 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Colin
Location: Wellington
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:51 pm |
 |
|
| Angel wrote: | if the dressing up includes medieval weapons and armour, it would be a medieval martial art, not a Medieval Martial Art.
I leave "Medieval Martial Art" (note capitalisation) to WMA style stuff. |
So by the magic (or Anna's Jehova thing) capitalisation just does away correct terminology? So long as I use lowercase "vikings wore horns on their helmets" it suddenly becomes true. Brilliant! I hope my lecturers are so forgiving about this definition of understanding English.
_________________
The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
See http://www.swordsmanship.co.nz/ |
|
|
 |
Colin
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:14 pm |
|
|
Hmm, I think I've got these magic rules wrong.
Take 2:
So long as I wear a viking horned helmet that's all right, because it's viking and it's a horned helmet. Viking Horned Helmet is wrong because it uses initial capitalisation, but viking horned helmet works because it's all lower case.
So if I do medieval skateboarding, that is correct too, isn't it? It's medieval, and it's skateboarding.
Anyone up for medieval disco dancing? Afterall it's medieval and it's disco dancing.
Maybe you can let in medieval orcs into MLHNZ too Kerry. They're medieval, and they're orcs. I can attend MLHNZ camps with my medieval sunglasses to watch my medieval television chomping away on my medieval pizza topped with medieval tomatoes by these rules. Afterwards I can relax on my medieval lazy-boy chair eating medieval pavlova for medieval desert. Fantastic stuff! Maybe I can wear medieval plastic pickle barrels for medieval armour too? I can use my medieval car aerial for a medieval sword too as well. I wonder if Callum would let me medieval joust on my medieval motorbike?
Just what can you not exclude with these great new rules of magic, err, authenticity?
BTW, what would vIKING hORNED hELMET mean? Does inversing capitalisation invoke some new magic rule?
_________________
The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
See http://www.swordsmanship.co.nz/ |
|
|
|
Anna Cruse
Location: Auckland City
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:15 pm |
|
|
The difficulty I have recognising medieval martial arts comes from the fact that I have done a lot of martial arts, and over time have noticed a certain convergent evolution. These things may have started out quite differently, but by the basic application of Darwinism (those using the best techniques survived to pass on their knowledge) they start to look a lot the same. The only real difference is the strengths and limitations of the tools available.
The similarity between many Lichtenhaur (excuse spelling) techniques and those from Kendo and Jujitsu can not be ignored by martial artists - these things work, no matter where they come from. But how can we say one is Medieval Martial Arts (note caps - this is the way we say it is important to people like Colin) and other techniques using the same principles aren't, especially when we take the tools away?
If I teach a technique I learnt in Ai Ki Do that is identical to a technique in a fight book, how does that make my teaching not Medieval Martial Arts? Can I only be a teacher of Medieval Martial Arts if I am ignorant of other ways? Should I deny the experience and willingness to learn and adapt of all successful fighters throughout history to Keep The Message Pure? The one thing I have learnt about such policies is that they belong to DEAD paths. I guess they truly are history.
The Hashashin came about to punish other Islamics for not being Islamic enough. Fanatical fundamentalism has always been a part of the human experience. There will always be someone who will say you are not following the True Path. There is no point arguing with them - they are not subject to reason.
Anna |
|
|
|
Angel
Site Admin
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:59 pm |
|
|
| Quote: | | So by the magic (or Anna's Jehova thing) capitalisation just does away correct terminology? So long as I use lowercase "vikings wore horns on their helmets" it suddenly becomes true. Brilliant! I hope my lecturers are so forgiving about this definition of understanding English. |
Hopefully they are also forgiving of your seeming inability to grasp the essence of someone else's point.
Proper nouns have more specific meanings than their common counterparts. By leaving Medieval Martial Arts capitalised, I'm choosing to give it the tight definition that you are so keen to hold on to. Not capitalising proper nouns is just poor grammar.
Common belief in something that isn't true, and common use of language are two entirely different things. It's like arguing that just because Americans spell "color" without a u, it must be true that Coca-Cola is an effective spermicide. Doesn't work, sorry.
Using Jehova as an example, your arguement seems to be along the lines of saying that people can't use the word "god" unless they are referring specifically to God.
