Re: formal "class" as a supplement to keiko?
To clarify, I do not, and would not, want a class like the one im suggesting to be anything more than a "supplement."
But, for example, to answer Jerome when he says "if we take aikido into a class room, then i don't think its an aikido class anymore. its a 'concepts of aikido' class or something."
My response is: is a physical aikido class not a 'concepts of aikido' class also?
To frame this in another way:
if we can say that becoming (at least) proficient in the art of aikido means that a person must work to build a bridge between the mind and the body and realize the integration and wholeness of these, then does it not help such a person to build this bridge using any and all means available?
To add comparison to this question, i think of our (western) education system, and the often cited criticism that one of the system's flaws is that it approaches all children as if they all learn the same; "some children are visual learners," you'll hear people say, while others insist they "learn better one on one", etc....
So, to extract this argument, can we not say that we too, as aikidoka, must all have different strengths and weaknesses with regards to how we learn? and if so, would it not be beneficial to some to spend their intellectual energy in a class like i described, so that when the are on the mat, they have more understanding to go on?
I have also read and heard that O-sensei could be quite talkative.
How different would Aikido as we know it be if he was also a scholar and held lecture-style talks after evening keiko?
Also, i saw some thought that a class like the one i suggest would result in more talking on the mat......but it didnt see the "how" or 'why" part....