View Single Post
Old 12-11-2006, 10:43 AM   #497
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,394
Re: Aikido: The learning of natural movement

You're welcome...except you still don't know what Aiki-age or Aiki-sage is either. You can't even get folks in the art who have it to agree! Here we can say Peng-jin and lu. And then argue for daring to use that. Or we can say how An is taught clearly to inside people in certain Japanese arts both in the touch of hands and in body -to read and control an attackers force. But it really is just going to progress to more argument there as well. Its easier if you touch, and someone "knows."
It's very frustrating in that there is little agreement in the Japanese arts and from what I am seeing the Chinese arts as well. You get a feeling that it has to -be- concrete and understandable. But then the higher ups say no one should dare say what *X* is because they don't know either. Or (typical) after twenty years they are getting it a little bit. How is that different from the way Chinese arts are taught? I agree and understand that "Ideal" or "model" as well. I have felt and still feel that way- that I am just scratching the surface. But, you still need to train and discuss it in actual hands -on an explicable means. Not hiding the truth buried in techniques that are by an large ancillary to whats *really* going on in the first place. Then ytou get the "we train by principles" guys who take a good idea but can't do a damn thing either. They're just good fighters.
So you either get off the elevator and take the stairs up and upset folks or you get lost on the staircase "to the top"and end up in the basement. Either way you're not on the elevator.
So in the end I think we're still stuck in terminology.
Its why I use hands on to test. Then I feel better asking someone just what the heck they "think" they know.
If it works, it works. If not I just keep on going.
Then we have to consider is the information valuable- but the egg head who has it ...can't use it.
Or is the information *bupkis* and a wrong direction in the first place and not worth considering.
And in the end we are back to discussing that it must fit an Asian model that is known. But that is largely known and yet not known and not openly taught......argh!
And folks who know parts argue over semantics and understanding of what they know and thet tell everyone its known in Asia and agreed to and there is no argument as they argue.
Challenging waters.

Last edited by DH : 12-11-2006 at 10:57 AM.
  Reply With Quote