Quote:
Christopher Li wrote:
Everybody's got explanations, theories or whatever, for how things work.
|
... most of which are wrong. Even if useful. Something useful but wrong is a physical metaphor -- fine. This is not that.
Quote:
Christopher Li wrote:
If you've got a theory then show how you can make it work - Dan does, in open rooms, and quite convincingly. Otherwise, it's just...hopeful theorizing.
|
Aiki-age. Yes. So? Objective truth does not do "work". It just is. Knowing what is and what isn't may make what does work better, and may help make what doesn't work more workable. ... The superlative effects Dan demonstrates, I'll freely grant as the result of long, careful and correct training. An idea does no "work." People have to work to put any idea into practice. No one is saying that idle theory without practice is worthwhile -- least of all me. Perhaps this is your chief objection - in which case we are in agreement after all.
But this is not idle. Objective truth remains regardless of whatever pragmatic descriptions you find helpful to describe or imagine your training. One does not have to be a pilot to understand and even use aerodynamics (though I qualify on both counts), or perform at Dan's level to grasp the objective truth of what is going on in aikiage or to do it to some degree (and I manage, credibly I'm told, on both counts). I make no claims to stunning demonstrations -- I do make claims of some study and knowledge.
I credit you for looking for those objective truths yourself in many of the sources -- as you have provided and shown here and elsewhere -- and to excellent effect. But why then, such a shutdown on considering whether there may be merit in the objective truth of the body ? There are only so many of Dan. Everybody has a body -- they work more or less the same. Why not learn from the body ? That's how the sources actually developed it -- after all.