Series Warning (Red Pill) and Qualification

Following the reactions to my previous/first post in this series, it would appear that I should have included a warning and qualification in that post.

This series of posts is intended to explore the 'faults' in some of the teachings of the instructors in the JDJ tradition. In this way, it is taking the 'red pill':

The red pill and blue pill represent a choice between the willingness to learn a potentially unsettling or life-changing truth by taking the red pill or remaining in the contented experience of ordinary reality with the blue pill. The terms originate from the 1999 film The Matrix.

If the reader wants to maintain the status quo, take the blue pill and read no further.

If the reader takes the red pill and reads future posts, they will be exposed to potentially unsettling and/or life-changing truths in relation to the teachings of the JDJ tradition and its instructors, however, there is a huge upside in doing so ... not the least of which is that they might be able to see further by standing on the shoulders of giants.

I am generally not a 'believer' of any sorts but rather follow in the tradition of Bertrand Russell:

In science men change their opinions when new knowledge becomes available; but philosophy in the minds of many is assimilated rather to theology than to science. The kind of philosophy that I value and have endeavoured to pursue is scientific, in the sense that there is some definite knowledge to be obtained and that new discoveries can make the admission of former error inevitable to any candid mind. For what I have said, whether early or late, I do not claim the kind of truth which theologians claim for their creeds. I claim only, at best, that the opinion expressed was a sensible one to hold at the time when it was expressed.

Theology = belief = 'an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.' 

One cannot argue against a believer because proof is irrelevant to the believer. While loyalty is an admirable trait, blind loyalty, not so much. One cannot argue against the blindly loyal because they are by definition blind. One cannot argue against a member of the 'as if' group whose primary motivation is the preservation of the status quo when their stated motivation is in effective and efficient technique (this will be discussed in the next post).

I don't believe, I know. I am, as Russell said, prepared to change what I know when facts are presented proving otherwise. I knew that JDJ and his instructors were right about everything, until facts were presented otherwise. Those facts often originated in questions about some of their teachings which paradoxically came about because they were good teachers. In this way, I came to see further by standing on the shoulders of giants. 

It turns out that this series of posts may be interactive of sorts. This is where I continue to learn, by thinking about the comments that are received. I never dismiss comments, even abusive ones, and I always give them due consideration. I suppose this is part of my message - question what is being taught. Don't accept what I say without question if it doesn't jibe with your understanding, but understand your understanding.

I received the following comment from a former instructor who I respect highly. They are knowledgeable and thoughtful, as in thinking about what they say; they are loyal, but not blindly so:

Irrespective of who the best instructor was or is, it should be about self-improvement and understanding- take what is good, learn from what isn’t.

There is no equivocation here in saying 'they are not wrong,' rather, I will say unequivocally that they are right. The problem here is that one cannot learn 'from what isn't' unless one knows 'what isn't.' One cannot learn if they accept what is taught unquestioningly. One obviously has to do so when starting out, however, with experience, understanding should develop which may lead to questioning the original teaching.

My advice for what it’s worth is that - techniques are for analysis, Instructors/trainers will always be unique and are therefore to LEARN from - good and bad.

Their advice is worth a great deal. The reference to 'techniques are for "analysis"' is a whole subject in itself, as future posts will demonstrate. The idea that instructors/trainers will always be unique and are to learn from - good or bad, is again spot on the money, however, that cannot happen if their teachings are received unquestioningly. 

The qualification is, as alluded to above, the reference to faults in teachings is not a reference to faults in all of the teachings. A great deal of the teachings are without fault, however, I am drawn to the faults, as I will explain in the next post, but only in the spirit of kaizen, to change for the better. And in those faults, insight that can lead to a new and better understanding resides, as the abovementioned respected former instructor suggests.

A qualification to the qualification is that the jujutsu grading system that JDJ developed is a major problem. One which has the potential of seeing the demise of the JDJ tradition. This will be discussed in further detail in future posts.