Mark Murray wrote:
Everything, 100%, all, every, without fail, no exception, each and every time, etc, etc, that one reads of words on a screen and then applies any emotion (and that includes positivity and negativity) to them -- said emotion is generated from oneself and not from the poster of the words.
Homer, Li Bo, Issa, Dickinson, Poe and few million other poets around the world would disagree. Or maybe the "wine-dark sea" just means a vat of merlot. And how in the world do any of them get translated for heaven's sake?
Ob-topic -- O Sensei defines the boundary of Aikido for me. And how could he not?
When I ask why things he said straightforwardly, such as, "No resistance" are not problematic in terms of aikido for your enterpirse in training to channel ground reaction to oppose
forces, I get no square answer, or get backlhanded insults intimating that I am an idiot, a stubborn sulking mudhen, or with dark intimations of my personal unworthiness from unidentified "people who know me." Nobody is running for public office here, so let's try to keep the discourse to at least a third grade emotional level.
When I ask that someone of the non-aikidoka or ex-aikidoka advocating this proposal of missing "skils" in Aikido to speak on objective terms -- there are no answers, and no rebuttals in-kind on the objective proposals I put forward (David Knowlton excluded).
When I comment on the conflicted tone of language I read here, then the form, tone and emotive content of the language does not mean anything. Sorry, but it does. Unless, of course, Mike means to say that I am very much on the right track when he says I don't know what I talking about. People communicate far more than the denotative meaning of their words. Mike communicates far more than most in that regard. I'd love to play poker with him.
O Sensei used this poetic mode almost to a fault, even when he was lecturing. There is no way to enter meaningfully into his conceptions expressed in that way without addressing the emotional and cultural signals (i.e- non-rational content) of the imagery and figures that he uses. Rationality is an exceedingly fine tool, but has limits as with everything else. By your token he has nothing to tell me in what he said or wrote that I do not tell myself, and that is just plain wrong. Much of what he said can be applied rationally when put into the scientific context he did not himself have, but which he specifically advocated attempting.
Meaning is meaning, however it is expressed, and words have both shape and color in their use. If you doubt this, try a few choice colorful expressions the next time a cop pulls you over, and see if he agrees that he is "merely reflecting his own anger back at himself", as he braces you against the vehicle.
Maybe I misread Ron's intent, maybe Mark's also, but you need to read what you wrote, the words you chose and think about what it says to an reader in terms of this topic and aikido.
Meaning is not a mirror funhouse. Words are not divorced from actions, they are merely actions by other means and have consequences like any action. When there is conflict in the shape or color of language (which I put my finger on in this case), conflict between language and action, or conflict betwen actions, internal or external, openings and vulnerabilities are created, whether you see them, or not.
The immediacy and strength of the emotional reaction only tends to prove my point. Welcome to Cross-Examination 101.
I really enjoy practice, I enjoy what my training has brought me and it expands in front of me every day, and I try to share that modicum of insight I gain as it comes to me, prepared to be chastened all the way. If I did not take you guys seriously, I would not bother here.
Whether I should take you seriously as a boon or as a bane to the practice of aikido is the part I am TRYING to get you to articulate in ways that this forum will allow.