Thread: kamae problem
View Single Post
Old 07-25-2011, 11:02 AM   #93
JW's Avatar
Location: San Diego CA USA
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 561
Re: kamae problem

..and, don't forget 90% of bike riding is atemi (especially when sharing roads with fixed-gear-riding maniacs!!).

Thanks Prof Goldsbury, it is true that I muddied the waters a bit. Hugh's comment seemed general and it brought to my mind this general relationship b/w Ueshiba and confusion of meaning. But it was silly of me to suggest a connection b/w that issue and the printed text of a training manual.

I would disagree on the "largely impossible" comment on 2 fronts. I agree that the ideal translator would have an identical life history to the author. But if the text is about budo, then a budoka should do. We just shouldn't have so many budoka who are not shown internal theory. It is said that there are supposedly thousands of people doing internal training-- even if not great at it or deep into it, they would be much better translators than a neophyte. The bilingual fraction of those has got to be low, but considering the fact that this stuff is teachable provided one really doesn't like keeping secrets-- we shouldn't be struggling to find translators. I suppose one could argue that I am looking forward to an ideal near future rather than practically looking at the past or present.
The other reason I think translation should have gone much better: if someone writes 六方 and you don't know what it means, you don't write "60 degrees," unless "60 degrees" can legitimately be written that way. You could put a literal translation ("6 directions" or "6 facets"), with a footnote that a technical term has been employed, about which the translator does not understand. It is an admission of ignorance that can potentially salvage the translation, rather than a requirement for understanding (which would of course be better than salvage). Maybe that's just personal taste.

Peter A Goldsbury wrote: View Post
there are no grounds for believing that 六方 means anything related to internal training.
I underestimated this before because I thought it was an old term. But at least, Mike Sigman pointed out here that "sanchin" is an old term. So beyond poetic license, it does sound like a related technical term.

Peter A Goldsbury wrote: View Post
wrongly assume that teaching someone how to ride a bicycle is the same as describing what someone is actually doing when they are riding one.
I just want to point out how much I agree that this issue is important. I love objective analysis but "what happens" is for me a separate pursuit than understanding "how does one make it happen."
  Reply With Quote