Talk:Kinomichi

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kinomichi article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Difference from aikido

It should be made clearer if this is a sperate art to aikido - and how it differs. Right now the impression is that it is just another independent aikido organization.Peter Rehse 11:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a martial art even if it is an art in the tradition of budō. I practice it now even if I am a beginner. It is a separate art to aikido. Kinomichis (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections

Dear Peter, I am getting a bit more easy with Wiki ways so I can answer you now on this discussion thread. I have done the citations you suggested and changed some wording. As for the difference between Aikido and Kinomichi, it is obvious when practiced but it is difficult to put in words what we share and do not share. I tried to say what we do and not what we or others do not do. It will take a few days to put it right. The main thing is not to offend any one's feelings. That is why drawing a line between these two related arts is difficult. An encyclopedia article has to be precise but with arts wich have a universal purpose, it is not easy to limit them within definitions. Rendez-vous in a few days. Thanks again for your comments. Jisso 09:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its a nice Start - almost a B-class article. Take your time. Cheers.Peter Rehse 14:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all, if you have any suggestions to improve this article, you are welcome. To answer a suggestion, I have put a few words on the way Kinomichi is most different but I do not think it is good to say what it is compared to Aikido or any other martial art because no martial art is the standard to which one should compare others. The difficulty is greater as Kinomichi reclaims to move and change every now and then as a natural way of being a living art. Soon we may have online a more precise view of the techniques of Kinomichi.Jisso 09:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a word to say that I hope my latest comment on comparing an art to another does not seem neglecting aikido's value. In the same way one does no more introduce aikido by commenting on Daito ryu aikijujitsu, one does not explain kinomichi or another art by saying it has improved or altered its predecessor. So many martial arts share the heart of the Way or Tao, yet so many vary in their study of it.Jisso 06:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Budo?

In what way is kinomichi a budo art? Budo is martial arts, and I was under the impression that kinomichi is not a martial art. // habj 17:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me what is your defenition of budo art, martial art and where are their diferences? Judo is mainly about studying the Way and Kano sensei wrote that he taught the Do (Tao) first and only after the techniques. Musashi's school teaches to know the heart first and only after the sword. To say, what is your main concern in martial arts? How many different concerns can be found within martial arts? How many different ways are taught by masters? I remember that some Chinese schools teach no techniques but the "tree position".

Is budo only martial art? Is martial art only/mainly combat technique? Where do you put the seperation line?

