(kime)
...
Sunday, November 23, 2008
What is Ki ?
...
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
In Japanese martial arts, the term atemi (当て身, atemi?) designates blows to the body, [1] as opposed to twisting of joints, strangleholds, holding techniques and throws. Atemi can be delivered by any part of the body to any part of the opponents body. They can be percussive or use 'soft' power. Karate is a typical martial art focusing on percussive atemi. The location of nerve and pressure points, such as might be used for certain acupressure methods, also often informs the choice of targets for atemi (see kyusho-jitsu).
Some strikes against vital parts of the body can kill or incapacitate the opponent: on the solar plexus, at the temple, under the nose, in the eyes, genitals, or under the chin. Traditional Japanese martial arts (the ancestors of judo, jujutsu and aikido) do not commonly practice atemi, since they were supposed to be used on the battlefield against armoured opponents. However, there are certain exceptions.
Atemi can be complete techniques in and of themselves, but are also often used to briefly break an opponent's balance (see kuzushi) or resolve. (For example, this is the predominant usage of atemi in aikido.) [2] A painful but non-fatal blow to an area such as the eyes, face, or some vulnerable part of the abdomen can open the way for a more damaging technique, such as a throw or joint lock. Even if the blow does not land, the opponent can be distracted, and may instinctively contort their body (e.g., jerking their head back from a face strike) in such a way that they lose their balance.
The development of atemi techniques arises from the evolution of the Japanese martial arts, in particular jujutsu. Early styles of jujutsu from Sengoku-era Japan were created as a means of unarmed combat for a samurai who had lost his weapons on the battlefield. The purpose of jujutsu was to disarm the opponent and use their own weapon against them. As such, strikes to the body were limited as the intended victim would have been wearing extensive body armour. However, in later styles of jujutsu from Edo-period Japan empty-handed strikes to the body became more common as full-scale military engagement began to decline. This meant that the jujutsu practitioner's opponent would not have been wearing armour and the vital points that form the crux of atemi-waza were more exposed. Thus atemi began to play a pivotal role in unarmed killing and restraining techniques.
The use of Striking (Atemi) in Aikido - A relevant piece by George S. Ledyard
The use of striking in the performance of Aikido waza or applied technique is not well documented and is even the source of quite a bit of conflicting information.
...
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Does “Aikido” Even Exist?
a very well put together piece by George Ledyard
What is Aikido ? One could simply say that all Aikido, regardless of style, has a certain basic set of techniques and movement principles which make the art “Aikido” as distinct from aikijutsu or jiujutsu or any other martial art. But, as any person who has trained widely in the Aikido community can tell you, there is such a wide range of interpretation with regard to how these techniques are practiced and executed that the surface similarities get outweighed by these inherent differences.
In Japan there is the traditional faction that believes that the art is the sole creation of Morihei Ueshiba and that Aikido is essentially the
property of the Ueshiba family.
Whereas, this might be the attitude of certain members of the Aikikai Honbu Dojo in Tokyo, I don’t think one can effectively maintain this as a point of view. Unlike the koryu, or classical martial styles of Japan, Aikido has had no set curriculum or any narrowly defined standards for the certification of its teachers. Even before the term “Aikido” came into common usage in the 1940’s, a wide gulf existed between the interpretations taken by various early instructors. The Yoseikan, Yoshinkan, Shudokan, Aikibudo (later Shin’ei Taido) systems emerged as distinct styles of what was just becoming known generally as “Aikido”.
The family claim to “Aikido” stems from its origin with the Founder whom we refer to as O-Sensei. Yet, even before the death of the Founder in 1969, his son, Kisshomaru Ueshiba, had secularized the philosophical underpinnings of the art and begun the process of simplifying its techniques, de-emphasizing the use of weapons and the more martially oriented techniques of the system. The Uchi Deshi who took Aikido abroad after WWII took varying elements from the Founder, the Nidai Doshu, and the Honbu Dojo Cho (Chief Instructor), Koichi Tohei Sensei, not to mention varying influences of the other senior instructors at the Honbu dojo. Saito Sensei, the caretaker of the shrine at Iwama, also had a degree of influence over the teachers sent overseas as virtually all of them had spent considerable time accompanying the Founder on his lengthy visits to the shrine and dojo.
...
When Tohei Sensei left the Aikikai after the death of the Founder he created his own style of Aikido which focused heavily on ki development as well as waza (technique). His ideas on this were derived from the work done by Tempu Nakamura rather than anything he had learned directly from O-Sensei and despite a painful rift with the Aikikai, many prominent teachers both in Japan and abroad left the organization to do the new style called Shin Shin Toitsu Aikido. Over the decades that followed, the majority of these teachers have struck out on their own, setting up their own organizations and adding further to the wide mix of interpretations that exist in contemporary Aikido.
...
http://www.aikidonewzealand.co.nz/images/KoruDojo.mov
http://www.fotonewzealand.co.nz/galleries/aikido/3/
http://www.aikido.co.nz/Dojo/pgeKoruDojo.htm
...
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
...
