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 > General

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 04-03-2003, 07:17 AM   #1
Dennis Hooker
Dojo: Shindai Dojo, Orlando Fl.
Location: Orlando Florida
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 456
Offline
So, what are your thoughts on violence and Aikido?

What is meant by the term violence? Is it a physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing as in crimes of violence? Or is it the spontaneous act or an instance of violent action or behavior? I think it is an abusive or unjust exercise of power not the result of an interaction between Aikido and aggression. A passive valiant resolution may follow an aggressive premeditated violent assault. The attacker has intent to do a violent act, abuse or injury. The Aikidoka should never harbor intent to do violence on another person. That is not to say the resulting interaction between an Aikido advocate and an aggressor will not result in some short sever repercussions to the aggressor. However it is the content of the Aikido persons mind and heart that determine if that repercussion was an act of violence. Not the outcome of the act its self. This could be said of any martial art I think.


Just my hillbilly opinion
Dennis Hooker
www.shindai.com

Dennis Hooker: (DVD) Zanshin and Ma-ai in Aikido
https://www.createspace.com/238049

www.shindai.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2003, 07:26 AM   #2
kung fu hamster
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 166
Offline
"The Aikidoka should never harbor intent to do violence on another person."

What about a budoka? Are you saying never the twain shall meet? All I can say is, we're all human. I don't know if the above statement is really what aikidoka are aiming for...?
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2003, 07:54 AM   #3
Dennis Hooker
Dojo: Shindai Dojo, Orlando Fl.
Location: Orlando Florida
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 456
Offline
Linda, I may be misunderstanding you response so please forgive me if I am on the wrong tract here. If another person can get into your head and cause your mind to become troubled with violent intent and you act on that intent, then you have taken the first step toward being controlled by that person. I believe Aikido is about rising above the violent and vindictive mind into self control. If a person harbors violence in their heart and mind they become a violent person. Aikido took me from being a very violent person into a being a better human being. It also added greatly to my martial skills which and been honed in the field and in the dojo to a fairly sharp edge of the years. I believe now, through Aikido, I have the ability to handle the knowledge and skill wisely or at least more wisely than I did 30 years ago.

Dennis Hooker: (DVD) Zanshin and Ma-ai in Aikido
https://www.createspace.com/238049

www.shindai.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2003, 08:13 AM   #4
DGLinden
Dojo: Shoshin Aikido Dojos
Location: Orlando
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 159
Offline
I think that a violent act is the ultimate definition of itself. It matters not whether your heart is pure - if you crush someone's elbow it is violent. If you break someones back - even if they attack you first, it is violent.

Terry told us a lovely story over twenty five years ago when we were still young - remember the story about the coal miner and the old man on the train? He was ready to do violence and the old man just did real aikido.

Daniel G. Linden
Author of ON MASTERING AIKIDO (c) 2004
Founder Shoshin Aikido Dojos
www.shoshindojo.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2003, 08:30 AM   #5
MikeE
 
MikeE's Avatar
Dojo: Midwest Center For Movement & Aikido Bukou Dojos
Location: Hudson, WI
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 407
Offline
Physical violence is an inevitability in any martial art. The question should be more around how the resolution is enacted.

I, in some part, practice Aikido to be safe. Knowing that I may have to use my skills, but, developing the morality, and the ability to control what I do becomes most important. At this level, ethical choices can be made at the moment of blending; I can, and must, make a clear ethical choice at that moment: strike, throw, control, or evade. This is the moment when true benevolence can be expressed, or ignored.

In this way, Aikido becomes a test of character and the violence becomes less of a focus.

