Shomenashi and you, once more with feeling

Thoughts my dear Headlong? I will post more on the steps of 1-8.

-Balanced

Like any journey...this one begins with eight steps (Shomen Ashi and you!)?

I've recently decided to try to outline what I know about well...Aikido.

So let's stop with the beginning! Something most people find banal.  The building blocks of Aikido!
The first eight steps of the walk.

Oh my...well that's a bit simpler than the Foxtrot but a bit more complicated than the Twist.   Maybe It would be more clear if I explained like this:

Note: Alas you have to actually click through to view the animated gif!

Well hopefully that clears things up a bit.  But there are some very simple observations within these steps

So Much Paperwork!

We keep seeing the returning to a stance of feet shoulder-width apart. Think of there as a sheet of paper between our feet to make things easier.  In every odd numbered step we are getting off that piece of paper, while on every even numbered step we are returning to our "neutral" stance.

 Step X is the same as Step Y

 Step 2 has the same motion as step 7, 

Step 4 has the same motion as step 5, 

Step 1 has the motion as step 8

Step 3 has the same motion as step 6. 

Well that's jolly good and all...but what does it mean?  Our steps forward are the same as our steps backwards.  The only difference is the foot relationships at the beginning and ending of the step.  But of course that's going to hold true, we're moving!  These first eight steps are reinforcing the basic mechanics of drawing

Tumbling Down

Every step is a fall.  We rest on the balls of our feet to for the shortest mode of travel.  Now it's funny to actually consider this process. In Aikido we have a fall followed by a rise.  Normally bipedal motion dictates a rise THEN a fall.  

My challenge to Headlong:  How is the diagram wrong?

Aikido and I

I have a confession: I do Aikido.

Up until recently, I never fully realized the contradiction inherent in that statement; or maybe it is that I never fully realized the ramifications of correcting said contradiction. While the solution seems obvious to me now, it is no less daunting. If anything, it is even more so:

There can be no "I" in Aikido.

Now those aforementioned ramifications start to fall into place:

1) The name of the art is much less euphonic.
2) Within an altercation, not only can Tori not do or try to do any certain technique, but Tori ceases to exist as anything outside of the system of motion.
3) Uke ceases to exist as anything outside of the system of motion.

There is no Good Guy or Bad Guy; there is no intent; there is no defeat.

There is only motion, only Aikido.

H. Long

By the power of Greyskull...

The idea of power is a funny concept.

Power
c.1300, from Anglo-Fr. pouair, O.Fr. povoir, noun use of the infinitive in O.Fr., "to be able," earlier podir (842)...
-Harvard Etymology online dictionary

The word's origins are quite in line with Headlong's assessment. However, I don't want to solely address the reactive part of the art. There are brief moments of offensive defense in Aikido. The floating throws of Niju-san beautifully display this. In these moments of time we have elected to drive our hand through Ukei's face or "upper solar-plexus" as some of my colleagues refer to it. The drives to the face aren't half-hearted. The attacks are body drops.

And here Headlong's point comes up again, the way in which we commit to these attacks allows us to still be responsive! These brief moments of actual commitment coupled with responsiveness are truly what have been some of the more interesting moments to me. I enjoy how easily you can tell when someone has committed and is floating as opposed to not having one of the two parts.


Summary
-Hand to the face + floating foot + committed drop= interesting.

-Balanced

Power in Aikido

Hello, all. Headlong here. As Balanced neglected to pose a question for me to pounce upon, I'll resort to waxing philosophical for a moment. Try and bear with me.

While reading selections from John Locke's "Essay Concerning Human Understanding" today, I came across some interesting lines concerning the nature of power. That isn't to say that the rest of Locke lacks interest, just that these really struck a chord with me. Perhaps you'll see why:

"The mind being everyday informed, by the senses, of the alteration of those simple ideas it observes in things without: and taking notice how one comes to an end, and ceases to be, and another begins to exist which was not before... considers in one thing the possibility of having any of its simple ideas changed, and in another the possibility of making that change; and so comes by that idea which we call power.

Thus we say Fire has a power to melt gold... and gold the power to be melted; that the sun has the power to blanch wax, and wax the power to be blanched by the sun...

Power, thus considered is two-fold, viz. as able to make, or able to receive any change. The one may be called Active, and the other Passive power." (2.10.1-2.)

Of course, my first thought when I read this was "Holy S--t! That's aikido," which I'm sure was your response as well. This is a wonderful dichotomy Locke sets up here, and it can be applied to martial arts easily: Striking arts would embody active power--the ability to apply force and change whatever object it is acting upon. Aikido, on the other hand, embodies the idea of passive power, or the ability to change when force is applied to it.

This idea of the ability to change, the ability flow with whatever pressure is being applied to you, as power, is beautiful to me. 

SVV

Headlong

To step or not to step, that is the question!

I thoroughly agree and reject your opinion!
Static, step by step, but wait...what's this?

I say step by step because it's broken down. Personally, I'm a horribly simple person, for better or worse. Damning evidence aside I don't really like viewing the divide simply as static vs step by step anymore. What I've begun to see more is relational. I believe that static lends itself to the relational approach.

When we begin to see things as relational then we understand why we always see bits of Tegatana No Kata. It's all a simple cause and effect. Now I understand you'll say, but Balanced relational is a motif, not a teaching style! we have to teach static or flowing, and I say that we teach static and as we become less and less knowledgeable (because Aikido as we know is a pursuit of knowledge, which often leads us to own ignorance).

My gripe with flowing: when we think about flowing we start to lose the realism that is Aikido. While I won't deny that practicing flowing can help timing, the down side is it can lead to motion for the sake of motion, something which I find deplorable.

Breaking down the flavors of Quarks:
Static
-great for teaching mechanics
-great for beginners
-Bad for kata demonstration

Flowing
-Great for Kata demonstration!
-Excellent for developing a higher understanding of static transitions
-Can possibly lead to bad habits (but what can't)

Relational
-Happens in static and flowing
-Flowing allows us to focus on the relational transition


(shhh I'm just repeating Headlong, but adding my gripe about flowing.)
-Balanced

Response: Step-by-step v. Flowing

Balanced brings up a good issue here, and one which has ramifications in a few areas. I will discuss the topic as to how it pertains to teaching method(s). For background, at our dojo it is commonplace to teach beginners step-by-step motions when introducing them to kata: "You move at a 45 degree angle relative to uke this way with unbendable arm..." This example is rigorously detailed, but true to form in that the logic behind it is to teach small, accurate motions that together coalesce into a full technique.

This method of instruction is used in other martial arts and in non-martial fields of study as well. The problem with it in Aikido is a conceptual as well as practical one, as Aikido is inherently a "flowing" art. Constantly we hear/preach that "we don't care what uke does, we're just going to get off the line of attack and flow with him." This becomes a kind of axiom from which all of the particular motions stem from, a direct contrast in style and logic from the step-by-step method.

The question remains as to which is more effective. For beginners, just getting them to move somewhat correctly across the mat is of utmost importance, so the step-by-step method is a great jumping off point. Its simple and easy to say and illustrate "move from A to B." That being said, if we do not teach what the motions add up to--the "why" behind the technique--then we are in danger of teaching a great deal of nothing; for what do the particulars mean without context?

Maybe Balanced can infer or deduce something on that subject...

-Headlong-