Kevin Leavitt wrote:
I think you guys will argue all day long about technique and situations being defined as aikido or not.
An outsider seeing a technique may not know a damn thing about aikido and say it was Kung Fu or Tai Chi. Not to get philosophical, but...does it make him wrong because he defines it as such?
Okay. I think what is makes it aikido is that you skillfully resolve the conflict using the least possible force and attempt to reconcile as much of the situation as possible. It is not technique based!
Removing the need to validate yourself from the equation (ego) makes it possible to do this by focusing on the other person and why they feel the way they do! That would make it aikido in my book.
To me, if the guy attacked, tripped himself up, fell, and then you graciously picked him up while guarding yourself, allowing him to not be further humiliated, and walked away...to me that would be aikido!
I'm not to worried about it either way. I think, for the most part, either I've gotten my point across to a couple people or I've come to recognize that they're really not at the level to understand it.
On the question of definition, it's the same as any other word: It's a method of transferring data.
Does the definition matter? Yes, because without a mutual understanding of a definition, no data can be transmitted-- Imagine what would happen if we cut the English language in half: an enormous amount of thought and the ability to convey complex ideas would be totally lost.
Personally, to find others who understand and agree with the definition I advance is important because it gives me others to communicate concepts. Without others who understand it as I do, I have no one to talk to (To the crybabies: This isn't necessarily saying that I know better than you, so don't start crying.).
Your definition of Aikido being helping a person up is valid. However, if the discussion is about technical details, then that definition wouldn't be suitable.
I think we see this a lot. One person advances some technically effective idea, and the response is something about philosophy. That's because one person's using the word one way, while the other's using it differently.
You can't communicate without understanding.