Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Non-Aikido Martial Traditions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-09-2008, 04:50 PM   #51
DH
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,394
United_States
Offline
Re: Using Daito-Ryu's Aiki Without Harm

Hi Ron
I don’t like the analogy of someone being handled like a two year old-I think Rob was just trying to fashion a clear power/ skill differential within a dojo setting. Then again rocketing 180 lb men off the ground from kokyu ho so that they are standing back on their feet, or giving them concussion from aikiage (kokyu ho) or launching them through walls, cutting swords and knives out their hands and decking people with single blows gives an idea of what he is trying to convey. Seeing and feeling students with power helps in that regard. Hey, at least he’s trying to learn and discuss some of the power potential he is seeing and feeling. The way he keeps showing up and that blunt no B.S. research and hard work attitude of his is going to pay off. There is no need to harm to do the above things although it may hurt sometimes. Then again we can sort of chsange the subject and add stand up chokes, throws, leg and hip locks, heel hooks, RNC's on the ground, arm bars and all manner of locks to illicit a tap out. None of which needs to cause harm-just the threat of harm. the real key being just what captures and how, and hwy can you NOT be captured while controlling their centers and they have such trouble getting away or getting you off them. Sticking and smothering and controlling with the retained potential to deliver a knockout while in close and all at the same time can be daunting.
So from aiki to control and repel or capture, to aiki to lock up and throw, to aiki to knock out or to work on the ground, its all aiki to me.
Anyway, the connections made and then used to manipulate, move and handle force is internal power being used as internal skills. The two are not the same. The internal training you do prepares your body for aiki-in use.
It is rare to see someone experiment with an open field in DR as well-most just follow along with the program. There are only two men here I know who can address the many means and ways this is accomplished in an open format with that art. And they are specific and defined. I don’t believe he will, neither will I

Last edited by DH : 07-09-2008 at 05:05 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2008, 05:27 PM   #52
clwk
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 136
United_States
Offline
Re: Using Daito-Ryu's Aiki Without Harm

Dan,

I'm glad you're back to talk turkey (or whatever).
Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
I don't like the analogy of being handled like a two year old-I think Rob was just trying to fashion a clear power/ skill differential within a dojo setting.
Well, I guess we can put that baby to bed now. It's part of the whole reason I wanted to just talk to you directly. Anyhow, on to the bathwater. I mean . . .

Quote:
Then again rocketing 180 lb men off the ground from kokyu ho so that they are standing back on their feet,
When they 'rocket' do they leave the ground (out of curiosity)? I think I know what you're describing, and I think it depends on a *relatively* untrained reaction -- but it's still impressive. Do you find that you can still do this after people gain more experience -- or does its effectiveness go down over time?

Quote:
or giving them concussion from aikiage (kokyu ho) or launching them threw walls,
Okay, I'd say potential for harm probably comes into play there. Still no problem with it -- just separating displays of power from examples of control without harm.

Quote:
cutting swords and knives out their hands and decking people with single blows gives an idea of what he is trying to convey.
Again, 'decking with single blows' sounds dicey to me. I mean, power-wise, great -- but that's not a risk-free operation, is it? What if they're not trained to fall? I'm not trying to be awkward here.

Quote:
The way he keeps showing up and that blunt no B.S. research and hard work attitude of his is going to pay off.
It was only the trace odor of BS that set me off in the first place, so if it was a misunderstanding then great.

Quote:
Then again we can sort of chsange the subject and add stand up chokes, throws, leg and hip locks, heel hooks, RNC's on the ground, arm bars and all manner of locks to illicit a tap out.
Sure, I have no doubt grappling skills are good for controlling people.

Quote:
None of which needs to cause harm-just the threat of harm.
But threats have to be tested sometimes, so I don't really buy choke-threats as *reliably* no harm. In some cases, sure -- but you might very occasionally have to apply the choke, and they don't *always* wake back up, right? It's just like a firearm. Yes, you might be able to hold someone at gunpoint and get them to surrender. Other people could comment on that better than I can -- perhaps based on real experience. But my point is that once you draw that weapon, you have committed to the possibility of using it. If not, I doubt any control can be reliably established.

Quote:
the real key being just what captures and how, and hwy can you NOT be captured while controlling their centers and they have such trouble getting away or getting you off them. Sticking and smothering and controlling with the retained potential to deliver a knockout while in close and all at the same time can be daunting.
This whole section is what I actually find interesting. Do you want to offer any thoughts about this? Maybe not techniques, but personal insights about the *relationship* between the conditioning/training and the application?

Quote:
It is rare to see someone experiment with an open field in DR as well. There are only two men here I know here who can address the many means and ways this is accomplished in an open format with that art. And they are specific and defined. I don't believe he will, neither will I
I don't mind if you don't want to talk about secret stuff, but it shouldn't be a big surprise if people ask questions about things once you bring them up. So feel free to keep those thoughts to yourself, but if they contain the key to your arguments please also understand why that leaves us feeling a little empty. If the key to control without harm is a closely-held DR secret, how will that help Aikido people who don't train with you specifically?

Chhi'mèd
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2008, 08:08 PM   #53
rob_liberti
Dojo: Shobu Aikido of Connecticut
Location: East Haven, CT
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,402
United_States
Offline
Re: Using Daito-Ryu's Aiki Without Harm

I suppose the Aikido people who do train with those fellas will have to decide who to share with and who not to share with. Or maybe more likely if those people happen to find someone tedious and pretentious that the possibility for "misunderstanding" in relating such lessons might significantly increase. It's a long road with many a turn...

Rob
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2008, 09:56 PM   #54
clwk
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 136
United_States
Offline
Re: Using Daito-Ryu's Aiki Without Harm

Indeed it is, Rob.

Chhi'mèd
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2008, 11:16 PM   #55
rob_liberti
Dojo: Shobu Aikido of Connecticut
Location: East Haven, CT
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,402
United_States
Offline
Re: Using Daito-Ryu's Aiki Without Harm

Frankly I'm disappointed. I checked back here expecting to read yet another scooby-do type ending like "HA! I'm really Mike Sigman's uchi deshi for the past 25 years and my name is really steve or fred or something".

