Dan, this is about the fourth or fifth time. *Anytime* you definitively attribute that I said something, please put the citation. In the past, my position has never been any more than that *some* of Ueshiba's stuff may have come from sources other than Takeda. The only shift I've made is that actually "aiki" (apparently "aiki" as you use it is slightly different from the traditional usage, so I'm using it in the traditional sense) seems more certainly to have come from Takeda himself simply for the reason that I can see one of Takeda's students using it (and bear in mind, that's not definitive in itself). I still leave it open because I don't know (and you don't know) if the supplemental training methodologies came from Takeda or not. There is still a strong possibility that some of the supplemental training came from another discipline (for Ueshiba's Aikido). Given that Ueshiba uses such strong Shintoism in his supplemental practice methods, it's a reasonable and open question about whether he got some of the supplemental training practices through Omoto Kyo.
I do not go back and find your posts because you negated true efforts at any conversation between us in the past. Look, you are stating that you didn't change your views. I say you did. That's it. People can look it up, lets drop it, we both have better things to do.
...are telling me
...what aiki is in the traditional Japanese sense? That's interesting.
I'll bet good money that you can't. Not that I am being adversarial, that's not it at all. It's just that neither you- nor anyone else- is ever going to get people in the traditional arts --particularly in DR- to agree on what aiki is.
But once again here your statements Like "There is still a strong possibility that some of the supplemental training came from another discipline."
is meaningless. More unsupported speculation. There is an even stronger possibility he didn't need to!
Again, less it escapes your attention, there are men in DR who are NOT surprised in watching Ueshiba, can see what he is doing, knew how to do what he was doing, and how to train it. So it can be argued with much more credibility that he needn't have gone any where else ...ever.
This is too much verbiage. It's water under the bridge, I brought it up because too many times you go after people like you did here, for bringing up DR in conjunction with Ueshiba, all while you yourself continually bring up these "Common Asian elements," and possible, yet still imaginary, and unprovable "additives" from other sources. What's good for the goose is good for the Gander, Mike. You know little about his training in DR Aiki, and outside of that, nothing at all that is provable. All you offer is speculation.
I would suggest you try to "actually" remain open (perhaps to the idea that he got what he got inside of DR and chose to use it in a different way) instead of just paying lip service to the idea of remaining truly open. Or at least try to be a little more circumspect in your comments to others when you yourself have, and are, doing so much arguing…all from unsupported speculation. Then we won't have to keep going down this old and well traveled road.
For the thread
This is a more interesting discussion; both in why and how the aiki lines changed the way the arts were taught, in their ukemi model, and what it did for the players in developing and weirdly -not-developing their bodies. And going back to Ellis's idea of letting the men involved stand on their own two feet; Ukemi is the source of where Ueshiba changed everything.
It started with the Ukemi model, not the aiki.
What was in his mind and vision to fashion it to look the way it did?
What were his goals in establishing it this way?
What was he doing in receiving the way he did?
Did his son continue in that vein....or, did he actually change it again and reverse the roles in a different and more complete way?