Doing = Uke and Nage (not *or*)
"Surely aikido is one person doing and another having it applied. Then these two swap roles."
Strictly speaking, I believe both are doing and receiving. Taking a single phrase is challenging.
In this case, to my mind, the swapping of roles is dynamic and highly in flux as we consider different contexts.
I took this quote away from a complicated context of explanations, which admittedly is a thing I tend to do too much of, and I apologize for that where it falls short. I recognize that I latch onto a phrase as if it could stand alone, when usually they are not meant to do so.
I don't have a problem with this quote at all. From it I consider the idea that roles can be mindless forms, or mindful forms, and still look the same from the outside perspective. We may raise because they descended, or we may roll over, suppressing, because they lacked the ability to float. Do we have the initiative and why?
This bit of phrasing stood out to me because I view the roles of any exchange, let alone aikido, as being ultimately the same thing. We are providing an effort from inside outward, whether through strikes or otherwise.
We do often divide our behaviors according to the prescribed outcome, which can be rote. We may tip over because that was the prescribed action at the choreographed time. But ideally, I believe, there is a gradient of effort at play, even in that. How close can we get, as uke, to disrupting nage, while still trying to give nage something to grow from? How can we "flirt" with the tipping point? This is nothing unique to aikido. This is basically a teacher testing her student. Giving something to play with; playing further in response; etc.
What are we doing? Applying effort and seeking to understand the truth of it.
These 2000+ posts always feel arrogant. But I leave this one here such as it may be, just like the rest.