View Single Post
Old 05-26-2001, 12:30 PM   #10
giriasis
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 819
United_States
Offline
Chuck,

You are right that the best way to understand a point of view is to actually stand in the shoes of that person you wish to understand. But that is not always practical. Understanding still takes place when someone else explains your experience to them. That is not second hand information. It is second hand when I tell you what someone else has said. What allows a person to understand there is a process called empathy in the human emotions. Empathy allows someone to understand without having to have to go through that same experience. In the field of life the two are not anyless valuable.

Telling me to do this is like saying I can't understand someone else who lost a family member unless I in fact lose a family member. Telling me to do this is like saying I can't understand someone else who is an alcoholic because I'm not an alcoholic. What allows me to understand is all I have to do is imagine losing my mother and I can feel the pain of not having her there anymore. What allows me to understand an alcoholic I just have to look to some addictive behaviour (overeating and depression) that I go through. You are proposing that I can't possibly understand unless I do lose a family member or that I actually become an alcoholic.

Do these examples sound like they are different than what you are saying? No, they are not. They are not different because it is just as ridiculous for me to go out and find the schools that promote less than three years and do it myself. (Which by they way, I don't even know what these schools are because the people that attend them have yet to respond to me to verify assumptions people have made.)

Heck, the only time that second hand accounts come into play are in the court room where they are not allowed, but still in the process of developing one's case an attorney is allowed to get hearsay (second hand accounts) from people as long as it leads to admissible evidence. So I can talk to someone who says, "X said such and such." I then must find X. Then X is the person to testify to what they saw or did. But please note, the courts still even allow people to state their first hand accounts. The courts don't discount them because the judge and jury did not experience it themself. I am looking to get past the person who said "I heard that school such and such does this and than." I want to hear from people who go to school such and such.

What is wrong with what I am asking? Nothing.

I am only looking to hear from those people who were promoted in less than three years. Telling me to go out and get the experience myself is counter productive. I just think you are hanging on my words "...before there is any discussion as to the value of the promotion." Do I have a judgement? Sure I do, but I would like to know and understand someone first. Why? Because their explanation may very easily clear up my assumptions that my judgment is based. Once the assumption is cleared up then my "judgment" may disappear.

You see Chuck, I'm not looking to write a thesis or to do anthropological research. In anthropology, yes, people to research a culture by becoming a part of it. Did my statments imply this? I don't think so.

So, I'm asking you to stop deflecting my question and allow folks to answer this question if they choose. Do you have personal experience? Did you get you shodan in Aikido in less than three years? Did you promote people to shodan in less than three years?

Anne Marie Giri


Last edited by giriasis : 05-26-2001 at 12:35 PM.
  Reply With Quote