Quote:
Lee Salzman wrote:
Mary, I'll dare to put words in your mouth, this sounds like a shaddup-and-train.
|
I wouldn't argue with someone who wants to interpret it that way. If someone sees that as a bad thing, that's their problem and their loss. Aikido is a physical skill. I'm not going to get into any religious wars about whether it can also become something else -- mileage varies. But you can't get to the "something else" without the physical part first. It is the medium and the frame of reference, and just as you can't draw a line with a single data point, you can't extrapolate the "something else" unless you have abundant data points in the physical stuff.
Quote:
Lee Salzman wrote:
But, what's good mechanics? Is it possible for someone to really have them after a year of training?
|
I'm sure you can argue the definition of "good mechanics" around to support either view, but I didn't say anything about "having" them. I was talking about
working on them, and letting any "something elses" happen in their own good time.
Quote:
Lee Salzman wrote:
And if, perhaps, good mechanics are to be regarded as what-sensei-says, and shaddup-and-train is to be regarded as do-what-sensei-says, but when sensei can't point out what's going wrong, ain't there a problem there?
|
Were we talking about the situation of a sensei who can't explain or good mechanics? Or is this a digression?
Quote:
Lee Salzman wrote:
Could it be that good universal mechanics that apply to all movement is the entire problem of this whole martially-artsy-fartsy endeavor, and that if they were so basic that you already had them, and it was just a matter of applying them, there wouldn't be much point in training a lot anymore? If you only focus on what you think you already do right, what're you gonna learn?
|
That's the classic mistake of equating "basic" with "easily and trivially mastered". As a former sensei of mine once said, "It
is simple. It
isn't easy."