View Single Post
Old 04-13-2005, 06:34 AM   #59
jss
Location: Rotterdam
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 459
Netherlands
Offline
Re: causing no (serious) harm

Quote:
David Valadez wrote:
If we look around, we have lots of folks already fully buying into the Westbrooke and Ratti position - they all believe the delusion. In fact, Aikido is known to the world via this view. This position, or the belief that one has found a non-injurious method of self-defense, is never fully tested, so it's believable.
Quote:
By leaving our training lethal and by working upon ourselves along a keen martial edge so that we do not ever need to employ it. As we improve, our art should simply get more lethal, and thus more capable of honing our body/mind so that it does not require of us to act out violently.
What does this imply for the practical application of aikido in self-defence?
Is it ok to injure an attacker in a non-violent, non-agressive mindset? (Or is this a logical contradiction?)
Or is the applicaton of aikido techniques in self-defence an 'incorrect' application? Is aikido only meant to hone body/mind and not meant for practical application? Implying that although it is hard to think of defending yourself as wrong, it means you failed as an aikidoka at that particular time?

Joep
  Reply With Quote