![]() |
Takemusu Aiki in Systematic Teaching?
A discussion regarding Yoshinkan sytemization of training prompted a question that seemed to warrant a thread, so :
Quote:
I have wondered how much this systemization affects the development of, or the concept of, takemusu aiki -- the more improvisational aspect of aiki technique. My sense is that the aspect of system that is very prominent in Yoshinkan and to a lesser degree in other flavors, such as Iwama (in which I have trained more extensively), must deal with this in a somewhat different manner, than, say Saotome or Tohei's curriculum. How is this aspect of aikido dealt with in more systematic approaches to teaching? |
Re: Takemusu Aiki in Systematic Teaching?
The short answer is that to build the free flowing, spontanious nature of takemusu aiki, the more systematic approaches concentrate on building a firm base in the basics, and then over much time, build to the goal of takemusu aiki. Some specifics would be things like renzoku waza, where specific waza and patterns are chained together to form a cohesive whole. Something like;
shomenuchi ikkajo shomenuchi nikkajo shomenuchi sankajo shomenuchi yonkajo shomenuchi shihonage shomenuchi Iriminage shomenuch kotegaishi to pin are performed over and over again, shite and uke switching roles after a complete set. These exercises / paired waza usualy start around 4th to 3rd kyu, and there are varying levels of complexity. Some even change roles (shite / uke) midway through the cycle. Best, Ron |
Re: Takemusu Aiki in Systematic Teaching?
Systematic methods are also quite effective at building the basic non-technical foundations that allow Takemusu Aiki to be possible. Often too much attention is placed on technique itself instead of what factors enable the individual to get into a position to execute sound, successful technique and also be able to adapt instantly and produce the right technique as determined by the situation.
It's sort of like developing a master key through the development of different core principles. Once you have the master key the nature of the lock is irrelevant, it will be opened. Like Yoshinkan, our method also has a group of basic systematic drills (Kihon Kozo) that are designed to develop different aspects of aiki waza and ability separately from the practice of technique or kata itself. From the little Yoshinkan training I did I actually felt quite at home with the fundamental drills because most resembled the stuff we do at the start of class. Of course one can do this without sysematic training, but the question becomes how long does it take, how do you gauge progress and how do you know you may not have missed something? Just my 2 cents. LC:ai::ki: |
Re: Takemusu Aiki in Systematic Teaching?
And the weakness that many styles share is that without some level of competition based testing, how do you KNOW that what you think works, does indeed work? Not of the competition mind frame myself, it's not so important to me personally, but I can understand why some would want to go further down that road. The nice thing is that even when there is no formal place for that kind of testing, informal get togethers can often be used for that sort of thing.
Best, Ron |
Re: Takemusu Aiki in Systematic Teaching?
Quote:
So far our dojo members have yet to compete in any tournaments but it does not mean that we can't use the competition style randori structure to get feedback as to how we are improving in certain areas of our training. That structure can even be carefully and systematically expanded to include attacks and techniques that are not explicitly part of the competition rule set to get an even wider area of feedback, slowly removing the main blockage between competition and takemusu aiki, which is the limitation placed by contest rules. LC:ai::ki: |
Re: Takemusu Aiki in Systematic Teaching?
