aikido is...

Alejandro Villanueva wrote: Why so?

Because they can claim the closest links with O-Sensei. That's not to say that they actually know better than anyone else but in a world where for every ten students of O-Sensei there are at least eleven ideas about Aikido...............

[quote][Is the will of these constructs free? If is not and we join our individual free will (of course assumming we have it) to their's, how that can be seen as an increase or our free will?[//quote]
Fuzzy math?

Aikido is an Aikido is an Aikido is an Aikido.

I am aiki

Alex Lawrence wrote: Because they can claim the closest links with O-Sensei. That's not to say that they actually know better than anyone else but in a world where for every ten students of O-Sensei there are at least eleven ideas about Aikido...............

I don't believe technically wise they are any closer to O Sensei than say Shodokan's Tomiki, Yoshinkan's Shioda, Yoseikan's Mochizuki, Iwama Ryu's Saito, etc, none of then (but Saito, but then...) belonged to the Aikikai. No, Aikido is certainly not what Aikikai wants it to be.

..like a box of chocolate. youse never gonna know what you gonna git....

hear on the radio this morning that Canadians preferred butterscotch over chocolate, eh.

Alejandro Villanueva wrote: Can you obtain that through painting, dancing or playing music? If the answer is yes, does it still keep defining what Aikido is?

If there is some thing that can be described as the universal will, then I would guess it could be sought through a lot of different sets of behavior, not just Aikido.
I think it probably defined a large part of what meant to O Sensei. Different people will define it differently. As to who is the most correct...well, I'm still working on my connection to the speck of universe immediately adjacent to me, so I'm not in much of a position to judge.

Matthew Gano wrote: If there is some thing that can be described as the universal will, then I would guess it could be sought through a lot of different sets of behavior, not just Aikido.

So then that won't define what Aikido is.

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: Then you consider things like the Law, the Force, the Great Nature or the Universe (human mind constructs) having will.

No, just that they are somewhat analogous. Strictly speaking I don't think the law has a will of it's own, but it does reflect a complex collection of wills; the Force is of course very real and awesome; and I'm not sure if the Universe/Great Nature has will/intent. If it does it's a little beyond me at the moment.

Is the will of these constructs free? If is not and we join our individual free will (of course assumming we have it) to their's, how that can be seen as an increase or our free will?

Strictly speaking, I don't think anyone has Free Will. We have our choices in any given situation, based on whatever we happen to comprehend of it and/or to have prepared for it.
If you and someone else join your wills together, does freedom to act in some way increase or decrease? It depends on the nature of the relationship/connection and the context it finds itself in.

Alejandro Villanueva wrote: So then that won't define what Aikido is.

Not by itself, no. "Aikido" is not equivalant to "universal will." The main thing unique to Aikido I can see would be the historical attributes. It's unique like elements are unique: composed of very similar stuff in different proportions.
...Not that I'm in much of a position to know one way or the other.

Alejandro Villanueva wrote: I don't believe technically wise they are any closer to O Sensei than say Shodokan's Tomiki, Yoshinkan's Shioda, Yoseikan's Mochizuki, Iwama Ryu's Saito, etc, none of then (but Saito, but then...) belonged to the Aikikai. No, Aikido is certainly not what Aikikai wants it to be.

I don't disagree, I was being ironic. I honestly regard any attempt to define Aikido as being meaningless because I don't think there really is such a thing as Aikido outside a grouping of similar looking kata.

And those kata aren't even executed the same way or for the same reasons, different groups do them according to the perculiarites of their group so there isn't a uniform skillset. We can't even agree on the names of the kata or even if they are kata.

So I suppose the only definition that works is "An art the practioner believes was founded by Morihei Ueshiba."

Alex Lawrence wrote: I honestly regard any attempt to define Aikido as being meaningless because I don't think there really is such a thing as Aikido outside a grouping of similar looking kata.

Uhmmm... Are those kata a representation of some general principles? Maybe we can define it like a grouping of similar kata displaying a unique set of principals.

Alex Lawrence wrote: And those kata aren't even executed the same way or for the same reasons, different groups do them according to the perculiarites of their group so there isn't a uniform skillset. We can't even agree on the names of the kata or even if they are kata.

Agreed about kata or not kata, and different ways of performing. But what is (should) be similar is said uniform (internal?) skillset, IMHO.

Alex Lawrence wrote: So I suppose the only definition that works is "An art the practioner believes was founded by Morihei Ueshiba."

That's a good one. Then... did Aikido not exist before O Sensei? I mean, of course, if we define it as that skillset I mentioned before. Didn't those skills predate Ueshiba? Uhmmmm... Aikido, what Aikido?

