Controlling Violence Without Harm [was: Using Daito Ryu's Aiki Without Harm]

Rob,

1) You are the one bringing up 'lifting' and 'crushing', so it's not for me to apply it into the example I offered as a way to open the discussion up. I understand what you mean, but I don't see these ideas really representing the single benchmark that needs to be applied. My whole point is that it's more complex than that. You keep coming back to a few specific situations and reporting on subjective experiences -- rather than examining what may or may not be happening *and* why it is relevant to the topic.

2) I think it's great that you can do that, even if less well than Dan -- but it doesn't address either my example or the request for analysis I posed.

3) The closest thing to a 'take' on the so-called 'human-to-horse lift or crush' I am likely to have in the near future is the relatively detailed analysis I already gave of how I use a limited form of rising, sinking, entering, and pulling forces to manipulate a horse's balance in coordination with his reactive additions to that manipulation. My point of the story was not to exhaustively describe every interaction I've ever had. However, if it will make you happy, I will give another example. A while back, I was working with a weanling (in his first year of life). He was bigger than me, but much closer in size than he is now. I had my hands on his withers (above the front legs), and he was shifting his weight in response to my touch. Suddenly his legs buckled and he lay down on the ground. I went with him, and lay on the ground for a while with him. I didn't want to let him up until he had calmed down -- because I did not want him to spaz out and treat the whole thing as a bad experience. Because of the way we had gone to the ground, I was able to hold him down with very little struggle, and he *did* eventually become very calm. At no point in the interaction did I use great force. I did, however, use the weight of my body in my hands in careful conjunction with his balance. I hadn't particularly intended to ask him to lie down, but it happened in a way he probably experienced as unexpected. I hope he did not feel 'crushed', but it is possible that was his subjective experience of it. That is why I kept him pinned down until he accepted my presence on top of him as friendly and not predatory. I am sure you must be able to see the relevance of this example.

4) As regards Mike Sigman, I only ever mentioned his name since you and Dan seemed upset that I was entering into the thread -- so I flashed my invitation to the bouncer. For that reason I will take my own advice and leave Mike out of it. Please respect that decision -- just as I respect Dan's decision not to speak of Daito-ryu.

5) I do believe that Dan can hit very hard. The 'rocketing' to which I refer is the one he described as happening from 'kokyu ho'. I took that to mean the seated/kneeling exercise in which one person grasps the other's wrists. That is the analysis I am interested in. However, if you *prefer* to explain how Dan hitting you extremely hard so that you 'rocketed' up and away is related to 'something more than power differential', I would be interested in hearing that too. I don't know whether it is, so you bear the responsibility of demonstrating that. It obviously relates to 'power differential', but that is quite specifically not what we are discussing here.

Regards,
Chhi'mèd

I'm sorry. I had the impression that you trained with Mike a bit, and had some idea about the lifting and crushing stuff. I was not and am not upset about you mentioning of Mike at all. I think I misunderstood how much exposure you had to this sort of training.

If when you are manipulating your body with the horse - you are doing it fairly unconsciously and becuase you have all of your other internal forces managed well such that any added force from the horse is also managed without much effort then we are indeed talking about the same type of thing.

I suppose my point is that if you can make people feel lifted up by them pushing or pulling you, then you can see how that take power away from your would-be manipulators - increasing the power differential. I don't know if this works with horses, just people so far.

As for rocketing, I think I tried to address the kokyuho as well as the no inch power hit in terms of my best guess about Dan's additive powers to the structure and intentions I'm working on. I can't speak much beyond that because I just can't do it myself at present.

I am sorry if I missed you mark. Can you please take another shot at your problem statement? I'll honestly try to respond as best as I can.

Rob

Rob Liberti wrote: If when you are manipulating your body with the horse - you are doing it fairly unconsciously and becuase you have all of your other internal forces managed well such that any added force from the horse is also managed without much effort then we are indeed talking about the same type of thing.

Let's look at the situation where you are on his back then. The 'force management' *has* to be 'fairly unscious' at that point. Actually, it doesn't. One can get by with all kinds of crutches -- or techniques, or whatever. However, when the rubber meets the road, those things will fail you if they are not just *in the body* (to whatever degree). I'm oversimplifying what 'body' means, but you see my point. When a horse spooks, for example, his body will lurch very quickly in an unexpected direction, often with very little or no warning. Horses have very good sudden power, and they can be famously hair-triggered if the wrong stimulus comes along. *In that moment* one either responds correctly or not. Any reactive motion that is strategized is likely to fail and produce a bad feedback loop which ends with you falling off the horse. The situation is the same on the ground -- the parameters are just different. It should be the same with people too, even if most people aren't capable of putting that level of pressure on you. Of course the kind of pressure they can put might not make this as applicable (depending on one's own level): that's fighting, technique, etc. which is obviously it's own topic.

I suppose my point is that if you can make people feel lifted up by them pushing or pulling you, then you can see how that take power away from your would-be manipulators - increasing the power differential.

Rob, do they *feel* lifted, or *are* they lifted? Do you think that distinction is important or not? What actually happens physically, do you think? I'm not sure if you are advocating a 'power differential' based on 'skill' or based on developing as much power as possible. I acknowledge the relationship between the two, but I don't see 'power training' as *directly* developing the 'skill' component. Even though it may be a partial side effect, depending on the nature of that training, the effect/result may be different. Considering the parameters of that equation seems important in evaluating various options for achieving specific goals.

As for rocketing, I think I tried to address the kokyuho as well as the no inch power hit in terms of my best guess about Dan's additive powers to the structure and intentions I'm working on.

Are you saying that from what you are able to glean, a 'no-inch punch' and the wrist-grabbed 'rocketing' seem to be more-or-less the same? That's a serious question. I might just not be picturing the wrist thing correctly. If there isn't a big difference, then that's interesting in itself (to me).

Can you please take another shot at your problem statement?

