Re: Poll: How important a goal do you feel is the "aikido" notion of defending yours
"I hope there are more important things to differentiate aikido from aikijujutsu."
I think the intent of not hurting people unecessarily is a pretty important thing. But please tell me what the difference is since it seems I don't understand.
"You're right you shouldn't hurt the drunkard, but to me that's a self defence notion of acting in accordance with the situation (this is not something special to aikido)."
Of course it's not unique to Aikido, but it's still quite central to it. In that situation, without that "accordance," you're not practicing Aikido, are you? Many techniques are identical to those of other arts. If I use shiho nage to crush the back of some guy's skull when I don't have to, is that still Aikido? I don't think it is. That's my point. "Aikijujutsu," as a generic term, says nothing about protecting people, but Aikido, being more specific, does, insofar as I understand it at least. I know I am still a beginner though so please correct me if I'm wrong.
"When I read "aikido notion of minimizing/negating damage", I see people having trouble with the martial aspects of aikido, living in a fairy tale land where you can convert an attacker to peace by executing aikido."
I read this as an ideal to be strived toward while maintaining practicality. The term "minimizing" means doing as little as possible. The posibility is based on prerequisits...such as making sure I get to live as long as possible and not subjegating myself to the will(s) of bad or misguided people...and making sure my wife and child don't have to do the same. When these prerequisits seem to be tenuous, I will act accordingly. My family is more important than a misguided, though dangerous fool, and frankly, as much as I would hate it, I would not hesitate to kill someone if I had to, let alone hurt them.
"If you try, wouldn't you risk failing and getting injured?"
You're either in control or you're not, right? If you're not in control, you shouldn't be worrying about if the attacker is ok.
"I have trouble believing it is possible to make a decision -any decision- in such situations."
"Any decision"? When you have the time to figure out where to place your attacker safely, that's the time to do it. When you don't, you shouldn't waste your time on trying. With multiple attackers, obviously it's a more serious situation by quite a bit. If somehow you're able to handle however many people you face, you should "try" to not hurt them in so far as you're able to not hurt them. My only point is that it should be our goal to not harm people, but that we don't always reach that goal. The implication of that last part is pretty clear I think.
Last edited by mathewjgano : 10-11-2005 at 11:00 AM.