[quote=Alejandro Villanueva;268288]

Uhmmm... Are those kata a representation of some general principles? Maybe we can define it like a grouping of similar kata displaying a unique set of principals. Agreed about kata or not kata, and different ways of performing. But what is (should) be similar is said uniform (internal?) skillset, IMHO.

I don't think so. I think, based on my experience, that the similarities are only skin deep. In my dojo there are three different styles of Aikido taught. There's the old stuff taught by Chiba, the new "hombu style" stuff and the body mechnics intense stuff we call "witchcraft." To my thinking none of these have anything in common on a principle level although Chiba's stuff is a good place to start on witchcraft because it provides a useful framework IMHO.

Chiba's is all about hips, timing, posture and positioning.
The hombu style stuff I don't think has any principles, uke does everything and the witchcraft I find difficult to describe.
You can't really IMO learn it with a co-operative uke because you need to constantly test that you're relaxed and that your body is moving as a collective whole with everything connected to your centre. My instructor basically makes 1st kyu (he only teaches the 1st kyus this stuff for some reason) training one giant push test only we get to push too.

So IMO there are no common principles underpinning how we do our kata regardless of style. We don't all have the same skills even within an association. I can't see how that doesn't generalise across all of Aikido we just don't all train in the same way for the same things.

That's a good one. Then... did Aikido not exist before O Sensei? I mean, of course, if we define it as that skillset I mentioned before. Didn't those skills predate Ueshiba? Uhmmmm... Aikido, what Aikido?

Is anyone claiming that O-Sensei invented anything new martially speaking? No, he reorganised what he'd been taught and apparently failed to pass on most of the skills he had in the process. How many Aikidoka have internal skills? Either that was deliberate or he simply wasn't that good a teacher.

Same goes with the philosophy. How many Aikidoka understand his philosophy? How many shihan can claim the enlightenment Ueshiba supposedly had? Of them how many of their students are more spiritually advanced than average people?
I got into a discussion in another thread which referenced how Araki Ryu retrains the student psychologically "and perhaps neurologically." Is there anything like that in Aikido to teach the mindset of love and compassion we're supposed to learn? And if so how come we have the worst politics of any martial art?

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: If the individidual will has joined the universal will, then the individual has lost his own free will. Is losing your free will what is aikido about in your definition?

Ah: I see what you meant.

It's an equivocation: I didn't mean will in the sense of 'free will': I meant it in the sense that Schopenhauer would use it.

Essentially, there is the Zen belief that we lose our 'Buddha nature' - our natural state of being; a natural state of being that every part of the universe has, but which we lose because we can - and do - deliberate about things.
Hence why some people speak of aikido as 'misogi': a form of purification.

'A fish swimming as a fish, a bird flying as a bird...'

If we do what is natural, we will be in accord (harmony) with the rest of the universe; to do what is unnatural, is to be disconnected from the rest of the universe/nature.

Alex Lawrence wrote: I don't think so. I think, based on my experience, that the similarities are only skin deep. In my dojo there are three different styles of Aikido taught. There's the old stuff taught by Chiba, the new "hombu style" stuff and the body mechnics intense stuff we call "witchcraft." To my thinking none of these have anything in common on a principle level although Chiba's stuff is a good place to start on witchcraft because it provides a useful framework IMHO.

I know what you mean or so I believe. You are describing three different things: Aikido techniques as performed by a true master; Aiki-dance; and the witchcraft that maybe are the true skillset I was referring too.

Alex Lawrence wrote: Chiba's is all about hips, timing, posture and positioning.

Good Jujutsu in its exterior form, but surely full of Aiki inside. I never touched Chiba Sensei but have only good references about him. His videos (while you cannot feel it) seems to display internal strength (whatever that is if I ever felt it).

Alex Lawrence wrote: The hombu style stuff I don't think has any principles, uke does everything (...)

Which, IMHO, is not Aikido. Uke's role should limit to give a good attack, and by "good" I don't mean "commited". If uke is to "keep connection" or has any other role in the communication, then tori is not managing uke, IMO. So that cannot be Aikido as in "Aikido lets you control uke from the instant he decides to attack" (one alternative definition for it).

Alex Lawrence wrote: (...) and the witchcraft I find difficult to describe. You can't really IMO learn it with a co-operative uke because you need to constantly test that you're relaxed and that your body is moving as a collective whole with everything connected to your centre. My instructor basically makes 1st kyu (he only teaches the 1st kyus this stuff for some reason) training one giant push test only we get to push too.

Looks like internal body mechanics from your description. I believe that is the core skillset of Aiki-Do (the "aiki"), as opposed to Ai-Ki-Do (the "harmony with the Universe" thing).

Alex Lawrence wrote: So IMO there are no common principles underpinning how we do our kata regardless of style. We don't all have the same skills even within an association. I can't see how that doesn't generalise across all of Aikido we just don't all train in the same way for the same things.

It's my known opinion that all those three "styles" are not Aikido. Not all of them. Chiba's is the technical demonstration of Aikido, its outer form (with its internals obviously not readily displayed), Aikikai's is not Aikido at all (IMHO, one more time), and the witchcraft is the core skillset that defines "Aiki", without which we are doing "just" Jujutsu. Great Jujutsu maybe, but the techniques themselves are only that, an outer representation of the core witchcraft.

Alex Lawrence wrote: Is anyone claiming that O-Sensei invented anything new martially speaking? No, he reorganised what he'd been taught and apparently failed to pass on most of the skills he had in the process. How many Aikidoka have internal skills? Either that was deliberate or he simply wasn't that good a teacher.

Right to the point. I agree 100%. Personally I believe he was not that great a teacher. Tohei had to look for the witchcraft somewhere else, I believe Shioda got it from Takumakai, Mochizuki's martial genius got him there too as well as Tomiki. Saito, Chiba et al. stole it from Ueshiba as I see it. Geez! even Ueshiba didn't get it from Takeda (or so knowing people say!) I don't know if Hisa got it from Ueshiba, but let me guess he got it from Takeda. I don't believe Kisshomaru got it at all...

Alex Lawrence wrote: Same goes with the philosophy. How many Aikidoka understand his philosophy? How many shihan can claim the enlightenment Ueshiba supposedly had? Of them how many of their students are more spiritually advanced than average people?

For understanding said philosophy... first we must set it clear that it had nothing to do with the mainstream "zen" philosophy that surrounds most of the Aikido I have seen (at least in my part of the world). His philosophy is well known to be his own mixture of Shinto and Omotokyo. Since I'm not a Shintoist or an Omoto-ist, I don't aim to understand O Sensei's philosophy. I believe most Aikidoka will never understand too, and that's why they substitute it with Zen Buddhism. Not a bad thing to do, just not the real deal.

Alex Lawrence wrote: I got into a discussion in another thread which referenced how Araki Ryu retrains the student psychologically "and perhaps neurologically." Is there anything like that in Aikido to teach the mindset of love and compassion we're supposed to learn? And if so how come we have the worst politics of any martial art?

How do we develop that mindset of love and compassion? I don't know. But certainly first you must be competent and confident in your martial abilities before you aim for the pacifism thing. You cannot struggle to control your opponent without (permanent) damage if you cannot defend yourself in the first place. So maybe that love and compassion should come after many many years of martial practice. Did'n Ueshiba go down this very same exact road too? Love and compassion comes from power. Love and compassion without power will get us killed (in a sense)...

Or that's just my opinion on the matter .

Aikido is a Texas Bulls'eye.

I'm trying to stay clear of any bullets in this thread but even though I like this Mark I think it's probably texist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy

It is neither what I supposed it to be yesterday nor, in all likelihood, what I might think it is tomorrow, despite the signposts all around.

Phi Truong wrote: ..like a box of chocolate. youse never gonna know what you gonna git.... hear on the radio this morning that Canadians preferred butterscotch over chocolate, eh.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
This Canadian does NOT prefer butterscotch (yuk) over Chocolate (yum).
Walter

[quote=Alex Lawrence;268291]

Alejandro Villanueva wrote: And if so how come we have the worst politics of any martial art?

Believe me, we don't have any worse politics than most other martial arts. However, one could plausibly maintain that we have the largest discrepancy between what we say are doing and what we are, in fact, doing.

What people fail to realize that Aikido was a lifelong "work in progress". Technically, the 1930's folks weren't even doing Aikido. It didn't start being Aikido until 1942 and that was during the war when almost no one was training. O-Sensei really created Aikido in its post war form during his time in Iwama working with Saito Sensei. That's why Saito was always the "source" for info about Aikido Kihon waza. But, it seems that, while the Founder was busy creating the outer form of the art during those years, the exercises the 30's guys did to develop internal power skills somehow drops out. I see no signs that Saito Sensei's Aikido had these exercises as a foundation. The only one of the 30's deshi who stayed with the Aikikai and called what he did Aikido was Shirata. He did internal power exercises as part of every class he taught at his dojo.

So- as we get into the post war period, this knowledge as a systematic teaching tool drops out as O-Sensei focused more and ore on the Spiritual side of the art. I think he was far more concerned with the idea of Aikido movement being the movement of the universe than he was with his students having the kind of integrated internal power he himself had.

