Aikido as External Art -or- Where's the Chewy Center?

Erick Mead wrote: Why then should I believe...

Erick, I don't care one way or another what you believe. I don't care how you train. I was stating what I believe, and what I have heard from personal sources. "OSensei's words!" sell a lot more books than, "Some stuff that OSensei would probably agree with!"

This is another reason why I liked Ellis' exposition of the lecture series that OSensei gave. It was documented and recorded, unlike a great deal of other material we have to work with.

Fred Little wrote: With all due respect, you are resorting to classic straw man arguments and infelicitous double-think.

I prefer to think of it as highly felicitous doublethink. Which illustrates the absurdity of denying the plain meaning of a relatively well-ascribed statement without some proof to the contrary.

Fred Little wrote: I did not make any comment about the utility or inutility of scientific inquiry. Any assertion that I did is categorically false.

No. You said that I could not know that he meant to conjoin the two. I can. Because he did. Conjoin the two. In his statement, which put them together. Which is his until somebody shows it isn't, instead of merely hinting darkly at unspoken reasons for doubt.

Fred Little wrote: With regard to the "compatibility" of metaphorical versus empirical description, I assert that the two modes depend on two utterly different sets of descriptive symbols with utterly different rules of operation and thus, are not directly comparable. ...."compatiblity" or "incompatibility" of metaphorical or empirical descriptions is of less relevance than the possible complementary utility of the descriptions, which is a rather different matter.

Not in this context. I chose the word "compatibility" advisedly for the context of our art: ."compatible" = "capable of existing together in harmony." Comparability is an entirely different thing

Fred Little wrote: While Ueshiba is supposed to have reviewed and approved the text, the apparent fact that it was approved with the stipulation that it be distributed only to yudansha may be taken to indicate that the work was intended as an outline or detailed mnemonic of lessons already imparted through oral and kinesthetic instruction, which was regarded as primary.

Actually, he was QUITE explicit in several places in Budo Renshu that certain things that he mentioned going along were only really appropriate for showing through training. This forces the conclusion that things he othwerwise stated therein were appropriate to be given -- and in the form that he was giving them.

Fred Little wrote: Thus, not only would the role of the text and drawings be secondary, tertiary, or quaternary, not primary, but I would also suggest that the distribution was restricted because the text might be regarded as misleading to an individual who had not received individual oral and kiinesthetic instruction. To put a fine point on it, my assertion is that it can not be shown that the authorial or editorial intention was to approach the "definite" or "definitive," much less that such an intention was successfully realized.

and your definitive assertion is based a far less foundation than mine in saying that 1) by saying it, he meant it, and 2) by urging one thing and then immediately urging another thing the two things are deemed to be related and compatible.

Fred Little wrote: Your position that Ueshiba's language was, on the one hand "metaphorical" and on the other hand so "definite" that you can reify that "definite" meaning into a "definitive meaning" is heremeneutically suspect as anything other than a statement of faith.

You misread. Only one part of the statement was metaphorical; the other expressly pointed toward a reified understanding, which was my point. And I am not a "hermeneutical suspect." --- I am "guilty, guilty, guilty..."

Fred Little wrote: Your suggestion that anyone has "impeached" the translators is overblown hyperbole.

True that it would be hyperbole. They merely indicate a desire to do so, and have not actually. And -- that is not what I said.

Fred Little wrote: Not that any of the above has jack to do with actual practice, which remains primary.

Which I actually think that I did say. I have a broader and more unitary conception of practice than you appear to.

Fred Little wrote: At the risk of self-a-gander-izement, might I ask that you kindly refrain from beating others with a rhetorical stick you've wrenched from my hands?

Nah. It was just laying around. Or maybe running around loose, flapping and honking. I can never keep these third party mixed metaphor things straight.

Quote: Fred Little wrote: I did not make any comment about the utility or inutility of scientific inquiry. Any assertion that I did is categorically false. No. You said that I could not know that he meant to conjoin the two. I can. Because he did. Conjoin the two. In his statement, which put them together. Which is his until somebody shows it isn't, instead of merely hinting darkly at unspoken reasons for doubt.

Together….as mutually necessary correctives to their differing systemic lacks, which is rather different than together as mutually validating.

Quote: Fred Little wrote: With regard to the "compatibility" of metaphorical versus empirical description, I assert that the two modes depend on two utterly different sets of descriptive symbols with utterly different rules of operation and thus, are not directly comparable. ...."compatiblity" or "incompatibility" of metaphorical or empirical descriptions is of less relevance than the possible complementary utility of the descriptions, which is a rather different matter. Not in this context. I chose the word "compatibility" advisedly for the context of our art: ."compatible" = "capable of existing together in harmony." Comparability is an entirely different thing

So the "not in this context" notwithstanding, you have apparently agreed that "complementary utility" is a valid form of "compatability."

