aspect of Aikido. How can you argue that it's an "unknown" and still argue that you teach Aikido? The assumption is that this topic is not an "unknown" to you if you're publicly declaring that you are teaching the art. I.e., this relates to statements made by you, not by me.
It's extraneous for you to claim that discussing Zen is the same thing as discussing Aikido because that is simply assertion on your part and not something you've established a priori; nor is it a tangent that is needed in order to discuss ki and kokyu, etc. If you want to discuss these basic elements of Aikido (and a number of other arts
), then let's do so without rancor and without asserting extraneous points like Zen is equivalent to Aikido or that all opinions are valid. If that's what you want to assert, then let's just let it rest.