Ueshiba's Aikido?
 

I think the term Ueshiba's Aikido is so funny that I thought I'd put it up as a thread.

The reason I think it's so funny is that Aikido is Ueshiba's creation so we all do Ueshiba's Aikido.

It's patently obvious to me that when another starts their own Aikido, be it Shin shin Toitsu, Tomiki, etc. then it is called Tomiki Aikido or or Shin Shin toitsu Aikido and self evidently has originated and acknowledges by it's name Ueshiba's creation.

In that case then saying you do Ueshiba's Aikido is a meaningless statement as it is self evident.

Now you could say you do Aikido with the emphasis on.............

You could say you do Aikido based on..............

You could even use a 'style' name ie: Ki Aikido, Yoshinkan Aikido etc.

Promotions wise or marketing wise we could all say we do Ueshiba's Aikido but I would say it's too egotistical and thus to me funny.

Peace.G.

Re: Ueshiba's Aikido?
 

Graham, you are referring to Mark Murray's definition of Ueshiba Aikido. He is very, very clear what he means by that, and has explained it a dozen time. You don't need to agree with it.

But you say....I don't agree with it because.......

The way you have structured this...well it is down right trolling for an argument and not meant to develop any constructive conversation.

I really hope that our members don't respond to this since IMO it is really not designed to serve any positive purpose on aikiweb.

Re: Ueshiba's Aikido?
 

Which Ueshiba are we talking about?

Quite obvious that only an Ueshiba can do Ueshiba aikido.

Re: Ueshiba's Aikido?
 

Kevin.
Why tell me what I am referring to? Incorrectly I might add.

Why then go on to insult? Not necessary.

It is a term that has been used by quite a few and the point is !) It's non-sensicle and 2) It would be better if a person described what they do in a more accurate and less demeaning way.

What I put there is very constructive and if people drop the term Ueshiba's Aikido and explain what type of Aikido they do then that would be more constructive too and indeed informative.

Peace.G.

Re: Ueshiba's Aikido?
 

In the context where this term was used, it was fairly clear to me what was meant. If you'd draw a genealogy of aikido, there would be different offshoots from the root branch at different times created by different students of O Sensei: Mochizuki, Tomiki, Shioda, Saito, Tohei, etcetera.

In this view, aikikai would be an offshoot too, the offshoot created by Ueshiba Kisshomaru.
So how would you call that root branch if you'd want to distinguish it from aikikai? I think Ueshiba aikido is a reasonable attempt, but perhaps Morihei's aikido or O Sensei's aikido would be less ambiguous, as Robert Watson pointed out.

Re: Ueshiba's Aikido?
 

You lost me there. I am not referring to a specific person or sentence. The term has been used along with the term Ueshiba aiki.

How would you describe a new root branch to distinguish from Aikikai? Well you could name it after it's Teacher or whatever you like but Ueshiba's Aikido is I think the worst attempt you could make.

Peace.G.

Re: Ueshiba's Aikido?
 

Perhaps we should just call this site TeaCosyWeb.

Re: Ueshiba's Aikido?
 

LOL - I think our old friend Tony Wagstaffe would agree with that as he often mentioned same.:D

Henry Ellis
Co-author `Positive Aikido`
http://aikido-mma.blogspot.com/

Re: Ueshiba's Aikido?
 

Graham, it is well established here on AIkiweb that there are a few different perspectives on aikido. Correct me if I am wrong, but your perspective is that the physical/internal training aspects, simply serve as an allegory in order to realize the spritual lessons of the leader and serve as a path to enlightment.

Another perspective, held by others, in this case, Mark Murray believes that there were very specific physical or internal aspects to training and out of that practice, which is very physical in the stance of focusing on body, that you will realize the benefits of the whole...mind, body, and spirit. That is, that through focusing not on the spirituality specifically, but very specific physical practices.

So, that is well established.

As far as I know, Mark is the only one that specifically emphasizes the use of the term Ueshiba Aikido., with maybe the exception of Dan, I can't recall....if Dan has ever called it that. So, you know this. I know you know this...so essentially by bring this point up in another thread as you have...it is essentially what I call a TROLL argument.

That may not be your intent, I don't know, but I fail to see what benefit will come out of framing a thread in this manner.

Now, I have no issue with discussing the actual issues in differences of methodology, but if that were the intent, you hypothesis and thesis would be stated in a much different way such as:

"I do not believe that internal training methodologies as Mark Murray's "Ueshiba Aikido" is the only practice that can lead to enlightenment by practicing on solo training exercises...for the following reasons.........