My answer to your question is below what could be expected because saying what is or what is not budo would require a long answer. The techniques we use come directly from one of Morihei Ueshiba's uchi deshi, Noro sensei. He is recognised by high rank Aikidoka as a budo master and aikido master. I feel you may be questionning the efficiency of Kinomichi. To that I cannot answer without being biased. I think you are thinking of combat efficiency. I believe aikido's efficiency is also questionned. To say, any martial arts are to be questionned on their efficiency. An article is being translated to English were efficiency is discussed. You may read it in French.
If you want to know how it works, come and practice. Jisso 08:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to what I actually write is probably better than trying to "feel" what I am questioning. I question that the purpose of the art is martial but actually, neither your nor mine opinions on the matter ar important. It is better to ask "is kinomichi usually referred to as a martial art, or a budo art"? My French is not so good, but what it says at http://www.kinomichi.com/ I have to interpret as "an art with Japanese origin, in the tradition of budo". This is Masamichi Noro's website, and if he does not describe it as "a budo art" or "a martial art" then it should not be described as such without proper reference. I have edited the article accordingly. I may be wrong, but then I trust you to find a source and add the statements back. // habj 12:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that we are working to better the text in the wikipedia mind. Thank you for your efforts. I have to mention that the French may have other understanding of budo as is writen "budo ... a method of education originated from a martial art" (in the French wikipedia aikido article) and taken as such in the kinomichi article. We have an other understanding of budo as not only martial art. Not all martial arts are budo. Western or African martial arts are not budo. Some question if Chinese martial arts are budo. You refer to texts that have been writen some years ago when Noro sensei was showing some aspect of his art. Today he is showing other aspects of kinomichi. He refers to kinomichi as budo and as martial art in his classes. You may read it in the Dragon article written in 2006 with his assent. As it is written in the wikipedia article, what is said today "annuls that which belonged to the past, and what is written now is erased in the face of the art that pierces through the moment to come". The source of kinomichi as a budo is then to be seen in the Dragon article as well as in his classes.
Dragon article : " Le Kinomichi est un art martial "
KIIA website : " The KINOMICHI®, Noro method created in Paris in 1979 by Masamichi Noro, is an art of Japanese origin in the tradition of budo " It is written here that kinomichi belongs to the tradition of budo. on Noro sensei's website, in French, Budo art is not used nor is martial art. But it refers to the tradition of budo. Maybe should we understand that he prefers the meaning of "tradition" to "art" because he acknowledges what he was given by his master, Morihei Ueshiba. I do not think that "budo tradition" means "non budo art" but the opposite. Jisso 14:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can not guess what it means, we have to read what it says. It does not say that kinomichi is a budo art. Checking the web sites of various kinomichi schools, some of them use the words budo or martial art [1] where others describe it as a "art of movement" [2] and avoid all martial connections. Is that a fair description? "Some schools see the art as a budo or martial arts, while others chose to describe it as an art of movement"? // habj 07:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems overly simplistic to define “budo” as “martial art.” The following quotes, from the official website of Aikibudo – FFAAA (www.aikibudo.com) could be of interest: 1) “Contrary to a common misinterpretation, the term BU does not mean WAR, but literally “THE FORCE THAT ENABLES PEACE.” 2) “The old masters used to teach that… the spirit of the warrior… enforces peace by its own presence, without unsheathing the sabre. But after all, the real meaning of the character BU (which is found in BUSHI but also in BUDO and AIKIBUDO) is to stop the spear, and not to fight.” 3) UESHIBA “understood that the real BUDO is not to defeat one’s opponent with one’s own strength, but to preserve peace in this world, to accept and favor the fulfillment of all human beings.” Further, in Pensees en Mouvement: Aikibudo & Budo, (Broche May 1, 2006), Alain Floquet says: “The actual aim of budo, and all the more of aikibudo, appears to me to be neither war, nor violence, nor even sportive combat, but the building of a human being solidly balanced at all levels of consciousness and capable of living in complete harmony and to spread this harmony around him.” (Alain Floquet is Technical Director of the International Federation of Aikibudo, among many other things.)

According to Master Noro, his art is a martial art and a budo. His teaching is conveyed directly to his students in his classes, and through the practice. In his classes in the 1980s, Master Noro said his art was “anti-martial.” In the following years he described it as an “art of movement.” Today, he says that Kinomichi is a “martial art,” “a budo”, and an “art of life.” Despite the apparent paradox, it is all of these: anti-martial, an art of movement, a martial art, a budo and an art of life. To clarify: It is a defensive martial art that does not endorse aggression, domination or destruction, but rather, through the encounter, seeks to promote life, harmony and, ultimately, love. Kinomichi is a defensive martial art that studies the human encounter. Not only the encounter with the “other” in the role of “aggressor” but all encounters. Further, the definition of “martial art” (The New World Dictionary) is: “any of various systems of self-defense originating in the Orient.” As noted above, the KIIA site specifically calls Kinomichi a “martial art” and both KIIA and the school website state that Kinomichi is “in the tradition of budo.” I am therefore changing the introductory text to: “a martial art in the tradition of budo.” I have not reinstated "gendaii" only because the KIIA website calls it a "traditional martial art." Rowandrys 09:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General content