Sure, can you describe the wrist rocket thing as clearly as possible? First describe the phenomenon (since it's not entirely clear what is actually happening). In other words: what does it look like to an observer, and what does it feel like to the receiver? Then describe what you think is happening, physically -- to produce the effect observed. You don't have to get esoteric, just describe the forces and where they come from. For bonus points, you can explain how it relates to 'controlling violence without harm', if it does.

Regards,
Chhi'mèd

Chhi'mèd Künzang wrote: Yes. It sounds like you are more-or-less describing a 'return to balance' approach. Here is a serious question -- to which I imagine you have an an answer since this approach derives from your experience flying helicopters. The naïve strategy of simple corrections is not actually very good for complex control of unstable systems -- as far as I can tell. Actual control strategies are complex and not entirely intuitive.

Yes ... and no. Everything starts with simple (over)correction -- that's just not where it ends. I don't hear these guys saying anything different on that score.

Chhi'mèd Künzang wrote: If one uses a strategy of oscillating around a particular set of angles, etc. -- doesn't that actually make one predictable, as well as prone to falling into unproductive rhythms?

The question is how critically the oscillations track the central tendency. The degree of departure from the normal (angular or stastistical, take your pick) varies but the degree of departure is more about subtlety than ineffectiveness -- effectiveness is governed by the consistency of the positive and negative excursions from the mean. And yes, the larger they are the more predictable and vulnerable to counter.

Did I mention that the flight controls of a helicopter have a 90 degree phase lag?

Hmm. I think I feel lifted when I push on Dan because I am lifted. I can tell you for sure that my shoulder starts phyically lifting up. However, I assume I am lifted because I am somehow feeling lifted. So it's a bit confusing! I can say that someone pushing on you whose shoulder start rising loses power. I would say that would be a skill for me, and loss of power for them, and that would result in a power differential. I'm not sure I could do that to a horse - probably because they don't push the way people typically do.

As far a rocketing up from kokyuho - I think the whole "aiki age" thing happens where my wrists get glued tothe back of his hands, my shoulders go up, and my neck kind of whip snaps.

As far as the no inch punch, my shoulders don't go up (other than my whole body being hit so hard I lift off the ground), but the cross line power around the straight spine structure and the harmonized internal intentions is the same. I'm sure the power additives like breath management are the same.

Anyway, I think anytime you can make the effect where the power being used to manipulate you gets automatically neutralized on you and lessoned/diminshed your power differential increases. Add the ability to take away more and more options from the attacker by de-structuring them and applying locks, throws, pins, whatever and you increase your ability to controll violence without harm.

Rob

Erick Mead wrote: Yes ... and no. Everything starts with simple (over)correction -- that's just not where it ends. I don't hear these guys saying anything different on that score.

But now it sounds like you're describing a visualization or a heuristic that's used to jump-start an intuition. I don't have a problem with that, but I always thought your complaint with 'these guys' was along exactly those lines.

Did I mention that the flight controls of a helicopter have a 90 degree phase lag?

No. Did I mention that I suspect helicopters and live opponents may be such different kinds of systems that *specific* coordinated intuitions might not directly apply? I suspect that you might have found a way to build an isomorphism between your already-wired helicopter-flying and *a way* to make a class of techniques work. I'm not sure building a complete theory around that method is as *general* as you want it to be, that's all.

By the way, I don't really understand what your sentence means. I can intuit a meaning, but since I have never flown a helicopter, it might be completely wrong.

Regards,
Chhi'mèd

Rob Liberti wrote: Hmm. I think I feel lifted when I push on Dan because I am lifted. I can tell you for sure that my shoulder starts phyically lifting up. However, I assume I am lifted because I am somehow feeling lifted. So it's a bit confusing.

I guess what I'm wondering is why Dan hasn't explained it to you. This isn't really a value judgment. There are a number of reasons why how-to information might be held back, and it's not my place to speculate on what pedagogical function might be served by leaving it unknown. I just note that it doesn't *seem* to have been explained. I'm not trying to be coy -- just wondering what your thoughts might be. Do you not consider it important to know, or is it one of those 'practice it 10,000 times and you will understand' things?

I can say that someone pushing on you whose shoulder start rising loses power. I would say that would be a skill for me, and loss of power for them, and that would result in a power differential.

Do you think their shoulder would rise if they knew how to push correctly and weren't helping you practice that particular trick? What would it mean if the answer is no? Does Dan's shoulder rise when he pushes you? If not, has he explained to you what he does to prevent it from doing so?

I'm not sure I could do that to a horse - probably because they don't push the way people typically do.

With horses, you're generally looking more at lateral (horizontal) bending than vertical -- at least at the point that any aspect of 'conflict' is involved. They are ridiculously strong in the front-to-back up-and-down plane, so any concept whatsoever of overpowering is going to fail. That having been said, the *right* push on the nose (which might be a *pull* on a rope or a reign -- but what's the difference) can cause him to push the back of his head/neck up and create a bend. If everything is done just right, you can 'feel' that bend back through his body and he will step back to relieve the pressure. It's subtler than just moving away from the pressure, but I don't want to go into that. In any case, that has to sneak in under his radar so he doesn't really understand where the force is coming from (that bends his neck). Otherwise he will just overpower you, easily. This all works similarly in the horizontal plane, but there is more opportunity for brute force (sadly occasionally necessary). Because you do not have gravity to contend with, far less force is required to get some movement -- which means that what can be done subtly can be enough to instigate change in his body (bending). Exactly the confusion you described about whether the movement is coming from the feeling or from the external input can slightly disorient him into believing it was his own idea. Of course this is only one channel of communication, and you can always cause him to do what you want by triggering various reactions -- but it is quite valuable to work on getting him to be as responsive to intelligent touch as possible. The end result of repeating this is that he starts to cooperate with you, which is good -- because your idea becomes his idea. I have seen the same thing happen in paired human training situations, which can be both good and bad -- depending on the training goals. It is much easier for me to control a horse once he has been trained in this way. He is probably better off too, so it's hopefully mutual. But it is one reason I like working with horses before they have a lot of conditioning also. It can be frustrating, but it's 'honest'. Realistically, all of this stuff requires a certain degree of relaxed cooperation from the horse. When he is completely untrained, you get mostly spastic reactions to stimulus -- which are good if you are trying to get a big reaction out of him, but not so good if you are trying to calm him down and get him to do what you need him to.