Quote:
In a recent post quoting Takamura Sensei, he criticized the Japanese tendency to systematize to death, to the exclusion of a student's exploration of Aiki technique fmorre freely and more critically. An excerpt was give here: http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpo...6&postcount=26 He contrasted the similarly traditonal, but far less used paradigm of "Shu Ha Ri" that provides fro this progressive independence in learning. Any "system" follows some logical rule. Most of the systems I have seen, such as Yoshinkan, seem to follow a very linear idea of "system." But linear logic is not the only kind of rule there is and non-linear logic may in fact be more powerful a teaching tool than is generally given credit. This is no criticism of Yoshinkan in any way (I enjoyed my brief and intermittent pracitce in it, and saw a very good point to the very serious attention to posture, form and simultaneous movements. But this is a critical observation about the function of all linear systems of learning. I think this is, in part, is the reason behind Takamura Sensei's observation Western versus Japoanese procilivites in training. Western minds are predisposed, whether culturally or otherwise, to be inherently more chaotic and non-linear in approach. Quote:
For instance, there are two ways to "logically" (i.e. -- tell a computer to do it) draw a picture of a fern leaf. One way is to build up, line by line, pixels from the bottom to the top until you have the complete picture of the fern leaf. This is a linear, cartesian, rational number process. It is a simple rule to define, mathematically, for any arbitrary shape you may choose to define. The other way is to use a non-linear process that pixelates with (seeming) random pixels appearing scattered across the screeen, until suddenly the image of an entire fern leaf in schematic appears from the chaos. This rule for doing this is also, surprisingly, just as simple mathematically as the rule for the "linear scan" image. And perhaps more surprisingly, the rule defines the fern shape fudamentally, - i.e. -- you do not need any definitional data on how it is shaped, the rule itself generates the same essential fern shape, but never placing points in precisely the same order twice. That is to say, the fractal fern-shape is part of the fundamental fabric of reality. See an example here: http://www.geocities.com/bmw328driver/JavaFern.htm Also here ( Press the > "play" button try the fern; then try the tree: http://www.heartofmath.com/first_edi...GameApplet.htm This second form of "logic" is closer to how humans actually think, learn and recognize patterns. It is a far faster process for pattern recognition and development. Once the schematic can be seen, the rest of the structure can be readily filled in on an intuitive basis to any arbitrary level of detail. I sense from my arc of training and sense of technique as it continues to expand, that aikido is a fractal form of knowledge like this. The chaos at the beginning can suddenly crystallize into a form that is intuitively obvious once it is seen, and the same essential form can be seen in variations everywhere. Approaching the subject matter from a "linear scan" perspective (brick-building, if you will) can cause one to dismiss or ignore the random "noise" on the screen in areas above or outside the area of the "foundation" that one is so assiudously focussing on. The "foundation" is conventional -- it is not inherent (beyond basic ukemi and tai sabaki for personal safety). In fact every point of "noise" is also on the map of aikido and helps to define its total shape, and it treatment as irelevant "noise" is only defined by the focus of any given convention as to what is "foundation." My concern is that overfocus on conventional linear "systems" for learning is actually slower, because considered in isolation, the "foundational" area of a chaotically perceived picture will still seem to be utter chaos, while the picture as a whole is taking very defintive shape. Aikido technique, if it follows a fractal rule in a mathematical sense, should be the same essential "shape" that differs only in scale, orientation, repetition and degrees of extension and folding. That sounds about right to me for aikido as I have learned it. I try to teach with one constant in every class, either body movement, attack or technique, generally, and then vary from that either functionally, sequentially or by some other rubric in all other respects. Like a fractal image equation -- the next point in the series is determined by the input of the last output in the series. The next technique proceeds on some mutation or alteration of the thing that just preceded it. I did not plan this initially, but after trying to "plan" a linear approach it seem the more worakable and "logical" to me to organize teaching in each class in this manner (short of run-ups for specifically tested techniques for grading). That means in every class we have one reference point in a defined region on the map of aikido, but the remaining points are being drawn in regions arbitrarily far away from that, but are not at all idle for the teaching and need to be pointed out and noticed by the student -- even though they are not the point of orientation for that class. An individual technique is just a pixel or arbitrary set of pixels on the screen. Without explaining it to the students in precisely this way, I try to get them to pay more attention to the shape of things as a whole (even if that seems hopelessly scattershot at the moment) because I genuinely feel from practical experience (bouncing around from system to system, myself) that it will actually make far more sense as a whole sooner, even if a student does not have the detail down yet. I would not depair of seeming chaos; it is far more powerful than we imagine. |
Re: Takemusu Aiki in Systematic Teaching?
