Is It Missing In Everybody's Aikido?

Erick Mead wrote: Wonderful. Then it ought to be simple to describe. Shall I assume there is no lack of willingness to share perspectives? If it should be spread more widely it would be good to be able to describe it. It doesn't require physics-speak. Just think concretely, describe what you do and what happens in doing it.

I did the best descriptions I could already. It's not hard to DRIVE either. Come feel it and describe it yourself. Do you really think I have better descriptions that I am holding back? Mike and Dan describe an aweful lot. You have to feel it. Really. -Rob

Matthew Gano wrote: As usual, I know this reflects more on me than anything else, but what I've taken away from this thread is that whatever It is, don't try to use physics to describe it, because unless you've got the formula complete, it's not useful to anyone (even someone who likes to think in those terms, apparently); other uncertain terms are ok though. Am I wrong in perceiving this? How so? My feeling is that if Erick says something wrong, folks should be able to pinpoint the exact phrases and restate those phrases correctly. If the phrases aren't conclusive enough, then that's where the debate should end.

Fair enough - But it isn't about formulas. It is about thinking in structures. Like you can think in poetic ways, or think in narrative ways, or think in calculating ways. there is also a way to think in structure, and motion. The language of physics is not to calculate or derive some novel physics. It isn't novel, it is just an odd perspective and an uncommon use of something you would instantly recognize from another angle, and use without thinking about it atall, but not in such powerfully coordinated ways as this. It is a way to see in a concrete concept what is really happening to the structures of the bodies involved.

Shear and the ways in which structures wave, wiggle and shimmy is a concept in civil engineering to be avoided, minimized and reinforced against. They only care about it so as to be able to stop worrying about it. In a perfectly rigid structures shear is neglibile -- but there are no perfectly rigid structures. Structures are in varying ways flexible within limits. When a structure is put in bending it resists with a internal shear. Conversely, when you induce an internal shear, it results in bending forces (moments) along other planes. But those are relatively static. Flow structures, aerodynamics, hydrodynamics, and the like, use shear mechanics actively, and they have words that break it down into finer sub-concepts -- like wave mechanics and vorticity -- as the Eskimo have more words than we do for snow.

If you are trying to work with snow for a variety of uses, it cannot hurt to have terminology and concepts that allow you to think concretely about differences in its various types and uses, even if it is at root the same substance -- in its arrangement, and thus in its functional qualities -- it can be very different.

Rob Liberti wrote: Mike and Dan describe an aweful lot.

Okay, lets hear a description of what they think aiki is and how it works.

David

Erick Mead wrote: Fair enough - But it isn't about formulas. It is about thinking in structures. Like you can think in poetic ways, or think in narrative ways, or think in calculating ways. there is also a way to think in structure, and motion.

I might not have worded my post very well because I completely agree with this idea. I get the sense folks are essentially saying you shouldn't use your terminology because it doesn't describe everything (i.e. no complete formula). Personally, I say if the language seems useful to you, it probably is. I suppose what I was trying to say is that it seems the folks who dislike your descriptions seem to do so for one or two reasons that I've picked up on: 1. the language falls short, in which case I have yet to hear any language that didn't seem to have the same problem, and 2. you don't back it up with the physical proof of handling people, which is meaningless to me in an online forum.
I feel like much of these conversations go in the same circles so I was trying to gently suggest folks offer better descriptions instead of criticizing yours. I have no idea what you can and can't do or what you do and don't know (except that your language base is far superior to my own), but I do like the effort you're making to explaining things in physical terms.
I guess I'm just getting a little tired of the apparent debate over what constitutes acceptable language...or at least, what I'm perceiving to be that. I know I may simply be way off base here and if so I appologize to all for that.

The language of physics is not to calculate or derive some novel physics. It isn't novel, it is just an odd perspective and an uncommon use of something you would instantly recognize from another angle.

I love the language of science; I wish I hadn't stopped its serious study because even if we suppose you know nothing about how to do aiki (for the sake of argument) with what little I do recall, I'm finding some interesting ideas to consider and I'd like to understand more of your thinking.

David Skaggs wrote: Okay, lets hear a description of what they think aiki is and how it works.

