senshincenter

Well perhaps we can ease things down a bit. Let us find some common ground here.

We have to all see that this for most involved here does remain a science question and/or at least it is thought to be dealing with "natural" forces. I do not see either (recent) party as suggesting that some kind of paranormal force is involved. Perhaps this, Paige, is what Ron is referring to when he is suggesting that you are not hearing what Mike is saying. In simplest terms, without all the polemical statements (which might indeed and rightly be causing the reactionary rejections), Mike is suggesting that there is a way to use natural forces, forces such as GRF, etc., to gain higher power outputs. The capacity to use these forces and/or to increase one's force at impact or at a bracing angle, etc., is relative to one's skill at transferring such force as desired or needed along the body. This is really just describing a process of basic energy transference and/or the redirection of energy (to use a more familiar phrase), etc. From this perspective, one can see that this is not only well within the grounds of scientific thought, it is also the very core strategic assumption behind all Aikido. In this sense, what he is saying is really beyond rejection.

The "hard to swallow" part someone may feel when hearing of such things is, as Mike suggests, partly do to one's inexperience in practicing energy transference martially and/or at such subtle levels. It is accurate to say that most aikidoka are indeed only experienced in energy transference when it comes to gross examples, such as uke does a tsuki at jodan level and nage does an inward parry, affecting the strike, and uke's center of gravity, line of gravity, Base of Support, etc.

That said, there is another reason why the message may feel "hard to swallow." This side has nothing really to do with a lack of common experience. As Paige might take better note of what she is hearing, if I may respectfully suggest to both parties, Mike's message might be better served if it came without the usual or "popular" rhetoric that is indeed traditionally associated with folks that want to talk about more "magical" things. Such things are, for example, the jabs at teachers, the division of West and East, the overly great significance given to specific training techniques, the notion of a "Golden Past," and the delivered sense of "I know, but I can't tell you." It is not only that such things give of an air of elitism, which some might take an aversion too, it is, more importantly, that such things seem to fly in the face of the first and most important message: That such skill at energy transference, etc., is perfectly natural and well within scientific theory. In short, these things make it hard for someone to hear what Mike is saying because they in essence contradict his original position that he is addressing something natural and well within scientific understanding, etc.

For example: If something is a high level of skill, and if full understanding (i.e. comprehension) requires such skill development, then there could NOT be a "Golden Past." Instead, we would see a time just like ours, no matter how far we went back. We are not looking at a "knowledge" that has disappeared and/or that is on the verge of facing extinction (like a species would face extinction). There was not a time when everyone (or most) knew it and/or when access to such things was more readily available. There was no such moment from which we are today separated from by a discontinuity of history. There have only been and will only be times when such skill level is higher and more subtle than what most will achieve. Access to such things then remains forever relative to one's commitment to achieving them. Rather than a "Golden Past" we are really looking at "golden versions" of each one of us -- versions we may cultivate ourselves as or versions we may never attain. This is an important distinction and we should take note of it before we go running off to the mountain in search of some hermit that claims to have a straight continuous line tied to "The Past." "Golden Pasts" are fictions created by folks in the present to given their subjectivity an air of objectivity -- something that is always necessary when you want to trade one form of cultural capital for another. Being a fiction, a "Golden Past" has nothing to do with what is natural or what is scientific -- not even the science of History.

Another example: If such a skill is perfectly natural -- to humanity and to the larger environment -- then we should not prioritize the various means of acquiring such a talent. In particular, if such a skill is at the heart of Aikido, every aspect of Aikido suffices as a means to acquire that skill. It is one thing to suggest that added training devices might be beneficial to one's training; it is another thing to suggest that without these devices our practice is doomed to remaining incomplete. What is actually required is a depth of training, not a breadth of training. And while breadth may indeed offer some that particular avenue to depth that they needed, it does not follow that depth cannot be achieve through current avenues and/or that additional avenues will guarantee such depth. In truth, it is because of the reasoning and events that we find in the aforementioned example that our practice may remain "incomplete" and/or "superficial" and we face this possible doom no matter what technique we may be using to refine our practice. In this sense, we do not need "ancient" techniques used to discover such skill in "the past." We can use more recent ones, new ones, ones we invent on the spot, and, to be sure, we can use Kihon Waza, etc. While old techniques may be a supplemental training aid that may do us some good, they may very well do nothing of us since we may be part of the larger mass of people that never acquire such skill. Something cannot be natural and then separated from great sections of the natural world. Because of this the aggrandizing of techniques from the East, from China, from this art, or from that teacher, etc., works against the first and only worthy premise: we are dealing here with natural forces.

Perhaps if the parties involved could look at these things in these suggested ways, the common ground of not seeing the forces as paranormal would emerge.

On an additional note: It might very well be that Paige's instructor is adopting a paranormal approach to training within some parameters -- which very well might put him "at odds" with her position but would not have him saying the same thing that Mike is suggesting.

dmv