The characters/ideograms mean "speculation; guess; supposition." The first character means, "recollection; think; remember," the second character means, "fathom; plan; scheme; measure."
Lets add this one to kaigi and sotei or skepticism and assumptions. We use all this information to speculate as to how things work and what we can do about such things. This ties into defensive strategies. The more information gathered the better the speculative reasoning, i.e. our assumptions and their effect on our actions along with skepticism in validation.
Addendum dtd Oct 1, 2013 at 10:13hrs.
I hear a lot of speculation in the Isshinryu community. Some is with supporting information but not necessarily "facts." Yes, a person's personal experience is relevant but not "factual" because it relies heavily on a variety of factors - all subject to human perceptions and errors.
It is speculation, i.e. a personal viewpoint. Yes, initially when I hear someone provide their personal viewpoint supported by information, sometimes actual facts, then I believe it - until - some other fact or information comes along that has more weight than the previous.
Now, there are some in our Isshinryu community I respect and admire for their efforts to gather up the history of the system, Okinawan Isshinryu, and there are some that warrant listening too with reservations.
But, a big BUT, most of what is passed is still speculation. As to "facts," When I think of facts I think of data that has substance and general validation by some authoritative source such as research results or historical data documented by authoritative sources.
One viewpoint of "facts" is by Pierce, i.e. "truth is that concordance of an abstract statement with the ideal limit towards which endless investigation would tend to bring scientific belief, which concordance the abstract statement may possess by virtue of the confession of its inaccuracy and onesideness, and this confession is an essential ingredient of truth."
It must be noted that specific to "scientific," "investigation," "inaccuracy," and "belief." are paramount. One's word or the second hand conveying of another word toward some fact of possible inaccuracy due to culture, belief, perceptions, context, and time along with communication disparities leave "doubt" present in those facts.
It is not to say that a person's belief and viewpoint are not facts or accurate but open to disbelief depending on the viewpoint of the other side of the debate. Taking homage to such disagreements is dangerous and volatile - toward conflict of unnecessary egoistic pride driven self-need.
To achieve undisputed facts one needs to step a bit further along then reputation and personal perceptions regardless of how they seem to have validation from sources such as first person. First person is still subject to doubts simply because of the human equation, i.e. memory, age and cultural influences, etc.
If said viewpoint can not be disputed with facts then it is assumed to be a fact with the caveat that in some future time those facts will be disputed by some authoritative source putting the onus on the originator to willingly change their facts to reflect the new facts. This is after all, the fundamentals of facts.
Where I tend to discard facts of the first or even second person is when they are supported by attacks on other facts to cause disagreement and discord - two concepts of conflict, unnecessary conflict.
To claim one is personally disparaged by another is to then say one is guilty of disparaging remarks to the other and therefore feeds the conflict loop.
State the facts, only the facts. Compare the two facts in dispute without calling names or disparaging anothers integrity and you have a conversation leading to a final set of accepted facts.
Growth is fostered when both halves are in harmony and agreement. To gain anothers agreement is not accomplished by conflict except in dire situations and even then those dire situations come from a refusal of parties to discuss and exchange information through communications, i.e. active listening to the viewpoint and facts of one another to mutual benefit. The moment it falls into the conflict loop unless one or the other has the intestinal fortitude to remove the disparities contributing to the conflict the exchange of viewpoints is doomed.
So be it ......