So, it's all about Judy.
turquoiseb: > Aikido is one of the weirdest martial arts going. It > was developed by Morihei Ueshiba (a master of several > other forms of martial arts including jiu-jitsu, > ken-jutsu, and karate) as a kind of synthesis of > martial arts, philosophy and religion. Ueshiba's > "take" on what was wrong with the existing martial > arts is that they all required the defender to react > to an attack by "striking back," thus lowering the > defender to the same level of the attacker. Philo- > sophically he didn't like this, so he invented what > he thought was a better way. > > Aikido is a purely defensive art. In it, you use > your attacker's own energy to allow him "to throw > himself." But nothing happens if he doesn't attack. > A "match" between two Aikido masters would probably > devolve into the two of them staring at each other > for several minutes, and then laughing and going > out for tea, because neither "threw the first punch." :-) > > It occurs to me that Fairfield Life is very non- > Aikido-like. There are a few posters here who IMO > seem to pretty much *live* for the "punching back," > so much so that they invent attacks where none were > ever made, just so they *can* "punch back" and "get" > the person they think has attacked them, or something > they believe in or hold to be true. > > It also occurs to me that many of these same people > do this because -- quite frankly -- They Don't Have > Anything Else To Say. > > They're stuck in a kind of "reactive rut," waiting > for someone -- anyone -- to say something that they > can disagree with, or blast the other poster for > saying. They use the "punching back" as a "cover" to > hide the fact that they just aren't interesting or > intelligent or creative enough to think of anything > to say that *isn't* "punching back." > > So what would happen if the person they "punch back > at" the most -- just as an experiment -- laid low for > a little while and didn't make any posts specifically > criticizing TM, Maharishi, or them? WOULD they be > able to think of anything to say? Or would they > continue to hammer away at the "attacker," even > though he had become an "attacker in absentia?" >
