Ellis Amdur
16th December 2009, 16:48
Peter Goldsbury has done me the enormous honor of publishing Part I of a review-essay (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17313) of HIPS. As many e-budo folks are not members of Aikiweb, I've noted it here in case any of the members here wished to log onto that article alone, and engage with any of the discussions Peter has raised here.
What Peter has done is engaged with the book in just the manner I've hoped might happen.
The bibliography of Peter's article, alone, will keep me busy for half a year.
The most important point for me, however, is that he's pointed out what could be regarded as the weaknesses of my book - or, if not weaknesses, the areas which demand more research, and the areas where my speculations, perhaps, lack sufficient grounding. I believe that many advances in knowledge happen when something inchoate, partially accurate or even wrong-headed is placed within public discourse with enough power that it has to be dealt with.
Imagine a rough sketch, which has its own merits and beauty. In this case, rather than one artist, a collective of artists will hopefully engage to flesh out this sketch, as the other paintings in the museum have tended to the banal. It is very likely, even hoped for, that the final painting may, in many areas, no longer look much like the sketch. But the final work would not exist if someone did not take pencil to paper and begin roughing things out.
It should go without saying - but I will say it anyway - that a thread such as this one requires that a participant has actually read HIPS and Peter's essay. I will moderate this with some care.
Best
What Peter has done is engaged with the book in just the manner I've hoped might happen.
The bibliography of Peter's article, alone, will keep me busy for half a year.
The most important point for me, however, is that he's pointed out what could be regarded as the weaknesses of my book - or, if not weaknesses, the areas which demand more research, and the areas where my speculations, perhaps, lack sufficient grounding. I believe that many advances in knowledge happen when something inchoate, partially accurate or even wrong-headed is placed within public discourse with enough power that it has to be dealt with.
Imagine a rough sketch, which has its own merits and beauty. In this case, rather than one artist, a collective of artists will hopefully engage to flesh out this sketch, as the other paintings in the museum have tended to the banal. It is very likely, even hoped for, that the final painting may, in many areas, no longer look much like the sketch. But the final work would not exist if someone did not take pencil to paper and begin roughing things out.
It should go without saying - but I will say it anyway - that a thread such as this one requires that a participant has actually read HIPS and Peter's essay. I will moderate this with some care.
Best