As far a rocketing up from kokyuho - I think the whole "aiki age" thing happens where my wrists get glued tothe back of his hands, my shoulders go up, and my neck kind of whip snaps.

So do you fly up to your feet as a result of getting hit (like a heavy bag would), or do you participate in that process as a reaction to it? I do have a point, and I will address it. I would just rather have a clear sense of what is being described so we don't talk past each other. You probably have a sense of my point anyway, but we could still talk this through.

As far as the no inch punch, my shoulders don't go up (other than my whole body being hit so hard I lift off the ground), but the cross line power around the straight spine structure and the harmonized internal intentions is the same. I'm sure the power additives like breath management are the same.

Well, it sounds like a really hard hit. I certainly like the idea of hitting very hard. What is the starting position, if I may ask? I'm not really visualizing it very well -- apart from the look on your face.

Anyway, I think anytime you can make the effect where the power being used to manipulate you gets automatically neutralized on you and lessoned/diminshed your power differential increases. Add the ability to take away more and more options from the attacker by de-structuring them and applying locks, throws, pins, whatever and you increase your ability to controll violence without harm.

This part I agree with, for once. I also still think it doesn't quite address what I have in mind -- even though it's obviously a step in that direction. This isn't a value judgment, by the way -- or sour grapes because of not having raw power. I already said I like power (like, not *have*). But since you asked, I don't mind trying to explain (without necessarily over-explaining) what I think is necessarily involved in achieving the greatest degree of 'controlling violence without harm'. Remember, I don't think that degree is anywhere near total -- just that it can be approached as one side of the coin. I personally think that having a clear separation allows *more* 'gentleness', which squeezes a little more of that potential out -- because it isn't expected to do everything for you, and it isn't seen to have failed when it cannot succeed. Gentleness is a touchy-feely word, but I mean it more in a tactile-motile way. Generally, when I get frustrated with a young horse, I'm frustrated with *him*. That *frustration itself* is my contribution to the problem -- and if I express it physically, there is no way I can succeed. I don't know if that makes sense to you or not -- in terms of the physical method you are pursuing.

Regards,
Chhi'mèd

MY opinion of aikido has always been that you rarely can know something in aikido intellectually first.

You have to become it, and then you can think about and understand it. Dan is giving the clearest explanations I've encountered on the topic. I think Mike Sigman did quite a bit of research into what's going on physically (and otherwise, but I'm talking physically now) - and while I think that is very interesting and all, putting my time into that is just taking away from developing my ability to DO these things myself at present.

The topic of someone who is ALSO trained in the same skills keeps coming up - so I'm confused where we are missing each other. Of course Dan can push with structure and blow through me no matter how awesome my structure gets. But that doesn't help me learn better structure - that helps me learn soft power for blowing through good structure - which is like saying level 2 when I want to focus on level 1.

As far as what I do with my body when I am recieving it depends... Sometimes I'm really thinking about can I hit Dan and get away with it. Yes, I tend to always think that way - the little kid in me I guess. Sometimes, I test things by going with it a bit more than one "might" expect and then trying to do what I think my screw up what I think may "really" being happening as opposed to what I'm being told is happening. Sometimes, I just recieve it like I would in normal aikido class to let my own tanden be as purely on the receiving end as possible to "get that feeling" burned in so to speak. Sometimes, - frequently - I resist with everything I have - which is generally not tightness if I can help it. What I do when I get rocketed up is some combination of all of that. I'll have to experiement with it a bit more next time I see Dan if you want more detail in what's going on in my body honestly.

As far as the no-inch punch, I was on Dan passed his gaurd (no I couldn't do that without him letting me get there - but someday... )He was lying on his back, and I was lying front to front with him getting in choking position while trying to mess up what he was showing me about his leg positon. His hand was probably touching my shirt but not pressing into my body before I was blown off of him.

Rob

Rob Liberti wrote: [snip] As far as the no-inch punch, I was on Dan passed his gaurd (no I couldn't do that without him letting me get there - but someday... )He was lying on his back, and I was lying front to front with him getting in choking position while trying to mess up what he was showing me about his leg positon. His hand was probably touching my shirt but not pressing into my body before I was blown off of him. Rob

At the risk of failing to meet minimum verbosity standards for posting on this thread . . . let me interject that what Rob describes Dan doing is a particularly impressive display of power delivered from a horizontal position, which requires substantial coordination and skill to deliver, and does not make use of the same sequence of power generation and transmission as the more common standing demonstrations of "no-inch punch" do.

It's not just the overt power that Dan--and Mike--seem able to display, but the skill and control to be able to deliver that power at will when, where, and with what intensity they want that is the basis for them being able to have some control over the degree of harm inflicted on the opponent. Obviously a fight is a fluid, chaotic set of circumstances, but the more power, and skill and control over that power, that one brings to a combative situation, the greater the range of responses possible to a physical attack.

One other skill that Dan has remarked about before is the "ghostlike" neutralization of an opponent's grab or hold, which can be used to neutralize and off-balance the opponent before engaging in a counter-attack. This kind of neutralization allows less force/energy to be used in counter-attacking--it's easier to slip a lock onto the opponent. The taijiquan saying about "using 4 ounces to overcome 1000 pounds of force" refers to this kind of neutralization skill (listening, adhering, neutralizing, then locking or issuing, all within a moment).

Knowing that you can neutralize as well as "blow through" an opponent would seem to add substance to feeling like one can extend "loving protection" to all surly sentient beings aiming to take your head off.

Rob Liberti wrote: MY opinion of aikido has always been that you rarely can know something in aikido intellectually first.

Just a pedantic reminder that we aren't discussing aikido here -- but rather the nebulous region between controlling violence without harm and failing to do so.