Anywhoo, the question about what is meant by internal harmonies is in question.
I'm still working on a desciption but I didn't want to take too long so I'll write what I have so far. You focus your mental intentions in vaious directions all at the same time. Somehow when a force acts on you this helps you instantly resist a push or a pull in what seems to be an effortless way that is happening without any conscious thought to resist the force (that I am aware of). It seems to disperse through out your body the better you maintain all of your lines of intention. This is definately one of those situations where it's better to experience it physically than have someone try to explain it in writing. It seems that there are different mental images that all seem to work to do this and I'm not skilled/experienced enough to understand which image is best for a particular situation yet.

This is an aside, but the whole things makes me wonder if therapeudic deep tissue massage would benefit from the patient holding certain mental intentions while being worked on. If this is a new idea and it actually works well I claim it as "liberti-method massage".

Rob

Last edited by rob_liberti : 07-09-2008 at 11:18 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2008, 07:10 AM   #56
DH
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,394
United_States
Offline
Re: Using Daito-Ryu's Aiki Without Harm

Chhi'mèd
While I appreciate your continued advice on what I should say, how I should say it and what I should refrain from saying-I think I'll just do fine figuring it out on my own. I am glad you left me feel free to write though. Thanks for that.
You remind me of someone else here who continues to make things personal by talking about the posters themselves, then is the very first to cry foul and take insult when his own sense of "personal" is breached. Just so you know, I'm not really concerned about "what you buy". I'm not debating anything with you, nor trying to convince you of anything. I am talking about what I do, that's all. It's cleaner that way.
Enjoy your training

Rob
I think managing opposing forces and lines in your body, makes the addition of their force just an 'addition" to the forces you are already managing. This is the "why" in why you don't feel you have to do much to manage them. The better and more efficient you become at it, the less you worry about their force. I think that is an easier way to "say it" or see what is happening. When they think they have you-you have them, sort of thing. This is of course, without starting to discuss enhanced manipulations of forces and directive forces. Zero balance or central equilibrium is just the start of some interesting fun down the road.

Last edited by DH : 07-10-2008 at 07:22 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2008, 07:28 AM   #57
Ron Tisdale
Dojo: Doshinkan dojo in Roxborough, Pa
Location: Phila. Pa
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,614
United_States
Offline
Re: Using Daito-Ryu's Aiki Without Harm

Quote:
And that gets to the essential quandary. In general, I would hope that any non-harmful 'handling' I might use to demonstrate control of a two-year-old could be accomplished without the idea of pain entering the equation. ...

...but control that depends on pain skirts the borders of potential harm, whether physical or psychological. This isn't meant to be a politically-correct rejection of pain in martial arts. Far from it. Pain comes with the territory.
Well, I should be clearer...nothing Dan did really depended at all on pain compliance. The pain (in my experience) was not the point of control...my lack of structure and his structure ***and control over that structure*** simply sometimes had a by product of pain. And what is it that the Marines say? Are you hurt or are you injured? I was never injured. But man, sometimes (I distinctly remember sankajo) sometimes it did hurt!

Quote:
But by exactly that token, so does the possibility of harm. That is my point. I am not calling or attempting to subtly imply that anyone is a thug. I do not see it in such black-and-white terms. The options are not 'thug' or 'master'.
Of course not! That was my less than subtle attempt to clue in some others who seem to see that issue in black and white. My appologies...

Quote:
There is an enormous area between in which careful consideration of the types of harm that can be caused seems extremely important. That is why I wanted to look at the question in detail. I very much wanted to avoid the stereotypes mentioned above, if at all possible.
Me too.

Best,
Ron

Ron Tisdale
-----------------------
"The higher a monkey climbs, the more you see of his behind."
St. Bonaventure (ca. 1221-1274)
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2008, 07:31 AM   #58
Ron Tisdale
Dojo: Doshinkan dojo in Roxborough, Pa
Location: Phila. Pa
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,614
United_States
Offline
Re: Using Daito-Ryu's Aiki Without Harm

Quote:
Anyway, the connections made and then used to manipulate, move and handle force is internal power being used as internal skills. The two are not the same. The internal training you do prepares your body for aiki-in use.
This is the crux of that matter. What you then choose to do (or not to do) with that ability once achieved is entirely up to you.

Thanks for your response, and I hope I haven't cast anything in an incorrect light.

Best,
Ron (still not training this enough, but working on it)

Ron Tisdale
-----------------------
"The higher a monkey climbs, the more you see of his behind."
St. Bonaventure (ca. 1221-1274)
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2008, 09:55 AM   #59
clwk
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 136
United_States
Offline
Re: Using Daito-Ryu's Aiki Without Harm

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
While I appreciate your continued advice on what I should say, how I should say it and what I should refrain from saying-I think I'll just do fine figuring it out on my own.
Dan, it is too bad my use of language feels so insulting to you. I am sorry to have chosen words having that effect. I could try to go back and rephrase everything in a way that could not possibly be construed as insulting, but it would be easier if you just chose to read the substance of what I am saying and dispense with the other stuff. You don't have to give me the benefit of the doubt, but if you only react to perceived threats then there will not be any substantive discussion.

Quote:
I am glad you left me feel free to write though. Thanks for that. You remind me of someone else here who continues to make things personal by talking about the posters themselves, then is the very first to cry foul and take insult when his own sense of "personal" is breached. Just so you know, I'm not really concerned about "what you buy". I'm not debating anything with you, nor trying to convince you of anything. I am talking about what I do, that's all. It's cleaner that way.
Okay, Dan -- but you said before that you didn't want to talk about what you do; and what you do isn't really the topic of this thread. Controlling violence without harm is the topic of the thread. If you choose to use examples of what you do to support a position in that discussion then they become part of the discussion. So, without advising you personally, let me just say that in general, if someone brings up personal or secret information as part of an argument, they should not be surprised if that information is then treated as just that, part of an argument to be weighed and evaluated. If it does not deserve equal weight then why use it.

As for use of the phrase 'buy that' to mean 'agree with that', I was never all that interested in political correctness. If you don't want to discuss whether giving someone a concussion, throwing them through a wall, or threatening to choke them unconscious constitutes potential harm, that's fine -- but it is a little disingenuous to cloak that unwillingness to discuss in a concern over the words I used to voice my skepticism. The language used in verbal contention is necessarily confrontative. Ironically, I tried to lessen the effect of that irreducible confrontation by taking a more casual tone, but apparently that was not effective. Please accept my apologies.