Quote:
There was something very interesting in that article by Takamura: Quote:
From my experience the systematic method is used primarily in the beginning stages to assist the student in understanding what defines Aiki waza and what governs the correct and effective execution of technique. Elements of tai sabaki, timing, kuzushi, body structures, ma ai, metsuke, kamae etc. are learnt and forged here and it defines the foundation of the Shu aspect of evolution. However in the systematic methods I have experienced, this way of training is just the beginning and is developed upon in randori training to evolve out of the rigid structure of the system towards a more spontaneous expression of one's Aikido. The good thing here is that these persons will execute spontaneous technique in randori (even with resistance) often without losing most of the fundamental elements that are prerequisites of effective and sound Aiki waza. The reason is because these elements have been systematically drilled into the mind/body of the individual in every class so they know precisely what is correct and what is incorrect movement even if/when they make a mistake. In my experience the folks who utilize the chaotic pattern only are oftentimes those who can only execute the spontaneous waza on fully compliant uke, else the entire technical foundation goes to hell. The reason is often because the fundamentals are often cloaked within the practice of kata in the early stages so there is no demarcation between technique (kake) and the constituents required to make said technique effective in a spontaneous environment (tai sabaki, shisei, ma ai, kamae etc). My personal belief is that too much of either approach has flaws. The best approach is found in a balance betwen the extremes. I think Ueshiba M. had a pretty chaotic approach to instruction from what I've read, i.e. there may have been no real logical process to what was being taught, he merely expressed himself based on how his spirit guided him. What made things easier for him however was that all of his students already had most if not all of the basics inherent in Japanese Budo covered, being Dan grades in other Budo before coming to study with him. This thread reminds me of when Bruce Lee spoke about systems and how they limit the individual's expressive ability. The thing is however, I wonder how much of a work of martial spontaneity and expression Bruce Lee's Jeet Kun Do would have become without the solid foundation that came from his earlier systematic training in Wing Chun. Just my thoughts. LC:ai::ki: |
Re: Takemusu Aiki in Systematic Teaching?
Nice post Larry, Thanks,
Ron |
Re: Takemusu Aiki in Systematic Teaching?
Re: Takamura's criticism of "self-directed" learning by personal prefernce: What he is speaking of is very differnt from what I am talking about. Takamura Sensei is criticizing the "cafeteria" approach that results in too much pizza and sweets, and not enough fiber and veggies. I very much believe that training, like diet, must be directed by proper needs not prefernces. Like sound diet it must be directed early on for it to be effective and healthy over time. There are right ways and wrong ways to do anything that need critique and correction. I have had periods of long deployment where I had no option but to work thought self-directed means, but it was the discipline and adherence to form that kept it real, though it was only shadow-boxing.
I distinguish instead between linear and non-linear forms of organizing that teaching direction, not directed versus self-directed, or preference driven learning. "Moods are a thing for cattle and loveplay..." (probably the best line from Dune). . Aikido has a certain shape, in my mind, The question is how best to sketch it for the student. Some of that depends on the student, some on the teacher, and some on the art itself. Quote:
What struck me as admirable in the Yoshinkan training was its near-military precision, disciplinary correction and attention to detail and consistency of model form. No one should deem that any criticism -- I was a Navy pilot at the time. It is also exactly what I would expect from an art with such a high number of practitioners among the Japanese police ranks. I trained far more extensively in an Iwama style dojo under an uchi deshi of Morihiro Saito. The attention to precision of technical form was at least as high. However the posture and manner of technique and the prgress of curriculum was more relaxed, as compared to Yoshinkan which was more -- "stiff" is the wrong word, and inappropriately negative -- let's say "taut," instead. The prescribed forms of basic tai sabaki movement (such as tai no henko and others) were done in precisely the same order and manner in each Yoshinkan class that I attended. From what I have read, in addition, here and elsewhere, I gather the same degree of relative prescription in training methodology runs throughout the program. If my general perception in this regard is inaccurate, as opposed to merely less well-informed than your own, please correct me. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Creativity is an individual gift, wisdom is a collective inheritance. Aikido is physical and mental/spiritual wisdom. Neither, I nor any one else can just " make it up as we go along." We have to teach proper movement and technique. We must be true to the shape of the art handed to us. We must teach the art as it is, but the art as it is --- is takemusu, a spontaneous culmination of the moment of contact. It is as inappropriate to be sloppy as it is to be rigid. Both of these would be an unfair characterization of the respective differing approaches to teaching. The question for me is how to best to illustrate that fundamental form in a manner that I can teach and in which it can most easily and most effectively be seen and learned. The spontaneous expression of that universal form in its circumstantial aspect is the ultimate goal. |
Re: Takemusu Aiki in Systematic Teaching?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Gambatte LC:ai::ki: |
Re: Takemusu Aiki in Systematic Teaching?
