I think it isn't plausible to look at this thread just in terms of an affirmative meaning of "internal strength."
Rather, it is clearly a reaction to proponents of IT methods, as it defines "true internal strength" expressly by distinguishing "TIS" from "IT" (a/k/a, "not-true internal strength," or "NTIS.")
Reading the OP makes it abundantly clear the writer's appropriation of a well-established term of art, "internal strength," to talk about "character development," and the elevation of the later as the posited "true" [i.e., deeper, more profound, and more valuable] purpose of aikido training is simultaneously a way of disparaging the importance of IT ("NTIS") as it normally is understood:
Quote:
Philip Burgess wrote:
Rob,
I am not the type of person who jumps on band wagons, clings to new trends and fads, or desperately seeking something out that is the cure-all. ....
[True Internal Strength] isn't the new retro martial arts fad or buzz word that can be interjected into any martial art giving it that extra little something.
Maybe, if you had a better opportunity to exercise your internal strength and not mistake that for a physical remedy to a lacking ability in your Aikido, than you might feel differently about things. You might look a peace differently.
Rob, that is what true internal strength is all about.
|
This is why it struck me as a violation of norms of debate for the advocate of this view to declare posts "OT" when they react to the posited distinction he first made and declare those reacting to be overly sensitive.
The point of view advocated also begs some pretty basic questions, IMO. Such as:
1. Isn't martial effectiveness of prime concern to any serious follower of a "martial path," even if that person practices for the "-do" rather than just to master the "jutsu?"
2. What factual basis exists to suggest that internal strength training is somehow
contrary to character development in a martial art, much less an exercise in violence?
3. Should someone truly committed to self-transformation through a martial practice restrict their point of view, their experience, and their training, apparently based on pride and/or loyalty?
4. Is it consistent with the ideals of traditional Aikido to enter into an interaction -- even a virtual one -- that is laden with overtones of conflict, obtain the predictable reaction, and then effectively withhold one's center from the interaction (i.e., act as though the other person is just confused or overly sensitive)?
We certainly can choose to ignore the false dichotomy at the heart of this thread to the extent the topic of "character development in the martial arts" is an interesting or important topic.
Alternatively, we can go on talking about internal training issues -- some of those posts were very interesting.
But in my view it's no accident that these posts both have spun off of the OP, and its no misperception that the OP takes a shot -- gratuitously, to my way of thinking -- at "IT."
YMMV
cdh