Anyhow, if it is true that you are not debating anything with me, would it be too much for me to ask you not to post comments directly relating to the topic of this thread? It is more than a little confusing to have someone inject debate points into a debate and then refuse to debate them. I had hoped your post regarding the topic was a signal that you were now willing to put aside the personal tangents and discuss 'controlling violence without harm'. If you would prefer to discuss personal anecdotes, or give instruction and encouragement to your student, could you please do it in a different thread. I would not even mind it so much here if you did not insist on excluding me from the ensuing discussion. In general, I have no problems with threads drifting, but this one was split and created especially to accommodate this discussion. It was intended to be a discussion with you. If you do not want to participate in that, fine -- but it should not become a thread about *what you do* divorced from the thread's reason for existing. There are many of those already, as you rightly pointed out.

Quote:
Enjoy your training
Thank you very much indeed. I hope your training is enjoyable too.

Chhi'mèd
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2008, 10:24 AM   #60
clwk
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 136
United_States
Offline
Re: Using Daito-Ryu's Aiki Without Harm

Quote:
Ron Tisdale wrote: View Post
Well, I should be clearer...nothing Dan did really depended at all on pain compliance. The pain (in my experience) was not the point of control...my lack of structure and his structure ***and control over that structure*** simply sometimes had a by product of pain. And what is it that the Marines say? Are you hurt or are you injured? I was never injured. But man, sometimes (I distinctly remember sankajo) sometimes it did hurt!
Thanks for clarifying that Ron. Do you think that a sankajo that hurts can be applied without causing damage if the recipient is willing to ignore the pain? Even if pain is not used to produce compliance, it signals (at least in a joint lock) the potential for impending damage. To use an obvious example: if I get hit in the chest by a large log swinging on a chain, it will probably hurt. I will also probably move. Even though the pain is not what caused me to move, it is inextricably linked with what *did* cause me to move. If I managed not to move, I would feel more pain and suffer more damage. If joint locks hurt, it is because the structural connection they provide is being taken to its limit. It may well be that one can use that connection to control in a way which does not depend on the pain. But do you think that doing so eliminates the risk of damage if you choose to fight it intelligently?

You said that you didn't push further because you didn't need to experience more pain to be convinced. You also said that on the day of that encounter you were utterly outmatched. (Please forgive me if I am misrepresenting your position.) Do you think that if you had *not* decided that you had experienced enough pain and enough control that you could have managed to hurt yourself by going too hard? In other words, do you believe that some measure of responsibility for your own safety was in your hands -- or did you feel that Dan had fully assumed that responsibility and would take care of you no matter how violently or stupidly you thrashed against his painful joint locks?

Quote:
Of course not! That was my less than subtle attempt to clue in some others who seem to see that issue in black and white. My appologies...
None needed. You and I agree, I believe.

Chhi'mèd
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2008, 10:56 AM   #61
Ron Tisdale
Dojo: Doshinkan dojo in Roxborough, Pa
Location: Phila. Pa
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,614
United_States
Offline
Re: Using Daito-Ryu's Aiki Without Harm

Quote:
If joint locks hurt, it is because the structural connection they provide is being taken to its limit. It may well be that one can use that connection to control in a way which does not depend on the pain. But do you think that doing so eliminates the risk of damage if you choose to fight it intelligently?
Hard to say...I know various ways to work against various painful and non painful sankajo applications One way when working with people not that experienced is simply to connect my elbow to my center for them and drop the elbow That didn't even present itself in Dan's application. Another basic method (I call it basic because I first learned it around 4th kyu...but it has surprised dan ranked people in jujutsu at least) is simply to use my mind and what little trained structure I have to keep enough control to spin under the arm and go into a throw of my own. That wasn't working against Dan's application either

So, I guess I was "intelligently" fighting the control as much as I could...it wasn't working though The risk in my opinion, was if I stupidly tried to *force* one of the possible reversals. Well, if I run into a wall with my head because I didn't see it, I tend not to run into the same wall a second time. I don't suffer under the dellusion that that makes me smart...but it certainly doesn't make me stupid

Quote:
You said that you didn't push further because you didn't need to experience more pain to be convinced. You also said that on the day of that encounter you were utterly outmatched. (Please forgive me if I am misrepresenting your position.) Do you think that if you had *not* decided that you had experienced enough pain and enough control that you could have managed to hurt yourself by going too hard? In other words, do you believe that some measure of responsibility for your own safety was in your hands -- or did you feel that Dan had fully assumed that responsibility and would take care of you no matter how violently or stupidly you thrashed against his painful joint locks?
I think I get what you mean, but come on...a certain measure of our own safety is ALWAYS in our hands. I mean, I've told beginners they may do as they like, but they should always keep in mind they might not like the ukemi. Both because in some situations I'm not good enough to protect them, and because they are simply not experienced enough to fall at whatever angle and or speed.

If some mope on the street decides to attack me, well...he's taken his own safety and put it at risk, hasn't he? Part of life is being responsible for the choices you make.

I will say this though...what gives shite the ability to be kind is having the kind of control Dan had over me. He could take me to the edge, and encourage me not to go further. He could be merciful, BECAUSE he had that level of control. Without that level of control, fast movments on my part, silly attempts at reversals, etc. would be both much more harmful, AND much more likely.
Best,
Ron

Last edited by Ron Tisdale : 07-10-2008 at 10:59 AM.

Ron Tisdale
-----------------------
"The higher a monkey climbs, the more you see of his behind."
St. Bonaventure (ca. 1221-1274)
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2008, 11:01 AM   #62
rob_liberti
Dojo: Shobu Aikido of Connecticut
Location: East Haven, CT
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,402
United_States
Offline
Re: Using Daito-Ryu's Aiki Without Harm

This thread was split off AFTER I initially engaged. But I agree that I have no more business on this thread as long as there are no more comments calling to question why I engaged in the first place.

Since I'm posting, I will add that conversations oganically grow naturally. Splitting off every single slightly tangential topic just adds to the tedium.

Lastly, while there is an "ignore" button, there is no "don't let this other guy post about this topic I don't like anymore" button probably becuase it is a bit too much to expect that anyone else should get to control that.

Rob
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2008, 11:11 AM   #63
jennifer paige smith
 
jennifer paige smith's Avatar
Dojo: Confluence Aiki-Dojo / Santa Cruz Sword Club
Location: Santa Cruz
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,049
United_States
Offline
Re: Using Daito-Ryu's Aiki Without Harm

Quote:
William Hazen wrote: View Post
I think we are all kindred spirits and as long as I honor and nurture each Shguyosha's martial discipline, and support it... Then we will all progress to a point where technique does not matter.

From the days of yore

http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/archiv...php/t-167.html

Sincere Heart through Austere Training Shoji Nishio Shihan

William Hazen
I couldn't have said it better.
Thanks

Jennifer Paige Smith
Confluence Aikido Systems
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2008, 11:29 AM   #64
clwk
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 136
United_States
Offline
Re: Using Daito-Ryu's Aiki Without Harm

Quote:
Ron Tisdale wrote: View Post
So, I guess I was "intelligently" fighting the control as much as I could...it wasn't working though The risk in my opinion, was if I stupidly tried to *force* one of the possible reversals. Well, if I run into a wall with my head because I didn't see it, I tend not to run into the same wall a second time. I don't suffer the illusion that that makes me smart...but it certainly doesn't make me stupid
Thanks, Ron. I have no problem with that. I have no expectation that brick walls will control me without harm either. That does not mean I don't respect what they represent.

Quote:
I think I get what you mean, but come on...a certain measure of our own safety is ALWAYS in our hands. I mean, I've told beginners they may do as they like, but they should always keep in mind they might not like the ukemi. Both because in some situations I'm not good enough to protect them, and because they are simply not experienced enough to fall at whatever angle and or speed.
I agree with you entirely. The combination of your (in the abstract) imperfection and his inexperience make it vanishingly unlikely to guarantee lack of harm. On the contrary, both parties need to work diligently to avoid it -- precisely because it is such a difficult goal to achieve. It remains a valuable ideal, but it is important to differentiate between unattainable ideals and attainable ones. For example, the Ideal Miler can run a mile in less than one second. The closer I can come to approximating the performance of this Ideal Miler, the better I will be as a miler. But I will probably train more effectively and perform better if I train to improve my performance within the realistic spectrum of what is possible. I am not questioning Dan's training methods at all. I imagine (note, I am speculating, based on Dan's direct and indirect comments, not telling Dan what he does) that he trains in a pragmatic way and gets very good results. I just think the Ideal Miler tangent is a bit of rhetoric that distracts from the pragmatic training issues -- despite its unquestionable value as the ideal which can always be approached more closely.

Quote:
If some mope on the street decides to attack me, well...he's taken his own safety and put it at risk, hasn't he? Part of life is being responsible for the choices you make.
That is my opinion as well. However, if I actually *can* 'control his violent actions without harm' then he has only put his safety at risk to the extent that I *choose* to inflict injury. *Of course* I do not believe that if one is randomly attacked it is a moral failing to defend oneself -- but that is because I do not believe it is possible to hold anyone to the standard of being able to unilaterally control violence without harm. It is an inherently mutual situation. You are stating my position for me.

Quote:
I will say this though...what gives shite the ability to be kind is having the kind of control Dan had over me. He could take me to the edge, and encourage me not to go further. He could be merciful, BECAUSE he had that level of control. Without that level of control, fast movments on my part, silly attempts at reversals, etc. would be both much more harmful, AND much more likely.
Acknkowledge, appreciated, and respected. I am more concerned with how that valuable skill is represented. As I have repeatedly stated, I value what you describe. I once read a book called 'The Rhetoric of Immediacy' (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/4933.html). The author discussed the cultural phenomenon of Zen Buddhism's language emphasizing 'immediacy' -- an apparent disdain for pragmatic methods -- which stands in contrast to its actual practice. This is just meant to be a summary of the author's position reconstructed after many years, so I apologize to Bernard Faure for any misrepresentation. My reference is not meant to be a critique of Zen Buddhism either. I bring it up to point out that there is a complex dialog associated with the relationship between expressed ideals and how those ideals are pursued. To relate this reference to our topic, I would say that what I am pointing out is a 'Rhetoric of Harmlessness'. It is not even necessarily a bad thing -- as I have tried to elaborate on above. It is simply a kind of apparent inconsistency that can be confusing -- which therefore makes it a valuable area to examine. The benefit of such an examination is that it can help all of the following:

1) Individuals whose examination of the subject has not yet led them to *recognize* even the apparent inconsistency.

2) Individuals who recognize but cannot *reconcile* the apparent inconsistency -- and may therefore be troubled by it.

3) Individuals who have recognized and reconciled the apparent inconsistency -- but can nevertheless not *articulate* the nature of that reconciliation.

4) The existing articulated consensus knowledge of both the apparent inconsistency and its actual reconciliation.

Even category 3) individuals can be part of the problem for category 1) and 2) individuals because they are not yet best equipped to clarify confusion. So let's assume that everyone wanting to participate in a discussion like this (about the ideal of controlling violence without harm -- unrelated to any particular martial system, despite the thread's incidental and unfortunate title) is some version of category 3). It is *still* valuable to talk through the parameters of the problem. Finding the problem utterly unaddressable is evidence -- in itself -- of not acknowledging and working toward improving 4) -- for whatever reason. Choosing to withhold 4) might be a personal choice, but it is not one that confers any obvious benefit to anyone. My purpose in this discussion is to examine 4), and in my opinion that necessarily entails acknowledging the rhetorical function of idealized claims of harmlessness.

Chhi'mèd
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2008, 11:37 AM   #65
clwk
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 136
United_States
Offline
Re: Using Daito-Ryu's Aiki Without Harm

Quote:
Rob Liberti wrote: View Post
Lastly, while there is an "ignore" button, there is no "don't let this other guy post about this topic I don't like anymore" button probably becuase it is a bit too much to expect that anyone else should get to control that.
I don't know if you are addressing me or not, Rob -- but I don't think I was addressing you. In any case, the precedent I am following is the one set by Dan in the parent thread. The split was performed by Jun. The reason both Dan and I use a respectful request to remain on-topic in threads devoted to topics we have chosen is *precisely* because such a button does not exist. I do not need to ask you to refrain from ever posting to AikiWeb again, for example, because I could always 'ignore' you if I chose to. If there were a button that would keep this thread on topic, I would push it -- and that would eliminate the need for posts like this one which serve the same purpose in a much less direct manner, as you point out.

