Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Spiritual

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-17-2009, 11:04 AM   #176
JimCooper
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 66
Offline
Re: Who Sez O'Sensei Was Wise!

Quote:
David Henderson wrote: View Post
Respectfully, your distinction that your post didn't contain reasoning is both quixotic and contrary to all appearances,
Like I said, that is a statement of my moral position. I don't consider it an argument, in the logical sense, as it is purely my opinion.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2009, 11:21 AM   #177
JimCooper
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 66
Offline
Re: Who Sez O'Sensei Was Wise!

Just so I'm clear:

"People should not really pontificate on subjects they clearly do not understand."

My moral position - purely my own opinion. I can give reasons why I think that, but it's not being presented as any sort of logical argument. It's a premise, if you like.

"You and George obviously do not understand how science works."

Observable fact.

There's no logical chain in there.

You can draw various conclusions starting from here, but that just gets us back where I started, and there seemed no point going around that loop again.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2009, 11:34 AM   #178
C. David Henderson
Location: Santa Fe New Mexico
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 606
United_States
Offline
Re: Who Sez O'Sensei Was Wise!

OK, I understand then you stated a "moral opinion (nee argument) " based on a "minor premise" you consider to be a "fact;" but that's where Erick's critque comes into play, IMO.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2009, 12:56 PM   #179
George S. Ledyard
 
George S. Ledyard's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido Eastside
Location: Bellevue, WA
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,670
Offline
Re: Who Sez O'Sensei Was Wise!

Quote:
David Soroko wrote: View Post
Why Physics and not Biology?

Why must Ki be a energy in the sense that Physics treats this concept and not a manipulation of the sensory/cognitive system?
Absolutely, it is just a single word that describes something more complex. For our purposes it can be said to exist because you can feel it, use it, project it, etc. I have never maintained that things like this can be scientifically verified. What I did say was that a) it's irrelevant to my own Aikido training if it's not scientifically verified and b) folks who are tied to scientific explanation of things often limit themselves in what they seek out in their training to what they think fits with known explanations. I have trained with some of the finest martial artists in the world who routinely do things which are fairly incomprehensible. Many of the folks I know simply look at what they do, decide it doesn't fit with their "scientific" or logical understanding and write it off as fake. Virtually always this is without any direct empirical experience of what the teacher is doing. When an explanation using the principles of physics helps me or my students understand something better I use it. When physics doesn't explain what I am doing or experiencing I use other explanations, such as "ki". Jim's lack of belief in it is irrelevant to my own ability to use it.

George S. Ledyard
Aikido Eastside
Bellevue, WA
Aikido Eastside
AikidoDvds.Com
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2009, 12:56 PM   #180
JimCooper
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 66
Offline
Re: Who Sez O'Sensei Was Wise!

Quote:
David Henderson wrote: View Post
OK, I understand then you stated a "moral opinion (nee argument) " based on a "minor premise" you consider to be a "fact;" but that's where Erick's critque comes into play, IMO.
Sorry, no, that's not it.

Let me try to explain a different way.

Nobody has time to learn everything, or test every idea that's out there. So on subjects where we have no expertise, we rely on authorities in that field to figure stuff out for us, and relay it to us if we should need it.

On this list, what I say, or what Erick says, doesn't carry much weight, because neither of us is an authority figure in aikido, AFAIK (my apologies to Erick if he actually is). George is altogether different - he's earned his respect the hard way over years and years. So people in the aikido world, and particularly on this list, value and trust his opinion.

He made some comments that were factual errors. And the reason I'm concerned about that is because of what you can already see happening. People think I must be wrong, solely because I disagreed with Ledyard sensei.

As I said in an earlier post, I've seen this before. A well known Japanese karate instructor wrote some bollocks physics in his book. When I checked that it was rubbish with an engineer, it actually made him laugh, it was that bad. But whenever I said something about it, a lot of people got really upset, because I wasn't a famous Japanese karate instructor. These people didn't bother to check any facts themselves, like I did. They just assumed he was right because he was the authority figure. They still do, as the same errors have since been quoted in other articles and books.

If you want to disagree with me, fine. But there are only two possible disagreements. One is that George can say whatever he likes, and it doesn't matter if he's right or not. I'm not going to argue with you if that's what you think, because it's only my moral position, and you're entitled to your own.

