If, during instructing, it is perceived that a student is open, be prepared—be absolutely prepared to accept that a student shall be free to match the speed, momentum, creative flow, and social stature (i.e., one’s role and status), as peers. This may be deeply discomforting, humiliating, and frustrating. Saying to another, “you’re open,” behind the shield of a situational construct inviting a student to be open, is foolish; it is self-, we-, and brand-aggrandizing. This goes for all matters of human relations. The idea that a being is open, weaker, or inferior has been expressed in feelings, thoughts, and behaviors (see tripartite model of attitude; Spooncer, 1992) manifest across a wide range of history, ending with defeat. The same idea and subsequent failure is evident in many spheres of life: political, economic, artistic, industrial, scientific, and religious, and is not expressly limited to these. It is best to dispense with judging openness or closedness.
Be warned—fooling oneself that a student is open and accelerating speed, increasing momentum, mustering continuous creative flow, and asserting authority beyond previously conditioned mimicry (see social mimicry, chameleon effect; Chartrand & Bargh, 1999; Chartrand & van Barren, 2009; cf. Leander et al., 2012) may yet reveal the limits of an instructor’s prime conditioned forms instantaneously. In precious moments, insight, tranquility, and wisdom may penetrate deeply [into] an instructor’s (i.e., budoka’s) principal maxima (see slit experiments etc.).1 In this way, an entire field of conditioning (e.g., respondent, operational, observational) may be imaged (an index for sense capacities [e.g., smelled, tasted, touched etc.), subject to tomography, and holography. Such it had been said that techniques can be “stolen”. For these reasons, mastery does not seek technique.
The principal maxima represents an instructor’s currently situated identities (Alexander & Weil, 1969) and its collections of attitudinal components (i.e., thoughts, feelings, and behaviors). With respect to a specific aspect of behaviorism (i.e., operant conditioning), an instructor may have inadvertently conditioned highly discriminated behaviors co-dependent on stimuli of artificially situationally constrained keiko, lacking generalization. These identity manifestations may be obfuscated by the grounds (it starts with the quality of earth) where inalienable rights of equality between beings are first realized (see ha stage of shu-ha-ri), which is the ground spring of limitless forms manifest (see ri stage of shu-ha-ri; see take-musu-aiki) and further stages of [redacted].
However, if a student is not open, yet perceived as “weak”, an instructor may yet still convince themselves (and others in public, or private) that a student is open. This is incorrect. Do not mistake correlation for causation, and do not take confounds for causes. Aiki starts with (i.e., is emulated by) cosmic etiquette, and is approached through (i.e., is simulated by) cultural etiquette—this simulation is the practice of Aikido. Do not mistake emulation and simulation. And do not mistake cosmic etiquette with that which is beyond emulation. The student is not in this case open, but experiences weakness; do not mistake the student for being weak, it is merely an experience of weakness, for strength is accumulating. If an instructor is truly skilled, potential future “strength” can be felt accumulating to the present, and in some cases, through the present to the past (i.e., cognitive restructuring; [redacted]).
It is here, gathering the future to the present, that weakness is transcended rapidly. It is here that movement is natural, free, and dignified. This is a principal of continual starts (i.e., shoshin [begin[ning] mind]2). It is the purpose of training to increase pliant strength (e.g., like bamboo) from this fractally recursive shoot. Remember that self-view (i.e., “I”; [i.e., ignorance]) doesn’t use strength [see masagatsu agatsu etc.])—wisdom uses strength, ignorance mismanages it.
Now, in this moment, take care to not fall into the phenomenon which labeling theory (Becker, 1963) explains. Labeling a student open or weak may yet shunt a student’s growth—wisdom of masagatsu agatsu (i.e., anatta; samma ditthi) understands that flows of fields (i.e., ki no nagare waza) in a cosmos are in continual interference (i.e., waves of the ocean of samsara). Keiko simulates, emulates, and later unconditions ignorance, leaving wisdom. Unconditioning reshapes these interferences. Do not look for purity, it will arrive precisely on time. If one were to move a fist at similar speeds as a student’s general movements to punch in order to show “an opening”, the student may yet demonstrate its neutralization. So too with beings and groups experiencing threats to behaviors amidst social relations and environmental situations (see psychological reactance theory [PRT]; Brehm, 1966).
In sum, judging openness to attack requires a suspension of artificial training relations. By default students are open due to student-teacher relationship. With sincerity, it is easy to suspend, yet is made difficult by craving and aversion. Instruction that trains with openings while violating simulated cosmic laws for the purpose of self-, we-, or brand-aggrandizement harms the world. Yet, if within the context of a dojo (i.e.. place of the way), a community can set aside ethnocentric ideals of imperial forms of training, and invite joy of another’s success, loving-kindness, compassion, and equanimity, then these will serve instead of artificial forms of learning (e.g., rituals, forms, kata) which are unfortunate artifacts of beings’ adaptations to social and environmental strain (e.g., strain theory’s ritualism adaptation; Merton, 1938).
In a suspen<ding|sion|se> of artificial training relations, it will be as sun rays (i.e., star-shine; starlight) entering a room when opening its door and/or windows. In such a way, practice was, is, and will be invigorating, illuminating, refreshing, and enjoyable! If there is doubt, know that sympathetic joy will celebrate success without preference, loving-kindness will alleviate annoyances without preference, compassion will moderate/mediate training with respect to capacities (i.e., strengths) without preference (see earlier commentary on keiko management and flow state management), and equanimity will engender greater clarity and precision of direct perception of causes and results of said causes. This does not happen merely intellectually, but in-vivo, right here, right now.
In this understanding, the training of the way goes beyond cultures, as the way befriends limitless cultures… for the benefit of limitless beings.
It’s your choice.
It’s not my choice.
Yet it is known, in compassion,
that it’s not your choice either.
Wisdom sees differently—
at a distance.
Please, do not mistake maai for arrogance,
and please do not mistake maai for contempt.
There are entire communities unaccepted,
pressured to privileged “coming out”
still warranting protection.3
1 Please note that the maxima becomes sharpened and intensified as the total number of slits (N) increases (see studies on electricity and magnetism, slit experiments etc.; <cough/>).
2 To assert “beginner” from “sho” in shoshin, demonstrates the divisiveness of attribution of self (i.e., atta).
3 See the Mezey’s (2008) article on coming out and privilege. Having grown up in the world of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and later assumed to be simply gay awaiting a coming out, ignores a whole world of queer, diverse cultures, and characteristics that are discriminated against quite vividly.
Alexander, C. N., & Knight, G. W. (1971). Situated identities and social psychological experimentation. Sociometry, 34(1), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786351
Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. Free Press.
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.
Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception–behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(6), 893–910. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.523
Chartrand, T. L., & van Baaren, R. (2009). Human mimicry. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 41, pp. 219–274). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)00405-X
Leander, N. P., Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (2012). You give me the chills: Embodied reactions to inappropriate amounts of behavioral mimicry. Psychological Science, 23(7), 772–779. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611434535
Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), 672–682. https://doi.org/10.2307/2084686
Mezey, N. (2008). The privilege of coming out: Race, class, and lesbians’ mothering decisions. International Journal of Sociology of the Family, 34(2), 257–276. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23070754
Spooncer, F. (1992). Behavioural studies for marketing and business. Stanley Thornes.