Quote:
Kevin Leavitt wrote:
semantics, but I would not say there is violence in aikido as much as what we practice recognizes and is concerned with violence. To me for violence to be actually present requires actual acts of harm to be present.
|
Semantics? I'd like to to know what the two meanings of violence are.
I'd also like to know who thinks Aikido is NOT violent? Most all of Aikido IS violent (only the strikes/kicks/rips/tears, etc are removed, but I'd bet a bundle that the vast majority who actually had to use it on the street will add it back in), it is only up to the individual to not inflict damage. Most moves are intented to be executed with 'great ki', still manifesting as 'great force'. IMO, Aikido's basic intent is to show compassion and mercy at a time when one could easily maim or kill them (which of course, could be extended to spending one's days walking in fields of wild flowers and sitting on mountain tops exuding peace thru all the world), which is quite different than to claim it's non-violent, so I think it's more of a misnomer than semantic.
Quote:
|
Ken Leavitt wrote:
To me competition can occur on many levels and it is in aikido and Yoga even! Who hasn't been in a yoga class and you look around to see how well your warrior pose is to someone elses! That is competition!
I do think aikido is meant to be a paradox in this respect .
|
Looking to see if you're doing a technique properly is one thing, looking to see if you're doing it better is an unhealthy issue that might need therapy and medication. Clearly competition in this context means an organized event with judges and officials and rankings and sponsors, etc.
Again, no paradox here,imo.