Chhi'mèd
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2008, 05:21 AM   #66
rob_liberti
Dojo: Shobu Aikido of Connecticut
Location: East Haven, CT
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,402
United_States
Offline
Re: Using Daito-Ryu's Aiki Without Harm

Quote:
Chhi'mèd Künzang wrote: View Post
I don't mind if you don't want to talk about secret stuff, but it shouldn't be a big surprise if people ask questions about things once you bring them up. So feel free to keep those thoughts to yourself, but if they contain the key to your arguments please also understand why that leaves us feeling a little empty.
Well, here is how I see this in the reverse a bit.

I don't mind if you want to control everything - what people get to say and how to say things so precisely, and do so in long posts that don't add a ton of value to the obvious points, but it shouldn't be a big surprise if people you ask questions to don't respond all that much. We typically do martial arts because we are not all that thrilled about people controlling us. So feel free to keep those controlling thoughts to yourself or post them as you see fit, but if they contain the key reason why no one is further addressing your arguments please also understand why that leaves us feeling a little annoyed and frustrated.

Rob
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2008, 06:07 AM   #67
DH
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,394
United_States
Offline
Re: Using Daito-Ryu's Aiki Without Harm

Hi Rob
I had a long response to Ron talking about how the locks tie into the bodywork on both sides of the coin and what I was doing to him so that he couldn't counter it and I threw it out.
As I said earlier this spin off thread's title is interesting. There are only two men I know of here who I would trust to answer it.

There. Was my grammar Ok? Was the second sentence imprecise or not fully convey the intent, or was it not inclusive and expansive enough to allow for a definitive conclusion?

I feel like this "discussion" is as productive as this;
Is the sky blue?
Well, when? What day are you speaking of? I mean, are you interested in having a discussion or not? WhyareyousoevasiveandalwaysoffendedwhenIpointouttoyouthattherearespectrumsofcolo randconditionsofviewingthatyouseemeitherwholeyunawareoforuntinerestedindiscussin g.Areyouawareoftheeffectyourstylehasonthegreaterwheatherwatchingcommunitythattak espartinthesediscusions. YouneedtospeakinamoreclearmannerIthinkyourproblemsare......Zzzzz.
Then when you write back it's "Why are YOU being personal instead of on topic? Whydoyoualwayschoosetoattackthepersonwhoisaksingquestionsandtellingyoueverything wrongaboutyourwritingstyleandtheeffectyouhaveonpeopleandhowwe"feel"andhowyoushou dladdressourfeelingswhen...Zzzzz.

Last edited by DH : 07-11-2008 at 06:22 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2008, 11:29 AM   #68
clwk
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 136
United_States
Offline
Re: Using Daito-Ryu's Aiki Without Harm

Dan and Rob,

A few general points:

1) Daito-ryu's aiki is a red herring. No one is asking about it because we know it's a secret. If you do not understand that the title was created by Jun when he split the thread, I'm not sure what to think. Jun obviously associates Dan with DR because he self-identifies in that way, so he gave the thread that title. The thread should have been titled 'Controlling Violence Without Harm' or something like that. I have said as much several times. Now, if you do not want to discuss that topic -- fine. But it is pretty silly to go on and on about how you don't want to discuss something that no one is asking you to discuss. It's like going to a party, sitting in the corner and whispering loudly -- and then hushing up and looking askance at anyone who dares to join your conversation. It is bad manners, plain and simple. Maybe other people reading this thread but not contributing are just dying to know about DR's secrets -- but I am not. If it really is the case that you feel the real topic of this thread cannot be discussed without reference to those secrets, then shame on you for having introduced the topic in the first place. All of this has been an attempt for clarification of your own provocative remarks.

The current questions being evaded relate to what it means to control violence without harm -- particularly with respect to such methods as giving a concussion, throwing through a wall, and threatening to choke unconscious. I submit that all of these displays of power, while possibly quite wonderful, fail to provide control without the significant potential for harm -- particularly if one is actually dealing with violence rather than simply demonstrating skill for those wishing to observe and absorb it.

Quote:
Rob Liberti wrote: View Post
I don't mind if you want to control everything - what people get to say and how to say things so precisely, and do so in long posts that don't add a ton of value to the obvious points, but it shouldn't be a big surprise if people you ask questions to don't respond all that much. We typically do martial arts because we are not all that thrilled about people controlling us. So feel free to keep those controlling thoughts to yourself or post them as you see fit, but if they contain the key reason why no one is further addressing your arguments please also understand why that leaves us feeling a little annoyed and frustrated.
Rob, that's a very on-topic remark -- so thank you. It seems to me that if you think I am trying to control you, you are missing the point. There are certain conventions that exist in the world surrounding things like conversation and human interactions. Asking that those with whom one interacts hold themselves to those standards -- in order to facilitate communication -- is not about control, it's about facilitating a mutually conducive situation. That is why I invited you to take your side discussions elsewhere. Since this is a 'virtual space' where real estate is virtually free, I don't see any reason why you would need to intentionally stay here and pollute what could be a civil discourse. The only explanation I can think of is that the existence of this discussion is somehow threatening to you, so you want to obscure it and distract from the issues. That would be the logical observation.

As far as the length of my posts go, well -- I am guilty as charged. But if you want to criticize me for my communicative style then look around. Your posts are often garbled, you post pictures of Luke and Yoda as a joking reference to your training with Dan, you imply that you find me tedious and pretentious, etc. You are the indirect source of almost all the meta-discussion here because you keep popping up to fire procedural salvos which I feel compelled to address. I feel compelled to address them exactly because I find this tactic of distracting from discussion by simply flooding it with noise to be tedious. In order to maintain some form of reasonable signal-to-noise ratio I am writing more than would otherwise be necessary. That is because *for me* these meta-issues of personal communication style are actually as interesting as the physical issues. To me they cannot be separated. When I *did* study Aikido, I was taught that 'Budo begins and ends with rei.' I feel that in matters of public discourse it is better to be too formal and tedious than the contrary -- particularly when the possibility of offence exists. That ensures the greatest likelihood of focusing on issues rather than becoming lost in perceived insults. It is not my fault that words have precise meanings. Sloppiness of verbal expression is not a crime, and if it were I should certainly be guilty myself. However, intentional sloppiness and justification of that sloppiness is an offense against clarity. It's only real purpose is to obscure. It is like shouting "nanny nanny nanny nanny" when you do not want to hear something -- or do not want others to hear it.

