Hard before Soft???
Quote:
Ron |
Re: Hard before Soft???
Quote:
|
Re: Hard before Soft???
Quote:
Fair enough. Let's move the discussion forward from your point and set the quote aside as you suggested. Best, Ron |
Re: Hard before Soft???
Hey Ron
I'll have first dibs at this then... I believe I see where Joe is coming from and tend to agree with him. While it is lovely to aspire to turn the other cheek, for a martial artist I see this more as a choice that comes with ability and knowledge. One can only choose not to use force or power...if you have it in the first place. Choosing not to fight back is only really a choice if you actually posess the power to fight back. If you don't...then for me its not really a choice. I've always bracketted this line of thinking along with the phrase 'nuclear deterrent'...possession of power so devastating that the application of such force really needs extremely careful consideration. In line with this I've heard my betters in Aikido say that you cannot just choose harmony...first you must learn to fight. Kind of like if you want peace...have a strong army! Perhaps train hard, fight easy is also an appropriate line of though.... In relation to Aikido..if ones practice lacks the potential to destroy uke and is undertaken purely for the joy of the movement then for me personally it lacks something important. When it posesses that dangerous potential no matter how hidden it is behind layers of care and consideration for partner and practice objectives then it is a beast with teeth. FWIW Kind regards Daren |
Re: Hard before Soft???
bugger ...have you moved the goalposts already?
|
Re: Hard before Soft???
Quote:
So, I guess the question would be more like "Do you have to have the power to harm before you can develop benevolence?" |
Re: Hard before Soft???
Quote:
How are you my old mukka?Hows life down in Bristol? Daren. remember the old adage , walk quietly /softly but carry a big stick.Say Hi to old Kenny for me. Cheers, Joe. |
Re: Hard before Soft???
Quote:
I'll think about that one. |
Re: Hard before Soft???
Quote:
|
Re: Hard before Soft???
Quote:
If we mean simply to act charitable or in a good fashion I think the answer is no; we can offer to train with a new person even though we were really looking forward to training with that person who really tests us, lend someone a belt as they forgot theirs, give away a hakama we no longer use for someone who needs one etc etc. Or is the benevolence in question with reference to the actual execution of our aikido practice/technique/principal in action? |
Re: Hard before Soft???
Quote:
As in the latter. Best, Ron |
Re: Hard before Soft???
Quote:
But do you really? The Swiss come to mind as an example of another way. They have no army to speak of yet have managed to stay out ot two World Wars and a bunch of regional skirmishes. On the other hand, we in America have an armed forces that are second to no one's in terms of capability, yet we have no peace. Go figure... :confused: Best, Ron |
Re: Hard before Soft???
Quote:
But really ...choosing to abstain may not be an option when the war machine knocks on your front door .... Likewise choosing to be submissive is not really a choice if its the only position you have eh? Choosing to to be kind and loving ...while possessing some of that capability...now that is a choice. But what do I know? I can barely cope with the changing subject of this thread.:freaky: Regards D |
Re: Hard before Soft???
Quote:
Ron, is this the type of axiomatic concept and underlying assumption you are asking to be examined or have I got it wrong? Regards.G. |
Re: Hard before Soft???
Quote:
The problem is that the other has his own teeth too... And sometimes, have big teeth is not enough to save you when the other thinks that maybe the bone that you protect with so great care is enough to both of you, or if they think that between them and you, the bone will be better with them. To me, have the power and do not hurt is not to be "benevolent". Is to show the "teeth" :( And show the teeth is not to have a choice, because sooner or later you will be caught off guard or outnumbered. Than, have big teeth will not help. The point is, the need to "protect" yourself through the "strength" (or technique) is really inevitable, or there are other ways? I think that there are other ways... :) |
Re: Hard before Soft???
The title to this thread, to me, also suggests a different topic than "Do you need to know how to be martially effective before you can exercise benevolence against an attacker."
"Hard before soft" suggests the view that in training it is better to train in a "hard" manner first, before trying to develop "softness" in technique. Which, I believe, some people would maintain is part of becoming "martially effective" when executing technique "softly." But executing "softly" doesn't necessarily mean "benevolently." Think of a softly executed kote gaeshi...off a balcony. Is the title also intended to define the discussion? |
Re: Hard before Soft???
Quote:
The title? O.k. I'll go with that. I would thus say approach soft, execution soft, result soft. No hard. Great discipline. Regards.G. |
Re: Hard before Soft???