People use "medieval martial arts" as a broader brush than you do. They aren't going to change that on your say-so.
| Quote: | | So if I do medieval skateboarding, that is correct too, isnt it? Its medieval, and its skateboarding. |
If you were using a medieval skateboard, sure...
| Quote: | | Anyone up for medieval disco dancing? Afterall its medieval and its disco dancing. |
Actually I've seen some very amusing medieval dance moves that if you changed the clothing, and brought out the mirror ball, they wouldn't be out of place at the disco. No points there.
| Quote: | | Just what can you not exclude with these great new rules of magic, err, authenticity? |
Ah, I see you missed my point entirely.
But anyway, you definitely answered my initial query. There can be only one. There is no god but God. Right. 
Ooh, I found another definition for medieval martial art -  
_________________
Recognise anyone? Flame Warriors |
|
|
|
Colin
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:07 pm |
|
|
| Anna Cruse wrote: | | The difficulty I have recognising medieval martial arts comes from the fact that I have done a lot of martial arts, and over time have noticed a certain convergent evolution. |
Similarly I have done lots of martial arts, and while there are certain similarities, the differences are all the more striking. I don't find a convergence at all.
| Anna Cruse wrote: | | The similarity between many Lichtenhaur (excuse spelling) techniques and those from Kendo and Jujitsu can not be ignored by martial artists - these things work, no matter where they come from. |
I'll give you a hint Anna, Kendo and Liechtenaur's MA are not very similar. The meisterhau, the cornerstone of the Liechtenaur's longsword system cannot be done with the a Japanese sabre. Anyone who reckons they are really similar speaks from abject ignorance. (I do have a student who does kendo BTW...he keeps getting told off in his kendo classes for doing "that European stuff").
| Anna Cruse wrote: | | But how can we say one is Medieval Martial Arts (note caps - this is the way we say it is important to people like Colin) |
Please do keep using it. I need a continual laugh. This initial capitalisation argument is going into my hall of fame as the most pathetic thing I've ever heard.
| Anna Cruse wrote: | | If I teach a technique I learnt in Ai Ki Do that is identical to a technique in a fight book, how does that make my teaching not Medieval Martial Arts? Can I only be a teacher of Medieval Martial Arts if I am ignorant of other ways? |
I see, so what you're really saying is all martial arts are identical. There is no difference between them at all. Not quite in the league of the stupidity of magic initial capitalisation, but close, really close.
| Anna Cruse wrote: | Should I deny the experience and willingness to learn and adapt of all successful fighters throughout history to Keep The Message Pure? The one thing I have learnt about such policies is that they belong to DEAD paths. I guess they truly are history.
The Hashashin came about to punish other Islamics for not being Islamic enough. Fanatical fundamentalism has always been a part of the human experience. There will always be someone who will say you are not following the True Path. There is no point arguing with them - they are not subject to reason.
Anna |
Resorting to logical fallacies now Anna? In this case the strawman argument. Who said anything about "purity", the "True Path" or any of the other bullshit you wrote? I have asked whether it was too much to ask for people to be honest about what they do. I'm pretty sure I've been quite adamant about not wanting to change what you do, except to be honest. Apparently that's too difficult for you. Now you're trying obfuscation as a tactic.
_________________
The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
See http://www.swordsmanship.co.nz/ |
|
|
|
Colin
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:19 pm |
|
|
| Angel wrote: | | Proper nouns have more specific meanings than their common counterparts. By leaving Medieval Martial Arts capitalised, I'm choosing to give it the tight definition that you are so keen to hold on to. Not capitalising proper nouns is just poor grammar. |
Except of course the martial arts of Medieval Europe would be more correctly a common noun. Your intention of justifying it as a proper noun is incredulous. Medieval martial arts are not unique entities.
Using your god analogy, if you're referring to a particular deity then yes, it would be a proper noun. If used in a common or generic fashion then it would be a common noun.
_________________
The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
See http://www.swordsmanship.co.nz/ |
|
|
|
Anyad
Site Admin
Location: Upper Hutt
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 7:29 pm |
|
|
Hello everyone,
Just donning my Admin hat for a moment - this is a great conversation, however, I have noticed that posts have gotten a wee bit heated recently.