So again, with respect to control. You say that you practice martial arts because you do not want to be controlled. Let me ask you this then: how does that philosophy square with the idea (which I *believe* you have sided with) that control without harm is a pragmatic possibility? I personally believe that the desire to control others is inherently problematic and leads almost certainly to harm. That is not to say I do not see a measure of control as necessary when violence appears. However, I believe control should be applied only with respect to the violence itself -- and that one must therefore accept the tradeoff involved. I must realize that by asking you to remain on the topic I may be hurting you (or your feelings). I certainly know that your continued attacks on me are hurtful, but I am not so thin-skinned as to let that deter me. You see, from my perspective you are trying to control me -- and since I am not willing to let the pain you are definitely inflicting on me actually stop me, that attempted control is simply not successful. The attempted control *is* the violence. The only way to avoid harm is to avoid violence. Etiquette is the method by which the violence of attempted control can be avoided -- because individuals control themselves and conform to cultural norms designed to facilitate ordinary interactions. That is why I continue to politely request a discussion of the topic. That you see this as an attempt to control you indicates *to me* that you do not want to be bound by the *normal controls* which govern a civil society -- even though you want to pursue the goal of controlling others physically, hopefully without harming them. But if one cannot control another person's mind without becoming vicious, how in the world could physically manhandling them make the situation better?

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote:
I had a long response to Ron talking about how the locks tie into the bodywork on both sides of the coin and what I was doing to him so that he couldn't counter it and I threw it out.
As I said earlier this spin off thread's title is interesting. There are only two men I know of here who I would trust to answer it.
This is just another "I have a secret and you don't know it" response. I repeat my request, as politely as possible, to stop this behavior. The rudeness is not a problem for me -- because it speaks for itself -- but the noise is. You are now *shouting at a whisper*, and it distracts from the rest of the conversation.

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote:
I feel like this "discussion" is as productive as this;
Is the sky blue?
Well, when? What day are you speaking of? I mean, are you interested in having a discussion or not? WhyareyousoevasiveandalwaysoffendedwhenIpointouttoyouthattherearespectrumsofcolo randconditionsofview ingthatyouseemeitherwholeyunawareoforuntinerestedindiscussing.Areyouawareoftheef fectyourstylehasonth egreaterwheatherwatchingcommunitythattakespartinthesediscusions. YouneedtospeakinamoreclearmannerIthinkyourproblemsare......Zzzzz.
Then when you write back it's "Why are YOU being personal instead of on topic? Whydoyoualwayschoosetoattackthepersonwhoisaksingquestionsandtellingyoueverything wrongaboutyourwritin gstyleandtheeffectyouhaveonpeopleandhowwe"feel"andhowyoushoudladdressourfeelings when...Zzzzz.
I think I understand what you're trying to say here, but there is a problem with this kind of performance art. It's too easy to make fun of attempts to be clear by parodying one's own difficulty doing so. The problems are that a) the display is valueless in itself, and b) it raises the question whether one is actually in control of one's own body, speech, and mind. If this were a live conversation instead of one carried out through text, I would have to wonder whether you were having a seizure or a psychotic breakdown. I imagine you are physically okay, so I will not call emergency services. I will not give you any gratuitous advice about self-presentation either, because your previous sarcastic remarks indicate that you are quite capable of managing your own appearance to create the effect you desire. I hope you are able to get *yourself* under control -- and to do so without harming *any one else* in the process. That, incidentally, is a goal to which we should all aspire -- so I hope you do not take it personally.

Chhi'mèd
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2008, 11:41 AM   #69
clwk
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 136
United_States
Offline
Re: Using Daito-Ryu's Aiki Without Harm

Quote:
Mark Murray wrote: View Post
Hmmm ... that would have been an interesting response. Ah well, I'll try to remember to ask you about it offline.
<snip>

But, if you wanted to follow Ueshiba, well, that's a harder road to travel. You'd have to have a base skill of DR's aiki and then modify it to spiritual purposes. But, just having those spiritual purposes without the DR's aiki skillset as a base is really like just having another Ghandi, Martin Luther King, etc. While something great can come from it, it isn't Ueshiba's vision nor Ueshiba's Aikido. If I had to guess (and I'm way out of my league here), I'd say that's more along the lines of Kisshomaru's vision. And that's another thread that Goldsbury sensei is more qualified to post about.
Jun, would you please consider splitting this thread and creating a new one titled "The relationship between Daito-Ryu's Aiki and Aikido". That would be a great place for this discussion -- which many may find interesting. Whether that discussion will center around the question of controlling violence without harm or not, I do not know. Those participants of this discussion who would like to hear less of me are likely to accomplish that goal in such a spin-off thread.

If it would not violate protocol, would you also consider amending this thread's title to "Controlling Violence without Harm [was: Using Daito Ryu's Aiki Without Harm]"? I would prefer that to a thread split because I think the actual thread of discussion which has taken place here is vital to an understanding of the points under discussion. I am quite concerned that splitting it up (or even disguising the original thread title) will render the entire discussion incoherent. Then whatever small value it currently has will be lost. Every once in a great while a discussion about discussions is useful -- and those need to be preserved clearly if the effort is to have been worthwhile.

Thank you, and thank you for your patience with this thread -- which although noisy does address an important topic related to non-Aikido martial traditions. I also believe it has a peripheral relationship to Aikido itself, so I thank you for making this space available on AikiWeb.

Chhi'mèd
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2008, 11:51 AM   #70
akiy
 
akiy's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 5,848
Offline
Re: Controlling Violence Without Harm

Hi Chhi'mèd,

I do not have the time right now to go through the entire thread to figure out how to split it. Please send me a private message to indicate exactly which posts you believe should go into your new thread.

I have changed the title of this thread as you asked.

-- Jun

Please help support AikiWeb -- become an AikiWeb Contributing Member!
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2008, 01:06 PM   #71
DH
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,394
United_States
Offline
Re: Controlling Violence Without Harm [was: Using Daito Ryu's Aiki Without Harm]

Actually there have been several discussions where I have talked about DR and Aiki. There really wasn't an issue of it being a red herring. Sometimes things were answered directly sometimes not. We have also discussed how and where the aiki of DR was altered and how its skills were used in the creation of Aikido. Further just how the aiki could have stayed the same while the expression of it became different and what they entailed.
The difference was in the communication style and tone of the posts. Those threads are still here some where
In the larger scope of things nothing but the basics have been discussed in all of these internal or aiki threads. There has never been even a discussion of the various methods for internal power -in use- and how that differs- one art to the next- based off of similar body methods. There is a marked difference in discussing training the body-lets say "for aiki"-and then skills in using it. All of which still has nothing to do with waza. Just aiki skills in use based off the body method
So stating DR alone is a red herring with secrets, with all these other Asian arts who manage to openly not contribute anything of real value to the discussion is a bit much. This to include Peters discussion of the omote and Ura Japanese style of holding back in aikido-something which we have alluded to for years. Anyway, it is clearly not only a DR issue and it speaks for itself.

