Quote:
Matthew Story wrote:
On the contrary, there can be no claim of misuse without a general consensus on what is proper use. And before you claim that no such consensus exists, think about the way you answered the last time someone who heard you do aikido asked, "What's that?" I bet you talked about a Japanese martial art with throws and locks and not aiki principles.
The definition I'm advocating is the definition we all already use when pressed.
|
Well, you'd certainly be wrong there.
Quote:
Matthew Story wrote:
You invented a position for me and then refuted it, regardless of the fact that it was not actually my position. That is the very definition of straw man. I have not, at any point in this thread, advocated a definition of aikido based on the curriculum at my particular club. For you to claim that I am doing so is, to be frank, an outright lie.
And now I think I'll leave this thread before I start being a real jerk. But I might revisit this subject on my blog.
|
I apologize, I ought to have said something like "based upon your particular experience", in the sense that other people's experiences produce different definitions.
Let's not get too excited here, you cited a purely technical standard of definition:
Quote:
Matthew Story wrote:
The technical curriculum of throws and locks is the only way to arrive at a definition of aikido that has any practical meaning at all, no matter what O Sensei says.
|
And that is what I was talking about. If it's a straw man, then you put it there. But I agree, and I've already tried to step back from the conversation a couple of times already, it's not going anywhere useful.
Best,
Chris