I believe that a practice of aikido in X method can also lead to this and here are the reasons why......

Or something along those lines.

Having a discussion simply over the use of the word/phrase Ueshiba Aikido (tm)....I really fail to see how this leads to any deep discussion on the subject that anyone would learn anything from. It is simply an inflamed discussion that will never get beyond the surface of the emotions of the various "camps" within the aikido community.

On the issue of insult.

I don't believe I insulted you at all. I simply do not agree with your post and believe the intent of it is to troll.

an insult would be directed at you personally such as "you suck", or I think calling what you do in aikido is completely stupid.

Or I think the fact that your use of the word Aikido in what you do is completely "non-sensical". What purpose would that serve? Does it make you stop doing what you are doing? Does it serve to change what I am doing? or does it simply drive people to irrational emotional areas that we are supposed to be trying to move them away from?

I tell you Graham, I would really love to have deeper discussions on Aikiweb on various subjects. I am always interested to hear how through various methods we can enlighten people and move them to a better place. How we can realize peace and harmony.

I fail to see how continuing to focus on the superficial differences in Aikido move us to a deeper understanding at all.

So do you see why I think this is trolling? I might expect this kinda question out of a newbie, but someone that has been here for a while and been involved in the community with the experience that you have...well I expect a deeper discourse of discussoin.

Re: Ueshiba's Aikido?
 

Hi Kevin.
You told me I was referring to Mark and basically trying to cause trouble and also advised people not to contribute. This I call insulting yet I think it's due to missing the point having read your reasoning.

I have just read the post you mention and don't see ueshiba's Aikido but do see plenty of Ueshiba's Aiki.

I had quickly scanned the thread and hadn't been too interested in it but did notice the continued use of the term Ueshiba's Aiki and that usage, reminding me of many usages by those doing Dan's 'Aiki' or methology.

So I am talking about using the word Ueshiba's. Can you give me a reason why anyone should use it as a prefix or description?

I do Ueshiba's Ki, I use Ueshiba's Bu, I emphasize Ueshiba's Ai. Would you not find that a bit odd if I kept on with saying that? Labeling it that? It would be demeaning, it would be inferring other's don't or what they are doing is not.

So here's the thing. 1)We do Ueshiba's Aiki
2)We do Aikido with emphasis on internal strength.

Which one would actually lead to interested debate and enquiry without any demeaning overtures?

All Labels used 'innocently' to describe own or others Aikido that demean others Aikido are not conducive to open discussion and are thus destructive. 'modern aikido' is a label used in such a way and has the same effect.

So actually if you would like to have deeper discussions then note the purpose and point of this thread. Don't use such labels.

Now I think you will understand this point, at least I hope so, for I believe it is not noted as a thread destroyer.

As is requested by the way, if a person sees something they would like to bring up but would take the thread off topic then they should start a new thread to express their view or debate the point.

Peace.G.

Re: Ueshiba's Aikido?
 

Hi Graham,

Here are couple of Stanley Pranin's well-researched articles:

Whose Aikido are you practising?

Is O-Sensei really the father of modern Aikido?

As one might gather from the titles, Stanley would probably disagree with you...

Alex

Re: Ueshiba's Aikido?
 

Let me make sure I understand before I continue too much further in the conversation. When you mention Ueshiba Aikido as the subject of this thread, are you, or are you NOT referring to the defintiion and context that Mark Murray discusses it?

I think we first must establish this as a common ground.

I am making the assumption you are. and I will frame my conversation in that context unless I hear otherwise from you.

So, I fail to see how Mark's use of the term Ueshiba Aikido does any harm at all, no more than any other use of words that have come to mean a particular context or paradigm. It may not be words that I choose to call it, but when Mark uses it, I understand what Mark means. It means he does not have to go back and provide the complete background, philosophy, context etc. He can simply say "Ueshiba Aikido".

Again, not my choice of words and if Mark had opened a similar thread that was the anti-thesis of this thread that stated I don't think anyone else but me or who does what I do should use the phrase Ueshiba aikido, then I'd have posted the same thing...it is a troll argument simply designed to create emotion or argument for the sake of argument.

However, in my reading of Mark's post, I don't really find that other than his stated belief that he believes he is doing the core of what he feel Ueshiba wanted us to focus on with respect to what was important in aikido. He contends that direct focus on the spiritual aspects and or the technical curriculum to be misguided and wrong, and therefore, he holds that he is doing Ueshiba Aikido.

