View Single Post
Old 05-29-2007, 10:26 AM   #91
Erick Mead
 
Erick Mead's Avatar
Dojo: Big Green Drum (W. Florida Aikikai)
Location: West Florida
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,430
United_States
Offline
Re: Parsing ai ki do

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
Eric's idea of orbiting relationships in perfect balance is the the quintessential example of what is wrong with aikido.
Who said perfect balance? You have a mistaken impression of the dynamics of orbits, stable or otherwise as exhibiting "perfect balance." Hardly so. Orbits can be quite violent things, especially unstable ones. Even stable orbits exhibit tides (inyo-ho ?), and they can be vicious things, that can literally tear a lesser mass apart at the seams inside the Roche limit -- even in a stable orbit -- Saturn and its rings for instance. It should be mentioned that O Sensei prefigured this discussion, speaking of the mythological red and white balls that allowed one to control the ebb and flow of the tide.

Even equal mass objects can present very interesting stable mechanics in orbit about a common center:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../0e/Orbit5.gif

That image has a air of familiarity to me in the practice of aikido.
Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
[Irimi/tenkan] Both are demonstrated as individual acts when they are not.
Well, on this we agree. Every tenkan begins in irimi, every irimi ends in tenkan. In-yo, quite.

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
In his own way Eric is expressing an understanding fostered on him by teachers, so it can't be helped.
I know what I know, and, more importantly, what I do not know. You can ask my teachers how much of that is their responsibility -- and how much is my own fault.

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
I'll give you a clearer picture Eric. Planets don't solely by relationship. They work by exhibiting perfect balance unto themselves. Without that their can be no relationshoip.
Monsieur Roche disagrees with you here. If an orbiting body enters an orbit that passes inside the Roche limit, tides can destroy its structural coherence. The difference is the Roche limit is closer if there is greater inherent structural coherence, and the limit is further if there is less inherent structural coherence.

You may speak of strong versus weak structure, but the judgment element in that characterization is suspect. Both aspects of inherent structural coherence have their places in the art, as strategic elements involving where to place energy in a given situation, rather than judgment of better or worse in abstract terms.

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
Meaning-long before you ever considered viewing a relationship between two bodies in motion there were two entities in balance to themselves.
1.WIthout the sun being in perfect balance to itself it would have nothing to attract or hold the earth.
The earth would orbit a diffuse gas cloud of the same mass of the sun at the same orbital distance from the center of mass of the cloud. I should point out that it is gravity that gives the sun the "perfect balance" of spherical structure as a very compact gas cloud.

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
2. The earth without its own rotation would have nothing worth saving.
Analogizing gravity to Aiki (thanks again Ellis, very fruitful!), gravity does not care if the bodies rotate internally or not, although the dynamics of tides will vary depending on that additional source of forces and changing moments.

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
Most have their first clue about this when they run into someone with good structure...moving. They instantly sense hisd movements are superior. Weak structure, spinning about in a dance and tryng to meet or join is all but laughable. ... It is exactly why in/yo can be so powerful. And why most aikido is not.
Your idea of it is self-limiting. Aikido, if it is truly in-yo ho (and we agree on that) must serve those who are naturally weak in structure as well as those who are strong in structure. Otherwise, there is no true yin to balance the yang in the art.

The applications may appear different, as the Roche limits of more structured vice more fluid orbital bodies may also differ. The same principles are in application, merely at different degrees of extension. As the coherence of structure improves through training, the art may move closer with greater safety and exposed to greater levels of energy (highly eccentric orbit) in the approach.

That does not mean that the principles of engagement at the limits of extension (appropriate to less structured bodies) are different or inferior, merely that they are not complete as a description of the totality of the art. Of course, neither is the "strong structure" model as a derogatory criticism -- to the extent that it neglects the operation at the limits of extension appropriate to less well-structured bodies.

At a higher level of training both internal strategies are available to the practitioner who develops both. Beginners start with the inherently weak structure model as an almost unavoidable premise. Their access to the coherence model ("strong structure") comes through training in perception and adjustment of form as much or more than physical rehabilitation or strengthening.

These represent differential focus in applying dynamic energy. Decoherence is just as powerful as coherence -- applied correctly. Strategic collapse of internal structure can destroy the support of any structure that comes to bear on it, regardless of its inherent strength..

Last edited by Erick Mead : 05-29-2007 at 10:32 AM.

Cordially,

Erick Mead
一隻狗可久里馬房但他也不是馬的.
  Reply With Quote