I don't doubt either the quality and sincerity of your training, or the quality of the instruction you get from Dan. Nor is it important to me whether you want to think through the physical mechanics carefully. My concern, such as it is, is that if you treat what you are learning as a great and mysterious secret to be doled out to those you choose, then you might recreate a situation you yourself have lamented. But you might not notice that it's a problem if you are in the favored position. I know these remarks might not sit well, so I am asking you to hear them as being meant constructively. I would not have made them if you had not made specific comments about secrecy and withholding information or having 'misunderstandings' with those you find 'tedious and pretentious.' I'm willing to look past those comments if you can convince me they don't represent something that could really be problematic. Maybe it was something you said in the heat of the moment and didn't really mean, for example.

The good thing about a relatively open conversation is that it tends to diminish *accidental* security through obscurity. That should be a good thing for everyone, although it still leaves the intentional security which has to be dealt with on its own terms.

The topic of someone who is ALSO trained in the same skills keeps coming up - so I'm confused where we are missing each other. Of course Dan can push with structure and blow through me no matter how awesome my structure gets. But that doesn't help me learn better structure - that helps me learn soft power for blowing through good structure - which is like saying level 2 when I want to focus on level 1.

That's fine, Rob. But you have now described a pedagogical approach which is not necessarily the only one. I appreciate your laying it out there. You asked me about 'something more' than raw power differential. The approach you just described would seem to acknowledge it. You use the word 'structure'. No matter how good your structure gets, you will always be dominated by someone with 'better structure' and dominate those with 'worse structure', *as long as you operate within that power-differential paradigm*. If that last qualification were not relevant, then you could just let 'structure' stand in for ability, skill, accomplishment or whatever.

Implicit in your description is the idea that 'soft power' can be used to 'blow through good structure', and that this is different from just having 'better structure'. I don't have a problem with that general view. I was trying to call attention to the importance of this -- not to diminish the value of 'good structure', but to point out that this 'something more' will *always* be important if you want to avoid a dynamic based purely on a power differential where the greater power always 'wins'. That's why it keeps coming up. Being the 'strongest' or having the 'best structure' is simply not an option for many people. (Only a few can even hope to imagine they have that, given its relative nature anyway.) But it's within everyone's reach to be able to handle whatever strength they happen to actually encounter in their real lives with some semblance of grace, skill, and relative non-aggression (or to use harsher methods when necessary). So I don't think the implicit assumption that 'something more' needs to be the inscrutable graduate course is necessarily universal. That's all I was saying. Obviously, a certain base is required. If you're still building that then I say great. But you are also putting yourself out there as representing a 'new (or revived), different, (quite possibly) better' approach. If you are saying, "This approach contains N steps, and I haven't even accomplished step 1." -- then that doesn't really qualify you to say how valuable the whole approach is relative to alternate approaches. I'm not judging your approach *or* putting forth an alternative, but I am pointing out that your fervor for a specific sequence and methodology doesn't seem to account for the larger picture as well as it could. You *seem* to have had the experience in which 'technique' is used in exactly the way you are now using 'structure' -- as a magic bullet that, when perfected will give access to the 'really interesting stuff'. But unless and until you actually consider the 'interesting stuff', it seems premature to taut that bullet, even if it's true. You talk about a 'fast track', so why not approach the fast lane as directly as possible? That's just a rhetorical question for consideration.

I'm not actually suggesting you revise your training with Dan. You happen to have access to regular training that many do not. To tie this into the thread topic again, I still think the 'power differential' approach (not the importance of power and 'structure', but the simplistic paradigm you call step 1) is particularly unsuited to 'controlling violence without harm', and I find it interesting that some version of that approach tends to *strengthen* the belief that 'controlling violence without harm' is a realistically achievable goal. My suspicion is that this is because within a fixed training paradigm, one *can* accomplish this with those who are 'lower' on the ladder than oneself, so it seems to make sense that by gaining more and more power one could actually succeed. When I point out that Dan does not subscribe to this belief, it is not to impugn his morality or call him a hypocrite -- or anything remotely like that. It is to point out that he is not operating within the same paradigm that you are, and that this needs to be factored into the equation when you cite his methods as contributing to your goals.

I'll have to experiement with it a bit more next time I see Dan if you want more detail in what's going on in my body honestly.

Sure, it would be interesting to me. But please clear it with Dan before you post detailed descriptions that might be off-limits to a public forum. I really don't want that issue to cloud discussion.

He was lying on his back, and I was lying front to front with him getting in choking position while trying to mess up what he was showing me about his leg positon. His hand was probably touching my shirt but not pressing into my body before I was blown off of him.

What *was* the leg position? I'm honestly interested in understanding and analyzing what you're describing. I don't doubt that it's a useful application. I'm not trying to steal Dan's secrets though, just trying to learn from whatever is offered freely in discussion.

Regards,
Chhi'mèd

Thomas Campbell wrote: At the risk of failing to meet minimum verbosity standards for posting on this thread . . .

You did okay. Just add a few more comments about the nature of the discussion, and you'll get there.

Let me interject that what Rob describes Dan doing is a particularly impressive display of power delivered from a horizontal position, which requires substantial coordination and skill to deliver, and does not make use of the same sequence of power generation and transmission as the more common standing demonstrations of "no-inch punch" do.

Noted. In case I have been unclear, this sounds like a great technique and one that depends on having a lot of 'unusual power'. I don't discount its value at all. But I don't see this aspect of power generation as being the critical component for realizing whatever measure of 'controlling violence without harm' is possible. This really matters because some people might be interested in pursuing the latter goal and not care that much about optimizing their high end for fighting. So it's somewhat useful to decouple the training goals. That's why I'm protracting the discussion.

It's not just the overt power that Dan--and Mike--seem able to display, but the skill and control to be able to deliver that power at will when, where, and with what intensity they want that is the basis for them being able to have some control over the degree of harm inflicted on the opponent.

I would not argue that point.

Obviously a fight is a fluid, chaotic set of circumstances, but the more power, and skill and control over that power, that one brings to a combative situation, the greater the range of responses possible to a physical attack.

