Re: No, the world is not becoming a more violent place so what are you getting out of
 

[quote=Yannis Mousoulis;320439] What's your problem with my statement? If aikido is a martial art, it is (pretty much by definition) a controlled, stylized, choreographed form of violence. I know far more ways to kill, maim, injure, hurt and control people than I did before I took up aikido. I refuse to avoid taking responsibility for the gifts aikido has given me by pretending the gifts are something they are not.

You may not study aikido as a martial art, but I do. Aikido is a big enough umbrella, and the mat I am on is pretty darn large.

Re: No, the world is not becoming a more violent place so what are you getting out of
 

[quote=Krystal Locke;320522] Aikido is a martial art indeed and i practice it as a martial art.As a martial art that is giving you the choice to be simply in control of the oponent or even deadly and every stage in between,according to the situation or what you want to do.
But being a martial art,it cannot be violent.Aikido is the way of controlling, neutralizing or even destroying your opponent,while you maintain a calm, non-agressive state of mind.It is therefore the exact opposite of violence!
If one is a real martial artist,even though his body has to physically fight,his mind and the essense of his core are in peace.
If one is a real martial artist his body also remains calm even though he is physically fighting.
The correct state of mind during a fighting situation is "mushin" which could loosely mean "no-mind".You don't hate your attacker,you simply deal with the situation at hand at the best of your abilities using aikido techniques and if the outcome is somehow violent,if your techniques were correct,it is more the relult of the attacker's actions.
An aikido warrior can be destructive by choice,but he cannot be angry or violent...

Re: No, the world is not becoming a more violent place so what are you getting out of
 

Yannis, agree with your definitions for the most part. Only thing that I would differ on might be how you use the word choice. I think we try to expand our skills to give us the ability to make choices, or the ability to make more informed choices. however, I have been humbled by every violent encounter I have ever been involved in and while I may have had some ability/degree to make choices. I was never as skillful as I would have liked to have been or had much real choice in the destruction that ensued. I do try and minimalize it to the lowest degree necessary.

I am only saying that the enemy gets a vote and he typically has a bigger vote in the equation than we'd like him to, otherwise it would not be violent at all. So the mere presence of violence denotes to me that I do not have control or the ability to make choices all that effective.

I just think the whole notion of choice can be very slippery. that is all.

Re: No, the world is not becoming a more violent place so what are you getting out of
 

Kevin i agree totally with you,most of the times the situation is setting the bar of what happens and in real fighting situation there is always a number of x factors that is limiting our choices and puts a frame around our actions.
Trying to minimalize the destruction if possible and getting as much control as the situation and one's skills alow is,in my opinion,the right thing to do.So we are agreed!

Re: No, the world is not becoming a more violent place so what are you getting out of
 

[quote=Yannis Mousoulis;320527] I agree with what you have written here except your definition of violence. You seem to be saying that violence requires a lack of control, or thought, to be violence, and I do not think that is true. I see a lot of calmly premeditated, controlled damage inflicted upon others that anyone would call violence having seen it. Who is more violent, a person who plans, carefully arranges, and methodically executes a mall shootup, or someone who comes home to find the missus in the sack with the neighbor, loses his temper and proceedes to uncontrollably knock the snot out of all involved? I dont know. I think they might both be considered violent.

Claiming the moral high ground in a fight because you are calm is questionable. Assigning blame to the attacker if I use my skills to injure someone in a fight is perhaps understandable, but ultimately not reasonable. I am held liable for my actions in any and all situations, and my mental and emotional state have little bearing on my liability. Sometimes I can say that I was honestly afraid, and had little idea of what my atttacker had on hand and what their intent was. Even that doesn't get me far, sometimes.

For me, studying a martial art is about uncovering, working with, and learning to control my capacity for violence. I am not going to pretend that my participation in the art of love and harmony has actually made me less violent. I am more aware of the potential I have for violence. Which is good because like we are both saying, violence is better controlled. I'm just admitting I have the capacity for it, and you seem to be hiding your capacity under a label of a "non-violent" martial art.

Re: No, the world is not becoming a more violent place so what are you getting out of
 

Wow, lighten up, Francis. I did read your paragraph. That's my best interpretation of it. If you don't want to clarify, then say so, but don't take an attitude like I'm some kind of idiot because I can't read your mind.

Re: No, the world is not becoming a more violent place so what are you getting out of
 

[quote=Krystal Locke;320551] I can see your point here but i would like to clarify something.I don't claim that martial skills and technique cover for ill morals if you use them just to hurt somebody methodically.The ethical part i think is covered since an aikidoka is not supposed to attack somebody or go straight into a fight if he can avoid it.But if it comes down to self deffence then the violent person is the one who attacked the aikidoka in order to harm him.If the aikidoka has high skills in his Art,he can use the attacker's force against him,limiting the damage as much as possible.Even if the attacker is harmed during that confrontation it will be because of his own power used against him and of his own initiative to attack in the first place.Thus,high skilled technique,relaxed,centered body and calm,peacefull mind inside make for non-violent,yet extremely effective martial artist...:)

Re: No, the world is not becoming a more violent place so what are you getting out of
 

Ooops slight misunderstanding here.I never said or implied that you are an idiot,i wouldn't say such a thing for anybody.You figured out my point for the most part.The "i state them you hate them" was more a joke to state that i prefere the next reader to read my paragraph,no matter how badly written, and decide for himself what he makes out of it.And if he doesn't like it no problem,i don't like every post in every thread either,no big deal...:)

Re: No, the world is not becoming a more violent place so what are you getting out of
 

And for further clarification,i'm not Francis.Haha!Sorry for that,now back to the topic...:)

Re: No, the world is not becoming a more violent place so what are you getting out of
 

My description of "violence" is that the aggressor instills fear to the intended recipient or victim.
You can be devastating and violent but also I believe you can be devastating but not violent.

