View Single Post
Old 07-10-2011, 11:31 AM   #67
George S. Ledyard
 
George S. Ledyard's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido Eastside
Location: Bellevue, WA
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,670
Offline
Re: Terms: I.S., I.P., Neijin, Fajin, Aiki, etc.

One of my favorite books was Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig. One of the concepts Pirsig talked about, which he illustrated by the differences between how he approached the maintenance of his motorcycle from the way his son in law did.

He identified two broad approaches. One was the scientific / rational approach. This was the linear thinking, right brain, way of looking at and analyzing the world. Aikido history, philosophy, even technique can be approached with this world view quite nicely.

The other, which he called the "Groovy" approach (this was the seventies) which was the non-liner, left brain, intuitive approach to the world. This is the subjective world of "how does it feel". What is the meaning for me, does it feel right, what do I believe on an intuitive level. Faith usually is a part of thinking in this way of processing.

As Pirsig pointed out, folks who have these two ways of processing usually make each other crazy. They are not generally compatible.

If you want to talk about what O-Sensei said, then you are in the area of history. As long as you stay with his recorded talks or are reading his own writings, then there isn't much room for debate. It's all in the "record". It's in the are of "what did he mean" that we run into issues.

So, a statement, written in English, that O-Sensei said this or that is already flawed from the start because O-Sensei did not speak English.He never actually uttered those words. If we wish to know what he did, in point of fact say,we have to read or listen to his ACTUAL words. Now if I were to do that, which I have, I wouldn't understand a thing because oh, I don't speak or read Japanese. So to even get started, I require a "translator".

I need that translator to provide me with his best take on what was actually said or written in the form of the English that best fits. But no matter how well he does this, there will need to be additional explanation on the part of the translator about the shades of meaning the Japanese words have that they do no have in English. This requires considerable expertise. It is primarily a rational, linear thinking enterprise, based on knowledge of the person being translated and his background, the subject matter, the historical context, idiomatic usage of the language, and on and on. Doing this well requires an "expert". Discussion of whether the translator has done this well or not requires an equivalent expertise because it is a rational / analytical process of discussion.

But, as Pirsig points out, the folks from the "groovy" camp usually feel that the real meaning, which is intuitive anyway, gets lost in these discussions. Since reality is more experiential and subjective, then everyone's point of view is equally valid. So-called "facts" simply interfere with the pursuit if subjective truth.

The fact is that everyone is a mix of these two ways of processing. Few people are extremely one or the other. But studies have been done that would indicate that most folks tend to fall more on the "groovy" side of things than the rational / analytical. There was a study in which they took two groups of folks and gave each group an explanation of a certain event. One group was given a detailed description of the event in question. They were then asked their opinions about what had happened.

The other group was given only a very sketchy description of what had happened, fairly ambiguous. They were also asked their opinions on what had happened. Then, they were given all the details that had been left out, making the event far more clear.

But when they were then asked their opinions about what had happened, there was almost no movement whatever from their original opinions about what had happened. In other words no amount of additional factual information changed their perception of what had taken place.

I have seen this in arguing politics with my Father. He will make some statement and I will give him fact. after fact, that seemingly refute his statement. But, it actually has no effect on his belief that the statement is true. No amount of factual information will change his "belief" because it is "belief", experientially based opinion.

It applies equally well the other direction. One of the reasons I did not continue to graduate school in Buddhist Studies, which was essentially my major as an undergraduate, was my sense that, while my professors knew vast amounts of history and philosophy and could analyze every aspect of the Buddhist texts and Buddhist thought, they would never via academic study and rational analysis actually understand Buddhism. Buddhist practice was at its essence meant to provide a direct experience of the true nature of things and this experience was, in some ways, not even compatible with the rational, objective, process... at least it couldn't be accessed that way.

So you can see the problem in these discussions. You have two somewhat opposed ways of processing. One group of folks approaches these discussions from the linguistic, historical, comparative religions, approach coupled with highly technical ways of looking at the practice. They come from the rational . analytical side of things.

The other group of folks have a more "Zen" type sense of things. Their opinions are based on their own experience of what is true and what is not. They have a subjective overlay on things that trumps mere facts when in discussion. They are far more concerned with what something "means" than the actual facts that could actually be obscuring the meaning.

When folks from these two ways of processing get into interactions it can lead to bad feelings. Neither really understands the other. In Pirisg case, he was quite proud of the fact that he had used his analytical ability and mechanical knowledge to fix a problem with his son in law's motorcycle using a piece of aluminum from a beer can. His son in law wasn't happy with the fact that his bike now worked properly, nor that the solution was so simple and elegant. He was actually offended by the idea that his very cool, very expensive motorcycle could be fixed with something so prosaic as a piece of beer can. It wasn't "groovy" and didn't fit his subjective sense of what his motorcycle was about. For Pirsig it was a mechanical device for his son in law it was invested with more "meaning".

The only way for folks from these two different ways of processing to have a discussion is to stick to expression which is from their own understanding but not try to have the other agree or disagree. So, if someone makes a statement that "The Founder said thus and so" it is a statement about something that purports to be fact. That immediately takes the discussion into the realm of the analytical / rational. Any result is likely to feel highly unsatisfying to the intuitive / experiential folks.

On the other hand, if someone says, O-Sensei was translated as saying this, and this is the meaning of what he was saying for me, well, that is fact and can't be debated. It is your understanding of what was meant. Whether others are persuaded to believe that as well needs to, on some level, be irrelevant because once we get into trying to persuade others, we necessarily get into these rational / analytical discussions. If one simply states what ones own experience is and how that informs ones own belief that such and such is true, the folks for whom that opinion resonates will believe it as well based on how their own intuitive sense of the rightness of it works.

This is, of course, highly unsatisfying for the rational / analytical folks because they want the discourse. They want to debate and pull out facts, etc.

There are folks, like myself, who in psychological testing fall right in the middle of these two ways of processing. I can go either way and still find the ideas worth while. But I try to stay aware of which version of reality I am coming from at any given time.

Discussions of the Founder are totally prone to fall into very divergent interpretations based on these different ways of experiencing reality. I personally do not think either way offers a satisfying understanding by itself. I try to approach my understanding of the Founder and his art from both angles. When they seem to disagree, then I try to take a harder look at where my thinking / feeling brain is diverging and this can became an area for more study.

George S. Ledyard
Aikido Eastside
Bellevue, WA
Aikido Eastside
AikidoDvds.Com
  Reply With Quote