View Single Post
Old 03-27-2010, 09:47 AM   #38
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Martial, spiritual, and jujutsu (split off from Funakogi Thread)

Quote:
Chris Hein wrote: View Post
What I would call Aiki, I can easily make a video of. In fact I'll make one this week. From your examples though, I can see that you would call aiki, if that's what you were talking about, is what I would call structure and alignment. I'll make a video of that as well, and I'll make a video of what I would call mental suggestion.

To me these 3 things are different animals, but I think many people are lumping these 3 things into the category of aiki. I'll have the video's by Saturday next week.
OK. I'll actually be in San Francisco next week, if you're anywhere near, and we could compare quickly. A lot of these terms are often arbitrarily defined by people and I think that great care has to be taken not develop side-definitions that are different principles.

I've posted Inaba Minoru's definition of "aiki" a number of times. I agree with that definition. That being said, I don't see how it differs from other terms in Asian martial arts that describe the same phenomenon using the same classical sayings that Ueshiba used. I.e., "aiki" per se is not unique to Aikido; the problem is that most of the people talking about it are unaware of the larger world of Asian martial arts and the traditions going back thousands of years.

A classic example of these misdefinitions can be seen in the post that involved Michael Phillips' Tai Chi, a few months back. Phillips shows a form of uprooting (with willing students) and he calls it "Fajing". What he showed is really called "Ti fang" by anyone knowledgeable in Chinese martial arts.... it's not "fajing". Getting under someone and throwing them backward is not "fajing". But among many westerners, there is a feeling that their ignorance of nomenclature is OK and no one will catch it; many people will catch it, ultimate... and with unfortunate ramifications resulting. Rather than go down that road, I think an attempt at establishing a definition is a good thing. But that definition should comport with the definitions of people who are established (as opposed to "instant") experets.

My opinion, FWIW

Mike Sigman
  Reply With Quote