Quote: Fred Little wrote: While Ueshiba is supposed to have reviewed and approved the text, the apparent fact that it was approved with the stipulation that it be distributed only to yudansha may be taken to indicate that the work was intended as an outline or detailed mnemonic of lessons already imparted through oral and kinesthetic instruction, which was regarded as primary. Actually, he was QUITE explicit in several places in Budo Renshu that certain things that he mentioned going along were only really appropriate for showing through training. This forces the conclusion that things he othwerwise stated therein were appropriate to be given -- and in the form that he was giving them.

To which I will reply simply that you are taking an occasional absence of evidence as an evidence of absence. I am taking a repeated admonition as broadly applicable beyond the specific instances in which it is invoked.

Quote: Fred Little wrote: Thus, not only would the role of the text and drawings be secondary, tertiary, or quaternary, not primary, but I would also suggest that the distribution was restricted because the text might be regarded as misleading to an individual who had not received individual oral and kiinesthetic instruction. To put a fine point on it, my assertion is that it can not be shown that the authorial or editorial intention was to approach the "definite" or "definitive," much less that such an intention was successfully realized. and your definitive assertion is based a far less foundation than mine in saying that 1) by saying it, he meant it, and 2) by urging one thing and then immediately urging another thing the two things are deemed to be related and compatible.

But "related and compatible" can also be read as "tempering all extreme views regarding either." And that would be more in keeping with both Buddhist and neo-Confucian doctrine which forms the broader context in which all of Ueshiba's statements are embedded.

Quote:

Fred Little wrote: Your position that Ueshiba's language was, on the one hand "metaphorical" and on the other hand so "definite" that you can reify that "definite" meaning into a "definitive meaning" is heremeneutically suspect as anything other than a statement of faith. You misread. Only one part of the statement was metaphorical; the other expressly pointed toward a reified understanding, which was my point. And I am not a "hermeneutical suspect." --- I am "guilty, guilty, guilty..."

As with the previous reference to Buddhist and Neo-Confucian doctrine, here I will invoke basic Taoist doctrine. To the extent that anything becomes "totally x" it inexorably tends toward its obverse and becomes "non-x." This is a simple recognition of the limits of all systems. One can attempt, within the context of gravity, the body, the incoming force, etc, to achieve "total non-resistance," but there is a point beyond which "maximal non-resistance" becomes "resistance."

Now -- and this is a key point -- it may be that the maximal non-resistance amounting to resistance can only be approached by a psychological orientation toward "totality." This is a form of "total non-resistance" which renders the statement entirely sensible and isn't susceptible to the same issues of reification.

Apologies for the formatting.

Best,

FL

Regarding Budo Renshu and Budo as texts, I think Allen Beebe's comments over on AJ are apropos:

Within Aikido, "Budo" is certainly a very important text along with "Budo Renshu." I am lucky enough to posses a copy of Shirata sensei's "Budo" and value it greatly. I think it is important to note that, like other "sacred texts" this one is open to differences in interpretation as well.

Certainly Saito sensei's commentary is an important one and we are lucky that it is being made available for everyone to share. I received my copy of Shirata sensei's "Budo" at the time that Prof. John Stevens was working on his translation of Budo for Kodansha. I was fortunate to be present when Shirata sensei shared his interpretation, views and memories about Budo both at his house and at the local Budokan (in Shirata sensei's dressing room actually). During these private meetings sensei went over the book cover to cover providing both verbal and physical insights.

I share this because there are slight differences between the two books offered here, Kodansha's book and my recollections. That should not be surprising and IMHO is quite beneficial. I should think that students present around the time of Budo and Budo Renshu's publishing's would each have their own recollection, interpretation and understandings, as would post-war students who were aware of the text. (Saito sensei being notable among these.) My point is that, while commentary can be very important, thought provoking, and reveling, it should not be mistaken for the text on which it comments.

I started Aikido being told I was learning the "One True Way" and that all others were not only wrong but possibly immoral. I grew beyond this view and traveled to Japan to learn from the "others" only to have it insinuated, if not explicitly stated, over and over again that the last dojo I visited was wrong and theirs was the "One True Way." (For me Shirata sensei was the exception. He did Aikido as he understood it and openly recognized that "of course others do things differently.")

It would be a shame to have these great texts, and/or anyone's commentary "thumped" in yet another attempt to say, "See? Ours is the One True Way!" *

* The Way that can be told of is not an Unvarying Way;

The names that can be named are not unvarying names.

It was from the Nameless that Heaven and Earth sprang;

The named is but the mother that rears the ten thousand creatures, each after its kind. (chap. 1, tr. Waley[1])

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao_Te_Ching#Ineffability

Allen Beebe

Josh Lerner wrote: [snip] One interesting thing about the text is that it describes the physiological center for the body's energies as being in the center of the chest, not the lower abdomen as in later Daoist works. Very interesting for those with an interest in Akuzawa's excercises . . . But now back to our chewy center. Apologies to Chris for the thread drift. Josh

Are you reading classical Chinese at that level now, Josh? You told me your Mandarin sucked.

Ryabko's Systema works with the solar plexus as center, too.