If you truly want a discussion-with any participaton from me- I would suggest you take your own advice about reconsidering 'style" in posting. If you were not so lengthy, while being so exact and picky in response it would be easeir to talk with you. I mean that in a very positive way. You might note, that there is not one single compelling reason for me to reply, but I try to manage something reasonable when you're not being so difficult. Try asking some simply and direct questions, take what you get for a reply, even if somethings are not answered, and stop taking me to task for what I choose to leave out. Rarely are difficulties in communication all one sided.
BTW I do sincerely appreciate being able to disagree poltitely. It's a nice change around here. It is thee only reason I have responded at all.

Last edited by DH : 07-11-2008 at 01:18 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2008, 01:46 PM   #72
clwk
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 136
United_States
Offline
Re: Controlling Violence Without Harm [was: Using Daito Ryu's Aiki Without Harm]

Dan,

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
Actually there have been several discussions where I have talked about DR and Aiki. There really wasn't an issue of it being a red herring.
What I meant is that it was red herring with respect to the topic of controlling violence without harm. I actually believe it is probably a very interesting topic. If I ever meet someone in person who has real access to that knowledge, and they choose to share it with me based on personal trust, then I have no doubt that I will find it interesting. I understand very well the importance of not discussing some things openly, and I truly do not want to encourage anyone to share what they do not want to. That is why I consider that discussion topic to be a distraction from this one. I think control without harm can be discussed without discussing any Daito Ryu secrets -- and the confusion of sorting out what is on and off-limits for discussion was interfering with the discussion itself.

Quote:
Try asking some simply and direct questions, tak what you get for a reply, even if somethings are not answered, and stop taking me to task for what I choose to leave out. Rarely are difficulties in communication all one sided.
Of course not. The problems come from both sides. It is part of my real point. No one can unilaterally prevent harm from occurring because the other side can always escalate misunderstanding so that pain is felt as a precursor to real damage. I really do not go in for the pop-psychology approach of comparing conversations to martial arts. But there is a relationship there, and I think we can both be big enough men to see it. We have been standing here trading blows and hoping this would accomplish our individual aims, whatever they may be. This was what you invited in the first place when you said, "Waddya think we wreck each other and throw away the pieces. " I am perfectly willing to throw away the pieces -- because we certainly have wrecked each other. But the important point about our hopefully mature adult ability to accomplish that is that it has to come from both sides. If either one of us is unwilling to find 'harmony' the other cannot force it on him, and instead we will have 'harm'.

Now, to relate this more directly to the physical, here are my simple and direct questions again:

Do you think that giving someone a concussion, throwing them through a wall, and threatening to choke them unconscious are examples of control without harm? I am not trying to pick you apart. I am trying to frame the parameters of the dialog. I do not have any problem with those abilities being part of a martial skillset, and I really do think it is great that you can do those things. Either of your possible answers would lead to an interesting discussion. I simply do not know which one it is.

Quote:
BTW I do sincerely appreciate being able to disagree poltitely. It's a nice change around here. It is thee only reason I have responded at all.
Thank you. And I likewise appreciate your ability to change gears and be civil. I do not say this sarcastically. I do want to avoid an online love-fest because such exchanges can get a bit too mutually self-congratulatory. That having been said, I think you will find that I always respond in kind to politeness and respect. So if you feel that this is not the case, please consider that it may be a misunderstanding and attempt to adjust from there. As you say, both parties are responsible for taking up the mismatch inherent in conflict -- whether verbal or physical.

The reason I am emphasizing that relationship is that I think it is important. I think your knowledge of DR Aiki probably allows you to see how and why that relationship is important -- in a way which is *not* the standard pop-psychology BS that such a meta-discussion would otherwise be. That is the reason I have tried to invite you to have this conversation with me. We simply cannot demonstrate physical aiki in words, but there *is* a *real* (not imaginary) dynamic link between tangible and intangible expressions of intent. I ask, in all sincerity, whether you also believe this to be the case.

To be clear, these questions are not meant to be argumentative. They are the substance of the discussion, and it is one I think would be interesting. I do not think it is impossible to articulate what I believe to be your points about the relationship between power and harmlessness. I did join the conversation to support those points, and what ensued did so because we did not yet agree on a way of expressing that relationship. Can we pick up from there?

Chhi'mèd
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2008, 07:30 PM   #73
rob_liberti
Dojo: Shobu Aikido of Connecticut
Location: East Haven, CT
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,402
United_States
Offline
Re: Controlling Violence Without Harm [was: Using Daito Ryu's Aiki Without Harm]

Quote:
There are certain conventions that exist in the world surrounding things like conversation and human interactions. Asking that those with whom one interacts hold themselves to those standards -- in order to facilitate communication -- is not about control, it's about facilitating a mutually conducive situation.
Well I certainly do believe it is about control, but we can put that aside. How about this, some other conventions would include:
1) executive summaries, well defined problem statements, and bullet points communicate a hell of a lot better than writing a novel with lots of boring/demotivating corrections of others in them.
2) refraining from correcting the precision of other people's choice of words unless it actually adds value. Otherwise it is just mental materialism resulting in silly one-upmanship which shuts down the desired communication. And ... "It is bad manners, plain and simple."
3) if you are not going to refrain from silly one-upmanship wrapped in politeness then at least stop calling others "disengenuous." There is a clear difference between being civil/polite and respectful. It's similar to the difference between apologizing and being sorry. No one is tricked.

IF we can keep to all the typical conventions then I will be happy to continue.

In my opinion there are spiritual ideals which you can probably never truly achieve (possibly by definition) like "altruism" for instance. One can always argue that doing something for it's own good might in fact really be because the people likes to think of them self as do-gooder. But altruism as an ideal exists and is valuable. There are clearly paths that get you closer to the idea.

