Chris Parkerson

Ron,

These days I am less Greek in Philosophy and way more Asian I do not think in terms of either this is right and that is wrong as much as I think in terms of both-and. I suggest that his "truth" simply comes from different expediencies than yours.

The military's main goal, (barring these new policing directives) is to close with and destroy. A commander is willing to take up to 30% losses (correct me if I am wrong on the percentage) to achieve a tactical objective.

In civilian life, we have a mandate to obey the law or suffer punsihment. There is both a moral and legal requirement to find the first means of effective escape from instances that are leading toward mutual combat.

I like the use of evasion and "sounding off" ("Get back, I do not want to fight you") because I am using Aiki to control the environment as a civilian. Witnesses do not see me close with a enemy. They see me avoiding the attack. What they do not necessarily witness is that I have gaged the attackers range, I have created angles of cancellation, I have become ready for the next assault.

I can document with physics and geometry as well as with my written training curriculum how I have not attacked the opponent in a court of law. I can document how I scanned 360 degrees regularly, looking for a another aggressor that might be blocking my avenue of escape or setting up to sucker punch me.

And at no time, unless I simply lose control of the environment, will I punish someone wihtout mercy. And I will eventually find an avenue of escape... whether by walking away or running.

If someone is hurt, I will evaluate my safety and decide whether or not to render first aid or a rescussitation technique.

As Rudyard Kipling said in the poem "If" winning and losing are imposters. It is sophmoric crap. Better to have survival as a goal. Survive the encounter as well as the courts.
I think that is decent aiki strategy for the real world of the civilian.