Quote:
I guess that is really my question. Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Takemusu Aiki in Systematic Teaching?
Quote:
The thing is though, even in styles that are known to utilize a non-regimented or systematic approach, the practice of cooperative kata alone does not train one to accomplish takemusu Aiki either, since the rote repetition of form, even in the form of cooperative waza does not train spontaneous ability. So in this light the juxtaposition and ultimate question is not about systematic methods vs the non-systematic ones, but about methods that include and utilizes chaotic elements as a teaching tool in contrast to methods that do not use chaos as a tool to train spontaneous expression. LC:ai::ki: |
Re: Takemusu Aiki in Systematic Teaching?
Quote:
everyday, you breathe, you walk, you talk, it has all become effortless and basically subconscious. I would say all of this activity has become 'spontaneous'. when you have practiced aikido exercises and yoshinkan drills to the point that they have become like walking and breathing, you will have reached 'spontaneous aikido'. (also, it's not like they don't do randori and things like that as well.) Drilling is useful in art, music, and all forms of sports and gymnastics. I can't imagine how it wouldn't benefit aikido as a foundation to the art. also, as an aside: are you a vegetarian? (i have a hunch) |
Re: Takemusu Aiki in Systematic Teaching?
Quote:
The practice of jiyu waza on that foundation then gives freedom to express the lessons learned in more rigid fashion. Pressure testing in the kyu and dan ranking environment helps to cement the lessons learned in formulaic training, and then when the testee is faced with unpredictable changes in the testing environment, measure how one does in maintaining the specific detail required, while reacting freely to an uncertain environment. I found with my own training that while formulaic kata would pop out quite naturally with the first attack or two, I would usually then be stuck in the same waza for the next 8 throws or so. It was (and sometimes still is) difficult for me to 'unstick' what happened first from my body and mind. There can be no doubt that in my case the formulaic environment is sometimes difficult to 'overcome'... And yet, because of that same training, when faced with sudden or trying circumstances, I have found that what pops out typically works very well. Go figure.... I should also mention that when I first started aikido in less formulaic styles, I had a VERY hard time figuring out what the instructor was doing...even to the point of knowing where to put my size 11 feet! ;) Yoshinkan was the only realistic way forward for me. Now that I have a small clue as to where my feet go, I attempt to branch out from there. I think in more formulaic styles, it is even more important for the individual to realize at some point that a great deal of self exploration is required once one gets to the Dan level. Best, Ron (it always comes down to the individual...) |
Re: Takemusu Aiki in Systematic Teaching?
