Aikido.. The reality?

[Steve]

You defined 1 foot and 1 mile. Which is not the same as Tiny and Huge. Again like I stated. I never commented about the 1 foot and 1 mile comment. I only commented about the Tiny and Huge.


1 foot is always 1 foot. 1 mile is always one mile. Is Tiny always 1 foot? is Huge always 1 mile? I did not muddy the waters. If you want to make a point then stick with measurements.

Okay, I didn't realize that this is really confusing you. I made a presumption that you understood, but it's pretty clear now that you're just not getting it. It's not a very difficult concept, but I will try to really spell this out for you. I guess it got just a little abstract.

Try to stay with me now. I'm going step by step here, so if I lose you at any point, just let me know. I didn't define a foot or a mile. We already understand what those mean. Well, let me go back. When I said 1 foot... do you understand that I wasn't talking about my foot? I was talking about a measurement. 12 inches (an inch is also a unit of measurement that is smaller than a foot). So, not a person's foot... not my foot. But a foot which is 12 inches. Right? With me so far? You're struggling to understand, so I can get some pictures of a ruler or something if you're lost.

In the same way, do you know what I mean when I say 1 mile? That's also a unit of measurement. It's longer than a foot, by a lot! You might be surprised to learn that there are 5,280 feet in a single mile! That's a lot.

So, here's where you are getting stuck. I used those very specific terms, and then in context, drew an obvious (well, maybe not to you) connection between those terms and some more subjective terms. It's how language works. I'm struggling to find a word for this, kind of a casual form of metonymy, I'd say. But it's something that most people learn very early in life. It doesn't usually cause problems.

Which is why I initially thought you were just being a troll, trying to stir the pot a little by derailing the thread and starting a pointless argument. I see now that something else is going on and you just don't seem to have the capacity to understand.

Here, if you're really having a hard time and struggling to understand, go back and re-read my post and ignore the metonymy. Just pretend it isn't there, because it's tripping you up. It's causing you all kinds of problems. If you re-read it, and for yourself, stick with the measurements, I think you might understand the actual point and stop swirling around.

I hope this helps you and open up a whole new world of abstract thought. And in the future, I'll try to remember that you get lost when things aren't super literal. If I respond to you again, I'll try and keep things really simple and straightforward.

 

[dvcochran]

Prove a ruby teapot out in space does NOT exist.

Prove God does Not exist.

 

[Oily Dragon]

Prove God does Not exist.

Humans can't even agree on how to define existence, let alone what a "god" is. Good luck with the downstream logic.

Defining "aiki" is no different. Heck there are at least 30 different words for it in hanzi. It's a very subjective term.

Aiki also contains a naughty little joke, if anybody knows what I mean.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I used those very specific terms, and then in context, drew an obvious (well, maybe not to you) connection between those terms and some more subjective terms. It's how language works.

This is where you don't understand what you said. . You make a statement about one thing that is true and try to use as proof of something that is not related. you went from Measurements to size comparison to how it's impossible to be benevolent and allow suffering at the same time as if they were equal, but they are not. What is the standard measurement for Tiny? What is the standard measurement for Huge? How do you know all that is benevolent when you don't have all knowledge?

 

[Steve]

Prove a ruby teapot out in space does NOT exist.

That's a tough one. But as I mentioned before, you CAN prove negatives. In philosophy, people prove the lack of things all the time. But the way to do it is to approach it from the positive. What I mean is, you provide a proof that its existence, whatever "it" might be, is paradoxical or internally inconsistent. Said another way, you just provide evidence (a positive) that something can't exist.

So, for example, when it comes to a deity, proving there is no divine source for the universe is a tough one. I mean, the trump card is you can always say, "Yeah but" to anything. Big bang? Yeah, but what if the deity caused the Big Bang? Evolution? Yeah, but what if the diety created evolution?

But you can start to look at how some folks define their deity and see internally incompatible things. Theistic God, for example, is supposed to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. As St. Thomas Aquinas said, "God is that than which no greater can be conceived."

So, then, you start to dig into the problem of evil. That's the readers digest version.

 

[drop bear]

For anything, bigger guys will have the advantage in application, so this shouldn't surprise us. And there's not some secret ability to it. Aiki is just a different set of mechanics that can be applied. Nothing magic about it.

Yeah. It is when a smaller boxer or wrestler beats a bigger one because the bigger guy has the advantage that surprises us.

Haven't seen this in Aikido.

