hide

Read Next

An Open Letter to Simon and Schuester CEO Carolyn Reidy

Hi Carolyn,

Sit down before you read this.

We've got to talk.

Look. This is going to piss you off. This is going to look like I'm causing problems.

I'm not causing problems. I'm just pointing out where problems already exist.

Things are Connected, Except When They're Not. (And Either Way is Fine.)

On The Best of Sett

I recently started taking aikido classes again. I took a class on “Conflict Theory and Aikido” in college, which was years ago now. With this new blog I've been thinking about whether I should focus on “Writing for myself” and just writing about whatever I find interesting and amusing and in whatever way I find interesting and amusing (at the risk of not writing anything that's interesting to anyone but me) or if I should focus on writing things that other people might find interesting, amusing and helpful (at the risk of sacrificing authenticity). At first glance, these two choices seem exactly contradictory. However, this contradiction is illusory, the same as thinking that two practice partners in aikido are fighting against each other. In reality they are working with each other, one practicing their attack and the other practicing their defense (and what is attack and what is defense is not always clear). They are like an arch where each side supports both itself and the other. Some strains of aikido have a massive focus on this unity. In fact, the founder said, “Aiki is not a technique to fight with or defeat the enemy. It is the way to reconcile the world and make human beings one family." which has lead many people who practice other martial arts to downplay aikido's effectiveness in an actual fight. Whether or not that is true, this can lead people to ignore the fact that aikido, and other “slow” martial arts are extremely dangerous. Because it focuses on using the construction of the other person's body, like the elbow and shoulder in ikkyo, or the wrist in yonkyo, aikido doesn't just have the possibility of causing pain, but can tear tendons, rip someone's joints out of their sockets, and do permanent damage to their nerves. When someone is practicing a move on you, you're practicing how to safely take a fall with them. There is no one person acting on the other person as an object, but a cohesive interaction. Neither could do what they're doing without the other. I suspect something similar exists for any relationship. If there's a relationship we don't like we're probably doing something to support that relationship in its current form. If you remove that support the relationship the other person in the relationship will have to change for it to continue. Either the nature of the relationship will change or it will stop. For instance, if you have a friend who's always complaining to you, (not constructive criticism, but complaints about something in their life) you're probably listening to those complaints. If you stop the complaints will stop one way or another. The people in a relationship act the way they do partially because the other people in the relationship are acting in the way they are. If someone in a relationship changes the way they're acting the other people in that relationship can continue acting in the same way, but they won't get the same response as they did before. (And this means the incentives about how to act change.) This is again like an arch, but where we slightly move one of its sides off-center. It's possible that the other side will slightly move to maintain balance, but it's also possible that the arch will just collapse. If the moving side moves a small amount, and the other side adjusts, and the moving side moves just a touch again, and the other side adjusts, and they do this for a while, it's possible that the shape of the building will be changed over-time. (and earthquake-prone Valparaiso has a few examples of this.) On the other hand, if the moving side makes a drastic change the other side will not have an opportunity to adjust and the arch will simply collapse. So the beginning of a blog, or any endeavor where you're working with other people, is important to find people who are complimentary. I suspect this is a big hole in mass-media. A blogger can really dig deep into a subject, and people who want to learn about that or read about the person's experiences will stick around, while people who are not as interested will move on. Mass-media tries to appeal to people who are not all that interested, and has to present a watered-down version of whatever subject. It's like an arch where one column isn't pushing very hard, if the other column pushes back with a lot more force the arch will topple. But if two sides of an arch are pushing against each other with a lot of force, not only is it very stable (assuming it's not pushed to the side) but it's even stronger than an arch with less force. One of the awesome things about the Internet is that it allows people to find other people who are as passionate about things as they are. If someone isn't really into eating healthy and exercising, but feels like they “should be” there are thousands of articles to the effect of, “10 things to lose weight NOW!” If someone is kinda interested, but is just looking what's out there they can find blogs on veganism, the paleo diet, vegetarianism, advice on weight lifting, cardio, yoga, and a whole bunch of other stuff. And then if someone is REALLY into fitness and health they can find extremely detailed information and scientific studies (along with information about statistical methods so they can knowledgeably read those studies). So then for this blog, like any relationship, I think I should be honest and see what happens. Honesty is key.  If you don't like the results you can always make slight changes, or even drastic ones if you really don't like the direction something is going. People who "click" with you will stick around, and people who don't will move on, which is fine. They'll find what they need.  Find what you need.

Rendering New Theme...