Lets keep it rolling, but lets not let the topic develop into a flame war.
_________________
*<>*<>*<>*<>*<>*<>*
Dayna Berghan-Whyman
www.handypaladin.co.nz
*<>*<>*<>*<>*<>*<>* |
|
|
|
Phil Berghan-Whyman
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:00 am |
|
|
| Colin wrote: | | ...Medieval was coined in the Renaissance by people believing they were in the Renaissance. It is a contraction of two Latin words (Medius and Auvum). Their reference to the 'Middle Age' was when Barbarians sacked and destroyed Rome to the rebirth of Roman (and Greek) civilisation. It does not refer to Africa or Japan. |
Colin, I agree with your etymology of the word medieval; however I disagree with your limiting it to a specific locale. The OED defines Medieval as "Of or relating to a period of time intervening between (periods designated as) ancient and modern; spec. of, relating to, or characteristic of the Middle Ages. Also, of art, religion, etc.: resembling or imitative of that of the Middle Ages."
Referring to medieval Japan (for example) is not be inherently contradictory or false. Japan especially had a ancient, middle, and modern periods, and these occurred at roughly the same period as the European equivalents. Louis Frederic's 'Daily Life in Japan describes the 12th century birth of the middle ages and the life of medieval man, all in relation to the Japanese rather than the European.
So can one say medieval China, medieval Samoa, medieval Tenochtitlan, or medieval Maori accurately? I think the answer is yes, so long as you are saying medieval as a means of fixing a general period of time (perhaps that which falls between the end of the Roman Empire and the start of the renaissance). It may not be a helpful usage (especially if the culture underwent substantial change that did not accurately map onto the defined time frame; this however doesn't invalidate the term.
Final note: If we were asked to 'compare the living conditions of the medieval European peasant with that of the medieval Maori peasant and the medieval Tenochtitlan peasant' then the question would be coherent despite the source of terms like medieval and peasant.
_________________
Phil Berghan-Whyman
"Hand me the sword and ask me the question again"
http://www.handypaladin.co.nz |
|
|
|
Phil Berghan-Whyman
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:45 am |
|
|
| Anna Cruse wrote: | | The difficulty I have recognising medieval martial arts comes from the fact that I have done a lot of martial arts, and over time have noticed a certain convergent evolution. These things may have started out quite differently, but by the basic application of Darwinism (those using the best techniques survived to pass on their knowledge) they start to look a lot the same. The only real difference is the strengths and limitations of the tools available.Anna |
For Darwinism to eliminate a school, then that school would have to be in competition with other schools and have lost out. WMA and EMA did not experince this. By the time the cultures were seriously clashing, firearms and navel power had become the defining point of the conflict (not hand to hand arts).
There are obvious similarities between many eastern and western fighting arts, and these can be explained with reference to the limited number of ways a body can move and injure another body (as Anna said) and also with regard to speed, timing, and distance (which will always be a focus for any fighting art). However there are also many different philosophies and rationales that went into regional fighting arts and caused them to develop very differently (and hence to diverge rather than converge).
Examples: Tai Chi and Akido share a common interest in relaxation and energy transmission, Some karate and Kung Fu styles are interested in Chi/Ki transmission/blockage, others ignore this and go for hard body and power generation. European arts developed and focused on the style and frequency of weapons and armour found in Europe, while the arts of Asia develped based on their circumstances.
I have studied both Chinese kung fu, tai chi, and WMA, and I've noticed similarities between the arts, however the philosophies are immensely different. This difference in philosophy leads to totally different application (I remember my teacher demonstrating how a move in tai chi resembles a move in kung fu, but in fact is not actually the same move at all).
The different philosophies led to different principles, hance eastern and western MAs work very differently. It is possible to take techniques from one art and apply them to another art, however this changes the technique substantially (I'd argue that the subjective experience of performing the technique would be radically different).
