Is It Missing In Everybody's Aikido?

Something else that occurs to me...

The "Internal crowd" did not start this thread. Someone asked. I assumed they wanted an answer. I gave it my best shot.

Frankly, if you ask, you usually shall recieve...even if you don't like the answer.

Best,
Ron (guess I'm loosing patience with how carefull you have to be about all of this)

Keith Larman wrote: My experience fwiw... The following are my personal opinions *ONLY*. I am simply speaking for myself and in no way do I want my words to represent any group, style, etc. I am simply speaking as an individual... But then again I look around on the mat and find that most people (from all styles) are looking for very different things. Not surprising given each individual comes with his or her own expectations, baggage, needs and desires. And back to my original impressions -- some get "it", some don't, but then again, "it" may not be what they're looking for anyway. But... what *I'm* looking for I've found. But I just don't know if it is the same "it" as everyone else is talking about.

Keith! Thank you for that! That is basically what I was trying to say, but without the experience to set the context, or the eloquence to express it very well.
Thank you, again,
Matt

Erick Mead wrote: First, in fairness to her YOU have to define the terms of the argument you are intending to make -- and state "Skill A" in objective mechanical terms.

I'd agree with you, if only she were challenging the statement that "skill A" is fundamental to aikido. I haven't read her doing so, only questioning my ability and intentions to evaluate other people's aikido. (It's a good thing I'm not easily offended.)

Is it the waza that makes it aikido, or being able to apply aiki?

Hunter Lonsberry wrote: Is it the waza that makes it aikido, or being able to apply aiki?

Depends on how specific you define 'waza' and 'aiki'.

Hunter Lonsberry wrote: Is it the waza that makes it aikido, or being able to apply aiki?

i was personally struggling to define how many different "It"s there are.

1. is it aiki?
2. is it being able to fight with aiki?
3. is it being able to summon spirits into your hara? becoming an avatar of the gods?
4. is it access to supernatural?
5. is it 'enlightenment'?
6. is it to have aiki in all that you do and that you are?
7. access to the gokui of DR and Aikido?
8. developing psychic power (?)

M 2 c:

Aiki? I assume that is what we are talking about. And I am aware I don't know the limits of what is meant by that word. (A man's posting should always transcend his understanding, or why even bother, right!?)

Is the goal of Aikido, to have aiki? I think that makes sense and is consistent. At the very least, it is plausible.
Or is *it* to be able to fight with it? Well.. consensus would say ; no…(right?) that's not what Aikido is about.
Is the Meaning of Aikido then: To do or practice aiki as an isolated bodyskill (i.e. have *it* but not able to fight w/ *it*)? Is using it as a guide to *the way*, part of that? The main part? Is that aikido?

These are just some thoughts… please forgive me if it comes out rudely… but they are my questions. And I was wondering what you all thought..

Josh

Matthew:
Interesting post. I always wondered if anyone ever turned their back on the training? And what would happen to the body if you stopped the work. Just normal degeneration? Or something...else?

Joep Schuurkes wrote: I'd agree with you, if only she were challenging the statement that "skill A" is fundamental to aikido. I haven't read her doing so, only questioning my ability and intentions to evaluate other people's aikido. (It's a good thing I'm not easily offended.)

Well, Joep, you are the one who said, "If it is fundamental to physical waza then you have no choice but to dismiss what a lot of other folks are doing." Is that true if you've never seen them practice?

FWIW, I don't know or care if the "skill A", or any other skill, is fundamental to aikido. I came to aikido as a beginner, without the experience and knowledge to judge what is and isn't "fundamental". I practice what I practice because it's worthwhile for me to practice it, for my own reasons and not to meet some arbitrary "standard" that may not even exist. I think of aikido today like any practice that's been passed on for decades -- as being like the result of a game of telephone, where one person whispers something to another, who passes it on to a third, and so on around the circle...and what comes out the end has great potential to be very different from what originated. That being the case, I take modern-day claims about what aikido is and isn't with a large grain of salt. I think we'd be fooling ourselves if we thought that there was a "pure" aikido today (and then there's the additional question of whether that's even a desirable goal...but I digress).

So you see, with regard to the question of internal skills, what they are, and what their proper place is in aikido, I'm not an atheist...but I'm very much an agnostic. I don't know, and I know that I don't know. That bothers some people, but I really can't be held responsible for that.

