I think I can do any demonstration of this stuff that any one else can. If you don't believe me, make a video of you doing something, and I'll copy it. I think all this talking has made you guys think this stuff is harder then it really is.
Well, I'm looking at the topic of defining as opposed to a challenge. I started to post yesterday that I think the real problem with the defining aspect is (after reading some of the posts) simply that a person can only define in terms of what he knows. Some pretty explicit definitions (yet simple) definitions have been offered so far and my opinion is that the reason some of them get rejected is that the people who are rejecting them just don't understand the basic principles yet. I.e., the people who don't know how to do these things can't see the point of some fairly obvious 'definitions', yet once they've been shown I feel that they will simply nod and shrug at the obvious.
Another problem with the videos has to do with what can happen to interpretations of what is seen. I'm not a great exponent of the "jo trick"... and in my opinion Ueshiba never really pulled it off in the filmed attempts I've seen (he *may* have been able to do it better when he was younger and stronger). That being said, I see something entirely different in what he was attempting to do than you do in your explanation that has to do with suggestion, and so on.
Watching what you do and how you do it, my impression is that I can do a number of things with "aiki" that you can't do, but that's because your definition of "aiki" is quite different in understanding from what I understand; from what I know I can do some demonstrations that your "structure" approach simply doesn't allow for. As I mentioned to you previously, "structure" is not so important in the way I do things. I also posted a picture of two of Tohei's students doing a good basic example; I think that picture on one-leg should be a defining static example that people should be able to do well, since the dynamic examples can be a lot more sophisticated.
However, while I'm interested in the topic of approaching a definition, I'd already begun to drop out because I think the discussion is impossible to bring to fruition until everyone understands how to do these things at a basic level. Then the definition would be simple, IMO: it would be more a matter of using terms that truly define in the simplest and most accurate manner.