One can't conclude that O-Sensei wasn't a good teacher nor is it realistic to say that all the 30's guys who were so amazing had to go elsewhere to get their stuff. I think it is absolutely important to understand that O-Sensei started off teaching Daito Ryu. The aforementioned 30's greats all had Daito Ryu certificates from O-Sensei. Later, he morphed it into Aiki Budo which is where he takes the skills and starts to integrate his spiritual ideas into the training.

It's not that the 30's guys didn't change with the Founder over time... You can see that none of them were doing Daito Ryu by the time there are films of them. They clearly developed their movement over time along with the Founder. The difference was that they had the internal skills as a foundation upon which they placed the larger movement of Aikido. Shirata was one of the earliest of the 30's deshi but one can see videos of him and it's clearly Aikido as we understand it that he's doing. But there is a "content" there that is often lacking in the later generation of post war teachers.

So, I think it is more the question of why didn't O-Sensei think it was important to teach these skills later when he clearly had originally. He was certainly frustrated by the fact that on some level his students "weren't doing his Aikido". But he didn't seem to have taken any direct action to correct that.

Everyone blames it all on poor Kisshomaru but I simply do not believe that. Kisshomaru was very serious and totally committed to trying to transmit the essence of the Founder's Aikido. So do we conclude that the son wasn't talking to his Father about this or that the Founder kept silent about what his son was doing, as if he weren't totally aware of what was happening? I don't believe it. If the Founder had thought that the post war folks at the Aiki were destroying his art he would have read them the riot act. K Ueshiba, Osawa, Arikawa, and company would have changed anything he told them to change. They were totally loyal to the Founder.

Now what I am not sure about was whether the Founder felt that perhaps he hadn't emphasized the right stuff with the folks from Saito on. Certainly they were far more responsive to his Spiritual ideas than the pre-war folks had been as a whole. And I think this reflects his interest and emphasis. But did he perhaps realize that he had neglected something crucial technically when he looked ta the fruits of his efforts at the end. I have no sense of whether he took any personal responsibility for the fact that his students may have had less skill on the technical side than he had wished.

I think that the students at the end of O-Sensei's life reflected the interests and emphasis he placed on his own Aikido at that time and the students fro the early part of his career reflected the same. I don't think it was accidental but I don't think it was fully intentional either. I can see this in what I am doing and we're only talking about 20 or so years. What I did with my students when I first opened my dojo is very different than what I do now. I have an entirely different set of things I am working on myself and I understand what I want to give my students much better. But it is still a work in progress. I have told my students that they are part of a great experiment. If I get it "wrong" I won't have a chance to redo it; they'll be stuck with the Aikido I have passed on and any changes they'll have to workout on their own when I am gone. I have the feeling that O-Sensei may not have been entirely happy with the relative emphasis he placed on the various elements that went into his Aikido in the transmission to his students. But it wasn't as if he could start over again.

[quote=George S. Ledyard;268323]

Alex Lawrence wrote: So, I think it is more the question of why didn't O-Sensei think it was important to teach these skills later when he clearly had originally. He was certainly frustrated by the fact that on some level his students "weren't doing his Aikido". But he didn't seem to have taken any direct action to correct that.

I don't think he showed them these things directly, like saying "here do this". I think he did them, and if they were serious and paid attention they could pick up on them if they wanted, but that's the pre-war guys, when Ueshiba was still developing himself. They had a hard playing model to feel and see and try to emulate every day.

Fast forward to post-war times, more specifically the 50's on.

Ueshiba is already developed. He's not doing the same things to build his power, because he already has his power. His aikido, along with his various breathing practices, meditations, etc, were his maintenance routines. So the post war guys were left with the final product to try and emulate, but none of the steps he went through to actually arrive at that point. So they end up emulating something that will never allow you to get to that point.

[quote=George S. Ledyard;268323]

