Anne Marie Giri wrote:
I would be fine if you said for yourself a hobby is superficial, but that is not what you are saying. You are saying that if someone does not train as serious as you expect them then they are a hobbyist; therefore, they are superficial. Then you say that people: Those kinds of statements really cross the line and really define to me more what you are about. Such statements of generalities really put a meaning behind your idea of superficiality. Some how, any hobbyist, by your definition, has some sort of deep festering insecurity that people can not let go of. It is not that you only take a serious view towards yourself and your own training, but you also take the time to place a judgment on those who do not meet your standards of a "serious student." And, in an effort to make yourself sound like a serious martial artist, you end up putting others down in order to raise yourself up to a supposed higher standard.
Anne, was it not Paige that said she was a hobbyist? Did you miss that?
What I did concerning the word "hobby" was understand it in its proper English context. Nothing more, nothing less. It's your baggage, not mine, that is getting in the way.
I do not expect any person to train at any level. You are missing that huge point. Additionally, I do not think that everyone can train at the same level - nor do I believe that deeper levels of training are even open to everyone (and most certainly not by conscious decisions alone - which you seem to believe).
I understand that your misreading of key statements, even your ignoring and/or glossing over of key statements is helping you define me for you - but what you do not understand is how your definition of me is NECESSARY for you, and how that all fits in with what is being said here as far as issues concerning the deepening of one's training.
Case in point, I never said ANY HOBBYIST. Why change my words? I used the word MOST. Why? Because that has been my experience (which this thread is adding to), and because it takes a great deal of self-honesty and integrity, which are not common traits in human beings at any level and in regards to any practice (which is why we call them virtues), to acknowledge one's level of investment as "hobby" and to truly be fine with that. Case in point: my wife. She has been a hobbyist aikidoka for nearly ten years now. She has no problem with being a hobbyist aikidoka. She does not need to be called a "leaf" to accept that her training is not happening at depth. Nor does she need to call those that are training at depth "roots," in order to accept that there is a superficiality to her training when compared to the former. She just trains. She puts in what she puts in and she gets out of it what she gets out of it. It is a pure experience and remains so even if others in the dojo speak of deeper matters.
This is not different for any of us. No matter who we are, there should be a struggle in us concerning how we are training and how much deeper we can train. But to have that struggle, one must be drawn to the inconsistencies - so as to settle them - between what we are doing and what we think we are doing. To settle these inconsistencies, one must accept them; to accept them, one must practice self-honesty and integrity.
If you could be self-honest and hold integrity, you would not have to change my word "most" to your word "any" - nor would you forget that it was Paige that called herself a hobbyist. You'd also be able to see that I said exactly what you said concerning training at "the level of leaves."
Rather, you are stuck making characterizations, and insults, and it is most likely because what I say goes 100% contrary to what you need to believe about your own personal training (not what you believe concerning courteous behavior and/or Aikido training in general).