Obviously I'm not Jon, but some thoughts I had reading this post:
I don't think Jon said they weren't in Aikido. I know I recently read him as saying he believes they're just probably not (generally) practiced with the same degree of understanding as other groups who practice the same (or similar) exercises might. Aikido is a big world so I think it's incorrect for anyone to say it's completely lacking, but a good many people do seem to be saying their practice has been revolutionized through direct instruction from some of these different approaches; that they clarified much of what they were already doing.
I think it's fair to suggest Aikido in general might not have the best, most precise instruction for high-level ki-based movements. We may already have the language and the basic concepts, but the degree of understanding in how to physically manifest aiki power probably could be done better...I tend to think most things, if not all, could be done better though. The question is whether or not what we're doing satisfies the demand/goal we have for it.
Just thought this bore repeating.
This could be close to what Jon was talking about when he spoke of "corroletive thinking." I'm guessing you're not saying that simply by looking one always finds what they're looking for. It's the degree with which we engage ourselves to the looking which determines what we find...that and the luck of being in the right places at the right times of course.
Thanks for the good discussions!
Hi Mathew. Nice replies.I agree. On the point of keeping on your path and you'll find what your looking for though yes I do mean it. Thus I said path, not much different to your explanation of degree we engage ourselves in the looking. If you are sincere in staying on your path you cannot fail to find the lessons you need to learn.
As such is my view.