My own career in the fighting techinques started in 1964 with irony. I studied a martial-art normally categorized as “soft” judo, but found that in application there was a lot of “hard”. Judo provided the toughest workout of any sport I had ever before practiced including football. I had formed more sore muscles, more muscle strains, and more bruises in judo than in my other athletics combined. And, in competition application, the idea of harmonizing energy or using the other person’s power against him was fundamentally invisible. It was have difficulty, that’s the truth. Later I added the “hard” art of karate and the “soft” art of aiki-ju-jutsu to my repertoire. Unifying them helped me realize that at times karate can be soft and aiki can be hard. Coaching emphasis was one thing, application another. One’s personal interpretation of and skill at the art also had an effect on the resulting “hardness” or “softness”. BJJ
The apparent dichotomy of hard and very soft had been homogenized and unified within me as a martial artist. Additional major themes (long as opposed to. short range, straight versus. circular movement, internal compared to. external energy, traditional as opposed to. modern practices, etc. ) seemed also to be in conflict however been around within one martial designer, one method of teaching, one school, one style, or one art–this was obviously a paradox. Nevertheless I did not agree to it as a true paradox since I assumed that paradox is a statement of the own restrictions in understanding. Something simply cannot be black and white as well, in the same sense, in the same context. That they may seem to be to be paradoxical tend to be actually ironic. Apparent paradoxes then should be able to be resolved.
F. Jeff Fitzgerald once said that the highest form of thought was to be able to hold two conflicting ideas simultaneously. My spouse and i do not agree. Disagreeing ideas produce inadequate understanding, indecision, inaction, thus not enough achievements. But apparently contradictory ideas which are fixed within the thinker–now which something more important.
Certainly mastery and “high thought” are not achieved merely by taking a few conflicting ideas, foreseeing out how to solve those to one’s own satisfaction, and then promoting yourself to twelfth dan (traditional ranks go up to only tenth dan which are incredibly rare and are usually awarded to very experienced, very elderly, and usually very wise experts of the martial arts). Instead, mastery of any subject, especially those like the martial arts which are fraught with perfectionism, dedication, true believers, faithfulness, and multitudes of methods and emphases –mastery of these arts means that the ironies and evident paradoxes of that analysis must be understood and resolved.
Karate and Aiki each present us with a philosophical “paradox” when applying them in self-defense. Karate says “Do not fight until pushed to the limit. When there is no other choice, then fight full-out, to the death if required. very well Aiki says, “Harmonize with your opponent trying to frustrate his aggression or, if necessary, control it with the use of his own overextended balance and strength. inch If pushed to the limit Karate resists while Aiki accepts and diverts. However a technical path in each art seems to contradict the philosophical route each prefers. Martial arts insists that the first movement should be protecting. Aiki suggests that anybody can catch an opponent more unaware and off-balanced if one “attacks the attack”. Yet Karate is often seen as an hostile art; Aiki is seen as a defensive fine art.