Quote:
The hard before soft title of the thread came from something I read that Tony posted awhile back. To paraphrase, before you can do soft Aikido you must first learn hard Aikido, or something along those lines. Anyway, when I read Joe's post "Before you can be benevolent and spare people from pain /punishment/retribution you have to be in a position whereby you have the power to exercise your authority to inflict punishment in the first place.", it made me wonder about the whole soft vs hard Aikido debate and how it all relates to the idea of least possible harm when responding to a conflict and whether it's necessary to be in a position to inflict punishment (hard Aikido) in order to not do so (soft Aikido). As you can see, I've managed, due to my mish-mash of mixed metaphors, to engender a boat load of confusion. But hey, most threads end up addressing tangential issues. I'm finding the responses interesting and informative. So please, feel free to respond in any manner you see fit. I'm sure it'll be worth the read. Best, Ron |
Re: Hard before Soft???
I'll bite, but let me first clarify some points:
1. Hard and soft aikido do not inherently possess a state of virtue. 2. The ability to act in one disposition [or another] is not dependent upon the ability to act in the converse action. 3. Inflicting pain and inflicting punishment are different concepts. That said, I think this argument comes up often in aikido, poorly constructed as it is. I believe aikido requires a structure to properly function. When we begin training, the structure [should be] very similar to competent jujitsu; that is, a mechanically sound structure that works. As we train, the structure should soften as we improve the mechanical efficiency (moreso resembling aikido). This is actually quite common in most activities and sports; the subject acquires a grace in action related to her activity. So I believe aikido is both "hard" and "soft". Second, benevolence is a term that describes a predisposition to act. The antonym is malevolence. While many of us may not benevolently act, few of us malevolently act. In other words, my inability to benevolently act does not predispose me to malevolent actions. Third, predisposition inherently requires a choice of action, from which my choice may be predisposed. The omission of a choice makes predisposition irrelevant, since there is only one course of action. In aikido, I think we often give ourselves far too much credit for our [in]ability to apply aikido upon our partners. Sure, we'll talk a big game..."I'll take the assailant's knife and hold him down until the police came"...."I'd never hurt someone trying to attack me"... blah blah blah. But then we'll also say things like "aikido doesn't need to work on the street" or "I am not interested in whether aikido works". But then we'll have conversations about how uke must collude with nage simply to make technique function in a dojo. Very simply put, the role of competent aikido is to provide a course of action that provides an outlet for compliance. Aikido is not love; it is compassion, or probably better put, agape (I am pretty convinced the love thing is a poor translation). We must have the bravery (confidence in our ability to accomplish a task) to use aikido and the courage (action with the foreknowledge of consequence) to commit to our actions. |
Re: Hard before Soft???
Quote:
I think most of history on the negative side is to do with this view of great strength and power in order to bring peace. To me that's normal thinking but not natural. It's nutty think. Using great force or armies etc obviously brings war, death, destruction. Not doing it brings the opportunity for peace. In that way of thinking peace can only be defined as a state of no war, hence peacetime. To me that's not true peace, in other words peace is not a lack of something it's state of harmony. A lack of something is merely a void. So most history books show negative history, a story of wars and conquests and voids. So no ones ever taught any difference. Hows that for starters? Anywy got to go training now. Have fun. G. |
Re: Hard before Soft???
Ron, maybe this ["internal before external"] is an interesting conversation to you.
|
Re: Hard before Soft???
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Hard before Soft???
Quote:
BUT I think a much smaller group of the people who train in this way, even of those who train for a long time, will eventually reach street effectiveness. One reason... many of them probaby won't be interested. Another, more aggressive/hard training puts you through other things that are useful in stressful situations. It probably conditions your body more. It probably makes you at least a little bit more used to adrenalin rushes. If your training never is even the least aggressive, the chances that you'll let someone else's aggressiveness overpower will be greater. But I do know of people who were trained in this way, who still managed to use their aikido successfully in real life. They wouldn't manage every situation, of course. OTOH, who would? (I only threw a glance at the internal/external training thread, but it seemed to contain some good reasoning somewhat along my lines.) |
Re: Hard before Soft???
Quote:
It strikes me though, that this may be a different kind of "hardness" or "strength" in training than what is sometimes discussed in forum. Just based on reading other threads, sometimes "hardness" seems like it may be associated with the direct use of muscular strength in the performance of techniques, as an aid to overcome the balance of an aggressive and actively resisting opponent. I don't think I've ever seen my instructor do the latter, although maybe I'm not competent to judge. And maybe I'm just misunderstanding what I've read elsewhere in the forum. But that kind of "hardness" (which perhaps is also connected to adjectives like "full force" and "high speed") seems like a somewhat different variation than what comes to my mind when I think of my own instructor. |
Re: Hard before Soft???
This argument/discussion about "hard" and "soft" ("go" and "ju", ju as in jujitsu) seems to miss what "hard" and "soft" originally referred to.
From: http://www.judoamerica.com/coachingc...ano-kata.shtml Quote:
Mike Sigman |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:12 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.