 

[drop bear]

There's a second component in my definition of "aiki", and it might be the only part that was originally in the term (though what I've seen from other sources really confuses these two, suggesting both might be part of the original term...dunno). And this part is a specific use of body mechanics. These, you probably won't find randomly developed by an elite grappler, because there are other ways to accomplish what we use aiki mechanics for. I've looked for these mechanics in BJJ videos, for instance, and only see glimpses of them. BJJ (and Judo) use different mechanics in these places. And I don't know a way to develop these without a long path of cooperative drills. They simply take a long time to develop beyond the beginner stage, so they can be used non-cooperatively.

I read this about three times and couldn't figure out what the second part of Aiki actually is or does.

 

[drop bear]

So, for example, when it comes to a deity, proving there is no divine source for the universe is a tough one. I mean, the trump card is you can always say, "Yeah but" to anything. Big bang? Yeah, but what if the deity caused the Big Bang? Evolution? Yeah, but what if the diety created evolution?

Yeah but that argument also means jeasus steals socks from the washing machine.

 

[drop bear]

Prove God does Not exist.

God can't. Because he can't be omnipotent and also morally good.

Because if say I could act and cure cancer in a baby. But didn't for whatever sadistic reason. I would not be a good guy.

And if you suggest that God is to concerned with the universe to micro manage. He is also the guy who cares who you root, what day you rest and the level of linen to cotton ratio you wear.

 

[Steve]

This is where you don't understand what you said. . You make a statement about one thing that is true and try to use as proof of something that is not related. you went from Measurements to size comparison to how it's impossible to be benevolent and allow suffering at the same time as if they were equal, but they are not. What is the standard measurement for Tiny? What is the standard measurement for Huge? How do you know all that is benevolent when you don't have all knowledge?

What is the standard measurement for Tiny? in the context of my post, it was pretty obviously 1 foot. What is the standard measurement for Huge? In the context of my post, it was pretty obviously 1 mile.

What we're running into here is the difference between wanting to discuss something and wanting to win an argument. The former can be pretty interesting. The latter is just a waste of everyone's time.

If you're trying to win an argument, it's to your advantage to create confusion. You start intentionally misunderstanding statements, clearly focusing on things that are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

If you're trying to have a discussion, it's to your benefit to come to a shared understanding of what the terms mean so that you understand what folks are trying to say.

I'll share a common example that happens ALL THE TIME around here. We have trouble with discussions regarding Self Defense. The term "self defense" can mean a lot of things. So, if you're trying to win an argument, you will pick a definition that suits your needs, ignore any other proposed definitions, and stir the pot. If you're trying to have a discussion, you would acknowledge what proposed clarification of the term, and then move on. It's really that simple.

Here's a short vignette to illustrate the difference.
Argument:
Person 1: "When I say self defense, here's what I mean."
Person 2: "That's not right. Self defense is clearly this, and if I use my definition, what you said makes no sense at all. You're wrong and I'm right, and you just don't understand self defense."
(I literally could use direct quotes from your posts above, as this is exactly what you're doing)

Discussion:
Person 1: "When I say self defense, here's what I mean."
Person 2: "Oh, that's not how I would define it, but I get your point now."

It's really that simple. So, I guess the ball is in your court. Are you looking for an argument or are you looking for a discussion?

Edit: Just want to add one last thing. Argument means different things, too. I'm always down for a good debate, in which folks share arguments for or against different positions. I don't like arguments like this, where you are just stirring the pot, intentionally misunderstanding, and basically creating conflict where none need exist. It's petty and doesn't make anyone look or feel particularly good.

 

[Steve]

Yeah but that argument also means jeasus steals socks from the washing machine.

Ha. I mean, I can imagine taking a solid run at proving something steals socks from washing machines. But it's a hard road to hoe to prove (logically) that it's Jesus.

 

[Steve]

God can't. Because he can't be omnipotent and also morally good.

Because if say I could act and cure cancer in a baby. But didn't for whatever sadistic reason. I would not be a good guy.

And if you suggest that God is to concerned with the universe to micro manage. He is also the guy who cares who you root, what day you rest and the level of linen to cotton ratio you wear.

omnipotence is the capacity to do everything... not just anything. And omniscience is knowing everything, all at once, past, present, and future, no matter how insignificant.

This is where free will gets dicey, too. If your fate is known and unchangeable, you really cannot have free will. You have a destiny.

 

[Martial D]

Prove God does Not exist.

You seem to have missed the point and are going in circles lol.

 

[Steve]

You seem to have missed the point and are going in circles lol.

Intentionally missing the point seems to be a tactic recently. Makes having a conversation pretty hard. We don't have to agree on stuff, but it's disrespectful to everyone when folks play games.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Prove God does Not exist.

I see. Debates end, because you stop debating, and just keep repeating the same nonsense statement.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That's a tough one. But as I mentioned before, you CAN prove negatives. In philosophy, people prove the lack of things all the time. But the way to do it is to approach it from the positive. What I mean is, you provide a proof that its existence, whatever "it" might be, is paradoxical or internally inconsistent. Said another way, you just provide evidence (a positive) that something can't exist.