For my part I actually didn't intend to argue that all things are the same or that it's all in one's head or whatever... more that many people may just not care one way or another (in reference to the original question). In a sense I think most people join and stay with a _dojo_ or a _teacher_ (i.e., they are drawn and kept by whatever it is that they experience personally) rather than having 'aikido' in their minds and studying for years 'because it's aikido'. Perhaps there is some subset of people who do the latter, in which case I can see that the name discussion becomes less abstract.

From what some of you are saying, actually, it sounds to me less like you disagree that's it's a debate about names and more like you simply believe that names are important, which is fair enough I guess.

Mary Malmros wrote: I think of aikido today like any practice that's been passed on for decades -- as being like the result of a game of telephone, where one person whispers something to another, who passes it on to a third, and so on around the circle...and what comes out the end has great potential to be very different from what originated.

I think something very like that description is what troubled George Ledyard, judging from his comments in lo these many threads.

Mary Malmros wrote: So you see, with regard to the question of internal skills, what they are, and what their proper place is in aikido, I'm not an atheist...but I'm very much an agnostic. I don't know, and I know that I don't know.

The emphasized portion is really the crux for a common conversation. Most are primarily looking to the "how" -- to replicate certain desirable observed performances and reliably perform them.

Maybe that works for some people, -- for others that can't be done by mere mimicry nor without really understanding the what and why of things. That is especially a point of caution in a matter that -- according to the guy we strive to emulate -- is supposed to involve "divine" or spontaneously creative actions of a complex nature.

"What" it is, is the modulation of shear and shearing moments, also comprehensible as vorticity, or as moment and angular momentum with shifting centers of moment or rotation.

The "how" depends quite a lot more on the "who" who is doing it because the perception and action are one, as my earlier post hopefully makes clear. No one quite perceives the action in precisely the same way or using the same benchmarks.

Fundamental variations in perceptive preferences, learning styles and performance modes determine the different approaches of individuals attacking the same problem. Any discussion that does not charitably recognize the quite broad spectrum of ways of understanding and acting, will never get very far, because both sides will be constantly tripping over large piles of unnoticed and unspoken perceptual and conceptual biases, which everyone has.

Josh Phillipson wrote: i was personally struggling to define how many different "It"s there are. 1. is it aiki? 2. is it being able to fight with aiki? 3. is it being able to summon spirits into your hara? becoming an avatar of the gods? 4. is it access to supernatural? 5. is it 'enlightenment'? 6. is it to have aiki in all that you do and that you are? 7. access to the gokui of DR and Aikido? 8. developing psychic power (?)

1. Yes, but of course, circular reasoning.
2. Yes, but better -- fighting with aiki so as not having to fight with -- something else. I could fight viciously enough without aiki -- and did not like who that made me.
3. Are there not spirits already in my hara? (And if not we need another bottle.) Am I not already an avatar of the divine, in explicit terms -- both East and West? I do not need aiki for that, but it does not hurt, I think -- to help the better angels come forward.
4. Again, if you have no access to the supernatural -- you weren't paying attention -- and again, aiki is not necessary, (but see #4)
5. Enlightenment is a delusion. But aiki helps with both -- or neither or --- whatever ....
6. Gokui -- I don't know -- Amdur says there are none that are hidden, and I believe him. because I can't see anything that is hidden.
7. By reading this -- you know my mind -- Ta-da! I am a psychic. But -- you are, too in reading my mind in that way, so ... well, heck, what good is it anyway -- if we have to share ...?

This is the best post that I've read from you Eric... well said. Thanks.

Regarding the OP, I personally know some people in the ASU and in the aikikai that are training IT in a very productive way. Based on my knowledge and experience, there are just not many in any system doing so - and that does not make the majority invalid or dismissed - just less productive/efficient regarding developing aiki in comparison.

Mary Malmros wrote: You may not be looking at all. You may be okay with where you are.

Really?! This is interesting to me. I am very okay with where I am, BUT I cannot EVER remember even one time of not actively looking for how to improve.

Honestly, I didn't even know that there were people training who were not "looking at all". What are they training for? Is it more of a preference for renshu over keiko? Or some matter of preference to the degree of change/dedication?

I must be missing something here, but it seems like if I wrote up and ad like: "Come pay money to do aikido and make little to no progress in ability compared to just sitting home and watching TV for free..." I wouldn't get too many new students.