Quote:
The point for me is about how to stage or manage training to transition from the kihon, however it is initally taught to experience the takemusu paradigm of applied aikido, which in truth ought not ultimately differ much among styles, to my mind, other than as to ephemeralities. Quote:
I fully believe that you get what you train for. I have sympathy with the "fully resistant" "practical" budo training crowd for this reason, because it is, in a sense, training in chaos for chaos. I disagree with them because of the the un-aiki nature of such training, and because I find it has less broadly applicable uses as the aiki approach. There is actually very complex order in chaos, but the balance of those aspects of order and disorder and the nature of the relationship is not linear or as simple as a linear training program would suggest. With all respect, saying that we simply do jiyu waza and randori to train those chaotic aspects, severs one training environment from the other, such that there is order, and there is chaos, but not fundamentally interleaving the two in a complex mix -- which is the reality of the thing. As a point of departure, however, the "chaining" of defined techniques, whether as henka waza or as successive attacks in jiyu waza or randori is a point of conenction between us, I think. This is not so dissimilar, (although far more fixed in form -- huge surprise, huh? ) from the variational mode of teaching that I gleaned from my Iwama days. Basically, it starts at a node of a given technique in fundamental kihon form, and then explores the branch points from that node , keeping one element always consistent throughout and then exploring portions of the variable space or branches along some line of progression, varying tai-sabaki movement or adaptation, timing, sequence, degree or direction of uke's resistance, etc. I try to make a point of describing the similarities of transition in seemingly different sequences that occur in each progression. I have described it elsewhere as the "Anchor and Kite" model, lackgin any better name for it. Essentially, you anchor at a point on the landscape and then fly the kite in that context. Next class, move the anchor somewhere else and fly the kite from there. When testing creeps closer, we tend to orbit those elements and techniques relating the upcoming test. The training then is directed toward body placement and connection to maximize sensitivity and opportunity for points of divergence that may created in the mutual movements, and specifically emphasizing the occurrence and flow of potential branch points as they present themselves in that dynamic. Quote:
That "stuck on X-technique" was my actually my precise concern about the eventuality of the training model. One thing that got drummed into me about jiyu and randori in this way was the principle that -- if in doubt, connect somewhere and either irimi or tenkan -- if still in doubt -- repeat as needed. Cordially, Erick Mead |
Re: Takemusu Aiki in Systematic Teaching?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Best, Ron |
Re: Takemusu Aiki in Systematic Teaching?
Quote:
Best, Ron |
Re: Takemusu Aiki in Systematic Teaching?
Quote:
Quote:
Alluding to Ron's post what most Aikido dojo call randori we refer to as one of the 2 mentioned above, since true randori involves a partner who is allowed to practice absolute free will in response to anything that their partner does. It in fact removes the Tori/Uke relationship and returns things to the level of 2 individuals, neither of whom have a prescribed role or function (one element of chaos) and neither of whom are obliged to fall for their partner without doing their utmost to defeat him/her. That is randori, and among 2 similarly skilled persons it can be either a stalemate of very scrappy affair since there is no pre-arranged guarantee as to who will be the one left standing or who will be taking Ukemi at the end. It comes down purely to skill in every meaning of the word. As a result, the only time the excecution of Aiki waza looks the way they do in demos, kata training or Ueshiba M. videos is when one person is extremely more advanced than his partner or there is an artificial harmony being maintained by the setting of rules to the practice of "randori". Gambatte. LC:ai::ki: |
Re: Takemusu Aiki in Systematic Teaching?
Rulz?? we don need no stinkin Rulz.... :)
Hi Larry, nice post again. Best, Ron (in another life I swear I'm coming back as a shodo thug!) |
Re: Takemusu Aiki in Systematic Teaching?
Quote:
For the record, I play and sing by ear. You? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I am reminded of a comment by Alaisdair Fraser, a Scots fiddle player, (I think it was on the radio show "Thistle and Shamrock"). He first played a version of a tune that had been handed down through the best of the Scots fiddleplayers, from in the eighteenth century. It was a lovely, liltting orchestral-sounding reel, composed in the system of tonal harmony that was invented in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Then he played the same tune as it had been handed down through the Scotch-Irish Appalachian oral tradition. I beleive it was "Leather Breeches." He commented on its characteristically wild, freely chromatic and atonal "dissonant harmonies unknown to civilized hearing" that "hadnae yet been rendered safe." |
Re: Takemusu Aiki in Systematic Teaching?