To be appreciated, aikido needs “space,” i.e., spirituality, psychological depth, aesthetics, compassion and enjoyment. Not to mention love! (There seems to be a tacit agreement not to mention love in the martial effectiveness arguments, which is curious in view of the importance O-Sensei placed on this, and his insistence that love was the essence of aikido.)
Not that aikido’s “spiritual effectiveness” is any easier to prove objectively than any of the technical arguments are. There are no guarantees, anyway. I am not convinced, however, that someone’s inability to perform a technique from, say, a strong Iwama-style morotedori grip testifies to a lack of spiritual development. The link between spirit, mind and body is more complicated than that.
The learning curve is a broad one, and one may reasonably expect to spend a lifetime working on oneself without being able to boast of full enlightenment, aikido or no aikido. This is no reason to abandon the effort, and practicing aikido with a spiritual goal in mind, rather than technical effectiveness alone, is a good start.
...
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Aikido and the Triangle, Circle, Square
The representation of Aikido principles by the geometrical shapes triangle, circle and square are taken from the Shinto cosmology theory of "Gogyo Gogen" where the elements of existence, Liquid, Solid and Gas are all shown to be transmutable and interrelated.
In his book "Kami no Michi", Rev. Dr. Yukitaka Yamamoto, the 96th generation Shinto High Priest (Guji) wrote:
"The Principle of 'Sanmi-Sangen' explains the mystery of life. Sanmi-Sangen means the three elements that constitute the basis of all forms of existence. These basic symbols both explain the meaning of and guide the destiny of human life. We can see Sanmi-Sangen operate at many levels."
...
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
...
Monday, February 18, 2008
...
Thursday, February 14, 2008
...
...Understanding the Theory: Conflict Styles
In the 1970s Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann identified five main styles of dealing with conflict that vary in their degrees of cooperativeness and assertiveness. They argued that people typically have a preferred conflict resolution style. However they also noted that different styles were most useful in different situations. The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) helps you to identify which style you tend towards when conflict arises.
Thomas and Kilmann's styles are:
Competitive: People who tend towards a competitive style take a firm stand, and know what they want. They usually operate from a position of power, drawn from things like position, rank, expertise, or persuasive ability. This style can be useful when there is an emergency and a decision needs to be make fast; when the decision is unpopular; or when defending against someone who is trying to exploit the situation selfishly. However it can leave people feeling bruised, unsatisfied and resentful when used in less urgent situations.
Collaborative: People tending towards a collaborative style try to meet the needs of all people involved. These people can be highly assertive but unlike the competitor, they cooperate effectively and acknowledge that everyone is important. This style is useful when a you need to bring together a variety of viewpoints to get the best solution; when there have been previous conflicts in the group; or when the situation is too important for a simple trade-off.
Compromising: People who prefer a compromising style try to find a solution that will at least partially satisfy everyone. Everyone is expected to give up something, and the compromiser him- or herself also expects to relinquish something. Compromise is useful when the cost of conflict is higher than the cost of losing ground, when equal strength opponents are at a standstill and when there is a deadline looming.
Accommodating: This style indicates a willingness to meet the needs of others at the expense of the person’s own needs. The accommodator often knows when to give in to others, but can be persuaded to surrender a position even when it is not warranted. This person is not assertive but is highly cooperative. Accommodation is appropriate when the issues matter more to the other party, when peace is more valuable than winning, or when you want to be in a position to collect on this “favor” you gave. However people may not return favors, and overall this approach is unlikely to give the best outcomes.
Avoiding: People tending towards this style seek to evade the conflict entirely. This style is typified by delegating controversial decisions, accepting default decisions, and not wanting to hurt anyone’s feelings. It can be appropriate when victory is impossible, when the controversy is trivial, or when someone else is in a better position to solve the problem. However in many situations this is a weak and ineffective approach to take.
Once you understand the different styles, you can use them to think about the most appropriate approach (or mixture of approaches) for the situation you're in. You can also think about your own instinctive approach, and learn how you need to change this if necessary.
Ideally you can adopt an approach that meets the situation, resolves the problem, respects people's legitimate interests, and mends damaged working relationships.
Understanding The Theory: The "Interest-Based Relational Approach"
The second theory is commonly referred to as the "Interest-Based Relational (IBR) Approach". This conflict resolution strategy respects individual differences while helping people avoid becoming too entrenched in a fixed position.
In resolving conflict using this approach, you follow these rules:
Make sure that good relationships are the first priority: As far as possible, make sure that you treat the other calmly and that you try to build mutual respect. Do your best to be courteous to one-another and remain constructive under pressure;
Keep people and problems separate: Recognize that in many cases the other person is not just "being difficult" – real and valid differences can lie behind conflictive positions. By separating the problem from the person, real issues can be debated without damaging working relationships;
Pay attention to the interests that are being presented: By listening carefully you'll most-likely understand why the person is adopting his or her position;
Listen first; talk second: To solve a problem effectively you have to understand where the other person is coming from before defending your own position;
Set out the “Facts”: Agree and establish the objective, observable elements that will have an impact on the decision; and
Explore options together: Be open to the idea that a third position may exist, and that you can get to this idea jointly.
By following these rules, you can often keep contentious discussions positive and constructive. This helps to prevent the antagonism and dislike which so-often causes conflict to spin out of control.
...
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu