Christopher Li wrote:
Of course, a lot of the above depends on exactly what your conception of "Aiki" is, both in a technical and a philosophical sense.
However, leaving things so abstract that they resist linear expression, and/or qualitative statements of the simplest kind (binary), doesn't really get us any closer to being able to understand Aiki technically or philosophically either.
For me, in the examples I gave, you see contrasting energies clashing. Because of that one loses Aiki - of course as I am defining it. However, also because of that clash, one loses the probability of remaining tactically viable within spontaneous conditions - that however isn't so subjective and open to interpretation. Call Aiki what you will, or don't call it anything at all, the latter remains pretty much true where ever you go. For me, if one's definition of Aiki can include examples of tactically inferior strategies that fail pretty much everywhere you go, it's not worth attempting to describe, learn, teach, or save for future generations. And, again, for me, it's definitely not worth trying to stay "more true" to it by suggesting that it can only exist beyond language and/or beyond any of our attempts to grasp it. For me, whatever you want to call Aiki, or however you don't want to say it, it should not include any understanding that would make room for such clashes of energy and/or such tactics so prone to failure at spontaneous levels.
just my opinion - as I said, that is how I have opted to understand "Aiki."