Given the incredible amount of intelligent ideas and outlooks we find in this forum, I would be interested in your ideas and experiences about katas - I am sure there are threads already about this topic, but rather than reviving something old maybe it's better a new thread so to locate more conveniently the contributions.
I'd articulate my question as follows:
1) Are there katas in aikido, and how do you suggest them to be done - and which ones? (suggestions, ideas welcome)
2) What is the purpose of katas?
3) katas "against" the void, or katas against objects? If one considers shaolin, you could kata to imitate the way of fighting of everyting, even of the rain - and you could or maybe even should kata against everything, included trees (the idea of fighting against an oak my seem preposterous, and yet we find sort of this world behind shaolin, apparently -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-bnC4iaslg ).
As for point 2, the question is not immaterial and less trivial it may seem.
Some martial arts are supposed to be without katas - that's not true, actually. Boxing is supposed to be without katas, but it's not the case - when your partner wears boxing pads on his hands and you produce combinations hitting those pads, that's katas indeed although the combative setting may disguise it: if kata means "shape" or "shilouette" (I think it may derive from the idea of shadows cast on the ground), that boxing (or... shadowboxing) training is by all accounts the reproduction of shapes.
Of course, katas are more apparent in their ideogram in martial arts like karate - which leads us to the question: what are katas for, considering that in a fight you will rarely see a "shape" as you see it in katas.
Aikido is more inclined to reproduce the ideogram of a kata also in a simulated fight, and this may lead to the idea that aikido "fights" may reproduce katas with fidelity - yet this depends on the fact ukes are often very stylized in their attacks and their incoming yokomenuchi or shomenuchi are far too mild - in a real fight your opponent would move very fast flashing both his arms in front of you at a high rated speed, and whenever an arm is grabbed s/he would attempt to subtract it from your hold with utter vehemence: once this more realistic setting is implemented, you will notice that also katas in aikido do not seem katas anymore.
Your opponent's arm slips off your hold, you get pushed and you can't always tenkan properly for your opponent has two arms and grabs you too and if you tenkan again he simply jumps along to be frontal immediately, unexpected weapons are suddenly produced, your nikkio may fail or your opponent may move fast and hard enough to remove his hand from your nikkio and at that point either you are ready to face another fresh confrontation (your opponent moves to face you squarely once again), or you fumble to keep an hold of his arm.
"Fumble" is the exact opposite of a kata - but the fact is, in a rough confrontation where a determined opponent really means to hit you on the nose repeatedly and where he jumps around without waiting for your technique, you do fumble at times.
At this point the question is legitimate: what katas are good for aikido, and what are katas for?
Last but not least: katas are about repetition. I assume the idea behind katas is that of attaining and ripening an innermost understanding of the logics of the art, indipendently of this or that technique, so that eventually you learn that in your martial art there is only _one_ technique.
But why is _repetition_ conducive to this, in your perception (provided in your opinion that's what katas are for, of course)?