Come on, Rob, that's unfair. That's not what Mary meant and I think you know it. Practice in these things is by definition multi-faceted and as such "improvement" will also be judged against a multi-dimensional set of criterion. What you think "it" is or what you think Aikido "needs" depends on a whole slew of assumptions. And that's solely about your own needs. It is very difficult if not totally impossible to talk about people you don't know doing things you likely know nothing about. And while I am sympathetic to your point of view frankly I think the very attitude underlying your post is exactly what turns people off and what Mary was talking about.

Mary Malmros wrote: Well, Joep, you are the one who said, "If it is fundamental to physical waza then you have no choice but to dismiss what a lot of other folks are doing." Is that true if you've never seen them practice?

Based on my own experiences in aikido, the discussions here at Aikiweb and other forums and the aikido videos I've seen on Youtube, I am quite confident in stating that most people practice aikido without internal skills. It all boils down to this: if a lot of people are practicing aikido with internal skills, why haven't I heard of them?

If you could figure this stuff out by yourself, I would feel a lot less confident in drawing this conclusion based on a limited set of observations. This is not the case: these skills have to be shown/felt and taught, so you can trace back the lineages. Within aikido there is no tradition of teaching these internal skills. Even O-sensei seemed to be of the idea "Either they figure it out or they don't." Only Koichi Tohei attempted to teach this stuff explicitly and as far as I can tell, with quite limited success.

Keith Larman wrote: Come on, Rob, that's unfair. That's not what Mary meant and I think you know it. Practice in these things is by definition multi-faceted and as such "improvement" will also be judged against a multi-dimensional set of criterion. What you think "it" is or what you think Aikido "needs" depends on a whole slew of assumptions. And that's solely about your own needs. It is very difficult if not totally impossible to talk about people you don't know doing things you likely know nothing about. And while I am sympathetic to your point of view frankly I think the very attitude underlying your post is exactly what turns people off and what Mary was talking about.

So what now I'm the nasty red knight and you are the white knight in shiny armor? Fine.

#1, I wrote:

Based on my knowledge and experience, there are just not many in any system doing so - and that does not make the majority invalid or dismissed - just less productive/efficient regarding developing aiki in comparison.

If you look back at any of my posts (which have been fairly rare these days) I'm not looking to give anyone a hard time. When someone says "you cannot even define it" I might jump in and give my personal criteria.

#2, SHE wrote:
post 25 in this thread:
http://aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.p...7&postcount=25
I think that is exactly what she meant. If someone wants to use the *maybe someone is not looking at all* argument for any "do" you get what you get. If she meant *maybe someone is satisfied growing at their current rate* I am sure she was more than capable of stringing those words together. In my view, she went to the extreme and it's a silly argument.

As a matter of fact, sometimes Dan goes off about principle-based aikido training. The first time I heard him say that, I challenged him. I told him that what he is showing me are principles. And he explained that that is not what he meant...

The world has enough white knights. They are all clean and not messy. If you ask me the world can use a few more black knights. Judge me anyway you want. I'm fine with that.

Rob

Joep Schuurkes wrote: Based on my own experiences in aikido, the discussions here at Aikiweb and other forums and the aikido videos I've seen on Youtube, I am quite confident in stating that most people practice aikido without internal skills. It all boils down to this: if a lot of people are practicing aikido with internal skills, why haven't I heard of them?

Question is, do you know what you are listening for -- apart from what you happen to have heard? Example: "I am listening for any cars coming down the street a block over. I haven't heard any -- and I know what they sound like because I have heard a V8 Corvette with glasspacks, and I have not heard that, so there have not been any cars."

"All men are mortal. Socrates is mortal. All men are Socrates."

Joep Schuurkes wrote: If you could figure this stuff out by yourself, I would feel a lot less confident in drawing this conclusion based on a limited set of observations. This is not the case: these skills have to be shown/felt and taught, so you can trace back the lineages. Within aikido there is no tradition of teaching these internal skills.

I would agree that it requires some introduction and a change of perspective, but that is all in the aiki taiso or kokyu undo -- if one is paying attention to them and what they physically express.

@ Rob -- please give your personal criteria -- but how would you define it in objective terms?

Erick Mead wrote: Question is, do you know what you are listening for -- apart from what you happen to have heard

Good question. What makes you think I don't know what to listen for?

