View Single Post
Old 10-15-2007, 12:32 AM   #57
Erick Mead
 
Erick Mead's Avatar
Dojo: Big Green Drum (W. Florida Aikikai)
Location: West Florida
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,619
United_States
Offline
Re: Article by Mike Sigman

Quote:
Kevin Leavitt wrote: View Post
I don't think it is so much who has it an who doesn't. I haven't met anyone that I would consider to necessarily be "complete" that is, you can quantify with any kind of litmus test..."yep, he has it."

That said, there are many people I have trained with that martially have various parts of what I consider to be "IT".
...
I try to identify it, and work with them as I work with myself.
I am always struck by the reversion to this two letter word as substitute for the property of movement "that dare not speak its name."

This argument about "it" -- who has "it" and what "it" is -- cannot be answered in terms of "it." "IT" has not been defined in terms that are generalizable, but only exists in terms that are specific and subjectively verifiable. You know it when you feel "it." At least that is what we are left with in the terms that are being used to frame the diiscussion.

For this reason, I forgive the inevitable throw-down challenges on this topic of those who want to "feel it" from others as a preliminary to discussion about "it" so as to know that they are speaking in the same terms and not at cross purposes. Their point is well-taken in traditional terms. I am not working the way forward in entirely traditional terms, so that aspect is of far less concern to me, although it does usefully inform the basis for their discussion in their terms.

To make a poitn I will refer to PBS special this past Sunday that detailed the crafitng of the Japanese sword, its historical origins, and a modern, traditionally made sword from the tatara to the art house display case, and all points between, in terms of both its manufacture and its traditional uses. An excllent documentary.

It was stressed with the traditional methods of crafting the blade that their uses of "subjective feel" formed by decades of apprenticeship and hard practice was rigorously attended by the intensive religious rituals that formed and preserved that process in its reproducible integrity.

There was also a parallel engineering discussion describing the aesthetic beauty of the tool in its shaping and substance for efficiency and performance its designed function. There are things that we can know about how they are constituted and how their function is altered in various ways, that was able to expand upon the traditional understanding in very important and informative ways.

The engineers were able to explain, in functional physical terms WHY some things were done a certain way and the changes in the material that resulted in the alteration of its functions. They were able to explain WHY some things were done as a matter of interim results in the process as it continued, that were originally done simply because they provided an acceptable ultimate result by the traditional ritualized method shaped by educated trial and error in a more evolutionary process.

Nothing substitutes for craft, but adding new dimensions of understanding can only add to knowledge and facility in doing things with it. In light of the present discussion, here are then two alternatives (by no measn mutually exlcusive) to address in correcting the observed technical concerns of modern aikido in the teaching process that are the subtext of this discussion. They are in parallel with the ways in which swords are made and understood. Either one would help.

The first alternative is a more rigorous acceptance of traditional religiously guided ritualized learning in non-explanatory ways. This was an obvious focus of O Sensei, even as he explicitly accepted its limited utility for others. This adherence to the religiousity of exacting detail in the production of the blade with a limited understanding of the nature of interim results is the key to the survival of sword technology today in Japan as a rigorously reproducible technological feat in its ultimate achievement. It is a way of teaching that is unlikely to be usefully duplicated outside of Japan. It is in short supply and increasingly lacking broad understanding even there. It is too specific, too implicit in its assumed references and the non-analytic nature of its process for Westerners to take in everything that the ritualized observance actually does encode and transmit. Useful efforts have been made to adapt and explain these concepts to Westerners. We are, generally speaking however, simply ill-fitted to accept what it has to teach in those terms. For that matter exceedingly few Japanese today are so equipped, either.

The second alternative it is lacking is a generalizable, objective physical description of its functional dynamics. This is something that Westerners are good at and have haltingly attempted, (as well as many Japanese uchideshi coming here originally) often in metaphorical terms or "recipe" terminology that serves as guide for the subjective "feel" meant to be attained after sufficient training.

But no one has yet provided a rigorous, objective physical description of what is occurring and how it functions. I have developed my thought going along here, subejct to legitimate ( and illiegitimate) attacks, precisely in order to be challenged conceptually by those here who would do it constructively ( or otherwise). My effort is bearing fruit, at least for me. Whether I can adequately encapsulate and expound it as well as others might do remains to be seen. Once all my ducks are lined up, and some remaining ends tied up, I may give it a try intended for the use of persons rather than merely to better inform my own practice.

But whoever most clearly accomplishes this objective, it MUST be done in terms that are generally accepted because they are not subject to any objectively reasonable dispute from those who are capable and can critically observe. Until then, these discussions will continue, less usefully, to my mind, in this mode: The "it" that dare not speak its name.

While "it" is obviously serving at present as an ad hoc, third alternative to those I have outlined, it is not really working very well for purposes of critical description or comparison. "It" (as a conceptual framework, anyway) causes more arguments than "it" resolves

Some of us are striving to give "it" a proper name, in objective physical terms. That will make it far more generally transferable across culture boundaries, as rocket technology is now transmitted without regard to such boundaries. This does not diminish the value of craft, tradition or the need for hard work to do it -- it merely give its a different set of definitions to explain its functions in objective terms and thus provide some tools now missing in explaining more easily how to achieve them.

Terms slightly better, in any event, than merely "IT."

Cordially,

Erick Mead
一隻狗可久里馬房但他也不是馬的.
  Reply With Quote