Mike Ellefson
Midwest Center
For Movement &
Aikido Bukou
Dojos
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2003, 08:52 AM   #6
kung fu hamster
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 166
Offline
I think aikido is very valuable in giving the practitioner a wide spectrum of options when it comes to resolving conflict, but I am sure there are law enforcement people and military folks who practice aikido and intend to use it with that wide spectrum in mind. I think they will find a peaceful resolution if at all possible, but I'll bet they're resolute in using drastic measures if the situation calls for it. The military isn't in Iraq with the intent to play pattycake. I deplore that a win/win solution couldn't be resolved diplomatically, but since we're firmly stuck to the tarbaby, I can only hope that despite our violent action, the US intent is really to help the Iraqi people. Maybe I'm confusing your statement with 'ends not justifying means'. Or I could be really confused, as my teachers keep telling me...
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2003, 08:57 AM   #7
happysod
Dojo: Kiburn, London, UK
Location: London
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 899
United Kingdom
Offline
When the results of physical interaction are considered less important than the "purity of intent" of the practitioner, I get very very scared. This type of divorcing action from intent has led to some of the more unwholesome ethnic and religious cleansing in history, often in the name of what is "good" (ok, extreem case I know, but large errors start small).

I agree, good practitioners of any martial art can mitigate the level of violence they use and this is an ethical decision where intent matters. However, the results of any martial art technique used are violent to a greater or lesser degree. If your intent was truely non-violent, you would never use any MA technique, no matter what the provocation. Instead, as has been intimated in previous posts, the techniques are just a part of the philosophical training and effectively "not for use" in a wider context.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2003, 09:02 AM   #8
jxa127
Dojo: Itten Dojo -- Mechanicsburg, PA
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 420
Offline
Hello all,

I belive it is really easy for us to over-think the relationship between aikido and violence. In America, where everything needs an easily recognized brand or a simple message, it is very easy to get caught up in very black and white thinking.

Aikido either is or is not violent. Yes or no? Either somebody is a criminal or not -- zero tolerance; three strikes, your out. We seem, as a culture, to have lost all sense of degree and perspective. Aikido, for me, instruduces and reinforces perspective and degree.

Very simply, I consider violence to be the act of intentionally causing harm. So, I think boxing is violent, but sport wrestling typically isn't. Using that definition, I experience very little violence in aikido. I certainly don't feel violence when I'm training.

However, we study relationships where somebody wants to do great harm to us. Our practice itself is not violent, but we study violence and how to cope with it.

So, what about on "the street," is aikido violent "out there"? I suppose that if attacked, I may want to harm my opponent. On the other hand, the one time when I had to use physical technique outside the dojo, I was able to throw and pin in such a way that my "uke" was unharmed (I got a bruise from a nearby chair, though).

So, I don't think there is really an answer to the question, but I like Hooker sensei's statement,
Quote:
The Aikidoka should never harbor intent to do violence on another person.
Regards,

-Drew

----
-Drew Ames
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2003, 09:44 AM   #9
kung fu hamster
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 166
Offline
You guys are all so nice. You make me feel like an evil barracuda. I agree, Dennis's statement is a lovely sentiment!
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2003, 09:50 AM   #10
DGLinden
Dojo: Shoshin Aikido Dojos
Location: Orlando
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 159
Offline
I have to say, Drew, that you live in a different world than I do. I believe that words and actions mean something and mitigating circumstances do not matter when the final analysis is made.

If you break someones arm in a loving 'aiki mind' way you still put him in a cast for 6 weeks and leave him subject to his livlihood.

Kindly, loving intent won't bring someone back to life. Violence is violence and your 'intent' simply doesn't matter. Aikido is very good at allowing us to mitigate the results of violent actions, but it is simply nonsense to think that what we do is anything but extreme violence. Utter nonsense. How many wives are battered by men who 'love them soooo much...' How many children die at the hands of fathers or boyfriends who discipline them for their own good because they 'love them'?

Should the courts excuse them for their violence because it is done with loving intent? Get real. All martial arts teach people how to perform violent actions on their fellow people. If you need to mitigate THAT with some philosophical mumbo jumbo about 'intent' then I would hate to listen to you discuss politics.

No offense intended.

Daniel G. Linden
Author of ON MASTERING AIKIDO (c) 2004
Founder Shoshin Aikido Dojos
www.shoshindojo.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2003, 10:09 AM   #11
Russ Qureshi
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 29
Offline
Mastering that violent beast within, eh? I've been practising for 9 years now and have never had to engage with an attacker physically during that time..., so...., I DON'T KNOW if I would react violently. I BELIEVE that if it were a situation whereby I was defending my loved ones I would be perfectly capable of resorting to utter ("I can't believe I did that to another person") violence.

