View Single Post
Old 03-16-2007, 02:38 PM   #129
Fred Little
Dojo: NJIT Budokai
Location: State Line NJ/NY
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 613
United_States
Offline
Re: Aikido as External Art -or- Where's the Chewy Center?

Quote:
Quote:
Fred Little wrote:
I did not make any comment about the utility or inutility of scientific inquiry. Any assertion that I did is categorically false.
No. You said that I could not know that he meant to conjoin the two. I can. Because he did. Conjoin the two. In his statement, which put them together. Which is his until somebody shows it isn't, instead of merely hinting darkly at unspoken reasons for doubt.
Togetherů.as mutually necessary correctives to their differing systemic lacks, which is rather different than together as mutually validating.
Quote:
Quote:
Fred Little wrote:
With regard to the "compatibility" of metaphorical versus empirical description, I assert that the two modes depend on two utterly different sets of descriptive symbols with utterly different rules of operation and thus, are not directly comparable. ...."compatiblity" or "incompatibility" of metaphorical or empirical descriptions is of less relevance than the possible complementary utility of the descriptions, which is a rather different matter.
Not in this context. I chose the word "compatibility" advisedly for the context of our art: ."compatible" = "capable of existing together in harmony." Comparability is an entirely different thing
So the "not in this context" notwithstanding, you have apparently agreed that "complementary utility" is a valid form of "compatability."
Quote:
Quote:
Fred Little wrote:
While Ueshiba is supposed to have reviewed and approved the text, the apparent fact that it was approved with the stipulation that it be distributed only to yudansha may be taken to indicate that the work was intended as an outline or detailed mnemonic of lessons already imparted through oral and kinesthetic instruction, which was regarded as primary.
Actually, he was QUITE explicit in several places in Budo Renshu that certain things that he mentioned going along were only really appropriate for showing through training. This forces the conclusion that things he othwerwise stated therein were appropriate to be given -- and in the form that he was giving them.
To which I will reply simply that you are taking an occasional absence of evidence as an evidence of absence. I am taking a repeated admonition as broadly applicable beyond the specific instances in which it is invoked.
Quote:
Quote:
Fred Little wrote:
Thus, not only would the role of the text and drawings be secondary, tertiary, or quaternary, not primary, but I would also suggest that the distribution was restricted because the text might be regarded as misleading to an individual who had not received individual oral and kiinesthetic instruction. To put a fine point on it, my assertion is that it can not be shown that the authorial or editorial intention was to approach the "definite" or "definitive," much less that such an intention was successfully realized.
and your definitive assertion is based a far less foundation than mine in saying that 1) by saying it, he meant it, and 2) by urging one thing and then immediately urging another thing the two things are deemed to be related and compatible.
But "related and compatible" can also be read as "tempering all extreme views regarding either." And that would be more in keeping with both Buddhist and neo-Confucian doctrine which forms the broader context in which all of Ueshiba's statements are embedded.

Quote:
Quote:
Fred Little wrote:
Your position that Ueshiba's language was, on the one hand "metaphorical" and on the other hand so "definite" that you can reify that "definite" meaning into a "definitive meaning" is heremeneutically suspect as anything other than a statement of faith.
You misread. Only one part of the statement was metaphorical; the other expressly pointed toward a reified understanding, which was my point. And I am not a "hermeneutical suspect." --- I am "guilty, guilty, guilty..."
As with the previous reference to Buddhist and Neo-Confucian doctrine, here I will invoke basic Taoist doctrine. To the extent that anything becomes "totally x" it inexorably tends toward its obverse and becomes "non-x." This is a simple recognition of the limits of all systems. One can attempt, within the context of gravity, the body, the incoming force, etc, to achieve "total non-resistance," but there is a point beyond which "maximal non-resistance" becomes "resistance."

Now -- and this is a key point -- it may be that the maximal non-resistance amounting to resistance can only be approached by a psychological orientation toward "totality." This is a form of "total non-resistance" which renders the statement entirely sensible and isn't susceptible to the same issues of reification.

Apologies for the formatting.

Best,

FL
  Reply With Quote