True, but again this is the 'martial skill and dominance' argument based on 'power differential'. It's not wrong or bad, but it's not the one really interesting point at the center of the discussion.

One other skill that Dan has remarked about before is the "ghostlike" neutralization of an opponent's grab or hold, which can be used to neutralize and off-balance the opponent before engaging in a counter-attack.

It sounded good up to 'counter-attack'. I don't debate the use in fighting. But if the idea is not-fighting, then something else needs to replace counter-attack, right?

Knowing that you can neutralize as well as "blow through" an opponent would seem to add substance to feeling like one can extend "loving protection" to all surly sentient beings aiming to take your head off.

Sure, of course. My argument is that there isn't a great deal of point in building up that feeling (of being able to do that) -- since you often can't. What *is* valuable is building up the ability to the extent you can. What I'm trying to nudge into the conversation is the idea that besides 'neutralizing' or 'blowing through' as part of a martial strategy that might involve mercy -- there is also a specific skillset related to allowing the interaction to unfold itself, and that this approach theoretically leads to the best results in *either* dissipating (word change) violence without harm, or catalyzing it to harm itself out of existence. I'm not trying to imply something purely ethereal, either. That is why I have included the physical examples, even though they are oblique.

Regards,
Chhi'mèd

Rob Liberti wrote: His hand was probably touching my shirt but not pressing into my body before I was blown off of him.

Rob, one more question about 'probably touching my shirt'. I assume this means you didn't feel pressure from his hand. How far (whatever units you want, inches, centimeters, millimeters) would you say his hand was from your body before he started the hit. You said 'zero-inch', but I'm just wondering if you can be more specific. I guess I don't know how tight your shirt is.

Thanks,
Chhi'mèd

Chhi'mèd Künzang wrote: [snip]there is also a specific skillset related to allowing the interaction to unfold itself, and that this approach theoretically leads to the best results in *either* dissipating (word change) violence without harm, or catalyzing it to harm itself out of existence. I'm not trying to imply something purely ethereal, either. That is why I have included the physical examples, even though they are oblique. Regards, Chhi'mèd

I don't think the physical examples are oblique. Awareness is key to survival in any situation involving physical conflict. Knowing one's physical capacities is essential to being able to make intelligent choices gracefully under pressure of imminent attack. The play here on Hemingway's definition of courage is deliberate--fear (of physical threat) can often paralyze the mind or cause a violent reflexive response substantially disproportionate to the threat presented. A well-trained body/mind--because the type of internal training being discussed surely trains the practitioner's mind as well--will be freer to act through a wider range of responses than without such training.

There are of course non-combative alternatives to defuse a threatening situation which should be among the first responses--with appropriate timing, well-chosen words, body posture, distancing, breathing to maintain relaxed body language and tone of voice--all can enter into the situation to help reduce tension between the participants. Perhaps this would be analogous to calming a horse.

Allowing the interaction to unfold itself--every interaction has its own mini-Dao. But the Dao of an interaction where the person being pressed by another has the internal body/mind skills Dan and Rob have been alluding to will have a different Dao than one where the person being pressed lacks those skills and what's more lacks the experience of applying such skills in physical conflict (with practice partners in "live" training).

I'll step back now and let the discussion/interaction between Chhi'med, Rob and Dan continue to unfold itself. Thanks for your earlier comments, Chhi'med.

Chhi'mèd Künzang wrote: I'm not trying to imply something purely ethereal, either. That is why I have included the physical examples, even though they are oblique. Regards, Chhi'mèd

How about stepping-up and being direct. No one needs oblique. If you can't make a direct point why would anyone want to continue a one sided discussion of cat and mouse with you. You've offered nothing relevant, and have reduced your argument to being a gadfly naysaying and countering every point offered to the realm of carrying the ridicuous- to the sublime. there were and are some excellent comparative examples of power and power in use, or power differential, and WHY what we consider power to be is in fact the very things that matters in any use of skill to control without harm. It isn't "power" as in lifting weights, its a whole different level of meaning in connection and control, and use of skill-all interrelated.

Chhi'mèd Künzang wrote: Rob, one more question about 'probably touching my shirt'. I assume this means you didn't feel pressure from his hand. How far (whatever units you want, inches, centimeters, millimeters) would you say his hand was from your body before he started the hit. You said 'zero-inch', but I'm just wondering if you can be more specific. I guess I don't know how tight your shirt is. Thanks, Chhi'mèd

I'm done here. This isn't a meaningful discussion on your part-its drivel.
What a waste of time.
See ya.

Thomas Campbell wrote: There are of course non-combative alternatives to defuse a threatening situation which should be among the first responses--with appropriate timing, well-chosen words, body posture, distancing, breathing to maintain relaxed body language and tone of voice--all can enter into the situation to help reduce tension between the participants. Perhaps this would be analogous to calming a horse.

Maybe. I just want to be clear that the part I wanted to focus on was the *physical* component in which actual physical touch, force, kinetic energy, etc. is the currency of communication -- and in which a range of conflict is somewhat inherent.

Allowing the interaction to unfold itself--every interaction has its own mini-Dao. But the Dao of an interaction where the person being pressed by another has the internal body/mind skills Dan and Rob have been alluding to will have a different Dao than one where the person being pressed lacks those skills and what's more lacks the experience of applying such skills in physical conflict (with practice partners in "live" training).

I agree completely, with the caveat that I don't actually know exactly what Dan and Rob do. If anything, my suggestion has been in the direction of assuming the person doing the pressing is also at least somewhat skilled. So I don't think I'm erring on the side of assuming too little experience on the part of the participants. I'm urging maximum experience for all participants, to all of their benefit.

I'll step back now and let the discussion/interaction between Chhi'med, Rob and Dan continue to unfold itself.

I doubt you can get off that easily, Thomas.