I guess the difference lies in aikido the fact where nage, instead of fear being instilled to the opponent it is respect no matter how devastating nage is. Similar to a blade, it can be feared or respected.

I guess we have all encountered some fights at one point in our lives, physical or otherwise where at the end of the fight the winner senses respect from the loser (the loser being the aggressor).

So my goal in martial arts is to get to a point where I can be feared out of violence to be feared out of respect. Does this then mean that the highest forms of martial arts are non-violent, not only to aikido?

Re: No, the world is not becoming a more violent place so what are you getting out of
 

Pinker's point is that it can and has. People used to attend public hangings as a form of amusement; now they don't. People used to abuse those who were put in stocks for fun; we've abolished the stocks and would find the abuse appalling. Queen Elizabeth I had someone hung, drawn and quartered following the old method, which involves hanging them and disemboweling them without killing them, then pulling them to pieces while still alive. A hundred years earlier it was standard treatment for traitors; the reaction in her day was so negative she made sure the executioner killed the next traitor outright by hanging before performing the rest of the treatment.

Society has changed. People have changed. Attitudes have changed. In the west first, but it's spreading along with McDonald's and rock & roll.

Not speaking to you particularly, I've got to laugh at how Steven Pinker has been turned into yet another partisan issue. Since when has levels of violence been a marker of partisan identification? The guy's an academic. Agree with his work or not, you're not going to disprove it by calling it "liberal."

Re: No, the world is not becoming a more violent place so what are you getting out of
 

Found Pinkers book at the local library ... Keeley, too.

Funny thing is Keeley actually was showing that the early "primitives" were just as violent as "moderns". If there is such a drastic drop in violence then how come the early violent actors are shown to be just as violent as the moderns? Presuming one buys into the per capita metric in the first place (which I do not).

Pinkers presents data which shows 77% of violent death in recorded history happened in the 20th century.This does not count ~140 million deaths indirectly causedd by war or 'leviathan'. That is a pretty big mess to sweep under the rug. The only logic which makes this mess go away is to calculate death rates in per capita terms. There are many reasons why a simple per capita calculation is completely inapproprate but I will only present the following example. Consider a desert island with 2 people in which one murders the other. Now consider a neighboring island with 20 people in which one is murdered. Total body bount in both cases is the same but the per capita rate however is 10x different and by this logic the first island is 10 times more violent. Well, if that is the way one wants to think then I pity them greatly. Consider for a moment the possible relationships amongst the parties involved - maybe the 20 where 19 pirates and 1 stranded innocent ... context makes the per capita logic crumble. In either case the sheer numbers of unmurdered does not 'dilute' the issue of the violent acts.

In addition there are several points in which Pinker boldly claims some data set clearly shows on obvious downward trend (provided one ignores the large spikes) - Even without the obvious issue of ignoring the large spikes the downward trends is simply not clear and no explicit regression is presented to support the claims. Note that these 'spikes' were WWI & WWII ... not exactly the kind of events one should cavalierly ignore - even if Pinker proclaims them statistical flukes. In any case there is no statistical rule that permits one to exclude data so one is honor bound to include the spikes and 'flukes' or present cogent argument on why they are not relevant to the analysis at hand (this is hardly the case).

In general the book was a good read (even morso for Keeley) for both entertainment value and it does present some interest for general pondering. Of course one must read such works with their skeptic hat firmly in place. Although long and meandering in many places still worth the effort.

On a personal note - Pinker also uses the "half below average" quip so if the OP had been so critical of Pinker as to me for a simple one-liner then maybe a different weight would be put on the conclusions of Pinker. Note that Pinker befuddles himself by mixing median and mode in a nonsensical way so perhaps I can lend him my "For Dummies" books to brush up a bit.

Re: No, the world is not becoming a more violent place so what are you getting out of
 

Many if not most of the members of this site reside in the U.S. Here are the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI's) compiled national violent crime stats for 1992 - 2011: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...tables/table-1. Indeed, the stats verify that there has been a notable long-term downward trend in violent crime in the U.S. during that time period, i.e. from 1.9 million to 1.2 million annual reported incidents.

Um, 1.2 million is still a heckuva lot of violent crimes, so regarding the sizable U.S. contingent that frequents this site, I wouldn't blame these folks if they consider training mainly for martial efficacy to be a healthy, serious and relevant "habit". If there are any law enforcement or military folks reading this, then obviously it's a given.