I DO KNOW that the past years of training have offered me a unique opportunity to discover just who "I" am and what I value. I like to think that given the right set of circumstances, in a physical confrontation, I would choose the take down over the break. But, I don't really know.

Terrys' story is the pinnacle of Aikido to me. To take in all that rage and to give back compassion and empathy. The openness and emptiness needed to remain "in the moment" during that kind of situation....WOW.

I think those of us with little or no actual "fighting" experience tread on thin ice with this particular topic of discussion so I'm going to stop while I can....

More from Dennis and Daniel, please....

Sincerely,

Russ
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2003, 10:46 AM   #12
John Boswell
 
John Boswell's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Midland
Location: Midland, Texas
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 597
United_States
Offline
Quote:
What is meant by the term violence?

Is it a physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing as in crimes of violence?

Or is it the spontaneous act or an instance of violent action or behavior?
I contend that it is a bit of both: violation and abuse with damage as well as acts or instances or violent behavior. Braking an arm after deciding to... is the first one. Shouting or threatening someone can be the second.

What really needs to be considered when debating the definition of violence is not just Intent (which is a major factor) but also Control. There is such thing as Good Control and Bad Control and this is where Aikido stands out from the crowd.

In Aikido, a skilled artist will execute Good Control with blending with the attack, leading it and executing technique to the result of a locked up or fallen uke. None of this has to be violent. Where violence comes in is when the pin results in a broken or damaged limb, a fall that causes sever damage, pain or possibly death. If technique is done well and skillfully, the uke will land or fall or whatever properly and without injury. BAD Control will result in a "violent" result and injury.

Was there bad intent? Possibly. IF the intent was to bring about injury, then yes... you've just witnessed an act of violence. IF the intent was not to bring about injury but yet it DID... then the action was violent, despite what the nage may have intended. Good control and good skill would prevent such violence.

Aikido is not violent, but it can be. I submit that "aikido" being exercised in such a way as to hurt others or bring about injury is NOT in fact true Aikido, but instead became basic violence. It would be poor control, irresponsible, non-Aiki and not anything we should be striving to achieve in our training.

Looking at it all this way gives us good reason to train: to not be violent.

... that's my 2 bits.


  Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2003, 11:06 AM   #13
Dennis Hooker
Dojo: Shindai Dojo, Orlando Fl.
Location: Orlando Florida
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 456
Offline
It seems everyone has a little different opinion about violence, and a different evaluation about what I wrote. I personally believe the response to aggression should be final and tempered with good judgment. I do not think it should change me emotionally or mentally. I did not use the word love anywhere and I did not mention ethics. Another subject though not altogether unrelated. I am not sure my original meaning was very well transmitted. I believe Aikido is a very aggressive art. The moment the attack is identified the counter attack starts. To me Aikido is very pro active. I do believe that what is in a person's mind and heart mater. It is I believe what sets us apart and gives us that ability to move beyond the base animal "human being" to the more discriminating art of "being human" and realizing the consequence that should go along with that.

Again I have probably misstated my mind by hell I just a hick form the sticks trying to make since of a lifetime doing this stuff.

Dennis Hooker: (DVD) Zanshin and Ma-ai in Aikido
https://www.createspace.com/238049

www.shindai.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2003, 11:30 AM   #14
jxa127
Dojo: Itten Dojo -- Mechanicsburg, PA
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 420
Offline
Daniel G. Linden wrote:
Quote:
I have to say, Drew, that you live in a different world than I do. I believe that words and actions mean something and mitigating circumstances do not matter when the final analysis is made.

If you break someones arm in a loving 'aiki mind' way you still put him in a cast for 6 weeks and leave him subject to his livlihood.
No, we live in the same world. What do you consider violence? If I accidentally bump my wife, and she turns or sprains her ankle, is that violence? What if I make a mistake in training and accidentally give my uke (or nage, for that matter) a fat lip? Is that violence?

I defined violence as "the act of intentionally causing harm." That does not mean that I condone causing harm unintentionally! Whether it is through neglect, incompetence, or a simple mistake, I will take my share of responsibility for harm that I've caused. It is not so simple as something either being an act of violence or an act of benevolence. That's that black and white thinking again. I can cause harm, accidentally, in a non-violent manner, and still be responsible.