A fairly large portion of the text consists of flowery language with little actual content. These kind of descriptions are appropriate in a book an the art, but the encyclopaedia should focus on facts. I have tried to boil parts of the text down to the actual facts, while other sections still need much work. In doing this, I have probably entered some errors which I hope others can correct. The concent of the article is unfocused and maybe not written with the fact in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, nothing else. // habj 12:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree to a certain point to your position. What bothers me is that:
1/ we are talking of an oriental Way which may need a certain way of writing to convey its specific taste.
2/ only facts do not speak so well of arts and traditions
3/ if this is to be an universal tool for all of us, should we all be only concerned with an Anglo-saxon way of doing? What I mean is that this text refers to other texts.
Example: "That which is said today annuls that which belonged to the past, and what is written now is erased in the face of the art that pierces through the moment to come" refers to a text of Jigoro Kano founder of Judo, this text was published by Stanley Pranin's Aiki news/Aiki journal.The art "that pierces through the moment to come" refers to a sutra of Houei Neng/Eno in which he talks of the "let happen the light of the coming instant". These words talk of other masters and of other ways of conceiving time, texts and living arts. I thought that it might be interesting to put some oriental way of saying in a text about oriental arts and traditions.
Some may find it odd or strange. Why would it feel otherwise? Are we going to end up giving an "acceptable taste to the world"? Is it the aim of Wikipedia?
I believe this might be an odd discussion. I may love odd things!!!
But any way, please do it your way, hoping it helps the reader to understand. But then, what reader are you aiming at? I am not sure people practicing kinomichi will recognise a text only conveying facts and not the spirit of their art or their tradition. Jisso 14:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to help with the discussion, habj wrote:

the encyclopaedia should focus on facts [...] The content of the article is unfocused and maybe not written with the fact in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, nothing else.

One can read in the article on encyclopedia in Wikipedia :

an encyclopedia treats each subject in more depth [than a dictionary] and conveys the most relevant accumulated knowledge on that subject or discipline, given the overall length of the particular work. An encyclopedia also often includes many maps and illustrations, as well as bibliography and statistics. Historically, both encyclopedias and dictionaries have been researched and written by well-educated, well-informed content experts.

Facts are not the main aim of encyclopedias. Knowledge is not only about facts. Budo is not only facts. It is not only techniques, not only method. It has to do with the Way, the Do or Tao. Anyhow, please improve this article. Jisso 18:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Techniques in kinomichi

The article contains no information on what in martial arts is called techniques. Does it contain ikkyo nikkyo sankyo kotegaeshi from aikido, or something else? Or, are techniques only defined from the concept of ki, not the physical manifestation thereof?

I removed "grappling" from the martial arts infobox (which I think should not be there in the first place). Or do people actually crawl on top of each other in kinomichi, trying to create chokes, arm bars, throws etc? // habj 14:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. It does not belong to "grappling".
Techniques do come from akido and are derived from Ikkyo >> Ichi, Nikyo >> Nichi, etc. Shiho Nage >> Iten, Kote Kaeshi >> Niten, etc.
The section on techniques should be changed, it needs a bit more time. We do practice some times with people from aikido. The best way to distinguish Kinomichi is to practice it. Wikipedia is really not a dojo so it is indeed difficult to give the taste of it.
Still, technique is a word that orientates the understanding of the art in a way that does not say how people see their art in Japan, in China, etc. In a world were one understands ki as an every day fact, what is seen in the West as "technique" is there seen as though "The technique consists of conducting ki: borrowing, directing and restoring the ki". That is the answer a master gave me in Japan to the question: "How do you train your strength?" Confucius taught "principles for life" to help men to be better and princes to rule better. He did not teach government techniques. We are talking of something we must respect to the point of acknowledging the strangeness in the encounter.
To train, we use our body but not only our body. The dojo is still the best place to understand budo ways. I hope this helps (?). :-) Jisso 15:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to take the time to read the grappling article. Ground-fighting/wrestling, throwing, and joint-locking are all specific sub-sets of grappling. This was discussed extensively before consensus was reached, and is made quite explicit by the article (which, incidentally, specifically mentions aikido as a type of "defensive" grappling, that includes no ground-fighting). Bradford44 18:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I did not read that and kinomichi does use throwing and joint-locking. Please do to the best. I do not wish to stop any modification as this text was first written in French and has to undergo a process to meet the English way of explaining. I just wanted to point out that although my way of explaining may seem awkward, I would like the reader to feel a taste of kinomichi, of budo, of the Way. Please change as much as you wish but lets take care for the taste of the art. Jisso 18:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ki corrections

