Mike_SMD

Ha!
Well...

All good stuff but there are a couple of folks in particular I'd like to respond to with a little more than the usual generalities.

1. Philippe Willaume

I like what you're getting at, particularly near the beginning of your post where you bring up the 'three aspects' of technique. Also you could very well be right, I could just be drawing imaginary boundaries and then trying to box the concepts up so that they fit. It's the question though, and it's inherent in the philosophy of the style... Aikido is billed as a non-violent and non-aggressive martial art. My difficulty is in the fact that I just don't see it that way at all.

2. David Skaggs

Well, yeah you can have it both ways.

An attacker is responsible for the consequences of their attack. That's true. If they break your arm, that's their responsibility... but by the same logic you're still on the hook for the result of your counter-attack as well (call it self defense or whatever you like). If they fail to break your arm but you turn around and break theirs in response then this is your responsibility and not theirs.

Face it, you dealt the injury.

We could analyze your summation as a sort of long drawn out spiral of action... he attacked me and is responsible for my counter-attack (which is really only another way to say retributive attack) while through it I am now responsible for forcing him to counter-attack my counter but now he's responsible for pushing me yet again to attack all over again and onward into sheer nausea.

If the attacker is responsible for the actions of the defender it becomes an idiotic circle where both parties pawn off obligation onto each other and justify continuing the aggression. This model doesn't make sense, it's better to say that the responsibility for any attack lies solely with the attacker and to cut the moral implication of an angelic defender right out of the arrangement. If both of you are attacking, then both of you are responsible.

Regardless, thanks very much for your thoughts, now that my attempt at a response has been about as clear as a cupful of mud.

I'll work to clarify it on my own if you'd like to keep this discussion going.

Lastly i suppose it's time to toss my own two philosophical cents in. The problem with climbing to the top of anything, be it mountain or otherwise, is that once there you've still got to figure out a safe way to scramble back down.

Talk to you soon,

Mike.