I appreciate all the contributions to this thread so far. Ellis in particular was on fire and I agree with pretty much everything he said.
However, I believe at least one of my initial thoughts has been validated by the direction this thread took.
It is often stated by proponents of "IP/IT/IS" that the techniques of aikido (and presumably other styles) are unimportant; that "IP/IT/IS" operates outside of technique.
In my very limited experience, I would have to say I disagree. In my admittedly short exposure to "IP/IT/IS" I found that everything shown was technique based. It may not be what many would call a formal technique, but technique I believe it is. In my opinion, it really comes down to what distinctions the practitioner is able to make.
I often like to begin in a very grounded place. . . dictionary definitions.
1. the manner and ability with which an artist, writer, dancer, athlete, or the like employs the technical skills of a particular art or field of endeavor.
2. the body of specialized procedures and methods used in any specific field, especially in an area of applied science.
3. method of performance; way of accomplishing.
4. technical skill; ability to apply procedures or methods so as to effect a desired result.
1. belonging or pertaining to an art, science, or the like: technical skill.
2. peculiar to or characteristic of a particular art, science, profession, trade, etc.: technical details.
3. using terminology or treating subject matter in a manner peculiar to a particular field, as a writer or a book: a technical report.
4. skilled in or familiar in a practical way with a particular art, trade, etc., as a person.
5. of, pertaining to, or showing technique.