Hi Fred no problem with 1 or 2
3 and 4 are as presumptious to imply yet again...a nagative.
To assume Takeda was broke unless he formed that relatonship expresses a knowledge that you simply do not have. His eimoroku clearly shows many 10 seminars happening before and during, and we don't know what else he was doing, his land holdings, and houses. Secondly, and once again from Aikidoka- the argument appeals only to lower motives and drives...by choice without offering or noting more positive possibilities.
And why are we not discussin Ueshiba;s lying?
Dan, Dan, Dan....
You're such a touchy fellow, even when you graciously set aside two out of four points. Just remember -- whoever uses the Hitler example first
loses, per the broad reading of Godwin's Law.
But enough of that. I'll go to the fourth point and circle back to the third.
My argument in the fourth is a simple one: evidence regarding the social (or if you prefer professional) circles from which Takeda's clients and patrons were drawn tells us nothing about the quality of his character. That's not a slam, it's an observation. You can argue with the choices I gave in my examples, but from where I sit, I gave you contemporary examples of a courageous, groundbreaking justice and a disingenuous slug in black robes, a brash but effective police chief and a corrupt, loud-mouthed tool, an honorable general who was pilloried for his honesty and a sectarian bigot who sullies the uniform he wears, the point being that profession and social standing is simply not relevant to discussions of character. In every profession, some of them are good and some of them are bad. Period.
What we're left with after that is a small number of accounts that emphasize Takeda (usually in his later years) as irascible. Aside from the few accounts that Ellis cites as demonstrating his somewhat tender concern for Ueshiba, there isn't much to give evidence of the heart of gold under his grumpy persona. But we've all known crusty old bastards who were really softies underneath it all, so that's a possibility. What we're left with is Rumsfeld's famous "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence." So anything we say on this point is projection of some sort, and there's not much disagreement, except that you've mischaracterized what I said negative toward one side.
That brings us to item three. Perhaps I overstate. But even with a string of seminars, it's always nice to have a base that provides a steady income, in addition to a series of recurring gigs on the road -- especially as one gets older.
Indeed, I think this is one of the roots of the dispute between Takeda and Ueshiba -- they cut a deal that was based on one business model, and Ueshiba had a new business model (which was really an old business model). Takeda taught seminars sponsored by patrons. All short-term events; some of them were recurring, but others may not have been. Ueshiba had, by the time of the Osaka rupture, made a number of long-term financial arrangements with companies and government agencies. How do you cut out the individual student enrollment fee that is supposed to be kicked back to Takeda from a group rate long-term deal? And (to broadly paraphrase George) one might wonder: "Why am I kicking back a rake-off on my group rates to somebody who can't organize a group, or cut a deal with one, or maintain a relationship with one when he manages to cut a deal?" This last issue may have been as much a generational dispute as it was a personal dispute.
As to why we aren't discussing Ueshiba's alleged lying....we aren't discussing it because a) this is an aikido bulletin board, and although Jun allows us very broad leeway (THANKS JUN!) by the traditional standards, there are limits to what can be said without repercussions and b) we would no more discuss that than we would discuss which aiki artists, past or present, spent the seminar fees on hookers, their intoxicant/s of choice, or "games of chance and skill." Besides, none of those vices would -- by themselves-- disqualify anyone as a "man of good character" in aiki circles.
That said, I would welcome the introduction of a "more positive possibility" to explain the Asahi Shimbun incident, since "aging martial artist shows up at student's place of work to pursue dispute about student's alleged lies about money, student leaves the scene precipitously and allows former instructor to take over " isn't really very positive for either of them.
Which is where I have to say that I think we've both spent enough time obsessing on this nonsense to agree that tatemae and honor are real obstacles to actual understanding, simply in the way that they result in huge gaps in our factual knowledge.