"Controlling violence without doing harm" is another example of such an ideal to me. While it is certainly not Dan's primary interest, I see the power training he practices as being the best path to approach such a thing. There is going to be some percentage of the population where the power differential will be such that I can control violence without doing harm. Dan's approach to power building must increase my percentage and in my aikidoka opinion - far beyond anything I could have achieved if I had only continued with aikido. I'm not really sure why this simple idea is so contraversial. Obviously if I train very hard, and Dan attacks me violently then unless he falls into a hole or a snow bank or something like that I won't be able to achieve the necessary power differential to shut him down without hurting him. Other people, who might be about my size who have some decent training who might want to attack me and use judo type throws to rip me to the ground - might find themselves off balancing themselves, losing control of what they are about to do next, and going into self-maintenance mode - snapping them out of their violent attack while we wait for the meds to kick in. Training aikido to be effective while doing the least amount of harm is something I actively tried for a fair amount of dedicated time. Using what Dan has been showing me to then end is so obviously the best chance that I'm at a loss for how to better describe it.

Rob
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2008, 10:05 PM   #74
rob_liberti
Dojo: Shobu Aikido of Connecticut
Location: East Haven, CT
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,402
United_States
Offline
Re: Controlling Violence Without Harm [was: Using Daito Ryu's Aiki Without Harm]

Quote:
Rob Liberti wrote: View Post
Obviously if I train very hard, and Dan attacks me violently then unless he falls into a hole or a snow bank or something like that I won't be able to achieve the necessary power differential to shut him down without hurting him.
Okay I just re-read this. Before this gets taken the wrong way... Realistically, I would be the one shut down. But IF I WERE to be the "winner" there would be extremely little chance that the power differential would be such that I could do it without harm...

Rob
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2008, 11:42 AM   #75
clwk
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 136
United_States
Offline
Re: Controlling Violence Without Harm [was: Using Daito Ryu's Aiki Without Harm]

Quote:
Rob Liberti wrote: View Post
In my opinion there are spiritual ideals which you can probably never truly achieve (possibly by definition) like "altruism" for instance. One can always argue that doing something for it's own good might in fact really be because the people likes to think of them self as do-gooder. But altruism as an ideal exists and is valuable. There are clearly paths that get you closer to the idea.
Altruism is fairly achievable, it's just not really most people's goal. Every time someone sacrifices his own life to benefit someone else, he accomplishes that goal as perfectly as possible. This does seem to happen in the real world with some regularity.

Quote:
"Controlling violence without doing harm" is another example of such an ideal to me.
And that is where we differ. I think it is the kind of ideal which cannot just be taken further and further. I think the actual method of approaching the limit of how far it can be taken requires recognizing how very restrictive that limit actually is. Altruism does not require that I recognize the limits of altruism to practice it. I can be as unilaterally altruistic as I choose to be. It is up to me. But controlling violence is not up to me. It requires a measure of cooperation from those I would 'control without harm'. That is the difference.

Quote:
While it is certainly not Dan's primary interest, I see the power training he practices as being the best path to approach such a thing. There is going to be some percentage of the population where the power differential will be such that I can control violence without doing harm.
Yes, but the same could be said of weightlifting or training in any martial art that allows you to dominate. It is not that this is an invalid approach or argument. It is exactly right in terms of fighting. However, what makes Dan's approach special in terms of *controlling violence without harm* cannot be in the power itself. Otherwise all the problems with aspiring to be the world's best fighter will apply. There must be something else involved. I submit that this *something else* requires a certain degree of unusual power, but that it does not ultimately depend upon overpowering. I would argue that the approach of overpowering (i.e. using a 'power differential' to control) is strictly limited and will not even produce the best possible result in terms of that goal.

Quote:
Dan's approach to power building must increase my percentage and in my aikidoka opinion - far beyond anything I could have achieved if I had only continued with aikido
Okay, that is fine: but you are condemning the practice of Aikido by saying that. You are saying that Aikido could not have taught you what Dan does -- even though that something is *required* to make your goals for Aikido functional.

Quote:
I'm not really sure why this simple idea is so contraversial.
Your assessment of your own training goals and how to achieve them is not controversial. I happen to disagree that your evaluation of the options available to you and the apparent conclusions you have drawn are actually universally applicable to the philosophical question of 'controlling violence without harm'. When you use yourself as an example, you confuse the issue -- because it makes it *very hard* for me to argue against your position without you interpreting it as a personal attack.

Quote:
Training aikido to be effective while doing the least amount of harm is something I actively tried for a fair amount of dedicated time. Using what Dan has been showing me to then end is so obviously the best chance that I'm at a loss for how to better describe it.
I am not suggesting that what Dan is able to add to your Aikido practice is not the best path for you to achieve your goals. It sounds as though you are saying that Aikido (which you say cannot give you what you need) and Dan's power method (which you say provides the missing element) can combine to help you maximally accomplish 'controlling violence without harm'.

Both you and Dan agree that Dan does not share this philosophical goal. I suspect the reason for this is that Dan knows that no amount of power differential will make that goal reasonable. Dan clearly knows enough about how to *approach* that goal to see that it isn't attainable -- and cannot even be asymptotically approached. This is my point: a clear understanding of the nature of the goal and how it might be partially achieved requires giving up the 'power differential' approach in favor of something more refined. This is not to say that more power is not always helpful.

I hear you advocating the 'power differential' approach as the correct and functional way to approach 'controlling violence without harm' as closely as possible, by simply increasing (unusual) power as much as possible. My position is that this is not the right way to view the situation -- even though power is important. Does that clear up the controversy for you?

Let me add one final clarification: this post was directed at Rob. I believe Dan and Rob's positions to be different; and it is *very confusing and distracting* when one argues against points addressed to the other. This is because I believe that, at bottom, Dan and Rob's positions argue against each other. While I am happy to facilitate a 'man-in-the-middle' argument between Dan and Rob -- I do not enjoy being credited with being the author of that inherent conflict. So if we have to be adversarial, I would appreciate being permitted to address your arguments as distinct entities.

Thanks,
Chhi'mèd
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

Budo Bear Patterns - Sewing pattern for Women's (and Men's) dogi.



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Daito Ryu's Aiki DH Non-Aikido Martial Traditions 65 02-25-2008 08:51 AM
So, what are your thoughts on violence and Aikido? Dennis Hooker General 86 05-01-2003 06:19 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:10 PM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2014 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate