Lee Salzman

So, 30 or so pages later we're still debating whether this is or is not... aikido? This seems really backwards to me.

So, where's the meat and potatoes? If I just cram enough intellectual knowledge into my head about what is or is not aikido, will that make intuitive and spontaneous expression of movement in a martial venue magically better? When in a fighting situation, do I really want to be limited by what my "super-ego" thinks is the "correct" thing to do according to some prescribed dogma?

Or is it in what spontaneously arises as a result of whatever I've been practicing? Does it matter if I call this or that particular expression aikido, or is aikido not just the particular methodology for getting the body to, little by little, come closer to a desired expression?

All this discussion drove me many moons ago to start practicing this "stuff". Is it what O'Sensei, Takeda, Sagawa, Tohei, etc. did? Hell if I know or care. Does it give me an answer on how to refine my body's movement to levels that I didn't find an answer for in aikido as it was shown to me? Yes. And the answers seemed... mundane. Not really complex, just require a buttload of practice, rather than a bunch of thinking about it. I can think "turn when pushed, enter when pulled" all I want, but unless my body's "turn" and "enter" can be done as an integrated whole, a unit, and all by itself without ever having to think about it, then it ends up being an ineffective "turn" or "enter" (and indeed it was).

Sure, you COULD use an integrated body to stand immobile. Would you really want to when someone's trying to lay a beatdown on you? No. But that seems the lowest level of application. You can use the integration for movement... ANY movement. ANY exhertion of power. Is that aikido... who cares?