So, for example, when it comes to a deity, proving there is no divine source for the universe is a tough one. I mean, the trump card is you can always say, "Yeah but" to anything. Big bang? Yeah, but what if the deity caused the Big Bang? Evolution? Yeah, but what if the diety created evolution?

But you can start to look at how some folks define their deity and see internally incompatible things. Theistic God, for example, is supposed to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. As St. Thomas Aquinas said, "God is that than which no greater can be conceived."

So, then, you start to dig into the problem of evil. That's the readers digest version.

You can prove a thing can't exist under certain assumptions, but as far as I know, you can't logically prove a thing doesn't exist outside those assumptions (if it did, the assumptions would have to be untrue). And sometimes the contradictions are somewhat unexplainable, like working with multiple infinities, so simplified logic may not be able to handle them.

The simplified version of this is the thought problem of an omnipotent being: can they create something so massive they cannot lift it. Both "yes" and "no" make them not omnipotent, which would mean an omnipotent being is impossible. But what if that's just too simplistic? Both omnipotent ability to move things and omnipotent ability to create things are expressions of infinity. And we know that infinity isn't measurable, but can be used mathematically (infinity X infinity = infinity) in ways that create other logical errors.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah. It is when a smaller boxer or wrestler beats a bigger one because the bigger guy has the advantage that surprises us.

Haven't seen this in Aikido.

We also don't have much live Aikido to draw from. I'd be beyond surprised if there weren't some examples of this in the history of Tomiki Aikido, for instance, since it happens in Judo from time to time.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I read this about three times and couldn't figure out what the second part of Aiki actually is or does.

Yeah, like I said, I find it impossible to express clearly in words, and that frustrates me. The simplest explanation I can give (which is a poor explanation) is that it is - in part - a method of removing slack to connect the core of the body to movement, in a specific way. It's why posture in Aikido often looks so rigid, when it actually isn't.

 

[Steve]

You can prove a thing can't exist under certain assumptions, but as far as I know, you can't logically prove a thing doesn't exist outside those assumptions (if it did, the assumptions would have to be untrue). And sometimes the contradictions are somewhat unexplainable, like working with multiple infinities, so simplified logic may not be able to handle them.

The simplified version of this is the thought problem of an omnipotent being: can they create something so massive they cannot lift it. Both "yes" and "no" make them not omnipotent, which would mean an omnipotent being is impossible. But what if that's just too simplistic? Both omnipotent ability to move things and omnipotent ability to create things are expressions of infinity. And we know that infinity isn't measurable, but can be used mathematically (infinity X infinity = infinity) in ways that create other logical errors.

Overall, I appreciate the post and agree with most of it. It's just brain exercise for the most part, but I do enjoy philosophy of religion and logic in particular. It's enjoyable. And nice to use my liberal arts education once in awhile.

Regarding your first paragraph, I would replace "assumptions" with "premises" and then say, "it depends." For example, it depends on whether we can both agree that a premise is true. It's just how arguments are built.

So, for example, I misquoted St. Anselm before... I think I attributed to Thomas Aquinas. Anyway, I love the language involved in that argument. The entire thing builds on agreement on definitions (from memory, so it is paraphrased from the original):

1. God is that than which no greater can be conceived.
2. If God is all power, all knowing, and all good, but doesn't exist, than we can conceive of something greater... a being that is all of those things... but DOES exist.
3. Bingo, bango, bongo, God must exist.

This argument only works if we agree that the definition of God is quite literally THE best, most amazing, powerful, awesome thing we can possibly imagine.

So, in the same way, when you think about the problem of evil, and start to consider how theists define their own god (core elements, without which it isn't the theistic god), you run across things like omniscience and omnipotence. Point is, we can start to argue that god doesn't exist by agreeing on things that, without which, it would not be God. It might be something pretty cool, but not god. Like it's very powerful, but not all powerful... dangerous, cool... but can't be God, because God is all powerful (that than which no greater can be conceived).

Interesting aside, not all theists have agreed on whether God is benevolent... for example, many of the founding fathers of America were deists.

In other news, I realize this is completely off topic, but I dig this ****. I understand if we need to get back on track.

 

[dvcochran]

I see. Debates end, because you stop debating, and just keep repeating the same nonsense statement.

Not at all. I am just making the same argument you are.
I am a lifetime engineering and science nerd. My work demands that much of what I do is explained in the physical sense. The majority of martial arts is ground in the physical. But I am big enough of a person to acknowledge that we are limited as humans to explain everything.
Can you honestly say you can explain everything that has happened in your lifetime?
C'mon man.