Only when the simulator is working. Today's work is on validating the quality metrics I developed so I can get a paper out the door. Much grunt work and theoretical tweaking.
I was thinking about this in the shower this morning, and some revelations came to me...
The very powerful part, is the "let them kill you". But... who is "you"? If a "bad guy" is shooting me, I should just let them. But what if they aren't shooting me? What if they are shooting my friends? What if doing something terribly and dreadfully violent to the bad guys is the best way to protect my friends?
This is why this has been so difficult to implement. Some people might be willing to sacrifice themselves, but their families? And then it extend to the comunity, the country, and boom you have wars again.
These questions are why I took up aikido instead of continuing with jiujitsu and kung fu.
Rather than letting someone kill (or injure, or whatever) me or someone else, the preferable solution for all concerned is to prevent them from doing so without harm, and leading them to stop trying to inflict harm. Backing up this lofty ambition is the hard part, and that's where the years and decades of practice come in. It's the best answer I've found so far.
Hey, it doesn't even work "well" on a hand-to-hand combat level! It's really very hard to stay true to that ideal and still have anything like a real-world-effective technique. That's a fact that many aikidoists like to forget, but whenever I practice with an absolute beginner, it resurfaces. People are all different and essentially unpredictable, so to really be effective, one has to be incredibly versatile.
But I do use aikido in other conflicts, or potential conflicts. It's just not as easy to see in an abstract realm.
Now, when it comes to wars etc., one has to ask who is in a position to "do aikido." Obviously not me, in any direct sense, any more than I can affect the outcome of a much smaller-scale thing like a mugging in Singapore: I'm simply not in the game. But if a national leader takes that approach, then yes, I do believe that it can be effective in that realm, but no more easily than in the small-scale one.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Yay, simulations. Lots of time to kill.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
The very powerful part, is the "let them kill you". But... who is "you"? If a "bad guy" is shooting me, I should just let them. But what if they aren't shooting me? What if they are shooting my friends? What if doing something terribly and dreadfully violent to the bad guys is the best way to protect my friends?
This is why this has been so difficult to implement. Some people might be willing to sacrifice themselves, but their families? And then it extend to the comunity, the country, and boom you have wars again.
From:
no subject
Rather than letting someone kill (or injure, or whatever) me or someone else, the preferable solution for all concerned is to prevent them from doing so without harm, and leading them to stop trying to inflict harm. Backing up this lofty ambition is the hard part, and that's where the years and decades of practice come in. It's the best answer I've found so far.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
But I do use aikido in other conflicts, or potential conflicts. It's just not as easy to see in an abstract realm.
Now, when it comes to wars etc., one has to ask who is in a position to "do aikido." Obviously not me, in any direct sense, any more than I can affect the outcome of a much smaller-scale thing like a mugging in Singapore: I'm simply not in the game. But if a national leader takes that approach, then yes, I do believe that it can be effective in that realm, but no more easily than in the small-scale one.