I don't see a meaningful distinction. Yes, to both.
To me, ki as describing oscillation doesn't connect readily to the transformative aspirations of aikido, such as eloquently set forth by George Ledyard Sensei today in the combat-effectiveness thread.
On it's own, understanding "ki" in terms of oscillation makes sense (for me) of some physiological considerations that explain why aikido strategies work in the physical world.
But that appears at first glance difficult to use as a tool for understanding how Aikido can serve to help people connect or integrate, to borrow a phrase.
If "ki" is seen just in terms of the physical logic of practice, then it seems ill suited to serve as a guide to understanding these larger issues.
Maybe Ledyard Sensei remark about the two poles between fighting and avoiding conflict, which he sees as needing to be balanced in order to "connect" provides a way of talking about "ki" in Erick's sense too -- as a dialectic.
Aren't I the Young Hegelian?