Regards,
Chhi'mèd

ps: Regarding fear and aggression: This may be too far outside the scope of common vocabulary, but -- since I alluded to 'the elements' earlier -- I should say something. Those uninterested in Buddhist praxis or philosophy can safely (and probably should) disregard this postscript. From the perspective of Dzogchen, the water element is the source of 'clarity'. The form quality of the water element is *permanence*, but when clarity is not recognized, and the empty quality of that permanence is misapprehended, the result is fear. When emptiness is perceived as impermanence, this *can* be experienced as a threat. The coping strategy associated with fear is anger -- which leads to aggression and also manifests as adverse physical tension felt in the body. Once this tension has manifested, it is too late to 'take it back' (although it can be relinquished). There is fortunately an opportunity to recognize fear before it is concretized as physical aggression. That is something one can do for oneself, but not for someone else -- hence a certain choicelessness within the ability to make one's own choices. I personally believe this has a great deal to do with the topic of aggression, violence, how they may or may not be controlled -- and what the effect may be, in both indirectly *and* directly physical encounters.

Dan Harden wrote: If you can't make a direct point why would anyone want to continue a one sided discussion of cat and mouse with you. You've offered nothing relevant, and have reduced your argument to being a gadfly naysaying and countering every point offered to the realm of carrying the ridicuous- to the sublime.

No problem, Dan. If you do not see the relevance of what I have said then that speaks directly to what you consider relevant. I have no problem whatsoever with the idea that my concerns may be irrelevant to you.

I'm done here. This isn't a meaningful discussion-its drivel.

You can be as insulting as you like. However:

1) If I lean over someone horizontally, the kind of shirts I usually wear will hang down away from my chest. A very tight shirt might actually bind to the body. There is a very great difference between a strike which is 'zero-inch' in the sense that one is already pressing against the target, and one which has room to accelerate before reaching its target. I am sure you know that, so I do not know why you consider the question to be meaningless drivel.

2)If, by 'meaningless drivel', you mean you do not like that I inject some very poor quality humor into my posts, then fine. When tensions are running slightly high, I would prefer to take a lighter tone (even while acknowledging the underlying confrontation). The opposite strategy of overt insults is counter-productive because it leaves little room for both parties to simply move on.

3) You are the one who does not want to talk about physical details. You have repeatedly avoided questions, and that is fine. You also ordered me ('Do it now.') to provide some of my own thoughts on the topic. If you do not like my thoughts and do not want to engage in a rational discussion of their relevance to the topic, then by all means, stop posting here.

4) I have not asked you to remain in the discussion if you did not want to participate. Others, whom you endorse, have used your name as example repeatedly -- despite my request that they not do so, in order to avoid upsetting you. You have repeatedly threatened to leave the discussion if your criteria were not met. That would be fine with me, but I have tried to meet your criteria anyway. I do not know how many times you plan to pop in to steer the discussion only to leave again in a huff. I only know that -- apart from one much-appreciated and detailed post regarding your views of the topic -- your posts seem to large center around your promised or threatened imminent departure. If you do not want to address the questions I have posed, and you do not want to add anything else to the discussion, then please just leave it at that.

5) Finally, since this might be our last exchange in this thread, let me repeat that based on what I know, I think your approach sounds valuable. Based on all personal reports, I have no doubt you are a great person. Based on my own long-standing observation and reading of your posts, I deeply and sincerely believe that should we ever meet I would get a great deal out of training with you, and that I would like you personally. You sound like my kind of guy. Hopefully you can hear that and not take it as a veiled insult -- or as offensive on the basis of what my favor might imply, damning by faint praise, or any of the other possible misunderstandings.

That having been said, you have been so surly in these exchanges that I can understand why those who have not yet met you find it difficult to muster much affection for the positions you advance. I hope that one of these days we will meet, and that on that day you will remember that -- all else aside -- this was my stated and actual position.

Regards,
Chhi'mèd

It seems this conversation -- such as it was -- has played out. It has not left me with a good feeling, but sometimes that happens. Because I doubt what remains can be reassembled into a viable dialog, I am writing one last reply. This reply is to provide closure for the discussion -- in terms of my personal involvement in it. For that reason it may or may not be of interest to anyone else -- much as the entire content of this thread. I hope those who will only be annoyed by a personal statement will not read it. In any event, I very much hope that it will be my last post on AikiWeb -- which may come as a relief to many.

As I mentioned before, I no longer practice Aikido. I began reading AikiWeb at a time when I did still. Like many, I was sincerely interested in pursuing Aikido's goals and technical methods -- so I was happy for anything I could glean from the web. It was through reading AikiWeb that I first encountered Mike Sigman. I was initially doubtful of his descriptions -- because I assumed that what he described *must* be what I already knew from my practice of Aikido. Mike was extremely patient in slowly convincing me that there was simply *more* to the physical skills than I had previously encountered. It was not until after I met Mike that I felt that I had the tools to make Aikido work as it was meant to do. The training methods and ideas he showed me fit in with the practice in way that seemed entirely obvious, and the manner in which he presented them was entirely non-sectarian -- as simple information.

Integrating that information with my own Aikido practice proved difficult. Others have written about the difficulties they have experienced as well. My reasons for leaving Aikido are complex and personal, and I do not want to leave the impression that there was a direct causal relationship. However, I stayed long enough to know that many people with experiences like mine will find it difficult to integrate these skills into their existing practices -- if they are not already there. That is a difficult thing to accept: that there may be something missing from one's own practice. It may well be that for many there is *not* something missing, but for those who feel there may be, I can relate because it is something I went through.

From what I have read here and discussed with others -- it seems that Aikido may be facing a small crisis. Or, more accurately, an increasing number of Aikido practitioners may be facing small crises like the one I faced. That could be both a good thing and a bad thing. It was good for me. Under different circumstances, it might have been easier or harder. I have thought a lot about this because I would prefer that my experience be somehow helpful. I think a lot by nature, and -- in terms of the topic of the parent thread -- I am one of a still relatively small number who have tried to make the particular transition in question.