The second is that his statements were correct. But if you believe that, you'd better go and check (like I did) first.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2009, 01:07 PM   #181
JimCooper
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 66
Offline
Re: Who Sez O'Sensei Was Wise!

Quote:
George S. Ledyard wrote: View Post
For our purposes it can be said to exist because you can feel it, use it, project it, etc
I nearly agree with you. If you said "it can be said to be useful", I would agree entirely.This sort of thing is very common in the scientific world. For example, you probably got taught that electrons orbit around an atomic nucleus. This is a useful model (I use the word in its scientific sense) at a certain level, to explain various chemical reactions. It's not actually true, though, and it's important to know that, even whilst using it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2009, 01:11 PM   #182
JimCooper
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 66
Offline
Re: Who Sez O'Sensei Was Wise!

Quote:
David Soroko wrote: View Post
Why must Ki be a energy in the sense that Physics treats this concept and not a manipulation of the sensory/cognitive system?
Doesn't have to be if you don't use the word energy. It doesn't remove the burden of proof either, though :-)
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2009, 01:12 PM   #183
Erick Mead
 
Erick Mead's Avatar
Dojo: Big Green Drum (W. Florida Aikikai)
Location: West Florida
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,614
United_States
Offline
Re: Who Sez O'Sensei Was Wise!

Quote:
Jim Cooper wrote: View Post
It's blinkered predjudice to not believe something that's not true?

That's also a nonsense statement logically. You're suggesting that because gunpowder was invented in China, everything else in Chinese thought through the ages must be true?
Only if you read into it something that it did not say. No, what I said, merely, suggested that you, as an empiricist, ought not dismiss a statement derived from the cumulative practical experience of a such a cultural source that has compiled thousands of years of practical experience until you have understood what it is saying. You reject the need to understand it, and so you do not.

O Sensei did not similarly reject the wisdom of the the West. You rightfully defend it, but you do not realize the commonality that underlies both of them. The things they use and perceive in those terms we may but dimly perceive or use in ours -- simply because our categories were chosen too restrictively to begin with (as Einstein eventually showed). We have differently organized and accessed categories of understanding. Unjustified (I mean this technically speaking -- a position that has not been shown conclusively) exclusionary arguments such as yours keep one from getting to the useful work on the common reality behind those categorical ideas.

As an initial point, you very clearly do not understand Ki in its traditional terms, because you continue to define Ki exclusively as an "energy." That is a categorical error. Ki as traditionally understood comprises the categories of BOTH energy and matter. Which is to say that the concept of Ki comprehended a species of mass-energy equivalence, long before Einstein did.

If you will allow me, I will outline the physical definition of Ki so as to provide you the opportunity to falsify it, prove me wrong, and perhaps to determine if O Sensei was or was not wise to use the traditional concept of Ki as a physical category of knowledge. To spare the otherwise competent minds whose taste in entertainment does not run to analytic categories, I will make the more detailed points in a <<spoiler>>:

[spoiler] "Ethereal" or "light" Ki is closer to the category of energy and comprises heat and light -- and condensed Ki is closer to the category of and comprises matter. Understanding, as I do, both of these in terms of angular momentum/moment, the qualities of matter (such as inertia) and the qualities of energy (such as radiation) all come from their fundamentally oscillatory nature. Th idea of Ki simply recognizes that nature as being in common between energy and matter. That is hardly a revolutionary statement, even in the West.

A rotating bicycle wheel resists displacement or rotation in space because it is oscillating -- it possess angular momentum. A rock resists displacement in space because it possesses "inertia" or an "inertial moment" which are just labels for a billion billion gyrostatic atoms (and their constituent wave/[particles) also oscillating (in several different ways -- some of them quite special and quite difficult to conceive) and so also resisting displacement or rotation in space/time.