With this in mind, I do not think our day-to-day aikido practice is violent. I don't believe anyone I normally train with is intending to do me harm. Rather, we work hard at providing safe as well as vigorous training. We study violence, we provide good attacks, we work hard to learn about how to handle violence, but our practice is, itself, not violent.
Quote:
Kindly, loving intent won't bring someone back to life. Violence is violence and your 'intent' simply doesn't matter.
Daniel, this just doesn't compute. If I say violence is the act of intentionally causing harm, and you say that intent doesn't matter, then we're simply using the terms differently. It sounds to me as though you are talking about injury, harm, and/or death.
Quote:
Aikido is very good at allowing us to mitigate the results of violent actions, but it is simply nonsense to think that what we do is anything but extreme violence. Utter nonsense. How many wives are battered by men who 'love them soooo much...' How many children die at the hands of fathers or boyfriends who discipline them for their own good because they 'love them'?
Now you're talking about abuse. Of course physical abuse is violence! But, there are other kinds of abuse that are non-violent. Neglect is a very serious form of passive abuse that need not be violent to be devastating.

Reading your post, it almost seems that you are equating defending yourself ("If you break someones arm in a loving 'aiki mind' …; I assumed you meant when attacked), with beating a child or wife. Was that your intent? Or were you talking about abuse all along?
Quote:
Should the courts excuse them for their violence because it is done with loving intent? Get real. All martial arts teach people how to perform violent actions on their fellow people. If you need to mitigate THAT with some philosophical mumbo jumbo about 'intent' then I would hate to listen to you discuss politics.

No offense intended.
Right. Do you honestly expect that I'll read that last paragraph and not be offended? I'll take your word that you did not intend to offend me, but you've got to realize that personal attacks can be offensive.

For the record, I don't think my definition of violence is the be all and end all. My example of neglect, for example, causes problems because it is possible that parents can neglect their children with intent to harm them. Is that violence even though it is lack of action rather than action that causes the harm? I don't know.

I do know, that in the context of aikido practice, we focus on physical violence manifested as an act of intentionally causing harm. Our ideal, as I understand it, is to deal with that attack in a manner where neither the attacker nor the person attacked is harmed. Yes, we practice techniques that can cause harm. Yes, that would be a violent application of aikido. But was also practice throws and pins that need not cause harm. I've done this outside the dojo once -- the only injury was a bruise I got from bumping into a nearby chair.

Aikido need not automatically be violent.

Regards,

-Drew

----
-Drew Ames
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2003, 11:59 AM   #15
kung fu hamster
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 166
Offline
John Boswell, I like your analogies about 'good control' 'bad control' and 'poor control'. I believe aikido people do fall into those categories according to their progress in the art. In order to exercise an option you have to have options to begin with, and so I practice aikido to expand my range of options. If I'm lucky I'll sail through life with people all agreeing how soft and fuzzy I am (here my dojo-mates will laugh their heads off), but if one day during some emergency situation I really need that iron fist in my velvet glove, I think I'd feel very sorry if I only used the velvet glove to store marshmallows. That being said, I think most everyone in my dojo accepts that one's response to accidental injury is considered to be part of the training, if it happens. Since the intent was not there to purposely injure the person, then it is usually accepted with the determination to improve our timing, distance, skills, control, whatever. I don't know that I'd call that violence, however.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2003, 01:24 PM   #16
TomE
 
TomE's Avatar
Location: Belgium (EU)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 35
Offline
30. Whoever relies on the Tao in governing men / doesn't try to force issues / or defeat enemies by force of arms. / For every force there is a counterforce. / Violence, even well intentioned, / always rebounds upon oneself. / The Master does his job / and then stops. / He understands that the universe / is forever out of control, / and that trying to dominate events / goes against the current of the Tao. / Because he believes in himself, / he doesn't try to convince others. / Because he is content with himself, / he doesn't need other's approval. / Because he accepts himself, / the whole world accepts him.

31. Weapons are the tools of violence; / all decent men detest them. / Weapons are the tools of fear; / a decent man will avoid them / except in the direst necessity / and, if compelled, will use them / only with the utmost restraint. / Peace is his highest value. / If the peace has been shattered, / how can he be content? / His enemies are not demons, / but human beings like himself. / He doesn't wish them personal harm. / Nor does he rejoice in victory. / How could he rejoice in victory, / and delight in the slaughter of men? / He enters a battle gravely, / with sorrow and with great compassion, / as if he were attending a funeral.

Lao Tzu - Tao Te Ching (translation: Stephen Mitchell)

Now in reality, I'm only human too. But I try, I really try
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2003, 01:32 PM   #17
Guest5678
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 135
Offline
Nature itself (which is one of the great teachers) provides plenty of "violence". Does it intend to harm us...? We are all a part of that very nature. It's born within us whether we want it or not.

Violence is merely a label we use to describe a very natural and quite common event.

Aikido is for some an illusion, for others a clarity, for all, a path of self-discovery.

-Mongo
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2003, 01:42 PM   #18
W^2
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 53
United_States
Offline
Eek! Aikido and violence...

Violence as defined by Webster-Merriam:

Main Entry: vi·o·lence

Function: noun

Date: 14th century

1 a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in effecting illegal entry into a house) b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure

2 : injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : OUTRAGE

3 a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force <the violence of the storm> b : vehement feeling or expression : FERVOR; also : an instance of such action or feeling c : a clashing or jarring quality : DISCORDANCE

4 : undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)

Therefore, Aikido is in principle and by definition non-violent - as O' Sensei said ‘Aikido is the principle of non-resistance'. In addition, Aikido accepts and deals with conflict as a naturally occurring phenomenon, regardless of whether anyone agrees with the definition of violence given above. It is the how and why of dealing with conflict that sets Aikido apart from other Martial Arts; rather than exploiting people's weaknesses destructively, it redirects their misguided thoughts, intentions, and actions proactively toward a peaceful resolution. Intentions do not justify actions -- this is also known as accepting responsibility for one's self. Hence, as Aikidoka we have to train responsibly and sincerely with the proper mindset - in fact this is the first step in any true Martial Arts training. First we overcome ourselves, and then we can act properly. Here it is important to realize that thoughts turn into intentions, and then into actions -- this is what I believe O' Sensei spoke about when he said ‘move in an instant and take your opponents mind' to paraphrase a bit. On a personal note, I do think it is ironic that many people discuss and think of Aikido and other Martial Arts ‘physically'. Therefore I will leave you with a highly plausible ‘physical' scenario to think about...

An Aikidoka, sober and centered, is in a Night Club standing with their back to the wall not interacting with anyone. Suddenly a decidedly intoxicated patron - having mistaken the Aikidoka for someone else -- attacks with a right cross. The Aikidoka simply steps off-line and the assailant breaks his hand and wrist having struck the wall full force. Did the Aikidoka act violently? Should they have redirected the punch away from the wall and utilized a control technique instead?

Something to ponder...

~Ward
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2003, 03:33 PM   #19
W^2
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 53
United_States
Offline
Talking Whoops!

That's supposed to be Merriam-Webster, pardon my dyslexia.

~Ward
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2003, 04:33 PM   #20
opherdonchin
Dojo: Baltimore Aikido
Location: Baltimore
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 586
Offline
Violence is a seeming. I guess all things are seemings: this was a tree, but then it became lumber, and now it is a table. One day it will be firewood. My point is that what I 'see' as violence in me will not necessarily 'seem' violent to someone else and sometimes I will experience myself as loving and caring while my partner may experience me as threatening and violent.

I've heard it said that when AiKiDo is done at the highest level, the uke should feel like they happened to stumble or slip and not like they were thrown. If this is true, the uke might not experience me as violent at all, but if I was uncaring or even purposefully hurtful in my technique, I might recognize a lot of violence in my self and choose to confront it.

Obviously the other thing happens to me all the time: I think I'm being loving and gentle, but my uke things I'm forcing the technique and trying to throw them.

Yours in Aiki
Opher
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2003, 05:26 PM   #21
W^2
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 53
United_States
Offline
Do symbol The empirical vs subjective...

