Quote:
Kevin Leavitt wrote:
It is simply too vague and open ended for me to really discuss in any productive manner.
|
Well I don't see why that'd be. This isn't that difficult a concept.
I didn't start this thread. I came onto Aikiweb and saw this thread. I think it's a good thread, very significant and warrants discussion, so I started discussing. What I found is some folks don't even want to talk about it, other folks thinks Aikido is perfect and don't need evolving, still some think Aikdio does need to be evolved , but doesn't know how to express it, to everything one can imagine about the concept of evolution. My position hasn't changed since I started posting- Aikido has room for evolvement and there are many facets to it's evolvment. I don't believe I need anything answered, that's something y'all projected. Far as I know, this medium goes like this, Someone posts an idea and then folks gives their ideas/experience/anecdotes/opinion about the subject, but generally folks discuss it. Now there may be some differing opinions, but hopefully they present their sides and then agree to dis-agree and go on.
So where are we here? Why are we having so much trouble with a seemingly simple concept? My position is this: Since Aikido is manmade, it is flawed and has room to evolve- from it basic techniques all the way up to expanding it's popularity.
Kevin, you have spent the most words to say stuff I can't understand. I thought the goal of communication is for folks to understand what you're saying. The measure of intelligence is not the big words or complex concepts, but being able to convey them in simple terms.
I think Gen. MacArthur said, "It is fatal to enter into any war without the will to win it." And " In war, you win or lose, live or die- and the difference is just an eyelash." and " There is no substitute for victory." I figured anyone with military/ cqb experience would respond to the results of FoF with the knife, etc. Or at least the concept of 'martially effective'.
But it seems like the first thing some folks want to do, when they reach an impasse, is question a person's personal integrity. Why? Why not just ask or discuss the topic or leave it and go do something else?