Light, which is to say a photon, has zero mass, but has measurable angular momentum -- notwithstanding that lack of any mass. The momentum comes from its oscillation. Commonly, one sets momentum p = mv. In those terms, zero mass is zero momentum (thus, disregarding the potential energy or moment). But that is simply an approximation of the true relativistic equation:

p^2= mv^2+ (v/c)^2

or
,,,,, ________________
p=√(mv)^2) + ((v/c)^2)

Angular Momentum (KI) is the single quantity that describes both of the "light ethereal Ki" -- (v/c)^2 -- and the heavy condensed KI -- (mv)^2 -- which are inverses of the same essentially polar quantity and which are almost always found in mixtures, and not alone. All matter glows (radiates energy) in some part of the spectrum. It is a analytic act, in fact, not an observational dictate, to distinguish them.

In point of fact, the photon occupies one pole, and is nothing BUT its oscillation (angular velocity) defined in this manner (v/c)^2 since its mass is zero. Which begs the question of matter as well, that its mass may also be nothing BUT its oscillations -- which is to say, of both -- their respective KI. A mass at absolute zero occupies the other pole, where its conserved oscillations lose their integral field qualities, and it "smudges" into other, no longer discrete "mass" (the BEC state, in which the inertial and exclusivity qualities of fermion particles (mass) are to some dgreee lost or compromised, including friction).

The universe thus conceived is a complex set of interpenetrating or mutually reflective transiting or standing wave/particles. Some, because of their relative phases, can interpenetrate, bleeding inconspicuously through one another in the same space (bosons), while others are mutually exclusive (fermions) and dominators of their local space/time.

This is what quantum mechanics has taught us about fundamental reality. The difference is that the concept of Ki allows that these fundamental relationships may be scaled up and composed into more and more complex wave superpositions -- according to the SAME PRINCIPLES -- at perceptibly gross scales that nevertheless have a cognizable and coherent fractal structure that reaches all the way down to the basement of reality and upwards past the limits of conceivable potentiality. In these terms, Aikido is composite wave system that is conceptually bosonic -- in the proper orientation the active opponent is never an obstacle to movement through his space -- and there can be no conflict.

The observer (a point of observation) cannot be taken out of any equation involving angular momentum. This is a point Galileo first proposed and that Bishop Berkeley critically urged against classical Newtonian absolutes of space and motion almost three centuries ago. Quantum mechanics has discovered this to be an apparently irreducible problem. The center thus defined -- defines the nature of the motion being observed.

If one does not do this, then one would either destructively interfere with the other, negating both in whole or in part, or constructively interfere subsuming both into a larger whole in which the unique identity of both is lost. Only 90 degree relationships (Juuji 十字) preserve both connection (superposition) and independence of different waveforms, while creating novel and nonlinear resulting motions.

Why do we need to consider this Ki as a single but polar category, as opposed to sticking to your preferred binary categories of mass and energy? One, because it is a false dichotomy in physical concept -- as Einstein showed. If momentum can exist without mass, then mass and movement are not two things -- but two faces of the same thing, which is more fundamental than either of them.

And two, because in Aikido we use these at gross scales in practical, tested terms, which is to say that it is an empirical knowledge (Gr. (en-peira = "in or through trial.") Or in other words -- "Go train."

A good example of this in Aikido is the use of a moment (a quality of mass representing a potential rotation) as equivalent to applied angular momentum (an actual rotation). This is particularly evident if we strictly observe orthogonal orientations (Juuji 十字 ) of our interactions with the attacker -- in both space and temporal terms when we mesh our actual and potential rotations with those of others.

This is kokyu tanden ho. We do not induce rotations in our partner, we alter our own static inertial moment at 90 degrees from his connection, and so that his applied rotations by his own induced moments in trying to rotate us, result in adverse structural rotations of his own, simply from our alteration of the static equation. Simple physics -- but a complex non-linear control algorithm to achieve -- i.e.-- requiring a mind to effect it.

Aikido teaches, in practical terms, that the activity of a living mind is necessary to allow such nonlinear superpositions to maintain their coherence together for any length of time at our scales of observation. This is Ten-Chi-Jin -- heaven (the infinite) and earth (the infinitesimal) connected through the human mind (defining).
The action of a living mind is necessary, but not sufficient -- the other ingredient is an affinity and care not to disturb the nature of the things being superposed with one another. Another word for the mental state of such an active, attentive, protective, and non-interfering affinity is "love."

