Louis Tremblay wrote:
Boy, you're loosing me here. I was just asking a question. Getting that kind of an answer won't help in any way.
Heck, how others do A´kido is none of my business for sure. But from I understand A´kido, or on a broader sense, from what I understand from human relations, respect always comes first to my mind.
If anybody was ever shocked or insulted by this thread or by a remark I made, I'm sorry.
No offense taken or intended. It's a sincere question that's just worded sharply--has nothing to do with "respect."
If you look closer at the answer, you may see the "help" you don't see is there.
The bottom line is that Ueshiba, apparently, didn't constrain the use of the word or the art. Further, Ueshiba said that everyone's Aikido was their own. So, if Aikido is different for everyone and he made no effort to limit the use of his word, how do you know what it means? How do any of us know what it means?
You say that it's out of concern for fraud, but what's fraud? After just learning ikkyo, he sent the Yoseikan founder out to teach Aikido. Is that fraudulent? Maybe to you, but not necessarily to everyone.
There's no reason a person can't pick up a copy of Total Aikido or The Dynamic Sphere and copy those techniques while supporting a dojo and calling it Aikido. It' s up to the student to investigate the source of instruction and go from there.
To believe that because you've got a large organization to oversee the art is going to give you some sort of positive benefit is naive. The only positive benefit gained from beauracracy is those gained by those politically adept...not necessarily technically adept.