advanced theory/practical vs basics theory

I had a conversation recently with sensei in which he said clearly that what he did normally in his classes was theory, and that people need to take it upon themselves to get the basics. Furthermore, it is basics that enable a person to understand more advanced, as well as diverse (e.g. material from a different school), material, and provide the starting point from which a person departs and finds their own style. (For context simplicity’s sake: what sensei does in his classes could also be called “advanced practical” is putting basics into practice, and that might make more sense if we considered, here, basics classes as “theory”.)

I feel that I neglected to touch upon an important point from my conversation above:
Basics are the “starting point” from which we depart, deviate, adapt to fit reality, etc. What sensei is teaching, he said, and what everyone should do as far as creating/finding their own aikido, is depart from the starting point in a way that has validity and meaning for them.

The sticking point is, without basics, there’s no reference point, no “signpost” to which you compare subsequent experiments, trials, studies, etc. The resulting situation, the one that I see anyway, is people trying very random experiments, sometimes getting luck, more often not; when people are at a loss, there is nothing to “return” to, no basic strategy or frame to improve upon. Isn’t “back to basics” what we do when we need to re-group? What I see is people unwittingly trying to re-invent the wheel despite the availability of what their predecessors and tradition have already come up with. This is ignorance that is strikingly parallel to ego (depending on the extent of personal responsibility/ownership the individual is taking on).

Coincidentally, a couple of days later I was talking with a beginner on a related thread, and he touched on the idea that he had looked at some videos and books, and couldn’t tell the difference inasmuch make distinctions that were useful to him.

This seems to be two issues: 1) people’s motivation to take initiative and do their own research, and accordingly to notice and fill in the blanks, and 2) people’s capacity to do meaningful research and connect it i.e., find the relevance to what they’re doing normally.

1.
The very starting point here is likely to be highly debatable: to what extent and in what ways should the teacher be involved in and responsible for the students’ motivation? In my graduate school experience, it’s been unlike previous school years in that the students are older, paying their own tuition, and are there because they want to be. Accordingly people actually do their homework and even extra work. In therapy and aikido, people are still there because they want to be, but they don’t do their homework. Why? I think that at least part of the reason is because they find pleasure in simply attending, which is how it should be of course, but there is some element of escape. They don’t have to address the parts that they don’t want to, and may even feel justified in doing so because they are working on other parts. This is unlike graduate school or some professional training in which I would have to, for instance learn about laws and ethics even though my interest is in the human interaction of counseling.

So perhaps the instructor or leader in aikido could cultivate a sense of togetherness. That is, a sense of striving to truly join the teacher on his/her journey instead of just the surface aspects, and come to know and see the same things he/she does. Accordingly a student would then notice what other students are doing, know about the history and tradition of what they’re doing, be aware of the greater community and context of their activity, etc.

A teacher could also refer the students to particular sources of basic information and skills, and help start the students in connecting the relevance of such basics. Certainly this is entering the realm of making the students feel rejection or forced individuation and responsibility, and understandably a teacher, as a human being, may avoid such unpleasantness. Some people will come along for the ride, others will not. In any case, it’s a big job to be in the position of leader of a group and have to manage a variety of motivations, purposes, sensibilities, etc.

Paradoxically, the students’ taking responsibility for themselves means following what the teacher says and doing their own study, making their own connections. Sometimes, at least in this culture, we hear that it’s our own responsibility and feel absolved of having to follow the directions.

2.
Especially in this age of Youtube and the internet, references are all over the place. However a beginner is someone who is only beginning to develop his/her eye and understandably needs help making sense of what’s out there. This is one area that is more clearly the responsibility of the teacher or seniors. The beginner might be highly motivated and form a study group of like-minded, motivated people, and ardently figure things out on his own. More likely, the beginner simply does not know where to begin and, especially in this age, be overwhelmed by how much information is out there.

While a teacher may know that, in the end, a person will find their own style and individuality, in the beginning a person needs structure, limitations, and help in seeing “better/worse”, “right/wrong”, and even perceiving the details and relevance of what the beginner himself is already doing. A teacher must then strive to let go of his/her own sense of things and understand the beginner’s point of view and where the beginner is as far as stage of development.

(This feels abrupt but I feel like stopping writing now.)