Well, maybe they will respond, but I would say:
1 - aikiweb's "advanced search" is your friend
2 - Show up to Mike or Dan's workshops and I'm sure that's exactly what you will hear.
3 - you might try google for "sigman internal body skills" or "sigman ground path" or "sigman jin kokyu" or read some of the other forums like, aikido journal, ebudo, emptyflower, etc..

But aren't you reading enough about the RESULTS of what thy have been talking about to understand that if IT were in aikido such results wouldn't sound so amazing to pretty much EVERYONE in aikido?

Rob

Rob Liberti wrote: Well, maybe they will respond, but I would say: 1 - aikiweb's "advanced search" is your friend 2 - Show up to Mike or Dan's workshops and I'm sure that's exactly what you will hear. 3 - you might try google for "sigman internal body skills" or "sigman ground path" or "sigman jin kokyu" or read some of the other forums like, aikido journal, ebudo, emptyflower, etc..

4. The information is already out there and they could restate it here and now. What are they afraid of ?

Rob Liberti wrote: But aren't you reading enough about the RESULTS of what thy have been talking about to understand that if IT were in aikido such results wouldn't sound so amazing to pretty much EVERYONE in aikido? Rob

That is a ridiculous statement considering the approximately 1.5 million people practicing Aikido.

David

David Skaggs wrote: 4. The information is already out there and they could restate it here and now. What are they afraid of ? ... That is a ridiculous statement considering the approximately 1.5 million people practicing Aikido.

David, it sounds like you are arguing that the experiences of people who sought special attention (e.g. hands-on time at a seminar) don't matter--right after you asked for special attention yourself. Which way do you want it?

If you aren't convinced enough to do the background research in the easily searchable archives here, then let it go, or try asking others who were held similar positions, who *did* meet these guys, and ask them what they thought. Take responsibility for your own research. If you wait around to be spoon-fed, you may get hungry.

Have you read through the baseline skillset thread? There are some very specific gems buried in that one. (Ironically, I haven't done the research to see where and how you have been part of these conversations. There's a free opening for you.)

Tom Holz wrote: If you wait around to be spoon-fed, you may get hungry.

That line is so cheesy and self-satisfied, I'm already embarrassed. Ew.

Rob,

Your sensei is William Gleason Sensei. He learned from an impressive list of respected sensei:

Doshu Kisshomaru Ueshiba
Yamaguchi Seigo Sensei.
Takeda Sensei
Osawa Sensei,
Watanabe Sensei,
Koichi Tohei Sensei,
Sasaki Sensei,
Endo Sensei,
Saotome Sensei.

I do not intend any disrespect to you Rob or the sensei in your lineage so with all due respect to your sensei and his sensei;

Is there anyone on the above list you think did not have aiki?

Where do you think the disconnect was in the transmission of aiki in your lineage?

David

:

Rob Liberti wrote: A while back, I enjoyed working out with a shodan from your dojo at my Yale dojo. His name was Joel and I really liked him. I'm just saying that people training 6 months with Dan generate much much MUCH more power and have much MUCH more stability than what I felt in my friend Joel- and I'm not denigrating Joel or your school's teaching in any way. I found him to be an excellent shodan and a very good person. So I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just saying that there is a whole different level of IT achievable in a much shorter amount of time. The step by step approach Dan is teaching is skipping people years and years of time to develop such skills compared to what is taught at the best ki aikido schools I've encountered. It's that whole different level of IT that is missing in aikido. I gave a bunch of examples of achievable skills. Who after training under 6 years with no prior martial skills in any aikido dojo can achieve that? None. Which is why many ho have some experience with IT are saying IT is missing in aikido. I know you all (this is not to just Mary) have felt people with more structure and intent than average new people off the street and some elite few with more structure and intent than many muscly aikidoka. And I suspect that you think that is IT. I used to think so too. I have found that IT goes very far beyond that. What Dan shows is far far far beyond that. Dan tells us that he is just learning it, and Mike keeps reminding us that what we are experiencing (which Dan openly admits) is the tip of the iceberg. It's just that what most people think is the IT that IS in aikido is a much much much smaller tip of that iceberg at even most of the elite levels of ability within aikido. Hope that clears it up. Rob

Hi Rob:

Here is the thing...I am not searching for IT,,,I have found IT.
It may not be the IT you are looking for. I am relaxed and strong. I love to train in Aikido. I don't need to leave Aikido to find IT. IT is available to all who seek IT.