My crisis was resolved obliquely, and that is why I speak obliquely. I am almost irrelevant to this discussion because I no longer practice Aikido. I have enough familiarity with Mike's explanatory methods (at a basic level -- I do not represent him or imagine I know the scope of his methods) to present some perspective on that basis. The most important thing Mike gave me was the ability to observe and analyze physical movement in *fundamentally Western terms* which are nevertheless pragmatically consistent with the core body skills. I do not think those who have not met Mike or been exposed to the breadth and depth of discussion he stimulates can really appreciate what a powerful statement this is. The extraordinary benefit of this approach is that it makes possible open and meaningful dialog. It is not that this conceptual strategy in any way replaces physical training. On the contrary, the more carefully one understands the physical basis and mechanisms of the 'ki/kokyu' skills, the more specifically one can focus training efforts -- and maximize value of the training one does perform.

The reason I have tried so hard to drag this thread into specific description is that I wanted to believe it was possible. I do not doubt it is possible *in general*: these discussions are already taking place. It has been of the greatest value *for me* to think through complex skills and training methods in the greatest detail possible -- and to do so in a respectful and focused environment. This has led me to wider associations and helped me to feel part of a community of people all working toward furthering their own personal understanding of the fundamental aspects of so-called 'internal strength'. Whenever possible I meet with those I have engaged in conversation -- in order to put a physical referent to their descriptions.

Having once been a practitioner who would have appreciated such a discussion, I hoped one could be had here. When Jun first created the Non-Aikido Martial Traditions sub-forum, I felt it trivialized the topics which were often placed here. That was because I was an Aikidoka at the time, and I felt my pursuits were marginalized. Now that this is no longer the case, I see that Jun's decision was actually quite rational -- and that it creates a space in which someone like me can feel adequately on-topic to venture *something*. I entered the discussion in the General forum because my history put me squarely within the group whose feedback was solicited. I was happy enough when the thread was split and moved here because I felt that would make possible a discussion of the issues I thought were important.

When I first quoted John Lenin in response to Dan's post, I certainly had no intention of picking a fight. I have read Dan for many years, but never managed to have a conversation with him. Had his doors been open a number of years back I might have driven to see him rather than to Colorado. I do not know. I also planned and organized what was meant to have been Minoru Akuzawa's first US seminar -- but it fell through for logistical reasons. I mention this to point out that I was galvanized by the discussions which made clear there was *something* worth exploring. Something which was enough different from what I had experienced in a dojo setting to make it worth driving sixteen hours both ways to check out.

From the perspective of *having been that person*, I wholeheartedly encourage anyone in a similar position to do just that: make the effort to get a physical reference and to receive instruction. You will know at that point whether what you have discovered is important to you. But having been through that process and *no longer being that person*, I would caution that your Aikido may not survive the process. Even in the best case, how you relate to and perform your practice will have to change -- if you are within the group whose practice is not yet infused with these skills. What I mean is more than that though, and that should be obvious. You may find that your own goals and interests shift and change as you are exposed to something new. A codified art provides great security, and as you explore outside the confines of that security, you may find your horizons shifting. This is all well and good from a personal perspective, but it is worth thinking about.

What would it mean to have the framework by which you organize your martial practice be reorganized? Are you willing to let that happen if it needs to, for you? And if it does have to happen, to what extent will *how* it happens influence the direction you follow. People have *many* reasons for pursuing the disciplines they do, and if that balance is upset the results can be tumultuous. To a certain extent, what we are talking about here is an investigation that could radically alter the course of peoples' training. It could be just what people need to put all the pieces together -- or it could destroy their formal martial practice and their relationship to their training situations. It could tear dojos and organizations apart if not approached with great care, circumspection, sensitivity, and intelligence. This is the case if for no other reason than that the proposition seems to demand that 'outside' knowledge be 'imported'. Even though the holders of this 'outside' knowledge are adamant that what they know is already 'inside' the art, it is a delicate matter. These are simply observations.

I do not want to delve into my personal practice here -- other than to tie up the loose ends I have created along the way. My pursuit of Aikido was always closely tied up with my study of Buddhism. There were obviously significant relationships, both philosophically and psychophysically, between the practices -- but until I met Mike, I did not quite have the tools to see the connections directly -- even though they were latent in the practices. Once I had those tools, my approach to martial arts changed -- because it became more closely integrated with my Buddhist practice. Further avenues I had never imagined began to open up for me, and I continue to explore those with enthusiasm. I mention all this only to reiterate that it is probably fallacious to imagine one can simply 'add in' a few skills and continue as usual. Buzzwords can be integrated easily enough, and this will probably happen, but those who really delve into this topic may find that it delivers on the promises they have made to themselves -- in terms of why they pursued an art like Aikido in the first place. As exciting as that prospect may be, it may also mean more change than can be easily imagined at the outset -- as with any startling and revolutionary personal discovery.

As far as the physical and technical discussion I tried to catalyze here, I will say a bit more. This is probably more than needs to be said, but with it unsaid the discussion here feels incomplete. I have met and felt both Mike Sigman and Chen Xiao Wang. I use them and not others as examples only because I *have* actually felt them -- and their names will be recognized here. To varying degrees, they have a level of power which is -- simply put -- shocking and unsettling. It is a power that can be felt in the body and which has nothing whatsoever to do with technique -- although it can be expressed through technique. If a person developed this kind of power exclusively, the whole question of technique would become increasingly moot. How many ways do you need to twist a wrist if you can break ribs from contact and are essentially impervious to attempted manipulation?

That having been said, there are many ways to develop this 'style' of power and the attendant ability to manipulate it to unusual ends. There are likewise many ways to deploy whatever has been developed. It is not one single interchangeable lump of 'stuff' -- even though proponents here have often seemed to present that view. This view is natural given that many skeptics seem to question the validity of 'this stuff' (as it is often termed). From *that* perspective yes, it is all more the same than it is different. But there is a great deal of variation possible, and how one approaches that variation is going to significantly color the outcome. Without a careful and informed game plan, one is likely to lose 'Aikido' in the process of trying to perfect it. I say this from personal experience. Remember, I do not practice Aikido anymore.

