Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > AikiWeb AikiBlogs > RonRagusa's Blog

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

RonRagusa's Blog Blog Tools Rate This Blog
Creation Date: 03-21-2005 06:24 AM
RonRagusa
Offline
rss2
Blog Info
Status: Public
Entries: 145
Comments: 79
Views: 133,008

In General One Hundred and Twenty-one Entry Tools Rate This Entry
  #122 New 03-19-2009 10:05 PM
Quote:
Joe McParland wrote:
If I say, "apple," is the one you see the same as the one I see, or are they different?
Apple is too complex, let's reduce it to "red". If I say, "red," is the red you see the same as the red I see, or are they different? Now you may argue that "red" is defined by a particular wave length of light and that we can agree that wavelength = x is red. That's all very nice, but it doesn't tell us anything about how we perceive red. I can be shown light of wavelength x + dx where dx represents a change in x and call it red. You meanwhile could be shown light of wavelength x - dx and come to the same conclusion that it is red. Whose red is red?

Clearly, since we agreed at a prior point in time that wavelength x is red neither of us can be right. The wavelength of the light we were shown varied from x by some amount dx. We are forced to admit that our definition of red is, perhaps, to constrained to be of any use when dealing with human perception of color. To enable us to talk about red, as it is perceived by humans, in any meaningful manner we must expand our definition of what is red to include a spectrum of wavelengths.

Aikido is like red. We could attempt to define Aikido simply as the form of "what Ueshiba did" and leave it at that. Therefore if I am doing what Ueshiba did then I am doing Aikido. Simple really. The problem with that is that Ueshiba did what he did over a long period of time and what he did and how he did it varied with respect to when in time he was doing it. So like red, that when discussed perceptively, cannot be pinned down to a single wavelength, Aikido, it seems, cannot be pinned down to a single form.

So today we have many different forms of Aikido. Yet I can walk into an Aikido dojo anywhere in the world and discern that what I am seeing is Aikido without having to resort to anything but my perception of what is being performed on the mat.

The question I ask myself is - Did Ueshiba intend for Aikido to become so varied in form, and if so, why?
Views: 1318 | Comments: 12


RSS Feed 12 Responses to "One Hundred and Twenty-one"
#12 03-27-2009 09:05 AM
In case anyone's following: One.
#11 03-26-2009 10:22 PM
RonRagusa Says:
Quote:
Joe McParland wrote:
Can you answer precisely what is the difference between hard-style aikido and soft-style aikido?
See blog entry titled One for my answer. Character limitations prevent me from posting it here.
#10 03-26-2009 10:02 PM
RonRagusa Says:
Quote:
Joe McParland wrote:
As a technicality, my first sentence should have been stated, "Each of two people claims to study aikido;" it wasn't meant to be a tell, as you've drawn the wrong conclusion about my would-be answer.
Amending my post in light of new information: Ahhh… the relativity of perception. Relative to me both, relative to them as a collective, both and neither, relative to you, unknown, so both, either or neither until you so state.
#9 03-26-2009 09:39 PM
As a technicality, my first sentence should have been stated, "Each of two people claims to study aikido;" it wasn't meant to be a tell, as you've drawn the wrong conclusion about my would-be answer. Can you answer precisely what is the difference between hard-style aikido and soft-style aikido?
#8 03-26-2009 08:28 PM
RonRagusa Says:
Quote:
Joe McParland wrote:
Two people study aikido, one a hard style and one a soft style. Each tries the other and claims that what he experienced does not match his understanding of (or, what he perceives to be) aikido. There is no (x,dx) that satisfies them both. Which of the two is aikido?
Ahhh… the relativity of perception. Relative to me both, relative to them as a collective, both and neither, relative to you, based on the first sentence of your post, both.
#7 03-26-2009 05:35 PM
Two people study aikido, one a hard style and one a soft style. Each tries the other and claims that what he experienced does not match his understanding of (or, what he perceives to be) aikido. There is no (x,dx) that satisfies them both. Which of the two is aikido?
#6 03-25-2009 09:49 PM
RonRagusa Says:
Quote:
Joe McParland wrote:
If Aikido is ultimately formless, how do we define it using perception?
We don't define it, we know it for what it is for having perceived it.
#5 03-25-2009 09:39 PM
RonRagusa Says:
Quote:
Joe McParland wrote:
And are there aspects other than wavelength and polarization that we cannot perceive?...
In the moment of perception, it doesn't matter.
#4 03-25-2009 09:37 PM
RonRagusa Says:
Quote:
Joe McParland wrote:
Is a thing necessarily only what you can perceive about that thing?
In the moment of perception, yes.
#3 03-25-2009 03:35 PM
If Aikido is ultimately formless, how do we define it using perception? How do we characterize something that is perhaps more than we can perceive? We can entangle ourselves with these questions, but a more telling question is this: Why does such a thing require characterization at all?
#2 03-25-2009 03:19 PM
Is a thing necessarily only what you can perceive about that thing? Red can be defined as wavelength x +/- dx, yes, but are the polarized red from a laser the same as the scattered red reflected from a child's coloring, even if the same wavelength? And are there aspects other than wavelength and polarization that we cannot perceive?...
#1 03-23-2009 01:34 AM
"Did Ueshiba intend for Aikido to become so varied in form, and if so, why?" Yes. Why? Because Aikido is a way of life. I doubt that O-Sensei would have liked for all his students to lead the exact same life
 




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:55 PM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2014 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate