Fred Little wrote:
1. Protection of material regarded as proprietary.
2. Intentional creation of mystique.
3. Firm belief in a pedagogical method that develops intuitive or inferential knowing out of training without the provision of an analytical framework to students along the way.
4. Unwillingness to acknowledge cultural borrowing.
5. "Fuzzy understanding." This may include practitioners who have genuinely developed such skill through a process that is osmotic or inferential.
I don't cavil with any of your points, Fred, I'm just suggesting specifically that we should be able to do better in these forums. The reason we can't, for the most part, is, in my opinion, #.6, people don't really know the subject and they're reduced to pretending they do rather than openly, as a group, searching out the information for the good of their art.
When we get to statements like "this power that has jin as its essence" we get to just the kind of "essentialist notion" that makes me very leery of misplaced reductionism.
Fine. I can show you easily and convincingly the logic behind the statement, though, and I offer to do so. Isn't that a step forward?
In this specific instance, while I'm open to the strong probability that study of the very well developed Chinese theory and method of developing "jin" is an excellent tool for the development of a significant subset of the skills encompassed by "kokyu," I would also argue that similar study of the fundamentally Indic theory and method of "AUM/AUN" is also required to get the full sense of "kokyu" as used by the founder of aikido, and while there's certainly some overlap, there are also some areas that "AUM/AUN" covers that "jin" doesn't.
No, they're all inter-related. Even "OM" (the original Indian version of "AUM") has a relationship that is easy to show as part of "jin". BTW, I hope you understand that these methods to developing power in Chinese martial arts also use/used sounds and breathing techniques. When I say "essentially jin", I'm comfortable in including all the peripheral aspects into the central argument.