View Single Post
Old 02-21-2007, 03:38 PM   #634
Erick Mead
Erick Mead's Avatar
Dojo: Big Green Drum (W. Florida Aikikai)
Location: West Florida
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,616
Re: Baseline skillset

Joshua Reyer wrote: View Post
No, my argument is with you...
Well, thank you Joshua. This debate is worth the time.
Joshua Reyer wrote: View Post
Let me give you another example. In Iwama style uke is taught to grab tori/nage very strongly and very solidly. Tori should be unable to move unless moving correctly, and without trying to muscle through the technique. In English this could very well be described as training with "resistance" (hell, we had a whole thread about it). But in Japanese it would never be described using 抵抗. That's the difference in idiom.
--- And that is 180 degrees out from the instance of "resistance" TO the attack I am speaking about and that O Sensei refers to in the instant quote. I, too trained in Iwama style, and I can make your wrist turn pale if need be. The training was, as you say to move freely even in a very firm attack, but the response I learned that allows that, is by no means, resistant at all.
Joshua Reyer wrote: View Post
So, if you want to argue that what Mike, et al are describing is against the principles of 無抵抗, then great.
I do. Based on what they say one should train to do as a matter of first principle -- to become a spring or prop against the ground.

Joshua Reyer wrote: View Post
I absolutely disagree with that position, but at least you're on firmer linguistic ground. If you are using the term "non-resistance", then I think there's a fundamental problem.
This is equivalent to saying that one cannot think about aikido -- except in Japanese. I demur to even lift a hand to that straw man. What English term would you propose in its place, since you disagree with Pranin, or at least with me, about its usage in this context?

But, I will take it in the spirit you have offered and not resist dealing with the concepts in the Japanese.

Joshua Reyer wrote: View Post
There is nothing inherently "systemic" about 抵抗.
Which would only reinforce attention to his use of tettei 徹底 completeness/thoroughness to eliminate that ambiguity. And as we well know, idiomatic Japanese is normally utterly lacking in ambiguity.

And # 4 definition is support for a systemic concept --
Joshua Reyer wrote: View Post
Abbr. for resistance to electricity. My arguments on interpreting "non-resistance" are largely geometric in application. "Resistance" in an electrical sense is also very dependent on the shape and orientation of the conductor.

Joshua Reyer wrote: View Post
The Daijirin definition is quite simple.
See discussed below.
Joshua Reyer wrote: View Post
(3 ) 運動する物体に対し, 運動と反対の方向に作用する力。
Well that certainly applies to my objection: "against an object in motion, power opposite the direction of motion." Seems to me he is an object in motion at the point his intedned push comes into contact with my body

Joshua Reyer wrote: View Post
If you grab my hand, and I pull away, that's 抵抗. If you try to push me, and I try pushing back, that's 抵抗. If you try to push me and I pull, that's not 抵抗. If you swing your sword at me and I bat it away with my sword, that's 抵抗. If you swing at me and I move to the side, it's not 抵抗. If I use ukenagashi to let it slide off my sword, it's not 抵抗.
Agreed thoroughly, with the only quibble being the assumption that the grab and pull bakc does not result in a tug of war, in which case it is 抵抗.

Joshua Reyer wrote: View Post
If you try to push me and I simply let the energy from that push go into the ground, that's not 抵抗.
And there is where we disagree. If you are a static intermediate structure between two objects pushing at one another (Newton's Third Law I believe) through your structure, your structure is necessarily and unavoidably exerting equal and opposite force against BOTH of them. If you are a eighty-year old man and you become the intermediary for the hammer and the planet, then you likely break something along the way.

Your structure is pushing back in each case. If not, then you are being moved somewhere, because you are not resisting. Basically, those are the two choices in repsonse to applied force, either resist or accelerate.

If you resist only partially, then you "vector add" as Mike refers to it, to manipulate the line of force through the body to the ground. Per the # 1 definition -- because there is a component of force opposed (さからうこと) in that model, the muteikou 無抵抗 lacks tettei 徹底. The non-resistance does not have thoroughness/completeness.

It is, in part, in competition (張り合ったりすること) with the push and therefore not muteikou that is thorough (徹底した無抵抗). It is, in part, opposing the outside force (外から加えられる力に逆らったり), and also therefore not muteikou that is complete. (徹底した無抵抗).

If you do not resist at all, but act only perpendicularly or tangentially (of like sign) to all forces or rotations, then no component of your force is ever acting against or in opposition to the outside force at all. The relative strength of your structure does not come into play (other than to maintain its own integrity). There is no component of your force, whether static fascial strain ( Mike's "springs model") or muscular counter-exertion, (which we all agree is bad) in response.

Either of the latter is 抵抗 in the sense of the Daijirin usage of 抵抗 : 運動と反対の方向に作用する力, and also of the first usage listed as outlined above.

Let me hasten to add that atemi are not per se 抵抗. If applied on a clear line where no force is being exerted by the opponent, atemi can be applied with 無抵抗 -- the strike is not resisting any "force form the outside." He might be resisting my strike with his structure when he gets hit -- but that is only if he is not doing aikido at the time.
Joshua Reyer wrote: View Post
What you should be paying attention to is not the 徹底, but the 逆らわない, which is where Ueshiba describes what he means by 無抵抗. 逆らう sakarau means to oppose the flow or movement of something.
But what Ignatius (and Mike) was describing was certainly not 抵抗, and at no point suggested any kind of 逆らう of the partner's energy.
I am trying to read his entire concept in context together with all its parts. The entire phrase is: 徹底した無抵抗主義 で相手に逆らわない。 He essentially repeats the earlier phrase "principle of thorough/complete nonresistance" "so" (で) that "it does not oppose" (逆) the attacker. 無抵抗 is primary, and which 逆らわない "comes from" (で) -- as the result or expression of 無抵抗.

Sakarau 逆 is also the same kanji as "gyaku" which is its primary usage and involves a positional concept -- implying the geometric interpretation of I am giving it 無抵抗で... 逆らわない -- offering NO opposing component of force, at all. That means tangents of like sign or purely perpendicular components. "Juji" 十字, in other words. That brings up another favorite image he uses in the Doka where he referred to the art as "jujido": "cross sign of the way", or "way of the cross sign," and in several other Doka as merely Juji
John Stephens, "Essence of Aikido" wrote:
天 地 の
精 魂 凝りて
十 字 道
世 界 和 楽 の
むすぶ 浮橋

Ametsuchi no
seikon korite
sekai waraku no
musubu ukihashi.
That gives a further context and connection to my fundmamental geometric premise on what constitutes effective, physical, and aggressive 無抵抗 non-resistance in response to an attack.

Bottom line -- a push will move you somehow unless you resist it somehow. To move parts of your structure around (as we see O Sensei doing in the videos offered previously) to dissipate his push the attacker need not be able necessarily to shift your stance (which we also see in O Sensei's videos offered).

The question is what part(s) you allow him to move, and more importantly in what order or direction. And whether you decide to let some parts "not resist" ahead of time or "out of order" from his perspective.

Wherein lies the art -- rather than the physics -- of aikido.


Erick Mead
  Reply With Quote