Thread: True Warfare
View Single Post
Old 10-28-2011, 02:42 PM   #120
graham christian
Dojo: golden center aikido-highgate
Location: london
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,697
Re: True Warfare

Matthew Gano wrote: View Post
I think Bjorn made the semantics a little more clear that his use of the term holds different connotations than yours. The world around us "invades" us through the simple virtue of contact; it is inescapable. How we interact with that contact determines whether or not it's a pleasure or something else. How we are organized determines the initial nature of the interaction/contact. He's not saying (I'm pretty sure) people should practice breaking and entering or starting wars or striking needlessly.
I suggest the idea that no one fully apreciates Aikido; that each of us has different qualities and quantities of understanding...hence the need for life-long study.

You seem to be suggesting some folks have the wrong view of Aikido.
Hi Matthew.
I see the word invasion used as you say he used it later but is it true? Does the world around us invade simply by virtue of contact? Thus I say the wrong word is used. In the op it is clearly about invading and cutting communication lines etc. It is about attacking and dominating with superior force. So I suggest a better analogy that's all.

I too suggest an incomplete appreciation of Aikido in it's fullness.

Now me suggesting or implying some folks have a wrong view of Aikido. Yes I do. Do not many say I have a wrong view? Did not those taught by Ueshiba himself differ in opinions and say such things even about each other? Yes, some did.

I would say however I do not say it as blatantly as many for I also say all those doing various forms of Aikido are all doing Aikido. Sounds contradictory but it's all down to when I say it and why. As usual context is king. Others can then in future say 'but you said' and use it as a put down or whatever but as I've said about historical data, a person can say anything at any particular time so taking a 'he said' and then using it to mean extra and over what he was using it for at the time is a failing in my view. Or even demeaning it and thus giving it less import.

So I can imply many don't understand Aikido and also I can imply everyone is doing Aikido both.

I can also say from the view of 'ultimate' Aikido that no one I've seen is doing it. As can you or anyone say the same.

May I just also add that many teachers may say the same. For example I could imagine let's say Tohei having said 'No Ki no Aikido' and thus when seeing that aspect not 'emphasized' could well say that's not Aikido. I guarantee some shihans have said as much at times from their various views.

So I put it to you, how comes it's 'understandable' if one person says it yet not so if another does?



Last edited by graham christian : 10-28-2011 at 02:44 PM.
  Reply With Quote