Intent of Attack
 

This is continued from "Respecting Sensei".

I disagree that intent is the only factor in an attack. If someone drives over my feet in their car, it hurts whether they meant to or not.

During a time when I was very ill and weak for an extended period of time, I dealt with this issue head-on. Others in my dojo were very well meaning when they thoughtlessly ripped me around every class. I felt attacked and mishandled all the time.

Their intention was to treat me with respect, but they just didn't have the skill set to train in a way that didn't hurt me. It took a couple of years, but we all grew in understanding and skill (and my health returned).

It could be argued that I shouldn't have trained then, but we all made huge progress during that difficult time. I don't think my fellow students' intentions are the things that improved (they've always been top-notch folks), but their understanding of movement and connection. I learned a crapload about ukemi - or movement and connection...

That example has more to do with individual body issues as opposed to cultural, but it's really hard to get past our own experiences in either case.

I don't know if I'm making even the tiniest bit of sense here... I'm exhausted after chasing a 1 year-old around all day. It makes sense in my brain, that's all I can say.

Any other thoughts on the factors that make up an attack??

Re: Intent of Attack
 

Interesting.

I'm not a theologian or ethicist, but if I'm not mistaken, in the theological study of the ethics of sin, intent is what makes a potentially sinful act a sin, regardless of the outcome (i.e., whether the prospective sinner succeeds in completing the potentially sinful act).

I'm also not a lawyer, but I think US criminal law states that one must have motivation, opportunity and intent to commit a crime. Otherwise, they may have a civil liability, but not a criminal one.

Sunny's example sounds like it falls into the civil, vice criminal category, and therefore did not constitute an attack, but a mistake rife with potential civil liabilities.

In the original thread, since the two principals involved agree that offense was neither intended nor taken, it sounds as though there is no cause for either a criminal or civil action.

In politics, as in all forms of human relations, it's an attack if you can successfully convince others that it was one. God knows I hate to admit it, but perception, unfortunately, too often IS the only reality that matters while we're alive.

I've always operated under the principle that it's an attack ONLY if they meant it to be one. Everything else is either negligence, miscommunication or an unavoidable accident.

So, as the physicists (of which I'm also not one) would say, choose your frame of reference and apply the rules therein. As they told us at tactics school, your mileage will most certainly vary.

Re: Intent of Attack
 

Since this thread started with a comment I made, I should probably respond with further clarification of what I said.

The point I made was that "Violence is in the intent." Yes, I agree that the result of an act may be physical or emotional violence. Also that an act can be perceived as violent. Thus, people attacking with commitment is violent since the intent of the attack is to hurt or constrain the person if the individual does not do the counter correctly. However, a committed attack in the dojo should also be controlled such that if it becomes apparent that the nage is not ready, slips, is injured, or something else happens, the committed attack can be stopped. It seems that often, the beginner attacking who has little control over their attacks yet cannot stop the committed attack successfully even if they want to. The solution then, is to not be so committed in the attack or to attack much more slowly so that control returns.

The dojo is not the street. On the street, the intent is to work on the sword's edge so that we are doing our actions at the point just before losing control. Inevitably, under those cases, since many variables are involved, we sometimes do lose control of our attack or counter. Thus, it is inadvisable to work on the sword's edge within the dojo and our attacks and counters should be done slower than on the street or with less commitment. We need a margin of safety.

That said, I still believe violence is in the intent. A person steps on your foot. That may be an intentional attack or an accident. We try not to be hurt in either case so we try to make sure the person does not step on our foot again. If the person is truly attacking, and they missed the first time, it is advisable to make sure they do not try again. The methods used to stop the intentional attack may be somewhat "violent." On the other hand, if a person come near to stepping on your foot, then comes near again because of simple thoughtlessness or clumsiness, to stop the foot stepping using "violent" means will result in either the clumsy/thoughtless person getting hurt without them understanding why or a conflict will result that is really the effect of you intentionally attacking the person for what they will perceive as no good reason. I figure it is a lot like "road-rage." The person who goes into road-rage may have a good reason for being upset. They are often responding to a perceived attack on their person or vehicle. The person who is the victim of road-rage is often completely unaware of why the person is attacking them. Who is at fault? The road-raged subject often says that the other person started it. It does not excuse their behaviour. The difference is in their intent. Even the courts take this into consideration when determining whether a person committed murder or manslaughter. The penalties for involuntary manslaughter are often much more lenient than those for murder.

We cannot fathom a person's intent just from their behaviour. We have to intuit it from their past or continuing behaviour. If a person hits someone with their car and kills them, it might generally be called involuntary vehicular manslaughter. If the person obviously plans to run someone over and does it, or when no such evidence is available, if the person runs over someone and goes out of their way to do it, or runs over the person several times by fowarding and reversing, then we can usually say with confidence that the individual was intent on murder and can prove it to the satisfaction of a court of law.

Getting back to the dojo, if an attacking uke or nage hurts you and you ask them to stop the specific behaviour, but they continue to do it even after you ask them to stop, then there is a problem that must be resolved. If they stop, there is no problem.

That is why I say that true violence is in the intent.

Rock

Re: Intent of Attack
 

I have to agree with Rock, at least through the lens of my own distorted vision. You may step on my foot, or run over it in your car and I will accept it as a mistake or unfortunate accident. While it may hurt, even cause me great pain, I will not become angry. On the other hand, if you intentionally step on my foot, even without pain, I will consider it an attack and respond accordingly and appropriately given all the circumstances. If you unintentionally hurt me you will remain my clumsy friend. If you intentionally hurt me, don't expect a warm Christmas card this year. Intent is the crux of actions to me.

Re: Intent of Attack
 

Your comment just got me thinking... I wasn't really specifically addressing anything you said, so I hope I didn't step out of line. I wasn't looking though the critical lense of "responding" when I posted this, just rambling about the train of thought your post sent me down. KWIM?


I don't mean to say that an attack can exsist without intent, but that intent is not the only component. In my example above, my compatriots' intentions may not have been to deliver a solid punch to my face, or to dislocate my shoulders or anything, but they did carry the intention to complete a technique without regard to my physical abitily or pain. As our collective awareness grew, we could bring the more unconsious motivatons to light and change them. As a result, I stopped feeling so attacked.

Likewise, I don't think an attack has to be perceived to exist.
I'm not sure I agree with this, but I have to give it more thought... As an extreme example, when crap parents beat their kids, as a rule a young child interalizes the parent's attacks and does not see them as attacks. They are wired to conform to the parents behavior in order to secure their survival. But their failure to perceive an attack does not mean there was none. Even if the child suffers in silence and no one ever gets convinced of it.

I think there is more grey here. I think the one being shat upon has a much better view of the ass. Meaning: The attacker (or bumbling driver) might not see what behavior is hurting others - esp if they are acting thoughtlessly. Asking them to stop a specific behavior that they don't even notice doesn't always resolve the problem. But I don't think if they fail to stop that they necessarily *intend* harm.

I can see that this is nearly impossible to pin down as we can't really come to a concensus about all the vocabulary needed to come to a good conclusion.

Hmmm... Any more thoughts?? This is fun!

Re: Intent of Attack
 

Really? I'd be pissed as soon as I stopped crying...

Re: Intent of Attack
 

Oh, I didn't say I wouldn't cry. I might even whine and say dirty words. I might even question your heritage and the nature of your birth, but why get angry and react to an unintentional act? Please don't even scuff my shoe with intention though.

Obviously I exaggerate to make my point about intent. I must have missed.

Re: Intent of Attack
 

One of my favorite sayings has always been..
"I'll give you almost anything you ask me for, but don't try to TAKE anything"
Just a similar thought you brought to mind.
Lan

Re: Intent of Attack
 

I thought I'd respond here because I think it's more relevant for this thread than th other one.

Sunny said:
I don't mean to attack you, Sunny, personally, but in general, this kind attitude to me seems rather condescending. Unless there are children or otherwise very vulnerable people involved, I'd trust the recipient of the thoughtlessness to be able to speak up for themselves, or not to if they choose.

Actually, if someone was, say stepping on my toes, and a well-meaning bystander started to tell them off for it, I might see _that_ as a slight insult to my capabilities, however well-meant it was. So there we have another example of a person's intention not always matching the outcome... :)

kvaak
Pauliina

Re: Intent of Attack
 

To me violence is about a lack of consent.

Re: Intent of Attack
 

To me you have to treat the attacker like a piece of meat. I don't mean in an aggressive way, but to have complete emotional detatchment from their aggression. I believe we are training this to some extent in aikido. Someone attacks violently, and we calmly move and respond. It doesn't matter to me if someone intends to run me over, or whether the car is just free-wheeling towards me, you just move. The same with people. In fact, being in this way serves two important purposes i. it reduces fear induced by their projected hate ii. after the fact, it makes you realise people are just people - not objects to be demonised; just normal humans.

