Quote:
Jon Reading wrote:
In your post, you bring up Mark and Dan as a weird introduction. On Chris' blog, Chris publishes an introduction to Mark and then also re-publishes a critical post Mark made on aikiweb regarding meeting Dan. My curiosity is that you chose to elevate that content about Mark as a point of observation; first paragraph, in fact. Drawn out, I might ask the question, why did you feel that content needed attention beyond what was in the essay?
|
That's not a critical post, it's a non-sequitur. The essay was clear and fully cited, it could have stood on its own. Or perhaps, to establish Mr. Murray's bona fides, something about his experience in Aikido or just length of training would have helped people coming in cold. Dan's got nothing to do with Aikido, so it was kind of like saying "Mr. Murray - who stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night - shared this essay on the Rum Fisted Sock forum."
Quote:
Jon Reading wrote:
Again, Mark's argument is that Kissomaru did not inherit the legacy of his father. If he did not, then the only consideration is whether O Sensei left a legacy at all, since we know it is different than the aikido we practice. That is another essay, I think.
|
That's exactly my point, does it even make sense to say Osensei left a legacy, if the legacy of Kisshomaru is not the legacy of Osensei? Kisshomaru left a living martial tradition that is practiced all over the world. Aside from perhaps the "that is not my aikido" quote, I'm not sure there is much evidence that Osensei wasn't completely on board with what his son was doing. (That's certainly a topic for a subsequent essay!)
If Osensei actually left a legacy - if he actually had stuff he TAUGHT to students that is not present in his student's Aikido lineages - I think its important to ask ourselves, by what right do we claim that for our own? In Aikido we have something of a tradition of stealing the technique. But is it right to steal the legacy?
But what if the things he did, the skills he had, were more of an act of religious ceremony, or performance? And not teachable things? Then I think we shouldn't refer to a "legacy" at all. We should, instead, be honest about the fact that trying to pursue Osensei more directly is basically an act of "reconstruction" of a dead martial art.