View Single Post
Old 04-07-2003, 12:53 PM   #51
Alfonso
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 346
Offline
Re: Re: Just for good measure...

Quote:
Jun Akiyama (akiy) wrote:
Actually, if you weren't there at all, there'd probably be no violence to begin with. By stepping aside or whatnot, you've still made a conscious choice to affect what's going on...

-- Jun
a pox on editing time..

Didn't O-Sensei step out of the way, to the effect that the swordsman smashed his shoulder against the wall, which led O-Sensei to reformulate his Aikido? I understood that he felt that stepping out of the way was not Aikido for the reasons above too..

This discussion on violence seems to revolve around Nage. I think it's perfectly possible for Nage to act without intent to do violence, and yet the results may be violent (as in violence of nature) by the fact that the attacker IS purporting to do violence. I believe that Aikido is about transcending even the intent to do violence of the attacker ..

Can you do technique with intent to harm ? Unquestionably yes, the possiblity is there! But is that AIKIDO technique you just did? I understand it isn't. What would you call it? Well, for lack of a term, some people will call it Jujutsu (which offends jujutsuka because it implies their art doesn't have ethics to it)..

Atemi in Aikido isn't done with the intent to harm and abuse or to destroy, no? It's done to cause the attacker to react in a way that will allow Nage to use a technique that will save their ass from being killed..

So there's violence in intent or purpose, violence in action , and violence in hindsight.

I believe Nage in Aikido cannot have the first , may still result in the second, and would probably feel bad at the third.

And what about UKE? How should attacks be made? Is Aikido Nage alone?

Alfonso Adriasola
  Reply With Quote