I think this link says it better than I can - http://www.aikiweb.com/wiki/generalv...#takumusu_aiki
The last line of the definition - "Once one has internalized the kihon, it is possible to generate a virtually infinite variety of new aikido techniques in accordance with novel conditions." - identifies the basis of the kata/randori approach to training. Regardless of what method one uses whether circular or linear or a bit of both, without kihon there can be no spontaneous manifestation. The original question as far as I saw it was "How is this aspect of aikido dealt with in more systematic approaches to teaching?." Imho it has been well answered by a few people from at least 2 systematic approaches as far as I am aware. Gambatte. LC:ai::ki: |
Re: Takemusu Aiki in Systematic Teaching?
Sensei Henry Kono opened my eyes to the integratedness of all aikido techniques. His teaching tends to be directed towards learning the principles with just a few techniques, then seeing how these same principles are applied to all techniques. Indeed, a new student with only 3 lessons experience did a series of techniques, in a slow randori session, that I've never shown him (ikkyo, irim-nage, kokyu-nage, tenchi-nage etc) just by following the principles we had been practising. I was amazed, but it made me realise that learning the principles through the techniques is the most important thing. I tend myself, therefore, to teach fewer techniques from more diverse body movements. I think too many techniques or too few techniques is less important than the students understanding the link between all techniques and the fundamental simplicity of aikido.
Ian |
Re: Takemusu Aiki in Systematic Teaching?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I do not take the difference to be linear v. circular, but nonlinear in a mathematical sense. It is a differnce between a variational paradgim and a prescriptive paradigm of training. The fundamental principles should be demonstrable in any given setting, and the number of variant illustrations would seem to lead to a broader and deeper grasp of those principles, in ways are that are less context-specific. From this perspective there is no "transition" as the process is essentially a continuum. Hence my puzzlement and the question at the approach where there is a recognized distinction and a notable transition. Quote:
I once tried to explain baseball to a bunch of Frenchmen -- in French. Quite entertaining, but not terribly educaitonal, I am afraid. I suffered about the same experience in reverse when my Canadian uncle first attempted to explain cricket to me. He was saying things like "silly off leg stump" creating images of a crowd of inebriated amputees (to which my Australian Navy buddy, when I related this experience to him, commented that was probably not far off the mark either.) I tend to guage whether a student has grasped the "fundamental principle" being taught in a class from seeing whether he can adapt that principle in context to differing variable factors, hence the methodology I have described. It is systematic or controlled in one sense, but by no means a prescribed progression of training. The variational approach to training in the first instance, although actually done quite widely, seems never to have been rigorously articulated as such, except in his own way by Saito, and perhaps some others, such as Saotome, or Abe Sensei, from a different perspective. This was one aspect of O-Sensei's training that was revealed in many ways ony through criticism of it. Nevertheless that critical observation tells us key things. O-Sensei would hardly ever repeat a technique the same way twice. When specifically asked to repeat a movement, he would often perform a second, startlingly different movement to the same attack and declare that it was the same as the first, implying that any differences were the result of uke doing something a just bit differently. Morihiro's Saito's training paradigm he promoted from his own sense of O-Sensei's teaching methodology. He described four levels of technique, roughly: static, flexible, flowing, and finally, takemusu or spontaneous. These are variations on the dynamism of performance. But thre aother dimensions of variuaiton that can also be explored, and which many instructors do explore. While Saito's curriculum focussed on that aspect of dynamic variation, my training in Saotome's lineage, where I both began and have ended up encouraged me to explore variations along many dimensions as a means to define fundamental principles in the first instance. The variational method seems to have been O-Sensei's paradigm, but clearly not one favored by those of much more conventional Japanese backgrounds, notably Koichi Tohei, Kenji Tomiki and Gozo Shioda. One cannot honestly say of O-Sensei that he was much of a conformist in his life. As senior