Postby Andrew F Ulrich » Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:36 pm
Before you read the rest, I'd like to say these are my own views, and I cannot speak for John, or everyone at ARMA. I'm not sure if it's most tactful to open up this can of worms, but I don't like how people go and harp on John for what they think is just empty bragging.
Well, I don't think this article was meant to reveal everything, and not simply because he wanted to put up some sort of teaser. Sure, you can obviously tell he's excited about the material, and he freely expresses that excitement, but there's two things that I think shouldn't be overlooked.
First, and this is important, sometimes you just can't write stuff down- you have to experience it. Otherwise, why didn't everybody get it right off when they read the fechtbuchen? I don't think any series of articles that John or anyone else can write will encompass all the essentials of the art, and it's unfair to expect anything that doesn't fall short of that.
Second, what happened in 2000? I think it was mentioned that John presented a bunch of material that was appreciated. That's great, but that's not all that happened. Yes, it helped to debunk some myths, and establish some foundational perspectives and concepts, as it was intended to, but instead of everyone progressing from that foundation, several things happened:
-some people picked and chose whatever didn't conflict with what they were already doing, and went home and grafted it into their way of doing things, instead of weeding out their inaccuracies.
-others took it home, claimed they learned a little, or even nothing, then after a while, started 'discovering' 'revolutionary' ideas- suspiciously similar to what had been taught at the conference, which they didn't acknowledge.
-others learned what was taught, then outright claimed that it's what they've been doing all along
-others heard what was taught, claimed to follow what was taught, but continued to 'progress' in their erroneous practices under the banner of the principles that were taught
What's happened since 2000?
-Well, for starters, after many other presentations of ARMA material, the above has happened again and again, further solidifying the evidence that this is not just a few select people that are doing this, but a tendency of a great number of people in the community
-Secondly, and this is what is really the problem: the same people who came here to learn principles have begun to resent ARMA for the following reasons:
-first, and this is an 'of course', ARMA takes a no-nonsense approach, and are not afraid to tell people they're wrong (and demonstrate it in person when they can). Of course there's plenty of people out there who get ruffled at this (many of them described above), as it means breaking egos, and sometimes, in the case of demonstrations, bashing fingers, bruising arms, etc in front of peers/students. Some people just can't take that.
-second, we don't reveal everything we know, and sometimes we just can't given the limitations of communication and people's abilities to learn certain things, and sometimes it's simply that people have shown that they simply don't have enough character to be entrusted with information. People sometimes can't understand this (I think this also somewhat applies to the current situation), and get annoyed, or even aggressive since they're used to simply getting what they want when they ask for it, or they're so used to being taught how to do something that when something is only partially revealed, and it's apparent that they need to figure the rest out themselves, they become lost and afraid, resentful of the person who put them in that situation. This happens a lot more than you might think, and it's the cause of many problems.
-third, people at ARMA get annoyed, and rightfully so, at the kind of plagiarism that I described above. People like John try to speak out about it, and get shot down or disrespected for what they think is him just tooting his own horn.
-fourth, when some people see the material ARMA presents, they demand to be shown that their alternative ways are wrong, greedy for progress which they forget is generously given, and get impatient, resentful of ARMA's claims of superiority in the area, and prideful of their own approach after ARMA never got around to catering to their needs
-fifth, those inaccuracies that were never uprooted by their creators in 2000 have been built upon, and the 'jungle' that John mentioned in the article has sprouted up because of it.
Like I said, these things happen a lot- a whole lot more than is prudent to ignore. So why should John rush to write an article that would reveal things that he worked very hard and very long on, so that others can react in the above ways, eventually leading to more flak, misogynations, plagiarizations, and drama?
So what does this article accomplish? I think it tries to point out that something has been discovered. It describes the discovery without revealing everything about the discovery, but enough to identify the discovery and establish where it was discovered. These things will be further expounded upon in the series of videos or whatever that he says he's going to put out. Is it dissapointing to some people? Yeah, some people go to it expecting to be blown away, then to go back and digest it, then wait impatiently to be fed again. I'd say, if you want to learn what you say you want to learn, why haven't you joined ARMA and attended a seminar or joined a study group, and earned that knowledge through hands-on work, time, effort and, yes, sometimes it also takes money? Why complain about not getting it all instantly in a free article posted publicly on the internet by an organization you don't even belong to? The article has revealed what it was supposed to have revealed.
