View Single Post
Old 07-26-2009, 02:31 PM   #286
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 498
Re: Is It Missing In Everybody's Aikido?

Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
I agree absolutely. There are not the end all or the complete art and anyone who thinks just because they have some internal-strength they're knowledgeable about Aikido (or other arts) is simply wrong. I mentioned this (modified) old saying a few times, some years ago: "Aikido without a baseline of internal strength is no good; internal strength without really knowing Aikido won't work, either.". Actually, I simply meant me putting the tips of my two fingers against you and pushing you easily off balance. In terms of 1-inch punches, I don't do 'em. If I'm playing with demos for funnsies, I use no-inch punch.
well, actually the no inch punch (no movement) was what I was describing...

Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
No movement, no momentum... that was my point. "Angular momentum" is a frippery when it comes to describing these skills; what body movements can't be described as angular-momentum? See?
True, but I was using Erick's term which you so like to wholly reject... Of course there is force, direction, acceleration and thereby momentum in all movement. However, my sense is that you wouldn't tend to describe IT in terms of those things. I wouldn't, either.

Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
These things are all one thing, Shaun. This was the beauty of the cosmology and the reason why all things came under the umbrella of Yin-Yang. You would argue that Ueshiba's "ai-ki" was something unique, yet he justified his ai-ki by referring to the Yin-Yang cosmology and the old Chinese texts. The Chinese of old would have argued that waht Ueshiba did was merely an aspect of the same hua-jin, etc., that has been present in various arts for a couple of thousand years.
I am not arguing for or against your point, Mike. I know that O-Sensei couched his teachings - in other words, what he said - in particular ways you describe. However, there are also two other ways he described the same thing, and those are simply much less known, the second of which was not couched in any such language. Why he did that is the key to understanding what he said at each level. In any case it is like trying to use yin-yang theory from both a Chinese and Japanese approach. In such a case one would fail because they are 180 degrees out of sync in terms of the direction of ki flow, one being counter clockwise and the other being clockwise. They both work when approaching a subject from one perspective or another, but you can not overlap them without complete conflict and contradiction. However, I think we might both agree that we are only talking about the internal steel structure of the building and not the building, itself.

Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Who's right? You have your opinion; I'd calmly place my chips on the "everything is the same thing" square.


I am not really concerned so much with who is right, you or me. After all, you and I are not really significant in the greater scheme of Aikido, and most certainly not the greater scheme of CMA or JMA. However, since there are obviously different art forms, I still would like to have an answer from you and Dan and others as to what what is different, rather than what is the same. I mean both my apple and my desk are made up of atoms, but I simply find that the differences between these atoms are more important to me than the what is the same about them, especially around my favorite time of the day... dinner time! in training to you and all.


I no longer participate in or read the discussion forums here on AikiWeb due to the unfair and uneven treatment of people by the owner/administrator.
  Reply With Quote