Re: Intent of Attack
 

Lan - Remind me never to try and blackmail you, bet it wouldn't work.

Mark - Well said! Maybe that opens the door for a rather simple calculus: Two boxers in a ring in a prize fight, violent activity, consensual becomes "white violence". Woman punching man in face, violent activity, without consent or provocation, becomes "black violence".

Re: Intent of Attack
 

Sunny, don't get all worked up about me. Hardly anything really bothers me nor do I ever get worked up about anything. Hit me, kick me, call me bad names -- just don't make me write bad cheques that I can't cash.

This forum is a learning tool for you, for me, and everyone else. Sometimes in learning, you get struck. You laugh it off and keep practicing since it is all part of learning. If the strike hurt you, then next time, get out of the way. If they keep hurting you, then you are doing something wrong or they are trying to be mean. In either situation, you can deal with it yourself or ask for help. If you want to deal with it yourself and the other person is trying to be mean, warn them once, and if they persist, crush them. Works for me verbally and physically.

Rock

Re: Intent of Attack
 

Are you arguing semantics here? Violence is a word with shades of meaning, and it seems the issue is one of equivocating .. using the dojo example and a dictionary definition set:

1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
=> implies no violence in the dojo scenario, given that the purpose is stated as part of the definitoin

2. The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
=> implies violence in the dojo scenario since there's no purpose in definition

3. Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
=> ditto
4. Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
=> lack of intention implies non-violence again
5. Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
=> pure intention almost
6. Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.
=> pure intention again

so what is it?

I think violence with intent is a more serious issue than violence without, though that's not trivial either; at least you one less thing to worry about.. And I also think that being aware of violent intent produces a different reaction due to one recognizing that it is a different matter.

Re: Intent of Attack
 

Wow! What a range of responses...

OK. This is probably gonna be a novel. Sorry, I'll do my best to keep it concise.

But manslaughter is still a punishable *offense*, even if the same action with intention is worse.

LOL! 'Cause lack of intention can still do tremendous damage!

Pauliina, no offense taken, and none meant in return. But I am gonna kinda let fly. Please don't take it personally. If it was so wrong of me to butt in, what is it that you're doing here? Are you not condescending Rocky according to your own standards?

In a dojo there are sempai / kohai relationships. It's proper for a sempai to protect a kohai from perceived abuse. (If you don't, shame on you!) In a discussion forum, we are all equal. People post expecting others to pipe up, and they don't get to control what the others pipe up to say. Just like you are completely valid in expressing your opinion that I'm condescending. If they want a private discussion, then there's always e-mail.

I see that tricky culture thing bubbling to the surface again. *I* find your stated (not actual) way of handling this general situation of speaking up for another to be isolationist and kinda selfish. Who do I think I am to make the judgement as to why someone might not stand up for themselves? There are myriad nuances to everyone's pshychology, and therefore myriad reasons why someone might not defend themselves. Maybe their dog died that morning and they're just not up to the task of handling an "attack". It doesn't mean they are incompetent, or that I think so. I've personally been under attack and very grateful when someone came to my aid. It doesn't make me an imbecile b/c I had an emotional need. In a community (dojo, online, or IRL) we offer support to each other without judging whether the prospective recipient is needful or worthy, or the reasons why they might be.

Ian, awesome! That's the kind of thing I was hoping to get to. I really like what you had to say. I'm wondering if you'd be willing to indulge me further...
You addressed what is the best way to handle an attack, either intended or accidental, can you discuss your views on what makes up an attack?

The nature of my question is that we have to use the intention of an attact (whatever it is) to diffuse it. (We "throw" uke's intention.) We want to achieve working outside the duality to handle said attack, but we can't be blind to the nature of it. I understand that most here are saying that an attack only exists if there is intention. What intentions qualify?

Another dumb example (sticking to the car theme): I was in a car "accident" last year while 8 mos pregnant. Relatively minor, but the damage done to me and baby was enormous. The guy at fault certainly had no intention of damaging a pregnant chick, but he was *clearly* acting selfishly when he decided to turn in front of me. (There was no question that he knew he was making a risky decision. He did not simply lapse in awareness.) Is selfishess a valid intention of an attack? Or does it have to be "to cause harm"? (ie; Was I in a car "attack"?) The legal case is pending, but there is no doubt that the other party will be paying. What kind of retribution might be justified? (Please note: I'm really not asking for specifics to my case - just keep it general!)

