Quote:
|
Since this thread started with a comment I made, I should probably respond with further clarification of what I said.
|
Your comment just got me thinking... I wasn't really specifically addressing anything you said, so I hope I didn't step out of line. I wasn't looking though the critical lense of "responding" when I posted this, just rambling about the train of thought your post sent me down. KWIM?
Quote:
|
intent is what makes a potentially sinful act a sin, regardless of the outcome (i.e., whether the prospective sinner succeeds in completing the potentially sinful act).
|
I don't mean to say that an attack can exsist without intent, but that intent is not the only component. In my example above, my compatriots' intentions may not have been to deliver a solid punch to my face, or to dislocate my shoulders or anything, but they did carry the intention to complete a technique without regard to my physical abitily or pain. As our collective awareness grew, we could bring the more unconsious motivatons to light and change them. As a result, I stopped feeling so attacked.
Likewise, I don't think an attack has to be perceived to exist.
Quote:
|
In politics, as in all forms of human relations, it's an attack if you can successfully convince others that it was one. God knows I hate to admit it, but perception, unfortunately, too often IS the only reality that matters while we're alive.
|
I'm not sure I agree with this, but I have to give it more thought... As an extreme example, when crap parents beat their kids, as a rule a young child interalizes the parent's attacks and does not see them as attacks. They are wired to conform to the parents behavior in order to secure their survival. But their failure to perceive an attack does not mean there was none. Even if the child suffers in silence and no one ever gets convinced of it.
Quote:
|
if an attacking uke or nage hurts you and you ask them to stop the specific behaviour, but they continue to do it even after you ask them to stop, then there is a problem that must be resolved. If they stop, there is no problem.
|
I think there is more grey here. I think the one being shat upon has a much better view of the ass. Meaning: The attacker (or bumbling driver) might not see what behavior is hurting others - esp if they are acting thoughtlessly. Asking them to stop a specific behavior that they don't even notice doesn't always resolve the problem. But I don't think if they fail to stop that they necessarily *intend* harm.
I can see that this is nearly impossible to pin down as we can't really come to a concensus about all the vocabulary needed to come to a good conclusion.
Hmmm... Any more thoughts?? This is fun!