Again, not my choice of words nor my fight.

Okay, I will agree with you if you care about having a discussion then don't use words that will emotionally charge people. I agree with that, we need to probably stay away from labels to a degree except when they serve to simplify or make our conversation flow better. You have made that point.

is this the intent of starting this thread...to simply state "I wish we could stay away from labels and languaging that does not allow us to engage in a meaningful discussion?"

I think all here would agree with that. No need to say a whole lot more IMO on the subject if that is the intent of the thread.

So, what do you propose in order to do that? Reach a common understanding?

You've refused to get on the mat with anyone in that "other camp". They have offered many times. So I have to wonder do you really care to "seek to understand" or are you simply trying to be understood?

If you look back to, oh around 2003 or 2004 when Dan and Mike Sigman started posting here, you will find that I engaged these guys pretty hard and called "BS" on much of what they were professing to know. I felt like "who are these guys to come into OUR community and tell an entire institution that what they are doing is wrong." That is what I heard...not what was being said.

However, I took them up on the invite at the insistence of many people I respected in the Aikido community. I've been on the mat with just about all of the usuals with the exception of Dan. In all cases, I found that what they had to offer was what they said. They offered clear and concise methodology and were able to show what they did, why it worked, and how to train it.

Now, keep in mind, I didn't become an acolyte. I have other priorities, other focuses...and honestly I don't share many of the same beliefs about value or focus. I think they represent a segment of the bigger picture, albeit an important one.

However, I keep my comments to myself and don't openly criticize. Why? because I reached the conclusion that what they had to offer is very valuable to the community and that the MINOR quibbles I had were based mainly on priorities and personalities..two things I have learned in my years of training to set aside and simply have an open mind.

I also hold that in the end, what I concentrate on may be he wrong thing...I believe it is very well possible that I will look back at the development of what guys like Mark Murray have done and say...wow, I really should have spent more time doing what you are doing.

However, what I do works for me right now. However, I also don't want to create such a barrier with my ego on creating divisiveness that I will box myself in, or will not be welcome in the future.

I have found that over time, my opinions and focuses change as I grow in budo. thus, I have found looking to unify serves me better than trying to divide.

Right now, personally, I am working on developing a thesis on martial methodology to tie together in one model all the things and how they relate using non-emotional, non-cultural, western "clinical" terminology that will kinda put things together and how they relate. My intent is to develop a framework that will allow people to get together and say "yeah, this is what we are doing and where it fits in on the framework". if we agree on a common framework, then we can debate about priorities and methods of training in a constructive manner.

So, yeah, I agree that much of what is discussed here using labels such as Ueshiba's aikido stirs emotion and cause irrational statements...if that is your intent. I think it is much different to say, "I believe that Ueshiba wanted us to focus on these aspects of training"...which I really think is what Mark says in a very ferverent manner...cause that is what he believes.

I have no issues with that. I only see him come out and discuss when someone says "yeah we do that", in the internal strength threads and he feels they are off base.

What I have observed is that there are folks here that geniunely want to discuss IS/IT training. I have found that many and yes, I believe you do this, attempt to discuss threads for some reason without an understanding, or even an attempt to understand what is going on. I then see the IS/IT guys, who for the most part, CONTINUE to offer information, explanation, and support...even amongst all the dribble of non-sense and sidebar discussions. So, I appreciate that they STILL continue to engage, as if you haven't noticed...we don't have many Shihan level traditional AIkido guys at the 7th Dan level talking to us here.

So, if you want to start a thread on the spiritual aspects of aikido and the significance of it and methodologies to train it...I have no issues with that.

If you want to discuss IT/IS stuff do that.

however if...OVER TIME....you continue the SAME level of discourse, you refuse to accept invitations, attempt to really understand what is going on and being said, and then it becomes RINSE, WASH, REPEAT...yes, then I believe that you are simply trolling.

Not sure why this continues here. I think it could be that individuals feel threatened by "outsiders" or non-hakama wearing guys coming in and discounting years of "training". It could be they want attention and want to feel special, or do not want the world they have built up around lies to crumble...or they simply want attention. Not sure what the reason or motivation is.

however, I fail to see in all cases how it furthers growth or understanding.

Re: Ueshiba's Aikido?
 

Yes, read them before. What exactly would he disagree with me on?

Peace.G.

Re: Ueshiba's Aikido?
 