I was in a car too, so tenkan was really difficult! I don't know how I could've etirely avoided the collision, so I'm left with how I deal with the aftemath. This begs the question, since *I think* it's better not to be blind to intention of others' incringing behaviors, how does one make the judgement of what the "attacker" is after, and deal appropriately?

I fully realize that this is all about words. I'm not especially trying to argue anything. But this discussion is helping me to clarify in my mind what really happens when I perceive "attack". And I think I'll be all the better at handling a wide range of situations by hearing what you guys have to say...

Re: Intent of Attack
 

What we teach in counter terrorist driving. If you cannot do a Sankaku Irimi into the back end of their car which has less weight and will absorb more of the shock to your car through moving, slam on parking brake and accelerate hard while turning wheel hard. Hit opposing car with rear of your car to reduce damage to your car and so that you can survive and drive away in a hurry while putting most of car in way of bullets. Also, damage to you and your passangers is less even if you only slide into the other vehicle sideways as your seat tends to protect you in the crash if you can get more than halfway turned around.. Also drive heavy SUV.

Rock

Re: Intent of Attack
 

..

Re: Intent of Attack
 

Damion,

*VERY* well said! Thanks for contributing that quote!

Rocky, You teach counter-terrorist driving?!? How cool is that!!

Re: Intent of Attack
 

Oops, Mistype. No, I don't teach CTD. You wouldn't want me teaching any type of driving to anyone. Remember, my nickname is El Terror del Camino. We have specialists for that.

Rock

Re: Intent of Attack
 

Sunny,

I'm getting back to this thread much later than I'd hoped to.

First, please accept my profound sympathy and concern for the results of your accident. Many years ago, I had a similar accident when my first wife was at the nine-month point with our first child. Fortunately, everything came out OK (if you exclude the marriage itself, but it WAS the 1970's).

With respect to intent while training, the instructors in our dojo stress that people who do not intend to attack you are not fully committed. They will move differently than people who are committed. As I understand it, this will result in both subtle and unsubtle changes in timing, geometry and energy state that may render specific kihon waza techniques irrelevant (i.e., uke didn't reach me, so he's not a threat, so I don't need to respond with kuzushi and technique), completely unworkable (i.e., uke didn't achieve the geometry required to make a high quality attack, therefore I must use a different kuzushi and technique than the instructor called for) or require you to modify them (i.e., uke didn't bring enough energy for my kuzushi and technique to work as designed, therefore I may have to add energy to make it work). Ledyard-sensei's many articles on this subject are much more articulate and useful than my poor thoughts.

As for your question of divining intent so that we know how to respond, my instructors keep telling me to stop thinking and start feeling. This implies to me that in ANY situation, training, a car accident, or falling out of a tree, we need to both sense what's happening and respond without conscious (or perhaps "high order") thought according to the fundamental principles of the activity we're pursuing.

If we're in a skid, we must keep our heads oriented in the direction we originally wanted to travel, rather than looking around, as the body follows the head.

If we're falling from a tree or mountain and we can't flatten to arrest our descent, we must spread the impact as much as possible across the most largest and most stable structures in our body (the back side of the ribs and legs) while protecting our brain by keeping our head up. If a car's coming at us we must get out of the way or minimize "slip" the impact to make it less direct.

All of this obtains regardless of whether we can perceive what might be called "intellectual intent" (i..e purposeful action) rather than "physical intent" (bad stuff that's happening regardless of purposefulness).

Hope this helps--you're right, this is a fun discussion.

Re: Intent of Attack
 

Quote from Sunny: But manslaughter is still a punishable *offense*, even if the same action with intention is worse.

When there is no intent and it was fully accidental, it is called "death by misadventure" and is not punishable. Such a call is made by the coroner in most jurisdictions.

Rock

Re: Intent of Attack
 

How about when they use the "I don't understand how what I'm doing is hurting you" excuse repeatedly? (Seniors, not beginners).

Unfortunately, some people in the dojo may not believe you when you say that they are hurting you. They may have no respect for you and will only listen to certain people, eg. sensei, and sometimes not even that. Perhaps in that case several people would have to speak up about it before the person will even start to think they may have to change their ways...

Ruth

Re: Intent of Attack
 

I consider multiple intential attacks with violence against the kamikazi types to be the hardest to deal with, so through dedicated collarboration we build up towards dealing with that. Along the way, we also have to learn to defend against our own potential misadventure.

