View Single Post
Old 10-15-2007, 01:40 AM   #58
G DiPierro
Location: Ohio
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 365
United_States
Offline
Re: Article by Mike Sigman

Quote:
Erick Mead wrote: View Post
But whoever most clearly accomplishes this objective, it MUST be done in terms that are generally accepted because they are not subject to any objectively reasonable dispute from those who are capable and can critically observe. Until then, these discussions will continue, less usefully, to my mind, in this mode: The "it" that dare not speak its name.
...
Some of us are striving to give "it" a proper name, in objective physical terms. That will make it far more generally transferable across culture boundaries, as rocket technology is now transmitted without regard to such boundaries. This does not diminish the value of craft, tradition or the need for hard work to do it -- it merely give its a different set of definitions to explain its functions in objective terms and thus provide some tools now missing in explaining more easily how to achieve them.

Terms slightly better, in any event, than merely "IT."
If you are looking for a more objective approach to what the "it" in this discussion is, you might start here. While the Japanese sword has already been studied in depth from by Western metallurgy, this form of movement seems to be still something new to researchers. So while I would agree with you that more scientific knowledge of "it" would be useful, I think it is going to have to come from laboratory research in the form of peer-reviewed studies of the those who have "it", not from posts on discussion forums from people with no qualifications, either scientific or martial, speculating about what they think "it" is.
  Reply With Quote