I am content in my training....I don't care how long it takes...I plan to train for the rest of my life.
Please don't judge me by Joel...if you have questions about our IT come and visit...we would love to see you.
Mary

I do not in any way judge Mary and Ron negatively for the student of theirs that I met. I judge that student to be excellent for aikido or any gendi budo for that matter. And Mary, I would love to take you up on your offer. I'll try to bring Dan too when his home life calms down a bit.

Mary, I'm absolutely clear that you are satisfied with your level of IT, with the speed at which you have developed your level of IT, and with the speed at which you have developed a level of IT in your students.

What I was attempting to say was that the amount/depth of IT has been dramatically increased and the speed to develop such a significant level of IT has been dramatically reduced making a much more deep level of IT possible within a lifetime - to the absurd point that compared to that level, I can say that pretty much everyone - including 1.5 million members of aikido - do not have IT.

David, I don't find that question disrespectful at all. Here is my perspective. Gleason sensei learned by kinesthetic perception, a ton of research and dedication, and his own brillance to approach aikido from the perspective of manifesting principles he gleened out of his deep research.

He was teaching things like sending energy upward into the uke's body on touch, and cutting the uke with your mind for kotegaeshi years before I started learning Dan's step by step approach to being able to do such things effectively and quickly. He was significantly further along in his ability than most I had ever come across in aikido. Gleason sensei did not have the benefit of such step by step instruction for his 40 years or so of research and basically had to re-invent a lot of IT. Since Dan's influence, some things have changed dramatically, but the orientation of Gleason sensei's approach is still very much inline with what it had been. It's much more of a faster/efficient path toward the baseline skill. This is exciting because he (and I guess we all) can take IT much further than he would have been able to otherwise.

As far as where the breakdown occured, Mark Murray has addressed that a lot right here on aikiweb. I can give an example from my own knowledge. My understanding is that Saotome sensei was told a hint by O-sensei to try to squeeze his anus together for added stability. I have been at seminars where Saotome sensei has suggested that kind of hint to us. While this kind of hint might help people get started down the right mental path of where to look for stability, that advice was not ideal for developing structure and intent. So my guess is that the breakdown started right at the top, in an older type of mindset where information had to be basically stolen by the student as apposed to hande to them.

Both Dan's and Gleason sensei's approach always has been to hold nothing back, and let people excell by the amount of hard work they put in. I have no issues with Saotome sensei in this area as well, I fully suspect he was not given a step by step approach to follow either, and has done quite an amazing job with what he could steal.

As far as Yamaguchi sensei goes, he was a koryu man before he met O-sensei. I suspect he was able to make connections with what he was learning that gave him a significant advantage to learning what was and what was not being taught. Also, I think that what was being taught by O-sensei in general declined over time, which Mark Murray has addressed in many threads right here on aikiweb.

Some other examples would be Tohei sensei. He had to look outside of aikido for a lot of information. Seems to be that teaching IT basically caused his split. What I seem to be unable to explain adequately so far is that the IT that he was teaching seems to have been a lot more of WHATs (weight underside, keep one point, extend, etc..) and not very specific and helpful HOWs.

Keeping one point, is far less than 1/2 the picture. How about the upper center? How about the breath work to unite the upper and lower center. What about windings and suspending yourself in the middle while you move? I read a lot of his books and trained in a ki society dojo for a while and nerver heard or experienced anything like that. (They were impressive compared to the norm of aikido for sure, but nothing like the level of IT that we are talking about - that I'm certain O-sensei had very well developed.) That's what we are saying is IT. And so, IT is really missing in aikido - all 1.5 million or so - with extremely few exceptions.

And now IT is available. If that is your interest then there are paths to get IT now. Dan, Mike, and Ark are doing workshops. I would strongly suggest you attend them and then tell us if you have IT or if you have ever experienced that level of IT in aikido.

