View Single Post
Old 06-22-2011, 03:33 PM   #114
Budd's Avatar
Dojo: Taikyoku Budo & Kiko - NY, PA, MD
Location: Greater Philadelphia Area
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 998
Re: "Non-Aikido Martial Traditions" Forum

Dan Harden wrote: View Post
Hi Bud
Just some thoughts on what these discussions sometimes looks like.

Statement one:
A clinical discussion by definition: extremely objective and realistic; dispassionately analytic; unemotionally critical:
I have seen the nature of these clinical discussions. Who is providing analysis...based on what experience, who is the teachers/authority/ source to define correct or incorrect?
Well, I think it's going to be case by case. If people choose to be transparent regarding where they've gotten their info, then cool, people can choose whether or not o factor that into the weight somebody gives their theories and discussion contributions. I don't think I am looking for anyone to define correct or incorrect on a discussion board. Others can choose to if they wish but it ain't my bag. My thinking is that it's a combination of one's ability to do what they say they can do, along with their "authority" based on methods either developed or learned from self-exploration and exposures to a legitimate system/lineage/teacher. Others may have laxer or more stringent criteria, but for my money it's not something you solve in online interactions.

Dan Harden wrote: View Post
This of course leads to
Statement two:
Seems to me that FAVORABLE terms such as "authorities" "Big Dogs" "real experts" and other phrases are part of the vernacular used for teachers approved of in these "so called" clinical discussions.
"Senseis placed on pedestals" "you're the expert you tell me" and other times providing ill disguised contempt for established teachers efforts are shots across the bow, some seriously ugly and are reserved for aikiweb members and teachers that a group of amateurs with barely any experience don't approve of...and all based on what?
I'm not in a position nor disposition to argue that with you - people will be and contribute what they will, judge them as you like, take it or leave it if it's useful or not. There's too much "pack mentality" going on at work over what should be an academic discussion in forums like these. What I will say is that amongst a group, if there's going to be agreed upon terms, there should be consensus around what the terms mean. But I think in a setting like NAMT, where the aim is bringing to the table what a term means in your approach (the collective "your"), there should be room for broader definitions and terms.

Dan Harden wrote: View Post
To use your own terminology- who's unquestioned correctness or supposed expertise?
Just how does that kind of behavior and commentary fit ...into a dispassionate clinical discussion?
It doesn't
Which is most of the reason real discussion will never happen here anymore. I would guess, ever.
I'm not interested in saying that person X or Y is the real authority. I expect people to make their own individual judgements based on experience, etc. I don't think a discussion around the academics and "how-to's" needs to have an associated pecking order. If you're getting hung up on terminology in either respect, it should be a fairly simple matter to ask, "What do you mean by XYZ?" and expect a plainly spoken answer.

Dan Harden wrote: View Post
Having some measure of respect for the people we are supposed to be interested in sharing with goes a long way...and that has nothing to do with the subject itself. I agree with Keith, that many may not care at all either way, but others that might be interested in exploring this may see the message, killed by the messenger. We need to ask ourselves: Just how much "signal" are we really delivering
I don't disagree that there are people who will be turned off the whole subject just based on what they've witnessed in how the messengers, evangelists, prosthelytists and otherwise advocates have conducted themselves publicly. We're all adults, responsible for our actions, etc. Choose to participate or not. We can all do our part to reach out to those on the fence, if we want, or just do our thing and have those that want to seek us out do so. But in terms of having a conversation online - use whatever standards you wish and accept that others will do the same.

Dan Harden wrote: View Post
I again vote for NAMT as it is. Real discussion about IP/aiki isn't going to happen here anymore.
Related discussion of how it fits into arts will appear here and there; if it is aikido related it will be above, non aikido related it will be in NAMT.
There is simply no need for any change.
At the basic level, I agree, use the outlets that exist already. I disagree that real discussions won't happen here and I encourage those that want to to participate. But again, I can't make anyone do anything and I won't begrudge anyone their preference either way.