LilBunnyRabbit You are correct the methodology employed to teach other subjects can be used to teach MA. The difference is depending on the subject your student can`t use that information to kill you or others. When you join the military they do not immediately teach you explosives or IEDs. You need to qualify for that training. You need to be deemed worthy by your superiors. People contemplate that all the time even with more modern arts or basic self -defense classes. Now add on top of that human nature and character flaws. That thinking is in play for MA. #1 Then you are learning something else and not your teacher`s art(Aiki). Creating something new is a totally different topic. We were talking about the state of affairs in the Aikido world. I can get a Physicist or Biomechanics to explain the things that are happening but they can`t teach me combat techniques. #2 Why would you even go to other sources of knowledge if someone like yourself finds it hard to believe that something is missing? You have recognize a problem to be able properly solve it. Don`t get this confused with academia/general education where you are required to teach certain body of material mandated by law. Once again similarities but also some major differences and this is one. MA teachers don`t have to give their students everything if they don`t want to. This idea that students of MA are customers and they are always right have no place in this topic. That is selfishness/pettyness on the part of the student.
We are not talking about explosives, where a wrong step will kill both yourself and those around you. We are instead talking about martial arts. Someone is perfectly capable of killing without martial arts, and it does not give you training in how to kill. To elaborate that, yes knowledge of martial arts could be used to kill - but it does not make someone more willing to do so than they were before. Why? It's not in play for teaching people to drive, and that's a lot more dangerous than any martial art you care to name. So if the art evolves or changes or improves, it's no longer aikido? Surely that makes for a stagnant art where new knowledge is rejected? When did I say I find it hard to believe something is missing? I find it hard to believe that a good teacher would withhold information from their students. That does not mean I find it hard to believe that there are bad teachers who would do so. No, MA instructors don't have to teach their students everything if they don't want to. If they are withholding information from their students, when their students have the basic skills to learn it, then they are still bad teachers. It is not selfishness or pettiness on the part of the student - the pettiness is purely on the teacher's part.
LilBunnyRabbit, I think you might need to switch cultural view point a bit. In a lot of instances, with Japanese arts that have old roots, they aren't just a comodity to be sold and you have a host of other considerations beyond being what a lot of people would see as being "a good teacher". It's pretty common, as far as I know, for teachers to withhold areas of the system they are caretaker of and only pass on the full system or the essence to specific individuals. Some of these systems have very old roots and are not simply a systemized form of combat they are also "living traditions" which had in place safe guards to protect the system and the school. One of these safe guards would be a layered approach to teaching and a gradual disclosure of information. Looking at it from a westernized pov can, imo, lead to misunderstandings and incorrect judgements. A system should be viewed from the cultural context it developed in.
Well, I've no desire to get into a massive cultural debate, so I'll just quietly bow out and put it down to fundamental cultural differences until ki starts being thrown around again.
I have no doubt that there were MArtist who may have been better than Osensei, history is full of them, especially in China. Now whether they were actually better or not, since they did not fight/compete (different regions, different generations...) is unclear. Kind of like a world champ in USA has not yet competed with a world champ in Singapore...which one is really the world champ? What is certain is that all of these greats are greats becuase they understood something and developed their skill based on that (ki). I find it hard to beleive it is just physics and psychology. Why? Well, physics (and trust me, I only have a minimal understanding of it) is a study of processes in a system. It can be measured, observed, and recorded, and reproduced time and again. It is quantifiable. I think that if it was as simple as saying it is physics it would have been demonstrated as such. As far as I know, what ki is, or as we are attempting to define it here, has not yet been measured? Since it is processes in a system, then it could not be just our own physics, mechanics, timing...that's only half the system (in one on one), the other half would have to be uke. So, in my opinion, both halves would have to be in the exact correct state (balance) for ki, and it's fajin expression to be achieved. However, again, since to my knowledge it has not really been measured, recorded, compared to other systems on the professional phyicist / university level, does this mean it does not exist? And if that is the case, then why have so many past martial artists refer to what they are doing as having ki, or using ki, or emitting ki, or sensing ki? As far as teaching it goes, I think that perhaps it was not taught to everyone because those who have discovered it (or had it taught to them) were still learning it themselves, and perhaps it went against the common thought and trends associated with angles, force, mechanics, physical alignment...what people had been studying as the martial arts for centuries prior? I'm certain that if it was fully understood, there would be no reason to hold back, because it as a skill could be freely imposed in any situation, regardless of who was taught, or if they were better or not. As a natural process, it would have to follow a natural course irrespective of the desired outcome. Yes, I agree that anyone can learn it and that it can be taught to anyone, but again, do these concepts go against what our ingrained concepts of fighting actually are? And if, in our mind it does not look like fighting, then it isn't worth studying? Just some of my thoughts regarding ki.
