New CBD article: Instruction, Example, and Inference

[lklawson]

New CBD article: Instruction, Example, and Inference

Short essay on priority of information when reconstructing WMAs.

http://cbd.atspace.com/articles.html

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

[Truculent Sheep]

You're trying to impose your mode of interpretation on others. More to the point, who's to say your reading (taking place as it does in 2011) is accurate? 500 years ago they viewed things and thought quite differently; they also had different frames of reference.

[lklawson]

You're trying to impose your mode of interpretation on others.

Which part of "The way I approach research & creation then presentation/teaching" or "framework" are you having trouble with?

More to the point, who's to say your reading (taking place as it does in 2011) is accurate?

Well, if you want to get pissy about it, my reading began taking place in something like 1999 or so.

500 years ago they viewed things and thought quite differently;

Again, if you want to get pissy, then my personal study, and the examples I used, are between 100 and 200 years. Maybe a year earlier. My memory on it is "Before I had to remediate and then babysit the office computers on Y2K."

they also had different frames of reference.

Duh. That's part of doing your research. Understand the culture, how they lived, how they thought, how they wrote their manuals.

Seriously now, are you just feeling argumentative or something? Or are you still feeling butthurt because you think I was "patronizing" to you in the other thread? I don't do "patronizing," though, for some folks who irritate me by saying idiot things or by just being pissy, I'm willing to do "insulting."

[Truculent Sheep]

Which part of "The way I approach research & creation then presentation/teaching" or "framework" are you having trouble with?

Well, let's begin with the fact that your method is flawed because it takes the source texts at face value, or at least, your face value. Instead you should always ask yourself the following questions of a text and your interpretation of it:

1. Do we know what the text is saying, or is its intended meaning lost in translation and the differing perspectives of when it was written and when it is being presently read?

2. Do we really always have to accept what the text says? What if the author subsequently changed his methods, or a mistake was made in the printing stage? What about assumptions made about physiology then that have subsequently been proven to be false?

3. Did theory and practice really mirror each other? Were the manuals a literal rendition of what was taught or were they meant as exemplars of a more ideal approach that both author and reader knew were not possible? Were they deliberately inaccurate, in the form of in-jokes, or as a challenge for readers to spot the mistake and find the correct approach?

(For example, some musket manuals in the 17th century insisted you tip your hat after firing as a gesture of politeness. Somehow, I doubt this was meant literally, and may have been a comedic gesture or an indirect comment on decorum.)

3. Did theory and practice really mirror each other? Were they meant to? Or was the theory stage the starting points for each student to then proceed to learn a more practical interpretation?

4. Why was the manual written and published? Was it really meant primarily to be instructive? Or was it intended more as a personal statement, a critique of other methods, or did it have a political subtext. Was it a how-to, or an argument in defence of a certain method? What about the religious and socio-economic context of the text and its author and to what extent did these influence the text?

5. What about the greater context of the book? Was it written in response to other texts or events? How have others read and interpreted to the text?

All of which puts inference and 'example' into a whole new light.

...pissy... pissy... butthurt... pissy... I'm willing to do "insulting."

Try acting your age.

[Permalost]

Are you guys even talking about the same thing?

[lklawson]

Well, let's begin with the fact that your method is flawed because it takes the source texts at face value, or at least, your face value.

Wouldn't it be easier to start with some other unfounded assumption; say, for instance, one that I haven't already addressed?

[lklawson]

Are you guys even talking about the same thing?

I don't think so.

Don't worry about it. He's just had his feelings hurt for some reason in the other thread. I don't really know why because I was, essentially, defending him there.

Oh well, people are strange. <shrug>

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

[Dak]

Very interesting analysis of your method of reconstruction. Given that I am uneducated on such reconstructions I would, none the less, believe it to be a logically sound way to reinvent the knightly.

I do have a slightly unrelated question though. In the following bit grappling is referred to in a boxing context.

The Cross-Buttock is a standard grapple/throw in boxing and here's how you do it

did boxing mean something modern than the modern striking art back in the day?

[lklawson]

did boxing mean something modern than the modern striking art back in the day?

Broughton rules and London Prize Ring rules boxing allowed grapples. The Cross-Buttock was a hip-toss. It was not allowed in late period amateur boxing, "Scientific Boxing," or the Marquis of Queensberry boxing.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

[Truculent Sheep]

Wouldn't it be easier to start with some other unfounded assumption; say, for instance, one that I haven't already addressed?

No, your actual ill-founded assumptions are enough.

@ Permalost

lklawson is getting defensive over the possibility that his approach to the source texts might be wrong.

@ Dak

The problem with a lot of WMA reconstruction is that it is more an expression of the participant's vanity than any grasp of the source material or the issues that emerge from interpreting and rebuilding extinct arts.