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-

Ichi

With my present mindset, disclosing the intention of this blog seems paramount. Myself and my colleague Headlong have decided to make a co-blog where both are thoughts could intermingle and to provide a forum for discussion on subjects in regards to Aikido.

Thoughts of the day:
This past Friday I was in class with Headlong, and I began to work on one of the chains, which reflects several of the moves in the Ni-Ju-San Kata. I was reminded that when I'm teaching how important is to be open minded. I was constantly corrected, and it was good and refreshing. The importance of understanding why you do things can never be understated. Now admittedly, I have a bad habit of messing with people while I teach them.
"But Balanced whatever do you mean?"
Simply put, I may start doing a technique, but I am quite prone to change the second step. This practice can infuriate the highly skilled and the newer members alike. However, I believe truly it trains better habits, but it does unfortunately eat time.

Question for Headlong:
Step by Step or Flowing?

-Balanced