I think she is referring to the fact that K. Ueshiba was the founder of "Modern Aikido" and that M. Ueshiba's name was essentially co-opted by his son as the patron saint.

These two articles support that their is a difference between pre and post war aikido. This is exactly what Mark's position is on aikido....he focuses on what he believes is Pre-War aikido, thus, "M. Ueshiba's" aikido and not Modern Aikido which is K. Ueshiba's aikido.

Again, not my choice of words to call it Ueshiba aikido...but I get what he means.

Re: Ueshiba's Aikido?
 

Hi.
I've explained why it's not a good idea to use such labels so really no more to say on that as you agree.

Your explanation on how you saw things and what changed is very clear but I suggest you don't assume I am you or how you were.

By what you say above you already have great misunderstandings on me and thus what you say about me is false I'm afraid.

"I wish we could stay away from labels and languaging that does not allow us to engage in a meaningful discussion?" (quote).........Yes.

"You've refused to get on the mat with anyone in that "other camp". They have offered many times. So I have to wonder do you really care to "seek to understand" or are you simply trying to be understood?" (quote)..........Example of the above.

Peace.G.

Re: Ueshiba's Aikido?
 

I understand that. It doesn't matter what the reason is. Apart from the fact that I would say that's not logical.

Peace.G.

Re: Ueshiba's Aikido?
 

More fuel...

Aikido is a generic term created by the Dai-Nihon Butokukai that was adopted by Morihei Ueshiba and is generally associated with Morihei Ueshiba's art.

OTOH, there are at least two other arts that I know of that adopted the name "Aikido" at the same time as he did and have just as much right to use it.

Also, it's quite common in Japan for Daito-ryu schools to call what they're doing "Aikido".

The name "Aikido" is not trademarked in Japan (or anywhere else that I'm aware of) - unlike "Aikikai", for example, a registered trademark in Japan.

So...saying that the word "Aikido" is a unique identifier for the art created by Morihei Ueshiba really isn't correct, historically.

As to what Mark's referring to, I think that everyone understands pretty much what he's referring to in the context of the discussions in Aikiweb, so I'd question why it's even been brought up - although maybe I shouldn't need to ask, in light of the last few threads around here :D

With that, I'll step off this thread and leave it to the trolls.

Best,

Chris

Re: Ueshiba's Aikido?
 

Graham, can you please answer Kevin's question directly, simply, and concisely?

If your answer is "no," can you please define -- again, directly, simply, and concisely -- what your definition and context for the phrase "Ueshiba Aikido" is?

Thanks,

-- Jun

Re: Ueshiba's Aikido?
 

My interpretation of Stanley's articles is that he distinguishes between what Morihiro Saito taught in Iwama (which we gather is what Stanley believes to be Ueshiba's true legacy) and what Nidai Doshu, Koichi Tohei, Kisaburo Osawa and others were teaching in Tokyo at the same time. Not really pre/post war eras.

Alex

Re: Ueshiba's Aikido?
 

Wow, I really am stupid.

I have said it is not referring to Mark Murray. It therefor is not referring to his context. It is not referring to any specific person or context.

It is about using Ueshiba's name as a label for some aspect of Aikido or Aikido itself. The perils and indeed fallacy of doing so.

It is unnecessary.

It is a brand new idea. Being such I put it as a thread.

Now, people can agree with it and say why or disagree with it and say why. Or not.

I hope that answers the question.

Peace.G.

Re: Ueshiba's Aikido?
 

I agree. He also preferred that style too.

Peace.G.

Re: Ueshiba's Aikido?
 

Okay, so then we need to understand ta little more about what you mean. Labels are labels. They carry meaning of some sort. It can be a politicized meaning, or simp,y to shorthand a concept that is commonly understood.

In order to have a discussion, I would need to know a little more about why you feel labels are not good specifically the use of the word Ueshiba. Especially since you have just stated that you are not speaking from the same context that Mark Murray does.

Re: Ueshiba's Aikido?
 

You have virtually answered your own question.

It does politicize and it does imply 'superior'.both.

A concept that is commonly understood? I don't know any such concept.

Shorthand within a discussion for that short timeframe is fine.

Peace.G.

Re: Ueshiba's Aikido?
 

Shouldn't this thread be moved here?

Re: Ueshiba's Aikido?
 

So, there is no thread since all we've done is made a declarative statement that labels and words can politicize and be shorthand for concepts. I don't think anyone would disagree with that observation. So what is the point of the thread? What I am missing?