Quote:
Dan Harden wrote:
It isn't a question of whether or not they went together. The placement of the text to define a principle expressed in a "set-piece" waza does not make the principle singular in use. Nor does it mean the training (sometimes implied other times described) involved a waza specific end use.
|
Who said that it was singular? It is infinite. The disconnect here is in establishing what is meant in setting forth a particular exemplar as against a holistically but subjectively perceived whole, : a four note passage -- not a symphony; a cross-section, not a whole salami.
When I speak of "case" as a tutelary method (and suggest that "waza" are an example of this type of more general form of learning) -- waza is a term
given to me -- not one
chosen, just as Peter suggests. To assume that a "waza" or any set of "waza"
IS Aiki is the height of foolishness, nor have I remotely maintained such. Case study works , but no one who has studied four or five or a hundred cases thinks that he really understands "the law" by virtue of those slices of the whole salami. After enough slices he gains a sense of the grain and variations in "salami" pattern -- not consciously -- intuitively, reflexively. The pattern in the cases instinctively gained in repetitions with variations (no one said waza were invariable or new waza could not be used to illustrate the same principles -- we do all the time). The pattern reveals itself in anything else to which it pertains so he can act reflexively, if needed in following the inherent pattern instinctively.
Waza considered as case study is an illustration -- and useful tool provided by the Founder -- a provision I am bound to respect and observe -- and to find how HE made THAT work and intended for it to work. The fact that others did not find that way to make it work or work as well does not excuse me. Nor does it demean others, like you who seek or have found other ways. I undertake my sense of observance freely -- and I have no basis to cease observing it -- nor to judge any who do not feel so bound, because the are equally free to reject or modify that observance.
Quote:
Dan Harden wrote:
Case in point is to read Peter's long evolutionary description of training…for preparedness. ...."See these types of attacks demand this type of training…..nothing else will do. You cannot see behind you- so your spirit must be full and fully integrated with your body to always be "on" so that you can handle that attack on contact-in an instant." This has to do with maintained and opposing lines of intent and the conditioned bujutsu body it creates and the effect that has on a another body.
|
But what you are doing is simply substituting
your words intended to create a concrete image of a subjective perception for HIS words intended to accomplish the same thing. I prefer to use mechanics when I do that (and some biomechanics) for similar purposes. While I don't challenge your approach, and I have nothing against it -- it is not that path of construction of HIS intent that I have taken. And "intent" is really the wrong word there. His "chosen form of expression" is closer to the mark.
And as I think we, between us, have demonstrated, "lost in translation" is not limited to Japanese or even bilingual interpretation. Conventions and systems of description can be devilishly hard to fit to one another in the
same language -- so hard that even Peter has to mention the ubiquitous "IHTBF." I don't disagree, but it also has to be articulated in concept, Ueshiba clearly also felt that need. There are as many different styles of articulating, concretely, subjectively perceived realities of objectively effective actions or events, as there are styles of poetry or tales of myth, and equally a matter of often strong distinctions in taste.
Quote:
Dan Harden wrote:
...it just means that the people who have trained in waza based methods (which is most everyone) and who tackle the translation of the work are simply flumoxed and need a decoder to understand what Ueshiba was saying.
|
I've been using the mode of construction that Goi suggested long before Peter related it, and written a fair bit in that mode.
Quote:
Dan Harden wrote:
As a model for training? I would venture that there are a hundred or so men here, who by now, know exactly what Peter and I am talking about and do this type of training as a regular practice. So the concept of "set-piece" waza with non singular descriptions of body skills in use not only makes perfect sense to them, it is their preferred method of training. It makes perfect sense to them, as well.
And I have not touched on Ueshiba's exhaustive discourses which clearly and repetitively "define" the concept that both Peter and I are trying to portray here-that "the art is formless." and "Aiki is without form"
|
I cannot disagree. It is not without a defining shape, throughout, wherever and however you slice it, however. 理,
ri or 木目
mokume, 条理
jouri Waza are simply the cut revealing one dimension of grain
Quote:
Dan Harden wrote:
We have seen where placing it in the hands of kata oriented people has gotten us. I'm up for a different take on him.
|
Give a man a submarine -- he may assume its a boat because nobody told him what it was really for. People who thought the waza
are the art, were and always have been wrong. People who see the waza, properly used, as a
way into the art, are not wrong (Budo Renshu shows that much), even if they have done it badly or with ill-advice in the premises. Even if you truly believe a better way exists. Baby & bathwater. Nothing can be all things to all people.