Quote:
Niall Matthews wrote:
Thanks Jon. I wasn't talking about the means or the result. I was talking about the philosophy. My original comment about killing techniques being the antithesis of aikido was about learning atemi designed to kill - not that could kill. I think that is a fundamental difference. In aikido you learn how not to kill.
But break it down to a simple level. If a ten or eleven year old child attacked you with a knife you wouldn't use a technique that could maim or kill. You take the knife away.
There is no philosophical difference if it is a 100 kg man attacking you with a knife. The only point is if your level is high enough to do it or not.
|
Thanks for the clarification. I figured on what you were getting at but I have heard too may opinions on this subject are are poorly constructed, mostly by taking similar comments to what you said and confusing the argument.
Quote:
Graham Christian wrote:
A technique applied correctly would therefore be a complete harmonious action and therefore couldn't cause harm. So one that does doesn't exist.
|
In 1941, O'Sensei performed a demonstration before members of the royal family (the Emperor I believe was absent) during which he seriously injured his uke, Tsutomu Yukawa. I believe O'Sensei broke Mr. Yukawa's arm. Under Graham's contention, since O'Sensei's technique injured his partner O'Sensei was not correctly performing technique because it resulted in injury to uke.
I think my comments may also need clarification. Means and ends are terms used in the philosophical argumentation, "means to an end." The terms "means" and "ends" in this argument are not themselves empirical categories.
What I was getting at was that [study of] aikido is not about the end, that is, the culmination of a technique or throw. I believe aikido is about the interaction. At a recent seminar I heard an instructor whom I respect say, "aikido is not about doing something to your opponent, it is about doing something to protect yourself." Acting to preserve life... I've heard that somewhere...
IF the
end is to preserve life, THEN taking life can be an acceptable
means. IF the
means is to preserve life, THEN it is unacceptable to take life [in the
end]. These are not congruent statements. I believe the the philosophy of aikido guides us to preserve life, the art of aikido allows us the means to defend that preservation.