students, they became quite critical of this aspect of his teaching as an unacceptable departure from accepted norms (which, quite frankly, it was in a Japanese context). Hence, they adapted his teaching to their understanding of prevailing norms of training, or in the case of Tohei by focussing on certain aspects that he saw as predominant factors. Some, such as Saito, who notably, very much preferred to remain in a provincial setting, thus staying apart from the prevailing ideas of the big city, did their best to emulate the Founder's methods as they saw them. The reason for my question is straightforward. Those normative systems developed particularly by Tomiki and Shioda have articulated their sense of training by devising some degree of prescribed progression. The same has not really been done (or at least I have not seen it) in any "systematic" way to describe the variational or "chaotic" approach. To do so would require, not a prescribed progression of techniques, but a rubric for selecting root and branch patterns for each iteration of training. A rubric, while not prescriptive as to the variations for each stage of trainiing or class, would be a guage to see if a relatively complete coverage of concepts was adequately achieved over some period of time. This would give a consistent means to answer Takamura Sensie's valid criticism of the potential deficits of this approach, if done poorly. The treatment of the "transition" is an important issue from your perspective, while the assurance that key concepts are not overlooked is an important one from mine. I like to learn from others how related problems are treated, since they may have related solutions. I see them as related teaching methodolgy problems. Both are concerned with achieving a holistic whole at the end, and both have potential gaps that must be dealt with. On the one hand your approach has a substantial and somewhat continuous gap that must be filled in to move over from defined form to spontanaeity. The variational approach has many potentially smaller, scattered and discontinuous gaps that also need to be assured of "filling in." |
Re: Takemusu Aiki in Systematic Teaching?
I think if you want a different answer from me (different from what I've already given) you are going to have to simplify your language. I'm just not getting what you are getting at...
Best, Ron (I have gotten mentally slower in my middle age, but I'm not THAT much slower...) ;) |
Re: Takemusu Aiki in Systematic Teaching?
While the mental stimulation of the ongoing discussions is interesting, I think the development towards 'Takemusu Aiki' boils down to several salient points:
1) Do you begin with a basic set of movements that teach the core body skills (using the music analogy, regardless of playing by ear or reading music, you have to, at some fundamental level, understand notes, tempo, chords, keys, etc.)? 2) Does the training methodology contain an emphasis on the form (to maintain and reinforce the body skill development through the execution of the 'basics') and the function (pressure testing in live/resisting/sparring/insert phrase - NOTE, not necessarily "competitive/sport", but not necessarily excluding them, either - environments) to further develop both the body skills and the ability to use them in changing paradigms? 3) Is the instructor able to reproduce their skills in their students? Is one of the goals for training to develop students that equal or surpass the instructor? It's sort of a clumsy, roundabout way of asking if the instructor is teaching you with a goal towards transmitting the art in a way that you will be able to transmit it someday yourself? Another example, if we're looking at training in 'the arts'. I spent several years as a 'theatre person' acting/directing/stage managing. Strictly from the perspective of teaching a person the 'art' of acting, there were several different types of acting, from straight plays, Shakespeare, musicals, tv/film, etc. Each required different the perfection of slightly different skillsets, yet all stemmed from the basic ability to comfortably move within one's own body to manifest the required character/role. I imagine the same philosophy could be applied to any number of physical endeavors (from dance to painting) It's also interesting that while there are also a number of approaches towards developing these skills (in this case, acting), from Method/Stanislavsky technique to Restoration period approaches, Robin Williams, who was exposed to most of them while at Julliard's Drama school, is quoted as saying that the first thing he did after graduation was "forget everything he learned" and took up as a mime (while I enjoy a lot of his work, I'm sure some may wish that he'd stayed that way). YMMV |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:59 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.