Alex Lawrence wrote: Believe me, we don't have any worse politics than most other martial arts. However, one could plausibly maintain that we have the largest discrepancy between what we say are doing and what we are, in fact, doing. What people fail to realize that Aikido was a lifelong "work in progress". Technically, the 1930's folks weren't even doing Aikido. It didn't start being Aikido until 1942 and that was during the war when almost no one was training. O-Sensei really created Aikido in its post war form during his time in Iwama working with Saito Sensei. That's why Saito was always the "source" for info about Aikido Kihon waza. But, it seems that, while the Founder was busy creating the outer form of the art during those years, the exercises the 30's guys did to develop internal power skills somehow drops out. I see no signs that Saito Sensei's Aikido had these exercises as a foundation. The only one of the 30's deshi who stayed with the Aikikai and called what he did Aikido was Shirata. He did internal power exercises as part of every class he taught at his dojo. So- as we get into the post war period, this knowledge as a systematic teaching tool drops out as O-Sensei focused more and ore on the Spiritual side of the art. I think he was far more concerned with the idea of Aikido movement being the movement of the universe than he was with his students having the kind of integrated internal power he himself had. One can't conclude that O-Sensei wasn't a good teacher nor is it realistic to say that all the 30's guys who were so amazing had to go elsewhere to get their stuff. I think it is absolutely important to understand that O-Sensei started off teaching Daito Ryu. The aforementioned 30's greats all had Daito Ryu certificates from O-Sensei. Later, he morphed it into Aiki Budo which is where he takes the skills and starts to integrate his spiritual ideas into the training. It's not that the 30's guys didn't change with the Founder over time... You can see that none of them were doing Daito Ryu by the time there are films of them. They clearly developed their movement over time along with the Founder. The difference was that they had the internal skills as a foundation upon which they placed the larger movement of Aikido. Shirata was one of the earliest of the 30's deshi but one can see videos of him and it's clearly Aikido as we understand it that he's doing. But there is a "content" there that is often lacking in the later generation of post war teachers. So, I think it is more the question of why didn't O-Sensei think it was important to teach these skills later when he clearly had originally. He was certainly frustrated by the fact that on some level his students "weren't doing his Aikido". But he didn't seem to have taken any direct action to correct that. Everyone blames it all on poor Kisshomaru but I simply do not believe that. Kisshomaru was very serious and totally committed to trying to transmit the essence of the Founder's Aikido. So do we conclude that the son wasn't talking to his Father about this or that the Founder kept silent about what his son was doing, as if he weren't totally aware of what was happening? I don't believe it. If the Founder had thought that the post war folks at the Aiki were destroying his art he would have read them the riot act. K Ueshiba, Osawa, Arikawa, and company would have changed anything he told them to change. They were totally loyal to the Founder. Now what I am not sure about was whether the Founder felt that perhaps he hadn't emphasized the right stuff with the folks from Saito on. Certainly they were far more responsive to his Spiritual ideas than the pre-war folks had been as a whole. And I think this reflects his interest and emphasis. But did he perhaps realize that he had neglected something crucial technically when he looked ta the fruits of his efforts at the end. I have no sense of whether he took any personal responsibility for the fact that his students may have had less skill on the technical side than he had wished. I think that the students at the end of O-Sensei's life reflected the interests and emphasis he placed on his own Aikido at that time and the students fro the early part of his career reflected the same. I don't think it was accidental but I don't think it was fully intentional either. I can see this in what I am doing and we're only talking about 20 or so years. What I did with my students when I first opened my dojo is very different than what I do now. I have an entirely different set of things I am working on myself and I understand what I want to give my students much better. But it is still a work in progress. I have told my students that they are part of a great experiment. If I get it "wrong" I won't have a chance to redo it; they'll be stuck with the Aikido I have passed on and any changes they'll have to workout on their own when I am gone. I have the feeling that O-Sensei may not have been entirely happy with the relative emphasis he placed on the various elements that went into his Aikido in the transmission to his students. But it wasn't as if he could start over again.

Good post

Alex Lawrence wrote: The hombu style stuff I don't think has any principles, uke does everything...

Hmm... Have you ever taken ukemi from these guys?

I am intrigued - which particular Hombu Shihans are you thinking of?

Alex

Alejandro Villanueva wrote: For understanding said philosophy... first we must set it clear that it had nothing to do with the mainstream "zen" philosophy that surrounds most of the Aikido I have seen (at least in my part of the world). His philosophy is well known to be his own mixture of Shinto and Omotokyo. Since I'm not a Shintoist or an Omoto-ist, I don't aim to understand O Sensei's philosophy. I believe most Aikidoka will never understand too, and that's why they substitute it with Zen Buddhism. Not a bad thing to do, just not the real deal.

FWIW, I believe Chiba Sensei has written about O Sensei's acceptance of his incorporation of zazen as a spritual basis for his aikido.

Just another data point.

Graham Jenkins wrote: Ah: I see what you meant. It's an equivocation: I didn't mean will in the sense of 'free will': I meant it in the sense that Schopenhauer would use it.

Well, Schopernhauer was basically a determinist. Free will for Schopenhauer was an illusion.

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: Well, Schopernhauer was basically a determinist. Free will for Schopenhauer was an illusion.

Perhaps. But he also believed that all beings - human and non-human, free and otherwise - had what he called a will, and he juxtaposed this with representation/phenomena.