Thread: Ki is Kindness.
View Single Post
Old 12-16-2010, 07:05 AM   #138
graham christian
Dojo: golden center aikido-highgate
Location: london
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,697
Re: Ki is Kindness.

Jon Reading wrote: View Post
So we have a personal statement from Graham, "ki is kindness." In post 76, Graham cites an interview with O'Sensei as the source for his claim:
In the interview, O'Sensei does not speak on the topic of ki, specifically, but provides a larger perspective on "aiki".

We have an interpretation of ki that is inconsistent with most Japanese uses of the term, and is presented without support from historical, cultural, or semantic basis.

In any other realm of academia, we would not even have a thesis presentable for discussion, let along the evaluation of the claim. Without even getting to the argument of the truth of the claim, we can not even verify the claim is valid. Writing is not aikido; you do not write in a "aiki" manner. You do not take out the trash in an "aiki" manner. You do not add "aiki" as a suffix or prefix to any verb to imply that action be conducted in a harmonious fashion. You either clearly write or you do not. You either use correct semantics, grammar, and vocabulary or you do not. It's like lifting the X-wing from the swamp, you either do or do not...

The claim, "ki is kindness," is a invalid claim. Ledyard Sensei already proved the claim is invalid by simply stating a thing that possesses ki may not possess kindness. Whether the claim was poorly written remains to be seen, I argue it is. Several posters have already pointed out that with some clarification the claim could at least become valid, even if it could be proven a false claim. I have made several attempts to solicit additional information that would validate the claim from my perspective; Graham has chosen not to provide that information. Several posters have assisted Graham to validate his claim for him by actually providing the evidential support he lacks. Heck, there is even a post about ki from another thread on this thread that is better prepared than this one.

To be blunt, Graham threw out this little gem without a second thought. He didn't take the time to prepare his statement, provide supportive links, create a logical line of presentation, etc. The topic had merit and I bit. Turns out, I couldn't replicate his conclusion if I wanted to because he doesn't explain his rationale very well. So guess what? Just like any experiment - if you cannot replicate it, it ain't valid.

Next we move into this push to validate an invalid argument with this "all opinions should be respected" stuff. An argument that is not well-compiled, concisely presented, and well-supported is disrespectful of its intended readers. The obligation of the argument is to present an argument sufficient to persuade the reader (to support the argument); rhetoric is a discourse of persuasion, not some free-for-all. This purple pen, "you get credit for trying stuff" doesn't work in fact-based argument. If Graham won't take two minutes to link a citation to support his post, why the heck should it be incumbent upon me to verify his claim?

That's respect? Not in my world. Opinions are like...err. Well, everyone has an opinion. We have a responsibility to present our opinion as a well-thought, considerate statement. If you choose not to take the time to know about what you are opining, then don't expect others to take the time to give consideration to your opinion. Respect is a term of valuation; respect is not a right. To respect one's opinion is to value the worth of the opinion.

Proper writing is not about hurting feelings, or loving each other, or any of these passive-agressive commentaries retorting criticism. Proper writing is about clearly communicating an idea... 120+ posts and we still don't have a clear idea of what Graham is saying...
Hi Jon,
Who says I don't like criticism? I think most criticism is pretty pointless however I accept all criticism, doesn't mean I agree with it.

We do indeed have a personal statement-'Ki is kindness' but saying in post 76 I cite an interview with O'Sensei as the source of this claim is wrong.

The source of this statement is obviously me otherwise it wouldn't be a personal statement would it?

The citing of O'Sensei interview was in response to being asked where I get my 'what' O'Sensei said ' views from on another thread.

Telling me you do not write in an Aiki manner is your opinion, obviously you don't write in an Aiki manner but another may write in whatever manner or style they prefer.

The claim Ki is kindness is an invalid claim is also your opinion. Saying it's proved by an EXAMPLE someone gave can only make me smile.

Now how you equate a clarification of the word respect with me trying to say you must respect an invalid argument, well I suggest you read through it again.

O.K. Now we come to the crux of the matter. You are upset by the fact that I do not give evidential support to my statement. Is that not true?

You believe that is the correct way to present something. Is that correct?

You equate this as the correct way to present a .thesis for debate. Is that correct?

You expect me to do this otherwise you can't agree?
Is that correct?

If you and others hold firmly to this point if view then in this particular case you will be disappointed.

The source of the statement is me. I can explain how I come to this but it is not through reference to what anyone else says or believes, it's through my own gained awareness in my practice of Aikido and Ki-atsu.

Given as a statement of truth is from my own personal realizations on Ki.

Now, if I therefore can't give references for who else of note says this then you are perfectly welcome to disregard it.

Respect. G.
  Reply With Quote