View Single Post
Old 10-01-2006, 07:15 PM   #70
clwk
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 136
United_States
Offline
Re: What is "Aikido"?

Quote:
Erick Mead wrote:
From strawman, to post hoc and now to the fallacy of authority. Quite a rhetorical tour we are having. Keep score, someone.
It sounds like you *are* keeping score. My memory was that you had the straw man, then told me it was actually 'post hoc', but let's just not go down that road. The 'high school debate team' sparring is a little tedious - especially since we *don't* have a referree to step in and hand out the points.

To address your substantive point though, I think that *in a discussion of 'What is Aikido?' then referring to O-Sensei as an unquestioned master is probably a *reasonable* argument to authority. He did in fact found the art, and as I understand it sometimes defined the art with reference to his own practice of it. I'm not sure how looking at O-Sensei's practice and its context is really a 'fallacy of authority'. If you wanted to ignore how he trained, why talk about 'Aikido' at all?
Quote:
Erick Mead wrote:
And yet, thus were nuclear weapons made possible... So I doubt seriously that a good case can be made to show that "nifty math" does not advance "practical" budo, in principle ... Artillery, anyone ...??
Well, I guess I'm arguing to the audience who understands the important differences in how you would train to invent nuclear weapons or artillery, and how you would train to gain skill in a body-based art like Aikido. That's the extent of the case I want to make.


Quote:
Erick Mead wrote:
Quote:
Chhi'mčd Künzang wrote:
It's not really possible to argue too strongly against a theory which bases itself in extremely elaborate mathematical constructs and orients itself as being scientific and rigorous
Of course it is -- you just haven't done it yet. First, it is not a theory, much less a new one.
Erick, while we're on the topic of rhetorical styles - I don't think it's conducive to discussion for you to snip the relevant part of my statement mid-sentence and continue to argue as though I have not addressed the point. I said, 'yet which does not actually make any falsifiable predictions nor propose any distinct theorems (provable or otherwise), nor even provide a unique or describable method of implementing whatever its practical application might be.' I'm not talking about gyrodynamics. I'm talking about your application of gyrodynamics to Aikido, which - fascinating as it may be (really) - seems too vague to discuss as though it is more than 'an idea'.

Quote:
Erick Mead wrote:
I am working through exploration of reasonable questions based on well-understood issues of mechanics in an open discussion in as transparent a manner as I know how. And in one magnificently drafted paragraph (really - nicely done) -- I am treated to backhanded sarcasm -- damning me in the faintest possible praise -- branding me as basically megalomaniacal, unethical, intellectually dishonest and socially irresponsible.
Erick, you are the one inserting the emotional content and acting as though I am attacking you personally. I made it quite clear that my comments apply to everyone who teaches Aikido to the extent that they are 'building their own explanatory framework'. I think it's a serious undertaking, and that one has to be careful about misleading others. That's all. Insofar as I sometimes spout off ideas about 'how things work' I include myself in this. The only part of the statement (which you have interpreted as a character attack) which was directed to you specifically was my assertion that I respected your heroic stance. I think it's important for people to experiment with these things. Without personal, conceptual risk-taking, there can't be any progress (either individually or generally). I'm not attacking you and I respect the work you are doing in trying to come up with a pedagogical framework that works. My *general point* about *novel explanatory approaches* is that one needs to be careful not to err in terms of the 'social responsibility' aspect I mentioned. That could be applied to every one of us who is discussing this topic publicly, because people looking for real information have to make personal decisions based on what they read here. None of us is exempt.

Quote:
Erick Mead wrote:
Hmmm. While I know I am not that good, I suspect I cannot be THAT bad either. Add "ad hominem attack" to the list -- while we're keeping score on the empty rhetoric.
It's not about you Erick, and we don't need to keep score. If you can't hear that I'm addressing you out of fundamental respect for your intellectual process then there's not much point in discussion. We don't need to keep score of each other's perceived argumentation flaws, or anything of the sort. The topic of discussion, in my opinion is 'What is Aikido' - and I'm simply suggesting that the Gyro Theory, however good it is in some ways, is probably not the best core framework for answering that question.

-ck
  Reply With Quote