I can see where you're coming from I think. But I still think taking ai and ki separately when trying to translate aikido to English is a mistake. While two separate characters are used to represent the principle of aiki. Aiki it's self is not two things. It's one simple concept that acts as a foundation for other things. To put it another way. I don't consider aiki to be a philosophical construct. It's a tangible physical act or event that can be witnessed and felt.
^^this Plus I disagree with the idea that morality and martial arts are directly tied together. Martial arts is learning to break people the moral philosophy which generally gets tied to it is another matter. This is one of the things I really like about western martial arts. If I go in and learn to box I don't get a damned lecture, I get what I came for, martial arts training.
Morality gets tied to martial arts because people realise when we learn the break people we need boundaries to guide how we use that ability.
From the point of view of a martial artist, this could also be described as being responsible. Morality is relative to the society and the times. However, teachers passing on martial arts knowledge have been careful to choose who they passed that knowledge on to for way longer than Aikido has been around. Only those deemed worthy were chosen to receive all the knowledge. The morality does not come from the martial arts but is imposed by the society and times. The idea that martial arts is for health is not untrue but the emphasis, for example, on health over combat effectiveness in post-WWII Japan was a result of the laws and beliefs at that time in Japan. People have trouble separating the beliefs of the times from the reality of practicing the ways of war in times of relative peace. How many today are influenced by what they see on T.V. in the West? There is a simple premise for atemi... you need to be able to attack freely, without attachment... now the question is, how can one do so in a responsible manner. It starts with believing that what you do is the right thing to do, whether life or death or friendly match. In times of war or in times of peace... how people deal with avoidance of internal conflict.
I agree with all the first part. Can't really answer that last part. I have no issues cracking someone over the head when it's called for. However I do understand some people do.
It is my understanding that aikido is the only MA that is considered only defensive under British Law Am I misinformed?
So far as I know, yes, you're wrong. I've never heard of that before. So far as I know British law draws no distinctions between different styles of martial art. I'd be interested to know where you got that information. While there are officially recognised governing bodies for martial arts in the UK. There's no legal statute that says you must belong to one of these bodies or be licensed by one of these bodies in spite of the best efforts of these bodies to make it so.
http://www.bugeisha-aikido.co.uk/faqs.php I just did some digging and came across the above linked web site. Are those the people you trained with? Reading their FAQ it would appear this is simply their interpretation of where Aikido stands legally and is not in fact an official legal position. It's also quite an irresponsible claim in my opinion.
I can't say I have any knowledge of foreign laws regarding martial arts in a specific way, but I have come across many countries outside the US that regulate martial arts, its training, and teaching (at least to a certain extent...more government involvement than in the US for sure). I can't remember where (maybe France was one), I just remember having discussions with other martial artists from Europe, and elsewhere, that claimed they needed to meet some government requirements to run schools. As far as completely separating martial arts from moral development and personal growth, I really couldn't disagree more....at least for the reasons I train. Thats why there's a difference between sport and martial art..and why traditional martial artists disagree often with the sportification of their art becoming the primary focus, vice a supplement. Heck, that's why there's a difference between 'do' and 'jutsu.' Gendai budo wasn't developed as much for combat as a way to thrive in life...the connection to the old warrior arts being that submitting to grueling and sometimes dangerous training, overcoming the difficulties inherent in that training, and doing so in a humble and insightful way is a good way to develop yourself. I don't know a whole lot of people, who aren't douchebags, that fight all the time making it a priority in their life that would justify spending a lot of time and money training for it. But persevering through arduous martial training throughout my life has helped me thrive through difficult events in life; a successful marriage, a very tough military school, five deployments (not all combat, but still hard times), college, and a prosperous job as an independent contractor. In none of those situations did my ability to execute a kokyunage, hold someone in yoko shiho gatame, or utilize nakataka ken really come in handy (though my buddy did get a knife kill in AFG, and I was jumped at a party once where sudori and irimi tsuki came in handy...but those are the minorities). But that's my take on why I train...because people train for different reasons doesn't mean they are more wrong or more correct than someone else. Just as long as they know why they are training, and their intentions are respectable.
Aikiwolfie and I are both promoting development of morality with martial arts. The problem is those that aren't able to separate development from preconceived philosophy. It is one thing to develop a philosophy based on hard and sincere training and a different thing to come in with a preconceived philosophy and then try to make your martial arts match that philosophy. The latter is a problem area where people have a preconceived philosophy and then try to change the martial arts to fit that philosophy. The former is the way it should be, develop a philosophy through blood, sweat, and tears -- sincere and hard training.
"It is the only martial art sanctioned by British Law, which states that ‘one can use only that force which is enough to neutralise an attacker’. As a martial art it is designed solely for self-defence and is essentially non-violent and non-competitive." there is no such thing as British law. this statement is absolute nonsense.
It's a minor technical point. In England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland the law allows an individual to protect themselves if they are forced to. So British law could be looked upon as encompassing all four major jurisdictions.
the statement that Aikido is the only martial art where neutralising an attacker is nonsense. also technically, as you acknowledged, there is no british law but they may all have similarities. however the main point is that the quoted statement is absolute nonsense.