As I said perviously you'll find the holding back of information to be, most times, a standard thing in systems with "classical" roots. This type of thing wouldn't be unique to something like Daito ryu, many ryu-ha use such an approach. You have to remember that the heads of these systems/schools were not primarily concerned with teaching students for the sake of the students. Their responsibility extended, and stll does, beyond any one individual to encompass the ryu-ha as a whole. In such an organisation the approach tends to be less "I think therefore I am" and more "I think therefore we are". This is a rather nice example of what I'm on about: http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=34182886&postcount=18
Ki remained a mystery for many centurys because physics didn't catch up until the last couple of 100 years. Law of motion, gravity, mechanics, relativity et al I'm afraid it is just physics
Why "especially in China"? What is it that is so special about China? The Chinese and Japanese have remained relatively self contained in their region of the world. While other cultures established massive empires. The Mongol's for example had what is widely accepted to be the largest land empire in history. There's no mystery to Ki if you open your eyes and simply observe what's happen in front of you.
Physics is the wrong way to refer to it - science would be a better description. Science is the study of observable phenomena by repeated testing and modelling. If something cannot be demonstrated, cannot be tested, then it does not fall within the scientific model. However, to fall outside of that model it must have no demonstrable effect. Therefore if ki cannot be tested by science, there is no way to demonstrate it's existence. If there is no way to demonstrate it's existence, it may as well not exist. There's no connection here whatsoever. What, exactly, do you claim that ki can do which cannot be tested by the scientific method? It means it may as well not exist - it has no measurable, demonstrable effect. Same reason the ancient Greeks thought there were just a handful of elements making everything up - a lack of understanding and foundation to build upon. The wrong concepts, the wrong words, a foundation built upon faith and assumption rather than actual examination of phenomena. Just because people in the past used to believe that gods threw down lightning bolts doesn't make it true.
The ancient Greeks were thinking along the right lines. Their ideas and mistakes helped us get to where we are today. The world is still made up of elements. Just not those defined by the ancient Greeks. The ideas have become more refined and the language has changed in modern times. The same is true of martial arts. Language has changed. Ideas are more clearly defined and understood.
There is a world of difference between the elements as defined by the ancient Greeks, and as we model them today. The 'ancients' had a very limited approach to science, in that there was rarely an attempt to disprove theories once they had been proposed. Most of the time no testing was carried out, and this idea continued until very, very recently. So no, they weren't thinking along the right lines except on the rare occasions where they carried out tests to try and destroy their own pet theories. Like ki? I'm not seeing a clear definition or understanding so far.
What I have noted in this thread is that it is not a discussion of Ki. It is being dominated by people who prefer to deny existence of Ki. Maybe that should have been done in the "There is no Ki" thread. Or, maybe, taking a thread off-topic accomplishes the goal of those who think martial art is nothing but attitude.
No one is denying the existence of KI. Those who you are saying does believe in Ki can't even describe what it is and thus give us abstract definitions. sometimes not really relating to the topic. I think that comes mostly from people who can't even show Ki let alone explain it. It has also been shown very few people know anything about history or culture in which this concepts were developed. Those who you say deny Ki are actually saying there are better words to describe what is called Ki in MAs. It is like laymen terms and jargon. Physics is little more common to most people and Ki is a more technical term for a smaller group. From your post, we could imply as if you think Ki is something else that cannot be explained by science. I could be wrong on that one.
Well so far it seems to be pretty much agreed that ki comes down to physics and psychology. Unless you're offering a different explanation? Granted there are still some people who prefer the mystical explanations. But then again there are a few odd groups of people in the world who believe the Earth is flat and there's a magic man in the sky incapable of managing money.
Nope, I'm quite happy with that explanation, just still want to know why the word itself is used when it does cause a natural confusion for those who believe in superstition. Gordon's in the sky now?
Rather than try and define or speculate if ki does or does not exist would it not be more useful to simply train diligently in aikido and if one does acquire ki , great.The debate on ki is somewhat akin to the question is there life after death?We so far have no absolute proof of life after death being factual.That does not stop millions of people believing that there is existence after death.I guess you either believe that Ki exists [however intangible it may be ] or you do not.