The chapter on ki has been "cleaned up". habj has introduced this wording : the kinomichi theory. Such thing does not exist. It is the experience of Noro sensei and his choice to go that way. I do not think we should use this distinction between practice and theory as it doesn't really match the way of doing in Japanese budo. Cleaning up needs a learned person on such matters. What is convenient to read for some may not end up being reliable information. Jisso 07:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, what wordings are then better? "According to kinomichi concepts", is that acceptable? We don't write articles about Communism the say Communists would put things, we don't describe each fullcontact martial art as the most deadly one although maybe practitioners of each style would like to, and when using not generally accepted concepts, such as ki, it should be pointed out that we are not using "mainstream" reasoning. // habj 07:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Habj,

As I read in Wikipedia in the encyclopaedia article the following " Historically, both encyclopaedias and dictionaries have been researched and written by well-educated, well-informed content experts", I understand that someone writing about Communism would use concepts coherent with Communist theory. The same would be expected from any bird expert that he writes something that another bird expert would find reliable information although it would be understood by the general public. You cannot find one serious Master who would talk of the theory of his or her budo. Far eastern thought is not expressed through "theory" which is an organised set of concepts related by cause to effect links. No Judo, Karate, Tai Chi or else Master would start talking about his theory of art in his own field. The general public should not be induced into error by bad "popularisation" as we say in French. The encyclopaedia was a French invention which allowed anyone whatever birth condition to access to knowledge. It was written by philosophers and experts. Their names were D'Alembert, Diderot and others. They were to write also litterature pieces such as theater plays, assays, etc. This is because we respect the public that what is read in an encyclopaedia can be acknowledge by experts as well as the general public. In that sense, as you know nothing of kinomichi, I find it difficult to understand how you can chop off so much in the text several people have prepared and translated. You are completely right when you remind us of Wikipedian rules, but you are going too far when you cut off how kinomichi was originated in the text as well as taking away Masamichi Noro's pictures and video when he started aikido in Europe in the 60's. In the Far eastern way of doing and thinking, which means in the way of the budo, one tells of one's identity by relating to predecessors and to the first action from which sprung the new budo, I mean kinomichi.

I do understand you are enthusiastic about budo. So am I. But after a few decades of practice, I can say that it seems strange to me that you question the budo quality of the art of a budo master. I understand that you can apply rightly wikipedian rules to this article, but reasonably, I would credit this master of knowing how budolike he feels his art. What is written does not exclude budo quality. In far eastern ways of doing and thinking, art of movement does not exclude martial art nor budo. Master Jigoro Kano, founder of judo, wrote very precisely about the subject as he introduced the Do in the Bu field in the 1880's. To him, budo has wider and deeper meaning than martial arts or than ikebana. It originates truly in the Tao, Chinese for Do, the way. That is why he named his art differently from other Japanese martial arts to show how different budo is to common martial arts.

It is difficult for me to write all this because I do not want you to feel I am teaching you something. I write it for the general public so that people may understand why I claim to name kinomichi as a budo. The other reason is that when Master Noro teaches in the dojo, he refers to kinomichi as budo.

Anyhow, this is my last post. I wish you to go on with this article for the best. Each version in its own language undergoes a independant process. That is why I have to step back and let this text become English in its own right way. Jisso 18:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Kinomichi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kinomichi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014161923/http://www.ki-school.fr/spirale%20kinomichi_gb.html to http://www.ki-school.fr/spirale%20kinomichi_gb.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bushido-ni.rs/aikido_mag_0312.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]