Re: Aikido: The learning of natural movement
It seems to me that David O has constructed the following argument: aikido is "natural" movement, toddlers can move "naturally" in ways that (to some) look like aikido movement, therefore toddler movement is at its roots the same as aikido movement. Its not quite a syllogism, but it can seem persuasive to some. To me the two premises that lead to David's conclusion could stand a lot more scrutiny. What is "natural" about aikido? Is a toddler movement really "aiki"? When pressed, David tends to repeat the conclusion instead of reexamining the premises. It seems to me that within his argument the words "natural" and "aiki" have been defined in such a way that they support his conclusion virtually by definition. So the thread goes around in circles; its persuasive to those who agree with it already, but it doesnt seem to have any traction with those who don't. For David: is there a way of restating the argument in a way that isn't just preachng to the choir?