senshincenter

First, let me thank you for requesting of me that I keep things clear. It’s helping me put together some things that I have often left to many years of talks and ideas, etc.

I’d like to start with some terms. All of this is my opinion… “Non-violent” means something that is not only against violent but incapable of committing violence. The strikes you are referring to are not “non-violent” in that sense. However, the practice of them, what you see being done in the video, is not violence. I am drawing a distinction here between the term “non-violence” and the phrase “not violence.”

When I use the phrase “not violence” I am suggesting that any and all training environments – if they are ran efficiently, if they are productive, and if they occurred via mature, moral, and virtuous character – are inherently non-realistic. By this, for example, I mean they are controlled (at many levels). By this one trait alone, for example, one has distance him/herself from violence. For example, violence is marked by chaos, as it is first and foremost a transgression and subversion of some sort of established order. There is no chaos in our training, in the video of us practicing strikes.

As a further explanation, but sticking with this one trait of chaos’ relationship to violence (and order’s relationship to training environments), we can look at how the human body/mind reacts as further evidence that we are not practicing violence in the dojo. Under experienced levels of chaos, particularly those centered around violence, it is quite common for the human body/mind to undergo several things (both during and after): an emptying of the bowels and bladder, a narrowing of vision, a loss of hearing, smell association, nightmares, alienation, depression, etc. None of this, no matter how intense training may become, is ever present in the dojo, or if it is, for those less exposed to such stress, and that have been brought up in intensity levels too quickly, it is a shadow of what it truly can be under real violent conditions.

It is under this line of thinking that I am using the phrase, “not violent.” If you want to ask, “Is it ‘non-violent’?” the answer is “No.” Under this same line of thinking, if you ask me, “Is a strike, throw, or lock, that causes a momentary reaction, pain, or knockout non-violent?” the answer is “No.” If you ask, “Are these things being practiced in a dojo violent?” again, the answer is “No.”

That said, why am I not attracted to “non-violent Aikido”? Allow me to explain: Restating, I make a distinction between practicing Aikido in the dojo, which is “Not Violence Aikido” and “Non-Violence Aikido.” For me, “not violence Aikido” is something we do all the time. It’s real, its non-contradictory, and it keeps violence as it is, etc. (all the things I spoke of in the earlier post). “Non-violence Aikido” is something that is not real, does not exist. It is a delusion that rests only upon a base of ignorance concerning what violence is. That said, I would agree with your statement, “Absolution of responsibility, in any event, seems to be a character flaw,” only I would include the belief in the existence of imaginary non-violence Aikido, the quest for such an art and/or the quest for such a skill in such an art, has to be included in the “in any event,” making that too a character flaw.

I would offer this as a parallel. Imagine, you go to a car dealer, and he says, “We go this new Ferrari, it can travel 200 mph in second gear, WHILE preventing you from driving dangerously and/or putting anyone (ever) in harm’s way. It’s the newest technology!” When you hear this, you go, “Cool, a car that allows you to go fast but has no chance of reckless driving! Yes! Got to have it!” But, one can only say this if one believes driving 200 mph down Main St. can ever be done safely – when in fact it cannot. Once you know it cannot, the lure toward such a car, the belief in it, is as much an act of irresponsibility as driving 200 mph down Main St.

Earlier, I gave another “test,” the one regarding striking in Aikido dojo. I feel that point was made – that striking is NOT truly a part of Aikido in general. Again, to be clear, this is not to say it cannot be, or that it never was, or that it should not be. This is just to say, currently, it is not. Along those same lines, I want folks to ask themselves this, as, in my opinion, it will reveal the delusion I am suggesting is in most dojo when it comes to the nature of violence – a delusion that is quite present in almost every Aikido dojo you might visit. The folks that are probably in the best position to answer this are those that are, by whatever standards, considered or consider themselves to be the more martial aikidoka. Also, folks that have trained in different arts – especially arts that, by whatever standards, are considered more martial than Aikido – are also in a good position to amplify this delusion so that it is here made visible.

Of you martial aikidoka, and/or of you folks that have trained in other arts that are more martial than Aikido, when you go to different dojo and/or when you start at a new dojo, how is your understanding (i.e. practice, philosophy, application, etc.) of the art taken by those around you? Is it welcomed? How does the sensei take you? How do senpai take you? How do kohai take you?

Here is my experience: You are a problem, in as much as you need to be interpreted, allowed for, understood, etc., and, in the end, cultured. During that acculturation practice, folks will connect your actions, your application of the art to personality traits not valued by society (e.g. angry, forceful, unfriendly, etc.). Contrast this to other arts, and/or other rare Aikido dojo where Aikido is never understood as “Non-violent/Non-violence,” and such applications are just part of the ever-changing and specificity-resistant nature of reality and thus of true understandings of violence. In other words, no energy is expended in rejecting you and/or what you provide as an experience of the world in which we all live. On the other hand, the great energy that is expended in the former cases, is, for me, proof, that delusion is present. Where delusion is present, there can be no interest in responsibility. Where there is no interest in responsibility, there is no real responsibility. This is the moral/spiritual reason why we should be so aware of our delusions regarding power.

This is my take on things. Again, folks, especially those I mentioned, please answer the above questions.

Thanks,
dmv
(no time to proof - sorry for the errors)