View Single Post
Old 02-22-2007, 09:39 AM   #647
Josh Reyer
Josh Reyer's Avatar
Location: Aichi-ken, Nagoya-shi
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 644
Re: Baseline skillset

Erick Mead wrote: View Post
--- 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.
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.
I was not referring to Iwama style ukemi being the same kind of resistance as Mike and Ignatius are talking about. I was making a reference to the idiomatic difference between "non-resistance" and 無抵抗.

Here, let me try again, completely removed from aikido so there can be no misunderstanding. In English it's perfectly acceptable to say "I can't resist eating another piece of chocolate cake." It is not acceptable in Japanese to say チョコケーキのもう一個を食べるのを抵抗できない. You could say it, and you might get a native speaker to understand what you're saying, but that's a usage of 抵抗 that isn't natural to the Japanese idiom.

To whit, in English we can say "resistance" and "non-resistance" as glosses for 抵抗 and 無抵抗, but we can never assume that they mean exactly the same thing in all situations and all cases. What very well might be resistance in English may not be 抵抗 in Japanese, and vice versa.

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?
Erick, with all due respect, you seem to have this habit of not reading very closely and putting your own little spin on what the other person is saying. I would appreciate it if you would read a little closer.

I do not disagree with Pranin. If you would reread my previous post, I said that that the translation capable, and the words adequate to convey the basic idea of the original. If you would reread my post previous to that, you'd see that I said that if I was doing the translation, I too would use "non-resistance". Hell, I did use that word, here. Once again, my beef is not with the word. What I'm trying to say is that any word, while adequate to convey ideas, would be wholly inadequate to base an argument on "what Osensei meant".

I am not by any means saying that aikido can only be discussed in Japanese, or can only be thought about in Japanese. If I may engage in a bit of snark, thank you for answering my argument with a reductio ad absurdum. God knows that has never happened in an internet discussion before.

Now that the snark is out of my system. Far from believing aikido can only be thought about in Japanese, I'm in fact in favor of minimizing "dojo Japanese" as much as possible; I don't think it really helps. No, what I am saying here is that the minute you appeal to authority in an aikido discussion with an "Osensei said...", then I believe you have to go to the Japanese, or at least be cognizant that you are not actually quoting Osensei, but a translation of what he said, with all the signal loss that goes along with that.

無抵抗主義, which is something Ueshiba repeats, can be translated as "principle of non-resistance". It can also be translated as "principle of passive resistance". Whoa, now we're suddenly in a completely different realm with our physics analogies, aren't we? Now, in English, we have to choose: is it "non-resistance", is it "passive resistance"? Well, it's not Ueshiba's problem. He simply said 無抵抗, with all that encompasses.

And # 4 definition is support for a systemic concept -- Abbr. for resistance to electricity.
#4 is support for its use as an abbreviation for a technical term. Nothing more, nothing less.

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
I don't see it that way. If that's the case, Ueshiba not moving when Tenryu pushes him is 抵抗. Obviously what is paramount is the energy given in the push. That is what is not 抵抗された.

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.
Needless to say. He grabs me and pulls, I push with his pull. Not 抵抗. If he says, "Yikes!" and tries to push, I pull. No 抵抗. He says, "Zoinks!" and tries pulling again, I push. No 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.
This would be convincing if you truly understood what Mike, Ignatius, Dan, and others are trying to say, and what they do. I'm afraid I don't believe that is the case. So this particular segment of the discussion will have to wait until you've met someone doing what they do.

Josh Reyer

The lyf so short, the crafte so longe to lerne,
Th'assay so harde, so sharpe the conquerynge...
- Chaucer
  Reply With Quote