Thread: Ueshiba's Aiki
View Single Post
Old 11-15-2011, 02:03 PM   #350
Ken McGrew
Dojo: Aikido at UAB
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 202
United_States
Offline
Re: Ueshiba's Aiki

Mr. Haden and others,

I have used the name Dan because you have used the name Ken. You've said a number of things far less kind.

Why do you continue to engage with me, raising accusations that are hard to ignore, and then complain that I am not convinced or going away?

A number of people have claimed to be presenting what you are doing. You have even thanked them for doing so. When I posted what I took to be what you were doing, none of your supporters said that I was wrong. When I did so I used qualified language like "seems to be doing" and so forth. I don't claim to know exactly what you are doing. But you claim to know exactly what all Aikido direct students of O Sensei are doing wrong. If what you are doing is like Daito-ryu, if what you are doing is more like what Saito Sensei was doing, if what you are doing is somewhat like the video of the other instructor you commented on, if what you are doing is something like the sort of internal connection and unbalancing exercises that many people have worked on, then it is possible to have some idea of what you are doing. If we can't talk about it why post about it?

I have tried to piece together what you are doing from a variety of sources as no-one has been willing to come out and say directly what you are doing and why you are doing it. I was told to go read all those threads. I did. Then people still wouldn't answer the questions after all that work. I was accused of lying that I had not read them. When I explained that I can read quickly given my academic training I was accused of lying about my academic training. This frustrated me early in the discussion and I let that show. I should not have done so.

Since then, however, I have not done that. The attacks have been personal and not based on the evidence. I have tried not to respond in kind. I have sincerely tried to respond to what you and people who say they follow you are doing and why. You do make very bold claims that undercut modern Aikido training. What sort of reaction do you expect that to elicit? If you are right, then your arguments must be proven. It's very important. If you are wrong, then what you do may be valuable, but not for the reasons that are given.

I have repeated time and again that what you are doing may be very good and may be applicable to Aikido. I have questioned the claims you have made about having Aiki when so many other students of O Sensei allegedly don't have it. I have disagreed with statements that say that the things in Aikido that make it Aikido as I understand it, that they are mere trickery and not real Aiki. I am not at all invested in winning anything. I am invested in knowing what is true. Some truths are relative. Others are testable.

Here is the quotation of you that led me to say that you said O Sensei "stole" Aiki:

"What he does hands out Daito ryu scrolls with a changed name, and refused to pay the fees he promised...and walked away into a world pointing to his vision.."

I think given this quote what I said was reasonable. Maybe you forgot that you said that. You have obviously said that O Sensei had ability, as you define it.

You use the video of Dobson Sensei as an example of my unwillingness to see how I am wrong. In all sincerity I don't see how what Dobson Sensei said in the video of the seminar supports the yo ho arguments you and your supporters have made and how the contradict what I have taken them to mean. He seems very clear to me. If I am wrong, it seems that people could demonstrate how I am wrong, by showing how I took the video and words wrong, or brining in other conversations with him that would change what I took to be his meaning. It is very important that I understand where Dobson Sensei was coming from. I do not want to get it wrong as I will be writing based on some of his work.

Here's what I think I have learned based on what you are teaching:

Aiki is not about blending with energy. It is about connecting with an attacker in such a manner that immobilizes their attack. It is then possible to throw them or move them as you wish as they are in you.

This Aiki is not spiritually based. It is found in the retraining of muscles, tendons, and nervous system.

You develop this Aiki skill though exercises, largely solo exercises.

The training approach is a slow static type training, not rigid, but Uke does not move unless compelled to do so by Nage's Aiki.

Real Aiki has nothing to do with leading, blending, or even getting off the line. These are tricks that may work but not in a "real fight." In application it is necessary to connect with Aiki right away, bringing Uke into your control, so that the attack is instantly immobilized.

This secret to Aiki is found in Daito-ryu. It probably is or Chinese origin.


As I said, I've tried hard to understand. I'm just not convinced. I've given reasons why. The approach to engaging in debate that I've taken is academic. Maybe people just don't understand that. It seems to rub people the wrong way.

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
Double post edit time ran out

Mr McGrew
First off I don't know where or how you feel familiar enough with me to call me Dan. Do you know me personally? Particularly while doing this hatchet job on me.

And for the last time, you sir are not correctly addressing my real views and thoughts on budo.
1. You started by misquoting me-and using your own interpretatons to arrive at views I do not hold.
2. Only to go on to actually quoting me.. . and still using your own interpretatons... to arrive at views I do not hold.
Two small samples:

I do not believe Ueshiba "stole" anything. He studied very hard under Takeda, and earned what he got. He (like others under Takeda) continued to research and grow past what he had learned with Takeda and made some changes that I have not only outlined here on Aikiweb, one or two of them have been quoted in Ellis's book.

Your description of me supposedly teaching to stand absolutely vertical defies anything I have ever taught...anywhere. There is a very inportant teaching involving the spine but it has not one thing to do with verticality. For the most part that is important for certain reasons- which I would bet you cannot state- but at a later state it is not an operational requirement, again for reasons I would bet you cannot state either. You then go on to state that you know more about my teaching then you reveal. It's pure fabrication.

Excuse me, but you demonstrate over and over, that you don't know what you are talking about where I am concerned and this sort of blatent dishonesty or ignorance doesn't deserve any expansation in response. In fact I think it incredibly obvous you do not undestand anything at all that I teach.

I challenge that you are directly uninterested in what I do or teach and are engaging in a smear campaign based on dissinformation of your own making.

Just like you did with your discussion of Terry Dobson with Ellis; it appears you can be given better and more accurate information and you remain undeterred from your own conclusions based on poor information. Keith tried to explain that to you. Unfortunately, it appears that you are the one who is not interested in a a real exchange. I think you should rethink your approach. We all have had to do that many times with various issues. It's not a bad thing.
Dan

Last edited by Ken McGrew : 11-15-2011 at 02:16 PM.