Tim Anderson wrote:
Wow, that statement denotes a lack of understanding Gozo Shioda's (among others) body movements and writings. ... This is probably too far off topic and you might want to explain this in a different thread.
It is and I'd be happy to. Kokyu tanden ho is a point where David has the harder side of the argument, becasue it is a highly learned skill. But aiki is not kokyu tanden ho alone, although they aid one another immensely.
But the earlier discussion on taijuuido/weight transfer addressed Shioda's thoughts and clearly distinguish his ideas from what Mike is addressing in regards to (OK -- nei-jin, -- if he prefers to be specific in this instance), which is, I do not dispute, very much cognate with kokyu-tanden ho.
Terminology or turf debates are pointless when trying to form overlays in three unrelated languages. Kokyu tanden, which is in the family of the "unnatural" movement (in the sense of requiring much practice) aids immensely in the application of aiki -- but it is not aiki, per se.
Drunken boxing forms (in whichever of the several schools), from my observation, is a case in point. It is premised on natural unresisting movements of the drunkard (not too far afield from the toddler, perhaps). Lots of angular momentum and weight transfer. Virtually no kokyu tanden technique evident. Loads of aiki going on, though.
The putative six spring theory does not, as I understand Mike's position, involve any necessary external movement. It is necessarily resistive, since springs don't operate any other way, a point that MIke did not deign to answer in regard to nonresistive principles of aiki. It is highly trained, from all accounts, and so is definitely "unnatural" in that sense.
Stance and movement are highly relative things, which is to say that the subjective frame of reference movement, standing alone, is not reliable. What some practitioners percieve as not involving relative movement is an illusion, and the videos show that. I, or any trained pilot, can tell you what tricks the vestibular and kinesthetic senses are subject to. You can be made to perceive movement where there is none at all, and no movement at all where there a great deal of very dangerous motion occurring. What you think you know when it comes to stance and balance -- ain't necessarily so. Ask anyone with Parkinsons' or Minier's.
The vidoes I have seen are supposed to show these "pushout" exercises not employing external movement. They distinctly show instead, movement according to what I understand to be Shioda's Taijuuido/weight transfer principle. This was discussed at length in the weight transfer thread.
Even if some practitioners make connections between them, I have not read that Shioda ever did, and what these exercises claim to do I see working on Shioda's principles, not those that Mike describes. But he and I differ on our understanding of what mechanics are actually involved, so there you go. Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics, too.
I do not in any way equate Shioda's approach with any version of nei jin or the mechanics (as I understand them) typical of the nei-jia schools. (As an aside, Shioda's kihon dosa paradigm does however fit the "rapid cycle" OODA paradigmatic training regime, earlier mentioned, FWIW)
In fact, I think Shioda has the better of the argument in terms of what is actually happening from what I have seen and felt in the pushout exercise, as opposed to what Mike describes. Having tried the same exercises according to the principles I have seen demonstrated, I say what I know and have felt and have seen.