I would agree that it requires some introduction and a change of perspective, but that is all in the aiki taiso or kokyu undo -- if one is paying attention to them and what they physically express.

Sure, the shape of the exercises is taught, just no the skills that go with them.

Sure, the shape of the exercises is taught, just no the skills that go with them.

That is one of the things that confused me so much. I could go to 3 different dojo, and find 3 different sets of details for performing any one of these taiso. BUT...I found little to no understanding of the internal mechanics behind the taiso that would help explain why each of these dojo do them differently. I had no overall frame of reference to fit the differences into (I still don't have anywhere near as much of a framework as I would like).

Pole pole (slowly, slowly),
Best,
Ron

Rob Liberti wrote: So what now I'm the nasty red knight and you are the white knight in shiny armor? Fine.

That's funny -- that is most certainly the first time I've ever been given that label. But let's both stick with what was said rather than making any more characterizations.

Rob Liberti wrote: #1, I wrote: If you look back at any of my posts (which have been fairly rare these days) I'm not looking to give anyone a hard time. When someone says "you cannot even define it" I might jump in and give my personal criteria. #2, SHE wrote: post 25 in this thread: http://aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.p...7&postcount=25 I think that is exactly what she meant. If someone wants to use the *maybe someone is not looking at all* argument for any "do" you get what you get. If she meant *maybe someone is satisfied growing at their current rate* I am sure she was more than capable of stringing those words together. In my view, she went to the extreme and it's a silly argument. As a matter of fact, sometimes Dan goes off about principle-based aikido training. The first time I heard him say that, I challenged him. I told him that what he is showing me are principles. And he explained that that is not what he meant...

Rather than posting a link, here is Mary's exact quote.

Mary Malmros wrote: You may not be looking at all. You may be okay with where you are.

I read that as saying that there may be people who find the entire discussion of internal arts irrelevant to their context. Maybe it is already covered in what they do to their satisfaction. Maybe it isn't covered and they don't feel the current emphasis that some place on it is warranted. Maybe they feel the challenges faces by their training are more than enough as it is right now. All sorts of possibilities.

My point was that you read her comment in a very unflattering manner in essence presenting it as a head in the sand attitude of someone who doesn't care about their training. Which to my reading is *clearly* not what she intended. What you wrote was:

Rob Liberti wrote: Really?! This is interesting to me. I am very okay with where I am, BUT I cannot EVER remember even one time of not actively looking for how to improve.

She didn't say she wasn't looking to improve. You've jumped from discussion of internal mechanics to the vastly larger and vastly more comprehensive and multi-faceted issue of improvement. Quite a leap.

Rob Liberti wrote: Honestly, I didn't even know that there were people training who were not "looking at all". What are they training for? Is it more of a preference for renshu over keiko? Or some matter of preference to the degree of change/dedication?

Again, this discussion has been about actively searching for some "thing" or "it" as it has been described. Some seem quite content that their art contains "it" already to their satisfaction. Training and learning what is already present and accounted for in their organization may in fact be all that they need to do in that case. It is good to be happy with the quality of your training.

Rob Liberti wrote: I must be missing something here, but it seems like if I wrote up and ad like: "Come pay money to do aikido and make little to no progress in ability compared to just sitting home and watching TV for free..." I wouldn't get too many new students.

Again you've made a whole slew of assumptions. You've jumped from a very simple statement about not looking for what *you* think is important to comparing someone else's training and attitude to sitting around watching TV.

Rob Liberti wrote: The world has enough white knights. They are all clean and not messy. If you ask me the world can use a few more black knights. Judge me anyway you want. I'm fine with that.

Fine, Rob, sorry you feel that way, but my point was never to defend Mary but to say that I find the points she made rather simple to understand and quite reasonable. What I found problematic was that it seems to me that you've made a huge jump from the content of her comments to making a comment about many people's quality of training. You don't have to agree with what they're "looking for" in their training but you should recognize that intelligent people may differ on what is important. And that not everyone is so convinced that one thing is the end-all thing that must be addressed. I cannot comment on anyone else's training as I simply don't know their training. Maybe they're already got it, maybe they need it, maybe they don't need it, maybe they don't want it, maybe they do it but weight it differently, and on and on. It is quite a jump, however, to go from a simple statement to a comment like

Rob Liberti wrote: I must be missing something here, but it seems like if I wrote up and ad like: "Come pay money to do aikido and make little to no progress in ability compared to just sitting home and watching TV for free..." I wouldn't get too many new students.