While you can give people tools and shape their experiences in a positive way, you really cannot teach how to deal with those accidental things directly.

A long while back, I remember lifting my bokken back over my head and clubbing the poor guy behind me working with a different partner. (My zanshin has improved a little since then, but talk about a humbling experience!) Now, when I work out at seminars if someone working near me starts getting too close I do my best to defend that potential misadventure. If possible, I try to work it in to whatever I'm supposed to be doing with my partner (as long as I can keep things relatively safe).

As my wife has mentioned, when some people do not get into the optimal position for a technique they attempt to solve that problem by man handling their uke into that position to then proceed to do a nice throw. When this misadventure happens to me, I do my best to protect myself and slow them down quite a bit (but never stop them unless our relationship is quite strong).

I started with a much more physically stronger/tougher body in aikido than my wife did. When she asks me how to deal with a nage repeatedly yanking her around, I honestly don't know how to help her directly (other than buy her yoga and pilates dvds). What I did - that worked in the home dojo(s) was find out what technique(s) and make sure I highlight how I get into a position where I do not have to yank uke around (while raising awareness to not solving problems with arm strength). She is still at risk of that in many other dojos. I know that through training we build toward developing these ancillary abilities, but can anyone suggest drills to help out?

The other misadventure I can think of is when the partner is so intent on helping you with martial spirit that they consistently hurt you to teach you. I remember this Indian guy with extremely long arms used to start every swariwasa technique by punching my in the face. It was skin hard but that gets tired real quick when it's in the face and you really can't get away because my arm length was much shorter than his. That sucked big time. I was too stupid and inexperienced at the time and so I just took it thinking "well this is martial arts after all." (If you are that guy and are reading this, try saying "change your angle" just once even if it was after class in the locker room. That would have helped a lot more than pounding the new guy!)

Rob

Re: Intent of Attack
 

just a couple of thought on a couple of points made....

When a person gets drunk and gets behind the wheel of a car,,,,is there intent there? Or just stupidity? I think there is probably no intent to hurt another, but much damage can be and is often done. Should the drunk person be punished as severely as the violent person who gets behind the wheel of a car sober and purposefully runs into another?
Most say no. But when a person gets drunk and drives, they know going in that they are impaired and could cause harm....so there is no violent intent, but they do, knowingly, get into a position where they can cause serious harm. Not a Webster's defintion of INTENT...but.....perhaps time for a change from Mr. Webster

When one sees "thoughtlessness" in a dojo and steps in to assist, IMHO, it should never be misconstrued as any type of an insult. Now, let us define thoughtlessness.....
1) Agressive Nage does not know that Uke is....new...hurt..afraid.... and throws Uke very vigorously.
That is thoughtlessness that normally a quiet word from another will rectify immediately.
2) Agressive Nage continually demostrates just how tough and strong and effective his/her technique is no matter the Uke's level of training or physical/mental(frightened) condition.
That is not thoughtlessness in my opinion...that is one without care. And obviously not a good student of the way of Aiki.

When I read Sunny's ideas on thoughtlessness, my first thought(I get few of these....) was that stepping in to help was twofold....one to assist the Uke...or victim...and also to inform Nage or attacker that perhaps some care and respect is in order.
But I say that from a position of a little knowledge as I have practiced with Sunny a few times as well as Rob Sensei. And anytime I have seen any type pf correction from them....and I have received many corrections from them!!!( I needed the corrections!!!!) they were corrections, not of admonishment, but rather to aid in my learning. And I would never question one who is willing to take the time to teach me that perhaps they are questioning my abilities. Even if my abilities surpassed the person assisting me(which in this case is NOT true..not even close), I always approach a situation like that with Shoshin. When one looks upon each situation as a learning experience, one will learn.

Re: Intent of Attack
 

One that seems to work quite well is: "I'm sorry, then I must be doing something wrong here. Please help me correct what I am doing wrong." If that still does not work, then the same question to Sensei usually does.

If that still doesn't work, a quick hard kick to the nards always does. But, make sure that the person is really just trying to hurt you for the sake of hurting you. After you kick them, make sure you point out that you were just pointing out an area of vulnerability to them and thank them for the good practice as you bow out. Then go practice with someone else while the guy roles around on the mat. Worked for me but I just did a kaeshi-waza real hard then choked him out. The Shihan just laughed and told me help revive the guy.

Rock