It could be argued that any practice which *can* be overturned therefore *deserves* to be overturned. I would not make that argument though. I do not argue with people about religion (if it can at all be avoided), even though I must feel that my religion is 'best' -- at least for me. It is easy to introduce complexities which threaten the foundation of a system -- and doing that without great regard for what is being threatened can be irresponsible. Without the fundamental physical skills under discussion, I do not feel that the philosophical issues *can* be resolved adequately. Instead of an adequate resolution, a consensus logic seems to have developed -- but I personally find this consensus logic inadequate. The consensus logic I mean is one that puts forth a 'rhetoric of harmlessness' -- as described in an earlier post. This rhetoric is then shored up by ideas of martial dominance and power differential (in a normal sense) as the activating factor which makes 'harmlessness' possible. Even though there is some truth in this, I know that is not the essence of what I had hoped to achieve when I practiced Aikido. I now believe that with the development of this 'other' kind of power, a different *kind* of 'control without harm' is possible in some circumstances.

I tried to address this distinction in many ways and from many angles, but it seems I failed -- and the conversation centered mainly around personalities and specifics. I had hoped that those putting forth a view *very close* to my own would be willing and able to join me in trying to articulate precisely what makes this view interesting. Instead, my attempts seem to have been interpreted as personal attacks or frivolity. This was not my intention. I *do* think this area can be understood and discussed, and I think that understanding will be critical for anyone hoping to manage a personal transition. Like any complex area, this needs to be navigated carefully -- so the more 'map' one can acquire the better off he will be. My specific point was that the functional component which allows 'control without harm' when it is possible, does not depend on great power. A level of power needs to be developed, and the two are naturally developed together -- but the 'power' approach is only one. Optimizing for structural power early will have consequences in terms of how one develops and trains -- and the particular skills one manifests. The option of optimizing for what Rob referred to as 'soft power' is also available. This option may lead to great power only after a longer period of time -- yet it may lead to greater 'control' sooner. I do not want to debate these points, and I am not offering answers. I wanted to raise the issues because they are not trifling side questions. They represent important and signficant decisions which need to be committed to early on in one's training if progress will be made. Much of my own difficulty related to a lack of clarity regarding these issues; and to the extent I have resolved that difficulty it is through having a coherent framework in which to understand and view those relationships -- and the choices they necessitate.

This was a long post, but a necessary one for me. One valuable piece of advice I have received from my teachers is that *if one reads web forums*, then one needs to participate -- at least occasionally. My habit of paying attention to the Aikido world dates to when I was a part of that world. By continuing to pay attention even as I have drifted away, I have required myself to participate. To see and hear but not respond is to cut off communication. At this point, my participation serves little purpose, so I think it is time for me to move on. I feel a bit like the ex-boyfriend who calls just a little too often. Yes, I have a lasting affection for Aikido, and I feel I can be a 'friend'. But maybe I am still too close to be 'just a friend'. I have said more, and in a more personal manner, in this thread than I have tried to elsewhere -- exactly because the topic is still so close to my heart. If the net result of that attempted intimacy has been a 'drunk ex-boyfriend phone call' then I sincerely apologize. Even in that case though, I hope you can use my example as a cautionary one. If, like I did, you feel the need to expand your knowledge both conceptually and physically, do not forget to include your heart -- because it might be broken along with the rest if you are not careful.

Regards,
Chhi'mèd

ps: I do not plan to post to AikiWeb anymore. Life being as it is, I will probably check this thread for a few more days to see if anything demands response. I know better than to promise to disappear before a conversation dies completely. However, I would ask that anyone actually reading this not protract the discussion further for its own sake. That will only make it harder to go. Once more, I would like to thank Jun for making this resource available to the Aikido community -- of which I was once a member.

Greeze. I don't have time to read all of this yet so this is not a comprehensive response.

I thought we put all that tedious and pretentious business behind us? What happened? I last posted thinking you and I were on the same page and I was openly sharing with you not worrying about crossing every T and dotting every i.

As far as secrets. Here's the deal. Dan asked me not to show my lame skills until they are better. I assume that he's worked hard at this stuff and doesn't want it to be shown in a watered-down version. Regardless of whether the assumption is true it doesn't matter. I am making plans to have visits with several interested people in the near future. Some are a bit more concrete for sure, but I assume I'll go visit a bunch of the people who have been interesting to talk about this stuff with and show them what I'm talking about from my perspective. Now I'm only doing that out of desire the share and make friends/better friends, etc. I don't charge. I have a day job for money. So if I think someone isn't being friendly then I'll probably not share with them. Think of my ability with this skills as "ice cream". Don't tick me off and then ask me to do something for you. Regardless, I'm not dolling out anything. You can go get this information a lot better from Mike Sigman or Aukuzawa/Rob John if you like. I am not even unique in that I'm willing to share it from an aikidoka perspective because Mark Murray is also available.

So are we fighting again? I'm really hoping not.
I'll read some more of this when I can get through all of it.

Rob

Okay when I am on top of someone my teeshirt is held up from handing down by the other person's body. So then we are into how fluffy my teeshirt is? How about .5 inches or so. Not sure exactly how much that matters. I felt his hand and then not so much. I wasn't paying that much attention to it really. I was busy!

I read further and it appears you broke up with me. It's not you it's me? Oh well. I was trying.

Good luck.

Rob

Thanks for the thoughtful post, Chhi'med. I think a major point you made, about the potential difficulty of integrating these skills into the norm of Aikido practice today, is well worth considering. In fact, the internal skills under discussion in this forum are not common in most martial arts I've trained or experienced--including Chinese martial arts--and the challenges and conundrums of training the skills and integrating the training into whatever martial art is practiced, Aikido or not, will be an issue for the practitioner. That practitioner's art(s) will be changed by the training.

Fred Little takes up that question of the norm of Aikido practice in post #280 on this thread:
http://aikiweb.com/forums/showthread...344#post211344

Thanks again for the insights and discussion. Best wishes in the pursuit of your training path.

cheers,

Tom