Quote:
Erick Mead wrote:
By now it should be obvious that I am hardly seeking affirmaton here.
|
Then self-aggrandizement perhaps??? I heard lawyers love hearing the sound of their own voice... One of the advantages/curses of being a lawyer is the ability to equivocate just about anything to suit your argument.
But this has gone well beyond arguing the point rationally. It's quite obvious that no one seems to be affirming the philosophical and theoretical basis of your rationale, much less your credibility.
Quote:
|
I merely speak in supprot of a traditional view of aikido practice and its functions, as against your revolutionary viewpoint, and I use a certain view of rational mechanics in trying to transparently describe that tradition as it exists and functions
|
Whose "traditional view"??? This [what we're talking about] is hardly revolutionary stuff... not widely known perhaps, but hardly revolutionary... what's "revolutionary" is applied rotational dynamics...
Quote:
|
I criticize tendencies in what you advocate that are problematic.... The method you have described to do it is problematic, but as MIke says -- that is "just training." That does not releive my concerns about training in that wya, but distinguish the actuality of what you accomplish from the method of training you have described to accomplish it and maybe my objections are misplaced. But neither you nor Mike have been able yet to formulate an explanation to address it.
|
It is only problematic in that you inevitably find yourself (and have so for some pages now) in a position where you have to abandon your rotational dynamics model and your perceived notions of "resistance", because it simply does not fit into it.
But, God love them lawyers, they'll never admit wrong nor defeat...