“Whenever you parry, hit, spring, strike or touch the enemy’s cutting sword, you must cut the enemy in the same movement. It is essential to attain this. If you think only of hitting, springing, striking or touching the enemy, you will not be able actually to cut him.”
So I took “All techniques are one technique” to mean that the techniques share the same goal, and that it can be useful to think of them as a unified whole to facilitate moving between one and the other (see also his part about rationality being a “dance”.)
How do you interpret it? Is he just trying to sound cool, and not actually communicating anything of value?
(That’s a genuine question, and I’m open to the possibility of it being true. I just need a little convincing.)
If for many years you practice the techniques and submit yourself to strict constraints, it may be that you will glimpse the center. Then you will see how all techniques are one technique, and you will move correctly without feeling constrained. Musashi wrote: “When you appreciate the power of nature, knowing the rhythm of any situation, you will be able to hit the enemy naturally and strike naturally. All this is the Way of the Void.”
There is this saying about the game of go, which states that as a beginer, all you see are stones. As an intermediate, all you see are tactics, shapes with specific names, etc. And as an expert, all you see are just stones again. I think the sentiment is the same.
There is this saying about the game of go, which states that as a beginer, all you see are stones. As an intermediate, all you see are tactics, shapes with specific names, etc. And as an expert, all you see are just stones again.
From what I understand of the neuropsychology and expertise research this saying is terribly misleading. The structural changes to relevant areas of memory and the observations of which aspects of pattern recognition are improved the perception of higher level abstractions rather than low level features is rather inherent to the achievement of high levels of expertise. Chess experts for example have a vastly superior ability to memorize chess board layouts that are of the kind that occur in actual games. On the other hand their ability to memorize randomized chess boards is barely more than that of amateurs. I would be shocked if this was different in Go players. This indicates that what the experts are ‘seeing’ can not be meaningfully described as advancing according to the saying.
I think the sentiment is the same.
I prefer this sentiment. “Deep” nonsense saying things are all the same when they aren’t doesn’t belong in a rationality tract.
The saying can be seen as mystifying the abilities of stronger players. But I think there are also more charitable readings. I think the second and third stage in the saying might refer to the same as the “rigorous” stage and the “post-rigorous” stage in this article. Instead of saying that in the third stage on sees “just stones again” (I might have replicated that part badly), it might be more correct that one can see the stones again, because the formalisms aren’t in your way anymore.
I prefer this sentiment. “Deep” nonsense saying things are all the same when they aren’t doesn’t belong in a rationality tract.
Well, I assume it was included mostly for poetic reasons. Which is not an excuse, of course.
False. Is this a quote from the referenced source? If so, the referenced source is silly.
Eliezer quotes Musashi:
“Whenever you parry, hit, spring, strike or touch the enemy’s cutting sword, you must cut the enemy in the same movement. It is essential to attain this. If you think only of hitting, springing, striking or touching the enemy, you will not be able actually to cut him.”
So I took “All techniques are one technique” to mean that the techniques share the same goal, and that it can be useful to think of them as a unified whole to facilitate moving between one and the other (see also his part about rationality being a “dance”.)
How do you interpret it? Is he just trying to sound cool, and not actually communicating anything of value?
(That’s a genuine question, and I’m open to the possibility of it being true. I just need a little convincing.)
There is this saying about the game of go, which states that as a beginer, all you see are stones. As an intermediate, all you see are tactics, shapes with specific names, etc. And as an expert, all you see are just stones again. I think the sentiment is the same.
From what I understand of the neuropsychology and expertise research this saying is terribly misleading. The structural changes to relevant areas of memory and the observations of which aspects of pattern recognition are improved the perception of higher level abstractions rather than low level features is rather inherent to the achievement of high levels of expertise. Chess experts for example have a vastly superior ability to memorize chess board layouts that are of the kind that occur in actual games. On the other hand their ability to memorize randomized chess boards is barely more than that of amateurs. I would be shocked if this was different in Go players. This indicates that what the experts are ‘seeing’ can not be meaningfully described as advancing according to the saying.
I prefer this sentiment. “Deep” nonsense saying things are all the same when they aren’t doesn’t belong in a rationality tract.
The saying can be seen as mystifying the abilities of stronger players. But I think there are also more charitable readings. I think the second and third stage in the saying might refer to the same as the “rigorous” stage and the “post-rigorous” stage in this article. Instead of saying that in the third stage on sees “just stones again” (I might have replicated that part badly), it might be more correct that one can see the stones again, because the formalisms aren’t in your way anymore.
Well, I assume it was included mostly for poetic reasons. Which is not an excuse, of course.