Occlumency and aiki-waza (LONG!)

[nrenka]

No: HPFGUIDX 126946


> Pippin:
> I see another, rather larger hole. I believe your point was that 
> aikdo techniques could not be effectively described in writing? It 
> was game of you to try:-) In any case Amazon offers 248 books on 
> Aikido -- surely the Room of Requirement could do as well. I've 
> read only a few and they all stated that they were no substitute 
> for a dedicated instructor, and yet...well, barring divine 
> revelation (and I understand that the ancient martial arts do not) 
> all human knowledge stems ultimately not from instruction but from 
> observation, trial and error -- a rather sobering thought.

The best analogy for books on aikido (I recommend Westbrook & Ratti 
and Saotome for descriptions of technique) are medieval chant 
manuscripts in neumatic notation.  They make absolutely perfect sense 
if you already know what you're doing.  You can't learn how to sing 
chant from them unless you already know a large number of chants, 
though.  Since I know how irimi-nage generally works (as well as 
anyone does with The Twenty Year Technique), aikido books are useful; 
but you can't learn how to do proper irimi-nage from the book.

Learning aikido is a mix of instruction and observation, trial and 
error.  What I tried to bring out in my descriptions is that it's a 
process of *guided* trial and error.  I partner up with another 
person and begin to work on a technique; that person is trying to 
help me along, and by offering the proper resistance helps me figure 
out what works and what doesn't.  That's why you start off with a 
little pressure and escalate later.  I'm grabbing a total beginner, 
who is trying to execute a turn with me holding on.  There are 
directions that he can go and directions he can't--my resistance 
initially points him in the 'right' direction (he turns to the 
outside because he can't turn inside with my grab), and as he gets 
better, I get more subtle and tricky to challenge him.  Hence, it 
mixes instruction, observation, and figuring things out.

There are ways of teaching that help reduce the amount of time and 
frustration the trial and error process takes.  I would contend that 
is the area Snape's teaching is ineffectual.

> My contention, which I've made before, is that Snape (and 
> Dumbledore) knew Harry had successfully resisted Imperius and so 
> they thought that Harry already knew how to organize his mind to 
> resist occlumency. Hence Snape's angry statement that Harry is not 
> trying, which Harry inadvertently confirmed by barring Snape's 
> access to his memory of Cho. A fluke, as you say, but Snape wasn't 
> to know that. 

Then I'm simply making the mistake of considering Snape a competent 
teacher who would insist upon a repeat performance for confirmation.  
My piano teacher would always say "Can you do it again?", not "You 
got it once, and that's good enough".  If Snape didn't know it was a 
fluke, it's his fault for not testing to make sure it wasn't.

What came to me last night after posting is why your version of the 
karate analogy is unlikely to work, as well.  Someone may well learn 
a number of kata working by himself from a video.  I don't want to 
see what happens in his first sparring match against an experienced 
partner, though.  Occlumency is a two-person affair, unlike figure 
skating or casting a Patronus.

> More evidence that Lupin is being placed on a pedestal so that he 
> can topple off it with a loud and satisfying crash, IMO.

It's not long until ESE!Lupin has another Hurricane to weather.

How nice it is to deal in things that can be conclusively proven or 
disproven.

-Nora notes that the validation of ESE!Lupin might even be as 
interesting as its invalidation (but her money is more on the latter)