The weakness or strength of the action is not the value measure in view, I think. I also think that (and David or Kevin will surely help me out here if I stray too far) that it is related to the attitude motivating the action (for uke or nage). I cannot rely on my opponent's attitude, but I acknowledge that my attitude has a great deal to do with the success or failure ( better dichotomy, I think) of my action. This natural understanding of the internal importance of motivation I think tempts us to look for the internal motivation in our opponents, because it is so determinative for us. But it is forever beyond our knowledge. And in my view, we tend to supply this vacuum with constructs of our own, and then attribute them to our oppoenent. Sometimes these are accurate, sometimes not, but always dangerous if I assume they reflect his reality, rather than my own.
Actually I agree with this.
I am sort of a Stephen Covey follower, if for no other reason than I can understand his material!
I like the concept of circle of influence and circle of concern. The cricle of influence lay within the circle of concern. I am concerned with things that are greater than what I can influence. I need to know where those circles meet.
I can firstly and rightly influence myself. So, I can choose how a respond to what I am presented with, but I cannot will my opponent into an actions.
However, I can expand my circle of influence through many actions. Increasing my skills, listening, trying to understand my opponent as best as possible. By doing these things I can better influence the choices or courses of action my opponent may take or have available to him.
It is multifaceted. Physical, mental, and spiritual. In some situations I may tap only the physical. My circle of influence my be very, very small. In others it may be big and I can expand it rapidly using empathy etc.
Erick, I like this post and I think you and I are on the same tangent on this!
Have a good day.