Quote:
Christopher Li wrote:
To a point, that's true, but it's not really a valid argument. Understanding a historic person (or anyone, for that matter) isn't a binary, yes-no, situation, it's a continuum.
|
I agree -- but I feel like that's most decidedly not what most people on Aikiweb try to do with O Sensei. Here, it's all about promoting and bringing forth the aspects and interpretations that support your worldview. Developing a nuanced, non-binary understanding of a complex human being who isn't around to speak for himself (which surely would include admitting to quite a few "we don't know"s) doesn't seem what most folks want to do.
Quote:
Christopher Li wrote:
And yes, I think that it is important to make the attempt, otherwise why study any history of any kind? Isn't it a forgone conclusion that studying what people thought in the past is useful to those of us living in the present and moving to the future?
|
It can be. But it's always worth asking the question, "Where are we going with this?" When you have a fuller understanding of O Sensei, what will you do with it? Maybe that's the question we really should be asking ourselves.
Quote:
Christopher Li wrote:
I've also found, oddly enough, that many Aikido students are actually interested in what the Founder of their art had to say.
|
Hmm, bit of Monday morning snark? Well, whatever. I've seen enough people go dangerously wrong through the fundamentalist approach for me to want to approach "scripture" with a good deal of caution. I don't see how caution does any harm here.
Do you ever wonder if maybe some of the things O Sensei said were just toss-off remarks? Do you think everything he said should be given equal (fundamentalist) weight?