View Single Post
Old 12-13-2006, 09:18 AM   #48
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,996
Re: For Ted Ehara - Boundary of your aikido?

Erick Mead wrote:
The internal power pushing tests described by Dan, Mike Rob and others demonstrate this problem. They wish to be pushed -- but do not wish to be pushed. The cognitive dissonnace is written on the face of the problem. The internal and external are set conflict. There is no unity -- only conflict. That the conflict is not overt is irrelevant. Can anybody spell p-a-s-s-i-v-e a-g-r-e-s-s-i-v-e?
I just have to chime in here. It seems that you have the wrong interpretation of what they are doing and what is happening. There is no conflict, only "harmony" of energies. Really.

Erick Mead wrote:
As a result, if he really does not wish to be pushed, if I achieve musubi, why would I ever push him? We just stand there. Aikido is operating perfectly and absolutely nothing is happening, not merely the appearance of nothign happening. For more aikido to happen he needs to decide something and act on it and I'll gladly join in. I'll wait....
And the same goes for what they are doing. Only here, you are a bit backwards. It isn't that they are pushing as in your former example above, but that they are standing there like you, centered. Aikido is still operating perfectly and nothing is happening. It's that simple. However, if that person does do something, then there is a harmony of energies ... a "join in" ... just not in the way that most people "harmonize" in Aikido.

What they are doing is all about harmony and never about conflict. They couldn't do what they're doing if they used a conflict method. The basic, underlying premise is a bit different, but the resultant is the same -- harmony.

Where a lot of Aikido people will actively harmonize (action verb) with uke, internal stuff has an affect that causes uke to harmonize. Both ways end up doing something to uke that causes harmony.

Hmmm ... maybe this example:

Let's say that there is a 4' diameter ball weighing 150 pounds. It's rolling along an even path in a straight direction at a slow pace.

A person trots beside it, harmonizes with the ball and slowly creates a different spin/path/direction/speed such that the person/ball creates a new path.

Or the ground starts sloping/altering in such a way that a new spin/path/direction/speed opens up and the ground/ball creates a new path.

Either way, the ball has had some change. There is no conflict. For just as the person "harmonized" with the ball, so did the ground. The person had to create some sort of harmony with the ball just as the ground did. If the person's actions are viewed as harmonizing, then the ground's actions must also be viewed that way for both are physical forces applying some change upon the ball and neither have a direct, stopping effect.

But, the person *effected* the ball while the ground had an *affect* upon the ball. Different manners to change the ball, but there was a "harmony" from both.

  Reply With Quote