That's simply not an accurate representation of what had been said. And it reads somewhat as somewhat insulting and dismissive of someone else's training.

Within aikido there is no tradition of teaching these internal skills. Even O-sensei seemed to be of the idea "Either they figure it out or they don't." Only Koichi Tohei attempted to teach this stuff explicitly and as far as I can tell, with quite limited success.

That's one of the things that makes it hard for me personally to think of these skills I hear people talking about as 'essential', or of aikido without them as 'not truely aikido' -- if aikido is the art that O-sensei 'created', and he personally chose who to give ranks to, then he had some criteria in mind when he gave out those ranks, and he gave ranks to all these Shihans who I'm told don't have or teach these skills -- so how can he himself have considered them to be 'fundamental' or 'part of the basic definition of doing aikido, without which it's something else and not aikido'? How can one fairly criticize someone for their right to teach aikido if O-sensei himself is the one who picked them to go teach it? To me that doesn't make sense logically or seem fair.

I understand that's a totally different question from whether some particular skill is great or wonderful to have or part of a very long tradition that included O-sensei, or will totally revolutionalize and improve your aikido, etc. Those kinds of assertions I have no real problem with (without having experienced it I have no idea if they're true, but I have no reason to dismiss them).

Oh, and by the way, I really feel no need to defend Mary or anyone else. I've seen Mary's posts over the years and have had a few pointed at me as well. She's quite capable of handling herself.

I was addressing the point of her post. Her point I found quite reasonable and that's what I wanted to discuss. But it seems to have jumped from the content of what was written to characterizations of those doing the writing. And that I want to stay out of.

Hi Keith,

I agree with the need to stay away from characterizations...but the one that initially struck me was this one:

From my perspective, this is the A-number-one thing that has always bugged me most about aikido: it is packed to the rafters with people whose favorite recreation is passing judgment and condemning others as not practicing aikido. Couch it in all the elevated terms you want, but I can't help but see this as exceptionally childish behavior.

I respect Mary's experience, and the majority of her posts, but feel she painted with a rather broad brush here, and I can't really describe it as "quite reasonable" either. I think if that characterization had been skipped, or was more focused, much of the tone in the rest of the thread would be different.

I could be wrong though.

Best,
Ron

Ron Tisdale wrote: I respect Mary's experience, and the majority of her posts, but feel she painted with a rather broad brush here, and I can't really describe it as "quite reasonable" either. I think if that characterization had been skipped, or was more focused, much of the tone in the rest of the thread would be different. I could be wrong though. Best, Ron

I agree that the quote you posted was over the top too. I will also point out that ironically enough subsequent posts seemed to demonstrate precisely what she was complaining about.

There is a good topic under all this.

Too many evangelists in one room...

Too many evangelists in one room...

LOL!

Agreed...
Best,
Ron

Keith Larman wrote: Oh, and by the way, I really feel no need to defend Mary or anyone else. I've seen Mary's posts over the years and have had a few pointed at me as well. She's quite capable of handling herself. I was addressing the point of her post. Her point I found quite reasonable and that's what I wanted to discuss. But it seems to have jumped from the content of what was written to characterizations of those doing the writing. And that I want to stay out of.

Okay fine, you have shown me the errors of my ways. I'll explain myself:

I thought I was in a safe zone because since Mary wrote what if "you" not what if "I" (meaning her), so I felt it could not be taken personally or defended as if I were making a personal attack.

My issue is that the entire position 'what if someone is "not looking at all"' is a hyberbolic extreme that basically shuts down any discussion about what/why/how to best approach improving. It didn't seem terribly fair that it okay for someone to take things to such an extreme and then it not be okay for me to follow the logical progression of that extreme to a further extreme to highlight the absurdity of the initial position - but I'll stop trying to argue that point as it is not productive.

If someone used to be looking, but now they are satisified with their approach, I really cannot relate to that person. I am not satisfied with what I'm doing now, I want to do it better. I always felt that way.

IF someone is not looking at all, do them a favor and throw them out of the dojo.

IF you are looking, the questions are typically: looking for WHAT?, HOW are you appoaching that?, how well is that working for people in general? etc...

Rob