Rob

And to head off what I suspect a follow up will be. Erick, please for the love of God do NOT ask me to describe the physical model of the windings I mentioned. GO FEEL IT, then describe it to us yourself. Please. -Rob

I think we simply need to develop a 10 step "how to" book/process and sell it to the masses. Just like all the weight loss and other types of programs out there. we'd get rich. They couldn't prove us wrong, and they would have someone else to blame when they don't "get it".

See everyone goes away happy from the transaction!

Kevin Leavitt wrote: I think we simply need to develop a 10 step "how to" book/process and sell it to the masses. Just like all the weight loss and other types of programs out there. we'd get rich. They couldn't prove us wrong, and they would have someone else to blame when they don't "get it". See everyone goes away happy from the transaction!

Too late. Billy Mays is dead.
-- And I just don't trust that "Slap-chop" "Sham-wow" guy...

Rob,

Given the insight to aiki you have learned from Dan, can you teach aiki using the aiki taiso exercises such as, but not limited to, these (http://members.tripod.com/~jakarta_aikikai/aiki.html)

Thanks
David

David Skaggs wrote: Rob, Given the insight to aiki you have learned from Dan, can you teach aiki using the aiki taiso exercises such as, but not limited to, these (http://members.tripod.com/~jakarta_aikikai/aiki.html)

These are good examples of what I would currently consider the cart before the horse.

I practiced all of those things and taught all of those things for years. I wouldn't try to teach aiki using those things alone (any more). The phrase "the slow boat to China" comes to mind (but you have to extend the analogy so that the boat's compase is broken and it's pretty cloudy for the trip).

I suppose I could build people up to have a decent structure and manifest intent in a methodical approach such that they could then practice moving with aiki while doing all of these things listed on that web page. The rowing would be done significantly differently - but I don't want to go into it since that is a really good example of "cart before the horse" type topic. In my opinion, you'd be better off practicing shikou. Dan did a writeup on that on aikiweb I believe.

Rob

Rob Liberti wrote: What I was attempting to say was that the amount/depth of IT has been dramatically increased and the speed to develop such a significant level of IT has been dramatically reduced making a much more deep level of IT possible within a lifetime - to the absurd point that compared to that level, I can say that pretty much everyone - including 1.5 million members of aikido - do not have IT. ...It's much more of a faster/efficient path toward the baseline skill. This is exciting because he (and I guess we all) can take IT much further than he would have been able to otherwise. ...Keeping one point, is far less that 1/2 the picture. How about the upper center? How about the breath work to unite the upper and lower center. What about windings and suspending yourself in the middle while you move?... That's what we are saying is IT. And so, IT is really missing in aikido - all 1.5 million or so - with extremely few exceptions.

Don't take this as anything other than the constructive criticism intended. How is that NOT the height of presumption? 1.5 million? Really? When Nixon was elected, Pauline Kael said she did not understand how, "Nobody I know voted for him."

Rob Liberti wrote: And now IT is available. If that is your interest then there are paths to get IT now. Dan, Mike, and Ark are doing workshops. I would strongly suggest you attend them and then tell us if you have IT or if you have ever experienced that level of IT in aikido.

Rob your enthusiasm for what seems a useful method is commendable. I have no idea if the prior fault lay in your stars or elsewhere.

But.

(And Ark is to be commended for his public approach to matters, so this is in no way critical). Things like this or this or this -- are not in any way surprising to me, nor anything out of my own experience and performance. It is not that I quibble with methods if they work, proof is in the pudding, I suppose. It is just that the results are not materially different.

Rob Liberti wrote: Keeping one point, is far less that 1/2 the picture. How about the upper center? How about the breath work to unite the upper and lower center. What about windings and suspending yourself in the middle while you move?... That's what we are saying is IT. And so, IT is really missing in aikido - all 1.5 million or so - with extremely few exceptions.

If you see it operating -- IT is in the structure of the opening and closing morning glory flower The exact same dynamic flow of structural energy that causes 200 ton objects to lift into thin air:
Those, literally, are the action of breath, your windings, and your suspension in the middle of them, the upper and lower centers -- in aerodynamic (or hydrodynamic) stability, which are the stabilizing "contradictory forces" as well.

IT is all there.

And if you don't see IT operating -- according to Clarke's law -- it is just like magic. The material composition of the body through which structural energy moves and acts is irrelevant, be it an air mass or a human body, it does not change the nature of the thing -- only its resulting effects.

There is nothing in those or in this (which has been presented as another example of IT), that is beyond me. I watch the double "whip-saw" motion of the opponent's head at 00:30-00:36 and I know EXACTLY what is happening to him, and how to do it.

Maybe they all have faster, better ways of getting there, I reserve judgment -- but if IT is what Ark does -- IT is not novel nor unknown, though it may be a bit neglected here and there..

Rather than sowing doubts on thin evidence, or making judgments about the universal applications of methods from a limited sample -- Can we talk more profitably about what IT is? -- how to identify IT -- how to see the gradient toward IT in one's training -- whatever the method or process may be in which it occurs -- and how to rule out those things that are not IT, or are demonstrably detrimental to perceiving and developing IT.

That would be worthwhile.

Erick Mead wrote: Don't take this as anything other than the constructive criticism intended. How is that NOT the height of presumption? 1.5 million? Really? When Nixon was elected, Pauline Kael said she did not understand how, "Nobody I know voted for him."

There were 10+ years that both Mike and Dan were on the aikido-List and elsewhere asking who in aikido had IT to the level they were looking for. In that amount of time looking, NONE of the many many many people online in the art could come up with many people in aikido who had IT. Give me a break, it's not like there are 1.5 million shihan. How many aikido people are at the top in ability - it's a much shorter list don't you think? That kind of thickens the evidence to me...

Rob

Erick Mead wrote: (And Ark is to be commended for his public approach to matters, so this is in no way critical). Things like this or this or this -- are not in any way surprising to me, nor anything out of my own experience and performance. It is not that I quibble with methods if they work, proof is in the pudding, I suppose. It is just that the results are not materially different.

I can't watch those vids right now, but name someone in aikido who is willing to let a tai boxer kick them like Ark did, and someone in aikido who can then deliver a kick to a tai boxer that lifts the tai boxer up off of their legs. I don't know by experience if Ark has IT as strong or stronger than Mike or Dan. But he has some fairly impressive feats, and he is producing people with remarkably improved skills. Did you check out Rob John yet? Produce ANYONE in aikido yourself that could deal with Rob John in anyway? I don't know. I agree with you that the proof is in the pudding.

Erick Mead wrote: opening and closing morning glory flower

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuJfh...eature=related

Erick,

I really don't know how to describe how to approach intent from a physical model. I suspect my intent moves my fascia in some way that is instantly detectible by a person who is touching me, and unless they have excellent training they generally get influenced by what they feel. That's the best guess I can make. But developing IT to a level that is so palpible and real in so short of a time is now a reality. I can't meet you in a physical explanation. Meet me physically for real. You can feel what I can do and I'll introduce you to Dan. Then you can describe how what Dan did is like an airplane and it will have some chance of being helpful. Right now, I think it is nothing more than a distraction.

Rob

Rob Liberti wrote: These are good examples of what I would currently consider the cart before the horse. I practiced all of those things and taught all of those things for years. I wouldn't try to teach aiki using those things alone (any more). The phrase "the slow boat to China" comes to mind (but you have to extend the analogy so that the boat's compase is broken and it's pretty cloudy for the trip). I suppose I could build people up to have a decent structure and manifest intent in a methodical approach such that they could then practice moving with aiki while doing all of these things listed on that web page. The rowing would be done significantly differently - but I don't want to go into it since that is a really good example of "cart before the horse" type topic. In my opinion, you'd be better off practicing shikou. Dan did a writeup on that on aikiweb I believe. Rob

The thing I like about what I can see of shikou is it's symetrical movement about a somewhat fixed centerline. I get the feeling it might be good at returning the spine to the center of the overall tone of the body (and thus the basis for conveying the power of the hara "upwards" to the upper body?). Is this corrective, centering quality I'm perceiving, the horse you're referring to? I can see how doing the taiso might be difficult because many of the movements can be fudged to not include the center or the spine (a very vertically oriented centerline).
I'm not sure about my impressions at all, so maybe I should just leave it at:
could you try to describe what would be putting the horse before the cart? Do you mean finding someone who can make sure you get a strong sense of what internal strength feels like before you start trying to do movements with it?

Rob Liberti wrote: These are good examples of what I would currently consider the cart before the horse. I practiced all of those things and taught all of those things for years. I wouldn't try to teach aiki using those things alone (any more). The phrase "the slow boat to China" comes to mind (but you have to extend the analogy so that the boat's compase is broken and it's pretty cloudy for the trip).

Now see, I did the same, but then I was taught practical structural dynamics, in college and in naval aviation. So I had some structural intuition developed to look at them for what they represented, structurally, rather than simply doing uncritical rote imitation without a ready means of self-correction or self-criticism . That predisposition in physical observation that I had is one reason for my emphasis on greater rigor in description -- and I take that direction from the instructions of both Saotome and M. Ueshiba.

Mitsugi Saotome wrote: Learning to observe clearly and truly is not as easy as it may seem. Even on a purely physical level, a student's preconceptions can place blinders on his vision. If people can have such difficulty observing what is front of their eyes, you may imagine how much more difficult it is to be receptive to the more subtle and elusive motivations that inform the physical movement. ... I believe that training yourself in the art of perception precedes the ability to train basic technique properly.

To observe carefully requires names for the differences in the things we observe. The more precise your names for the things you observe, the closer you can catalog the difference in what you have seen and felt. This is a question of applying a stringent rigor to observaton. It is just as necessary as the rigor in physical training.

Rob Liberti wrote: I suppose I could build people up to have a decent structure and manifest intent in a methodical approach such that they could then practice moving with aiki while doing all of these things listed on that web page. The rowing would be done significantly differently - but I don't want to go into it since that is a really good example of "cart before the horse" type topic. In my opinion, you'd be better off practicing shikou. Dan did a writeup on that on aikiweb I believe.

And I have done a form of shikou -- without the leg lift and stamp -- but with a continuous asagao movement (windings, if you like) -- since I began ... twenty-four... (sheesh) years ago, now... though I was ignorant of the traditional name for that expression of movement until three years ago. So not new, a little different in variation and labelling is all. Only the thing is, about six years ago I started moving from my more intuitional mechanics (seat of pants flying), and nature analogies, toward nailing down the explicit description to provide others with a more rigorous basis for explanation and correction of their training from their own observations.

So please, do go into it ... How would it be different than what you thought you saw when you learned it ?

When I learned such things the lines of intent were not identified and burned in. I had no idea where and how to direct my mental intention, and how to hold it in many opposing directions with the slack out of my body. People said things like "just relax". I sincerely doubt that the people saying and teaching such things had the lines of intent identified and burned in any structured way if at all. I sincerely doubt that the people saying and teaching such things had any idea where and how to direct their mental intentions, and how to hold it in many opposing directions with the slack out of their body to any degree . I admit I did not learn those exercises from Saotome sensei or Gleason initially. But the person I did learn those from did study directly with Tohei sensei for a long time and was very powerful for the standards of the time.

Rob

Rob wrote:

I had no idea where and how to direct my mental intention, and how to hold it in many opposing directions with the slack out of my body. People said things like "just relax".

and hence the crux of the whole issue at hand. It is just so dang hard to communicate the "feel" or "concept". Mike Sigman and Ark both tried over and over to communicate using all three methods when I met with them (Visual, Auditory, and Kinesthic.)

It is hard, hard, hard to do this...even in a weekend seminar, then go home and learn it. Especially when you realize during the seminar that you simply have not even developed your body enough to begin to understand structurally or kinesthetically what they are attempting to communicate.

All the labeling and documentation cannot help with this process I think.

I like the Airplane example you provide Erick. It really drives the point home for me. I personally agree with you that this stuff should and can be described much like how you get an airplane to fly. However, intellectually understanding that, does not mean I can actually fly the 747. In fact, I would submit that you don't need to know any of that at all.

You simply need the experience of being behind the controls and doing it...over and over and over again until you can do it.

AND flying a 747 should actually be EASIER than learning what we are doing. They have feedback in the form of computers and dials and gauges that tell you what you need to do in many cases.

No, doing this stuff is more like flying a wright flyer in which it is totally seat of the pants by feel.