While the perception and perspective of a violent experience is certainly subjective, the concept of violence (it is a noun you know) isn't subjective. The results of physical acts of violence are usually empirically measurable.

This is an important distinction...

~Ward
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2003, 06:36 PM   #22
Kevin Leavitt
 
Kevin Leavitt's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Northern Virginia
Location: Stuttgart, Baden Wurttemberg
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,376
Germany
Offline
I think with Aikido or budo in general you must come to grip with the yin/yang of violence/nonviolence.

It doesn't seem so easy to define as black and white.

Aikido is both violent and nonviolent at the same time. The ability to choose between options and control or channel the action that results is what matters.

I just finished reading a good book by Thict Nhat Hahn on Anger. Highly recommend it for anyone studying aikido or interested in controlling anger. Anger (emotion) is what causes violence (action).

It is nearly impossible to avoid the emotion or feelings of anger...but it is what we do with it that matters.

I think in Aikido it is important to study and recognize the violence that is present in our technique and principles. It is really the only way we can respect it, and truly be nonviolent in action.

  Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2003, 01:40 AM   #23
happysod
Dojo: Kiburn, London, UK
Location: London
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 899
United Kingdom
Offline
I promise I'll leave these ones alone from now on, but couldn't resist one more...

Ward "An Aikidoka, sober and centered, ... The Aikidoka simply steps off-line and the assailant breaks his hand and wrist having struck the wall full force. Did the Aikidoka act violently? Should they have redirected the punch away from the wall and utilized a control technique instead?"

Agree with you in this instance, this was a non-violent response. Any avoidance tactic(including the good old "run like buggery") is a valid, non-violent response. I also fully agree with everyone who states the principles of aikido are a guide towards non-violence.

However, I wouldn't agree with "inherently non-violent" as even (especially?) with a philosophy, statements of intent and method to achieve this goal must be balanced - aikido is (as far as I'm aware) still a MA which involves using techniques designed for the purposes of impairing an attacker's ability. If you are totally opposed to violence in any form, why are you practicing a martial art?

Even if you wish to control and limit this aspect of your character/circumstances by becoming skilled enough to render violent conflicts null rather than expand the conflict, you have still accepted there is violence and are (very sensibly I think) choosing a path than dimishes violence rather than feeding it. However, the violent aspect is still there.

It is on the subject of aikido technique that I think I'm disagreeing with most of the posters. If you conciously use a martial art technique, for whatever reason, on another person, you are being violent. The violence can be justified and used with perfect control and purity of intent, but is still violence.

As promised, I'll shut up on this subject now (good thread though).
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2003, 07:32 AM   #24
kung fu hamster
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 166
Offline
Re: Aikido and violence...

Quote:
Ward Ward (W^2) wrote:
An Aikidoka, sober and centered, is in a Night Club standing with their back to the wall not interacting with anyone. Suddenly a decidedly intoxicated patron - having mistaken the Aikidoka for someone else -- attacks with a right cross. The Aikidoka simply steps off-line and the assailant breaks his hand and wrist having struck the wall full force. ~Ward
Huh, if I encountered such an incident and I could handle it with such effortless expertise my teacher would sport a grin from ear to ear. Guys, don't worry, with all my aikido skills my best option in any altercation would be to run away, not resort to violence (yes, I know, best to avoid any altercations in the first place)... but I do know from prior experience that I wouldn't let an attacker find me an easy pushover. I think one of the best things about aikido is that I can try to train myself to stay aware and find a win/win solution as my first automatic response in any situation... and that's an attitude that I can apply in daily life.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2003, 11:20 AM   #25
opherdonchin
Dojo: Baltimore Aikido
Location: Baltimore
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 586
Offline
I'm confused. Is their really such a big difference between letting someone run into a wall or letting them run into my first or causing them through subtle unbalancing to fly into the air and slam into the ground? This seems like a very subtle distinction to me.

Yours in Aiki
Opher
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



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
Aikido does not work at all in a fight. joeysola General 1930 07-09-2012 02:51 AM
Aikido and the politics of violence Neil Mick Spiritual 54 09-12-2002 02:55 AM
True Aikido Kensai General 8 07-08-2002 12:51 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:01 AM.



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