As we progress, we learn that in that movement is stillness and in that stillness, there is movement. That expression has a very fruitful concrete physical meaning tied to the nature of angular momentum/moment, the choice of relative center and orthogonal orientation and resonant rhythm. It is all of a piece -- Ki .
[/spoiler]

Quote:
Jim Cooper wrote: View Post
Offer up some proof and I will.
" I'll show you mine, if you show me yours." It is not a contest of proof, as such. It is a debate of categories. Ki -- as it is traditionally understood -- may physically be described as angular momentum/moment -- and rigorously so, as I hope I have suggested in some detail. The question is: what convention best applies to the problem? Several may apply but not all are optimum.

Disproof in that sense can be posed to test it. The dis-proof of that statement is to see if any traditional understanding of the physical concept of Ki does not fit that Western category of relationships. I hypothesize from my experience and study of these relationships that it does. If so we can talk in equivalent terms using either vocabulary, interchangeably -- and wouldn't that be nice.

The falsification and gedanken experiment is thus laid on the table. Produce but one instance in which physical Ki does not fit the category as described in the <<spoiler>> argument above and I will defer to your side of the argument, and admit that the concept is flawed.

Produce but one instance that shows that non-physical Ki interactions, as traditionally understood, does not reasonably analogize to this physical understanding of cyclic interactions, and I will acknowledge that we have a useful argument between us on the conceptual limits of its extension.

Et toi ...

Cordially,

Erick Mead
一隻狗可久里馬房但他也不是馬的.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2009, 01:18 PM   #184
Erick Mead
 
Erick Mead's Avatar
Dojo: Big Green Drum (W. Florida Aikikai)
Location: West Florida
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,614
United_States
Offline
Re: Who Sez O'Sensei Was Wise!

Quote:
Jim Cooper wrote: View Post
I think you need to accept that I'm not going to subscribe to your "theory" (or whatever you want to call it) until it is part of mainstream physics.
Argumentum ad verecundiam, replicatio secundum. And it is. "Which convention of mainstream physics?" is the question you should be asking. See the spoiler post above.

Cordially,

Erick Mead
一隻狗可久里馬房但他也不是馬的.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2009, 01:22 PM   #185
Erick Mead
 
Erick Mead's Avatar
Dojo: Big Green Drum (W. Florida Aikikai)
Location: West Florida
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,614
United_States
Offline
Re: Who Sez O'Sensei Was Wise!

Quote:
Jim Cooper wrote: View Post
Just so I'm clear:

"People should not really pontificate on subjects they clearly do not understand."

My moral position - purely my own opinion. I can give reasons why I think that, but it's not being presented as any sort of logical argument. It's a premise, if you like.
But, you see, Aikido always works by reshaping the supporting premises -- and not by destroying the concluding expressions -- even when it could.

It is the beauty of the art, really.

Cordially,

Erick Mead
一隻狗可久里馬房但他也不是馬的.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2009, 02:04 PM   #186
Erick Mead
 
Erick Mead's Avatar
Dojo: Big Green Drum (W. Florida Aikikai)
Location: West Florida
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,614
United_States
Offline
Re: Who Sez O'Sensei Was Wise!

Quote:
Jim Cooper wrote: View Post
Nobody has time to learn everything, or test every idea that's out there. So on subjects where we have no expertise, we rely on authorities in that field to figure stuff out for us, and relay it to us if we should need it. ...George is altogether different - he's earned his respect the hard way over years and years. So people in the aikido world, and particularly on this list, value and trust his opinion.
In which case you should defer to George's informed opinions, and I am here to tell you that there are provable, concrete reasons to defer to George's opinions...

Quote:
Jim Cooper wrote: View Post
On this list, what I say, or what Erick says, doesn't carry much weight, because neither of us is an authority figure in aikido, AFAIK (my apologies to Erick if he actually is).
I only claim Socratic authority -- I know, very precisely, what I do not know. And I have persuasive authority, or so several appellate Courts have told me over the years, when it comes to the art of both reasoned and rhetorical arguments. But in this case I am reporting mere facts.

Quote:
Jim Cooper wrote: View Post
... there are only two possible disagreements. One is that George can say whatever he likes, and it doesn't matter if he's right or not.... The second is that his statements were correct. But if you believe that, you'd better go and check (like I did) first.
ONLY TWO ??? My, what an impoverished sense of disagreement you have. We must remedy that. There's got to be Oh... five or six in there, easy.

Like, for instance the fact that he wasn't speaking physics, and you used the wrong template attempting to understand him, and used the template you had wrongly, because you have a the incorrect choice of physical convention, when there are others that may apply. Do not use B-fields where H-fields apply, because B-fields cannot be defined there. Though God does not allow dividing by zero, in that case (or taking the square roots of negative numbers, as another good example) there are real and practical things back of such formal protests -- and clever ways around such nominal roadblocks by different conventions.

Cordially,

Erick Mead
一隻狗可久里馬房但他也不是馬的.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2009, 02:34 PM   #187
sorokod
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 797
United Kingdom
Offline
Re: Who Sez O'Sensei Was Wise!

Quote:
Jim Cooper wrote: View Post
Doesn't have to be if you don't use the word energy. It doesn't remove the burden of proof either, though :-)
No it does not, however the starting point is much closer to the subject matter. There is an objective biological effect, the investigation can naturally start at that point and work it's way backward to the cause. Pinning everything on Physics seems a bit premature. It is as if, when asked to debug a computer program, one would start by looking for irregularities in the power supply.

  Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2009, 06:38 PM   #188
Shannon Frye
Dojo: Aikido Fellowship of VA / Chesapeake Va
Location: Virginia
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 184
United_States
Offline
Re: Who Sez O'Sensei Was Wise!

Why not both? I've seem people who, after being grabbed, make the person grabbing think/feel "Oh boy - I really stepped in it now". And that was just a "feeling" the person gave off.

Personally, I think that Ki can be both the energy (measurable) that you gather/call upon/muster in times of need. It is also a presence of mind that you yourself obtain, and /or can affect others with. It's hard to measure someone's feelings, as these are relevant to the person/situation/etc.

Too much argument over what Ki is - perhaps we can all agree that it is different to different people, as is taste or beauty.

Quote:
David Soroko wrote: View Post
Why Physics and not Biology?

Why must Ki be a energy in the sense that Physics treats this concept and not a manipulation of the sensory/cognitive system?

"In the end there can be only one"

www.AikidoFellowship.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2009, 10:36 AM   #189
jennifer paige smith
 
jennifer paige smith's Avatar
Dojo: Confluence Aiki-Dojo / Santa Cruz Sword Club
Location: Santa Cruz
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,049
United_States
Offline
Re: Who Sez O'Sensei Was Wise!

Quote:
Shannon Frye wrote: View Post

Too much argument over what Ki is - perhaps we can all agree that it is different to different people, as is taste or beauty.
Ki is a hero of a thousand faces.

I'm very interested in who are heroes now. Many of the students I teach are up for consideration.

Thanks, Shannon.

Jennifer Paige Smith
Confluence Aikido Systems
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2009, 04:11 PM   #190
Mark Peckett
Dojo: Aikido Fellowship of Great Britain
Location: Birmingham
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 84
United Kingdom
Offline
Re: Who Sez O'Sensei Was Wise!

It seems to me that if you are not prepared to consider the teachings of O'Sensei wise (not the myths that have sprung up around him) then you're what you're studying isn't aikido.

If you're not prepared to be open to the possibility of ki(regardless of how you define ki - Gozo Shioda once remarked that a day when everything in the dojo was right and practice was good was a day when you experienced ki) in your practice then you're not practising aikido.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2009, 06:48 PM   #191
George S. Ledyard
 
George S. Ledyard's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido Eastside
Location: Bellevue, WA
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,670
Offline
Re: Who Sez O'Sensei Was Wise!

Quote:
Mark Peckett wrote: View Post
It seems to me that if you are not prepared to consider the teachings of O'Sensei wise (not the myths that have sprung up around him) then you're what you're studying isn't aikido.

If you're not prepared to be open to the possibility of ki(regardless of how you define ki - Gozo Shioda once remarked that a day when everything in the dojo was right and practice was good was a day when you experienced ki) in your practice then you're not practising aikido.

I have actually joked with my students after doing a throw that I had just used that force that doesn't exist. Since it is completely tangible when the technique uses some form of aiki and when it doesn't, they find it amusing.

Our art should be called "The Way of Harmonizing the Force That Doesn't Exist"

Last edited by George S. Ledyard : 02-18-2009 at 06:51 PM.

George S. Ledyard
Aikido Eastside
Bellevue, WA
Aikido Eastside
AikidoDvds.Com
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2009, 07:41 PM   #192
Erick Mead
 
Erick Mead's Avatar
Dojo: Big Green Drum (W. Florida Aikikai)
Location: West Florida
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,614
United_States
Offline
Re: Who Sez O'Sensei Was Wise!

Quote:
George S. Ledyard wrote: View Post
I have actually joked with my students after doing a throw that I had just used that force that doesn't exist. Since it is completely tangible when the technique uses some form of aiki and when it doesn't, they find it amusing.

Our art should be called "The Way of Harmonizing the Force That Doesn't Exist"
The action that dare not speak its name.... ?

Cordially,

Erick Mead
一隻狗可久里馬房但他也不是馬的.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2009, 10:27 PM   #193
Buck
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 950
United_States
Offline
Re: Who Sez O'Sensei Was Wise!

Doesn't the debate on ki have its own threads...

Ki simplist idea being intent.

Ki any thing more it becomes complicate and interwound with myth and blue lightening coming out the fingers to healing the dead.

Ki is it really all that powerful of a thing? Many frauds have been exposed who say they can send a man flying across the room without or barely touching the man with one finger or something like that. O'Sensei didn't do that, Shioda didn't do that, really ya have to think about it. Can ki stop a bullet? It's all about perspective.

Why is there so many definitions of ki and why is it so different from person to person who says they have it. Why isn't there a singular and consistent model for it?

Does it exist yes, how ever you want it to and what ever name or explanation or action you want to give it, makes it so. Because remember ki is an old word of something coined that wasn't understood, i.e. the science of physics etc. If science existed when the word ki was coined we would have a totally solid definition, consistent model etc. And therefore, we wouldn't have a million different arguments about on what it is, how it works, or what it is.

Why so many unique varieties and derivates of ki demonstrated that are owned uniquely and individually that no two people have the same ability? Heck, golfers have more consistency in their swings. No one agrees, there is no general consensus. It is a free for all as far as that is concerned.

Ki is what ever you can or can't explain. It is what ever anyone wants it to be. Or doesn't want it to be. It is Jesus.

This is one problem with myth, it is all left to personal interpretation of a subject or object. There are no confines to set, no measurable dimensions etc. It is invisible, it is tasteless, it can or can't be felt. It is air, it is blood, it is mental powers, concentration, it is visualization, it is......................................................am tired. But most of all it is a dead horse that keeps getting beat!

For the life of me, I can't think of any way this thread drift connects with the starter topic.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2009, 10:56 PM   #194
wideawakedreamer
 
wideawakedreamer's Avatar
Dojo: Bu Yuu Kan dojo
Location: Davao City
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 127
Philippines
Offline
Re: Who Sez O'Sensei Was Wise!

Yeah, what has this to do with whether or not O Sensei was wise?

Oh and I think yes, he really was wise. I don't think he was divine -he was no Jesus - but I think that he was wise. As wise as any human being that ever lived up to his age could be, anyway. Why debate about his wisdom, anyway? You don't have to be infallible or perfect to be considered wise.

  Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2009, 06:25 AM   #195
JimCooper
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 66
Offline
Re: Who Sez O'Sensei Was Wise!

Quote:
Mark Peckett;225332
If you're not prepared to be open to the possibility of [I
wrote:
ki[/i]
Being open to a possibility is not the same as believing everything you're told.

Using ki as a useful model is not the same as ki being real.

If it was proved that ki was real as say, kinetic energy, then any sane person would believe it was. But until that day, I'm going to take the only reasonable position - that of healthy scepticism. YMMV.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2009, 06:29 AM   #196
JimCooper
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 66
Offline
Re: Who Sez O'Sensei Was Wise!

Quote:
Erick Mead wrote: View Post
...
You can stop digging now Erick :-)
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2009, 06:40 AM   #197
JimCooper
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 66
Offline
Re: Who Sez O'Sensei Was Wise!

Quote:
Erick Mead wrote: View Post
Though God does not allow dividing by zero, in that case (or taking the square roots of negative numbers, as another good example)
I learned about the square roots of negative numbers in high school:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number

Don't be mislead by the term "imaginary", BTW - to mathematicians, physicists and engineers they are every bit as real as "real" (in the mathematical sense) numbers. I used them a lot at university. It's difficult to imagine studying much physics without having learned that bit of maths.

They've been known about since the 16th century, IIRC.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2009, 08:28 AM   #198
Erick Mead
 
Erick Mead's Avatar
Dojo: Big Green Drum (W. Florida Aikikai)
Location: West Florida
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,614
United_States
Offline
Re: Who Sez O'Sensei Was Wise!

Quote:
Jim Cooper wrote: View Post
I learned about the square roots of negative numbers in high school: ... They've been known about since the 16th century, IIRC.
Good. Join the club. I assumed as much on your part. And thanks for making my point for me. The Chinese have thought in relativistic terms since before the 10th century -- and the Japanese described fractal structure and chaotic dynamics (jouri) in terms of Ki development since the 17th -- while we waited around until the 1970's -- that doesn't mean they got everything else right -- any more than we did - nor that each does not have something else to teach the other.

Uncritical assumptions are the first fruit of ignorance, not a lack of intelligence. The criticism is attacking the information from which you draw your conclusions, not your ability to draw them intelligently. You assume certain things about what Ki means that are flat wrong, because, from your own statements about it you reveal that you have not studied how it was classically described or used. You are not in a position to compare it to any Western conventions for similarity or to rebut the same, until you do. "I know Physics" is not a warrant for saying -- "I know that the Taijitu is wrong." It is a non sequitur -- a logical fallacy driven by incorrect assumptions. Correct the assumptions -- then apply the logic.

The same is true of O Sensei's wisdom that is given in strictly Japanese mythic imagery. If you do not understand it from the inside on its own terms uncritically first -- you cannot understand what it says, critically speaking -- and it says many useful things. And once its imagery is translated across the language barrier, there are available methods of construing that wisdom in terms of concrete practice, common in the West, that help make it accessible. For a start, I suggest James Hillman's A Terrible Love of War in considering the wisdom of O Sensei's summation of his Art -- "True budo is love."

Last edited by Erick Mead : 02-19-2009 at 08:32 AM.

Cordially,

Erick Mead
一隻狗可久里馬房但他也不是馬的.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2009, 09:02 AM   #199
Mark Peckett
Dojo: Aikido Fellowship of Great Britain
Location: Birmingham
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 84
United Kingdom
Offline
Re: Who Sez O'Sensei Was Wise!

Well now we've accepted that ki in some form, however we choose to define it, probably exists and that, when you divorce the myths built up around O'Sensei from his actual teachings, he was probably wise, although a man with all the failings of a man, maybe we can put this thread to bed.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2009, 02:32 PM   #200
C. David Henderson
Location: Santa Fe New Mexico
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 606
United_States
Offline
Re: Who Sez O'Sensei Was Wise!

Quote:
Jim Cooper wrote: View Post
Using ki as a useful model is not the same as ki being real.

If it was proved that ki was real as say, kinetic energy, then any sane person would believe it was. But until that day, I'm going to take the only reasonable position - that of healthy scepticism. YMMV.
Hi Jim,

Being skeptical of stuff that you think doesn't add up is something I understand and respect. Respectfully, I don't think your distinction between "useful" and "real" accords with mainstream modern philosophy of science (by scientists), although I suspect it aptly describes the implicit ontology of a great many (very smart) practicing scientists.

But when comparing "scientific knowledge" to "useful (non-sicence) models," I think this implicit reification of scientific knowledge is problematic.
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Article: Did Morihei Ueshiba Invent Aikido? by Peter Boylan AikiWeb System AikiWeb System 39 03-06-2008 09:27 AM
Quoting O'Sensei bratzo_barrena General 10 12-13-2005 07:44 AM
Omoto-kyo Theology senshincenter Spiritual 77 12-04-2005 10:50 PM
"I am the Universe." senshincenter General 13 01-15-2005 08:13 PM
Did Osensei smoke? Edward General 9 12-07-2002 11:37 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:27 PM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2017 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2017 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate