Quote:
Christopher Li wrote:
It's a semantic error only according to your definition. According to other's definitions that may not be the case - in fact, according to other definitions calling what you do in the dojo with the funny clothes on may well be a semantic error.
And no, linguistically a word doesn't have to be that tightly defined to have meaning or to be usable (take "love" for example, which is enourmously vague and variable) - it just means that further qualifiers would be necessary to clarify what you're talking about. Thus, for example, Stan Pranin talks about "modern" Aikido.
Best,
Chris
|
Huh. Chris, I would like to buy you a beer, assuming that you enjoy beer, at my friend Byron's place, the Honolulu Tavern. I think that was very well put.
I have a question. Why is it that people take the words themselves so seriously, yet miss the meaning and/or thoughts/concepts which the words are meant to convey so lightly?
Illustration: "I swing and try to punch Chris in the face" (I would not, not a good business decision, I don't think).
OR ...
"I, using my advanced sense of maai and feeling the cosmic shift of psychological pressures conjoining into the precise adjunction of physical prescence and mental intent, do ask my sympathetic nervous system to cause a negative impulse to be fired down the spinal column, enervating the additive musculature of my starboard side non-gravity defying appendage to fling itself - while clenching itself into self-defensive and composed statis - into the space occupied by the maxillofacial arch of Chris' body structure in a feeble attempt to render his consciousness insensate.
Please pardon my straight speech, but life is too short. I get the feeling that many folks enjoy the masturbatory sensation of using multisyllabic phraseology in an attempt to stroke their own egos on here, yet if on the mat, they may have a problem placing one foot in front of the other.
The above is a very gross generalization, but I think it apt. I apologize in advance, Jun.