ok we will just have to disagree
I have no problem with agreeing to disagree on the role of lineage or the best way to train or whatever.
I do have a problem with someone putting words in my mouth that I never said and never meant.
Just in case the problem is due to me not expressing my ideas clearly, I will attempt to recap my points from the original blog post:
Common view of lineage
Founder creates an art (I didn't specify how they came up with it, but travelling the world, learning different arts, and synthesizing the "best" of what they've learned is certainly one of the common patterns.)
Founder teaches students.
Those students become teachers and teach students of their own and so on.
If one of those teachers along the way doesn't learn the whole art correctly, then part of the knowledge is lost and subsequent students under that teacher's lineage will be missing some understanding of the art. You can find lots of discussions on this very forum promoting this very idea.
Lineage looks like this: Founder --> Teacher A ---> Teacher B ---> Present day student.
According to the Helio theory of BJJ, my lineage would look like this: Maeda(pre-Founder)-->Carlos Gracie -->Helio Gracie (Founder of BJJ)* --> Carlson Gracie --> Carlson Gracie Jr. --> Mike O'Donnell --> Me.
*(Most lineage trees show the arrow going straight from Carlos to Carlson, but Helio presented himself as the one true creator of BJJ and Carlson did train with Helio as well as Carlos.)
A different view of lineage (I'll call it the "open-source" perspective)
Founder creates an art (at least one person generally gets the credit, although it may sometimes be a more collaborative process).
Founder teaches students. Students learn from teacher. Teacher learns from students. Students learn from each other. Students learn from outside sources and their own experiences.
The process repeats with each generation of students. Practitioners learn from their teachers, their students, their peers, their own experiences, and exposure to other systems. The art will change over time to a greater or lesser extent based on how open practitioners are to changes that they don't perceive as coming directly from their own instructor, but some degree of change is inevitable. Knowledge and understanding can be gained in each generation as well as lost.
According to my "open source" theory of BJJ, my lineage would look something like this: Kano-->Maeda (and a bunch of other judoka and catch wrestlers influencing each other)--> Donato Pires/Carlos Gracie/Luis Franca/others? -->Helio Gracie/George Gracie/Oswaldo Fadda/a bunch of other catch wrestlers and judoka--> (arrows zig-zagging back and forth to a bunch of second-generation Gracies, including Carlson, various non-Gracie jiu-jiteiros, various lutre-livre fighters)-->(arrows going around in a complicated pattern between 2nd and 3rd generation jiu-jiteiros, judoka like George Mehdi, wrestlers like Bob Anderson, Luta Livre fighters like Marco Ruas) --> (arrows going all over the damn place between different generations of BJJ practitioners, judoka, wrestlers, samboists, MMA fighters, JKD practitioners and so on, to Me.) My rank may come through the Carlson Gracie lineage, but my knowledge, skill, and personal expression of the art owe easily as much to a variety of other lineages as it does to anything that was personally passed down from Carlson.
I don't think this sort of process is anything unique to BJJ. It's just that BJJ is the art where I know enough about the history to lay out the details. If any kempoists or karateka feel that this second perspective is more in line their history than the first view, then maybe they can lay out some of the details as it applies to their art.