View Single Post
Old 05-25-2006, 07:37 PM   #21
clwk
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 136
United_States
Offline
Re: Article: A Re-transliteration of Osensei's "Kannagara no Jutsu" by "The Grindstone"

David,

Quote:
Please, let us say that nothing is more superfluous than speaking about things or in the name of things that one has not even read.
But I did read your article, and that is *all* I have spoken about. I have spoken 'in the name' of clarity and intellectual honesty, but not in the name of the so-called 'original translation'.

Quote:
You seemed to have universalized your own experience and disguised it all with claims of helping people and doing the right thing, etc
Wow. I'm just talking about truth in labeling, no more no less. The only experience I'm 'universalizing' is the experience of trying to puzzle through your verbiage to understand what your text represented. Maybe one or two other people in the Universe would also be confused by the problematic issues I mentioned.

Quote:
However, without that skill, or without even taking the time to read the English translation, I must wonder why you simply could not say, "My preference is for a disclaimer," why you felt the need to bring up "saving folks."
I'm pretty sure you're the one who just introduced the notion of salvation. This is getting kind of silly. I don't think I mentioned anything as wildly soteriological as "saving folks." I spoke of misleading readers, and a preference not to do so.

Quote:
Accepting that I very well could be wrong, it seems like there is much at stake for you here and that you are at a critical junction not only because of what I have not done but because, for you, the message of said lecture was better left unclear, vague, and difficult to read.
Thank you, David, for analyzing my motivations and psychological state. I have avoided analyzing yours, only commenting on one tiny aspect of your article as being confusing even to the point of being misleading. It is true, I have wondered aloud what benefit could come from the misleading aspect - since it in no way affects or relates to the content of your article. The more time you spend justifying what seems really to have been little more than poor choice of words and perhaps a questionable editorial decision, the more you make me wonder. Honestly, you misjudge my position. I am not commenting on the content because it really isn't terribly interesting or important to me. We might as well have had this same conversation over a transcription of Jacques Cousteau lecturing on deep sea turtles. It's not about the substance of what you said, it's how you said it and - possibly - why. I think I've been pretty clear about that.

Quote:
Osensei is not the center of cultural economic system for me. I do not define what my Aikido is or should be by what Osensei has done with his own practice.
Well, that's fine. I bet some of the readers of your article do - to some extent - define the goals for their Aikido in that way. Without trying to 'save' these readers from anything, I think those for whom discovering how the founder practiced is central might want to see a clear audit trail of words seemingly ascribed to him. That's all. I don't speak for the masses. I don't usually post. Now and again, though, I do appreciate the efforts of some who speak on my invisible behalf; and that's about all the 'saving' I'm involved in. Remember this all started from the word 're-transliteration'. I have no doubt that eventually we will see your elaborate and lengthy justification for the use of that word, but the fact remains - it was confusing, technically inaccurate in any straightforward sense, and maybe just not the best word choice. Surely others noticed this.

Quote:
You said, "Do it." I say, "No." You say, "You are a deceitful person." My answer stays, "No."
I didn't say "Do it." I said, "For that reason, I think it would be an admirable gesture if you amended the title of your article and included (either in a footnote or as an introductory explanation) a description of the actual process by which you wrote this text:" All in all, a fairly polite observation, not exactly the barked command you attribute.

I made a simple suggestion as to how your article might be improved - based on my experience as a reader. I thought it would be intellectually honest, more aesthetically pleasing, and less confusing for readers. I have certainly never called you a deceitful person. I said that your text is slightly misleading, and that this is a mild form of deceit - but please do not attribute to me the fallacy of confusing the actor with the action.

Quote:
Again, I do not mean to be rude, but let's face it, we have different sets of concerns here. We simply do not agree. I can be fine with that - I hope you can too.
Yes, we've accomplished our mutual goal. I'm entirely happy to acknowledge that we have a different set of concerns here. Just for the record, let me recapitulate my concerns:

1) I feel that 're-transliteration' is at best a confusing title for your piece. I like to see words used according to their meanings in a way that is minimally confusing. Maybe this is, as you indicate, because I am "very much into doxa and/or the various economies and types of cultural capital that go hand in hand with determining what is authoritative and what is not." On the other hand, I won't pretend to understand exactly what you mean by that, so: I admit nothing!

2) I feel that your article as written leaves a certain level of ambiguity as to its source. I base this idea on my own misreading of the piece, while freely admitting that my reading skills may be far enough below your target audience to discount me as representative.

3) Having mentioned 1) & 2), I have been a little surprised by the vehemence of your response. I honestly believed your initial reaction would have been along the lines of, "Oops, that was a brain fart! How embarassing, I'll fix it." I'm willing to let this go on a friendly note though, and just assume this has been a bizarre misunderstanding.

I'll tell you what, next time you write something which I find confusing or misleading, I'll just keep it to myself. I'm not 100% sure that's the ideal way to treat a discussion forum around published work for which comment has been sought, but it will certainly save me time. If we ever meet, we can have a spelling bee to determine who buys the first round.

Chhi'mèd
  Reply With Quote