I don't know why, but let me take a shot at writing what I think has been said/implied/whatever. (So disclaimer: this is my interpretation.)
Christian Moses wrote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
It was only in retrospect (after I had a few of these skills) that I realized that my Okinawan karate teacher on Okinawa had shown me some of these skills. Since my perspective was based only on what I knew of the western understanding of strength, force, etc., I simply did not see what he showed me and hence I would have gone off and been a lost soul teaching external karate, if I'd chosen to go that route."
Now I ask you, do you think it is reasonable and *logically necessary* that your Okinawan karate teacher be considered "dumb" based on what you wrote?
Chris, you are right that this is basically the same thing as with you and Mochizuki, but let's make this about Mike and his teacher first. (And let's see if Mike sticks to his claim when it's about him, ok?
)The teacher showed Mike something and Mike failed to understand. Afterwards there are two possibilities for the karate teacher:
1) He sees that Mike fails to grasp it, but doesn't do anything about it. He thinks: "You're not that important to me. I have been kind enough to show you some of the real stuff; if you don't understand, that's your problem. If you were my son and heir to my lineage, I'd actually do my best to give you detailed instruction. But since you're just some Western student, you're lucky I even showed you the real stuff."
2) The teacher is too dumb to see Mike fails to grasp it. And that's the reason no further instruction is given. The teacher thinks Mike understands and why teach stuff that is already understood?
So if Mike posted the story quoted above and claimes his teacher did his best to teach him everything (i.e. was not deceptive), the only conclusion would be that the karate teacher is dumb.
Now Mike doesn't believe that if his karate teacher is smart enough to figure out the internal body skills, it's possible he's too dumb to recognize these skills in someone else. So by reductio ad absurdum, the teacher is being deceptive. And that just happens to confirm plenty of other stories about the way the Asians teach their martial arts. Which is a second argument (apart from the reductio ad absurdum) for the thesis: the karate teacher is being intentionally deceptive.
Same thing with you and Mochizuki. You admitted there were holes in your knowledge, so there are three possibilites:
1) The holes cannot be taught. Not true: Rob can teach the holes.
2) Mochizuki chose not to teach you the holes. Confirms known facts about Asian teaching methodology.
3) Mochizuki thought he taught you the holes, but was too dumb to see he didn't. Impossible: you do not get that kind of skill without being able to recognize them in someone els.
IMO, this is Mike´s argument. And there are several ways to try to rebut it, so please be my guest. 'Cause judging by some of the posts you and Mike have made, such a discussion will prove to be quite interesting.