Defined by who?
You're saying that Moriteru's definition doesn't matter (I don't necessarily disagree) but that somehow there is a definition from....?
You're saying that Aikido ought to be defined technically, is that correct? I'm saying that Ueshiba never intended to define it that narrowly. If he made it (as you said at one point), ought not what he said be important in evaluating the criteria?
Certainly, but if our criteria don't lead us to a word with a clear definition, then they fail, no matter whose criteria they are, even O Sensei's. I don't think O Sensei was particularly interested in clearly defining his art, and as I said above, he had the luxury of not having to. As long as O Sensei lived, the word aikido
needed only to mean "Morihei Ueshiba's martial art".
O Sensei's definitions of the art simply do not suffice on a linguistic level in the absence of O Sensei himself. They do not coalesce into a single definition of a single word that can be used practically.
I don't have time to answer the whole thing (and I'm certainly not going to start arguing percentages), but I will say that the above is only true if your definition of "Aiki" covers all those things, mine doesn't.
But my hunch is that we'd define Aiki differently anyway...
Your opening post makes it clear that your definition of aiki
is at least broad enough to cover what MMA fighters do, and discussion with you has lead me to believe that you also think it can cover dancing. Rather than arguing the definition of aiki
(something that would take forever and likely go nowhere), let's say the definition ends there.
In that case, your definition of aikido is anything that is done according to the principles of aiki
, which you seem to be saying can include any number of martial arts (including even competitive MMA) and dancing. So the sentence, "I did aikido this morning," now means that you did one of many martial arts or danced. Still not a particularly useful sentence.