_________________
Phil Berghan-Whyman
"Hand me the sword and ask me the question again"
http://www.handypaladin.co.nz |
|
|
|
Colin
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:49 am |
|
|
| Phil Berghan-Whyman wrote: |
Colin, I agree with your etymology of the word medieval; however I disagree with your limiting it to a specific locale. The OED defines Medieval as "Of or relating to a period of time intervening between (periods designated as) ancient and modern; spec. of, relating to, or characteristic of the Middle Ages. Also, of art, religion, etc.: resembling or imitative of that of the Middle Ages." |
Since I conveniently lack the OED in front of me, I went and searched for it:
http://www.dac.neu.edu/english/kakelly/med/defining.html
I thoroughly disagree with your conclusion that the Middle Ages refers to any locale that has intervening period between 'ancient' and 'modern'. The definition you are using makes the definition meaningless.
Missing from your quotation is
"in earlier use commonly taken as extending from c. 500 to c 1500; now used without precise definition, but most frequently with reference to the four centuries after A.D. 1000."
I doubt this can be credibly applied to anything other than Europe. Circa 500 to 1500 refers (roughly) to the fall of (Western) Rome, and the 'rebirth'. I've already linked the Wiikipedia article, but to quote the Encyclopedia Brittanica
"Middle Ages, the period in European history from the fall of the western Roman Empire (c. AD 395) to the period of the Renaissance (variously interpreted as beginning in the 13th, 14th, or 15th century, depending on the region of Europe and other factors). The term and its conventional meaning were introduced by Italian humanist were engaged in a revival of classical learning and culture, and the notion of a thousand-year period of darkness and ignorance separating them from the ancient Greek and Roman world served to highlight the humanists' own work and ideals...." [emphasise mine]
So no, I do not hold to your definition of what constitutes 'medieval'.
_________________
The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
See http://www.swordsmanship.co.nz/ |
|
|
|
Colin
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:03 am |
|
|
| Angel wrote: | If you were using a medieval skateboard, sure...
|
And if I made it up from 1950s books that would be perfectly fine too, wouldn't it? Just like someone can pick up a viking axe and 'swish' it about and it suddenly transforms into doing medieval martial arts or someone can pick up the 1950s and 60s books on theatrical 'fencing' turn it into a supposed fighting system and it too suddenly transforms into medieval martial arts.
_________________
The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
See http://www.swordsmanship.co.nz/ |
|
|
|
Angel
Site Admin
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:07 am |
|
|
| Quote: | | Except of course the martial arts of Medieval Europe would be more correctly a common noun. Your intention of justifying it as a proper noun is incredulous. Medieval martial arts are not unique entities. |
Your attempt to limit the use of medieval martial arts to the first definition I gave, effectively turns it into a proper noun, because we get the impression that you'd like to see it turned into a trademark so that we can't use it when referring to any of the other definitions that the rest of us might use for medieval martial art.
| Quote: | | Using your god analogy, if you're referring to a particular deity then yes, it would be a proper noun. If used in a common or generic fashion then it would be a common noun. |
The grammar of that analogy wasn't the point. It was an analogy...
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that you are deliberately ignoring the actual point of my argument simply for argument's sake. And since the argument is pointless, we obviously have no hope of changing your mind, and I have already stated my point in a manner that others seem to understand, I'll not bother wasting any more pixels on it (unless something irresistable triggers my urge to run in the Special Olympics again  )
_________________
Recognise anyone? Flame Warriors |
|
|
|
Colin
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:39 am |
|
|
| Angel wrote: | | Your attempt to limit the use of medieval martial arts to the first definition I gave, effectively turns it into a proper noun, because we get the impression that you'd like to see it turned into a trademark so that we can't use it when referring to any of the other definitions that the rest of us might use for medieval martial art. |
No, my objection was
"If someone claims to do 'Medieval Martial Arts' they had better be doing 'Medieval Martial Arts' rather than claiming to do so, but instead are doing something else entirely."
(I had misremembered how the Argent Lords had written it, on perusing their website again, I notice it's 'Medieval martial arts')
I don't have a problem with people trying to do build siege machinery based on reasonable research, trying to figure out how certain battlefield manoeuvres were done and do forth, and being labelled "medieval martial arts".
I object to the made up stuff, especially the material that came from theatrical fencing books and societies from the 50s and 60s. Material that was never intended to be a valid fighting system. To me that's lying to your members and if you're doing public shows, lying to the public. You're in the same category of people who go around (even today) saying the Vikings wore horned helmets, a knight's armour was so heavy that if he fell down he couldn't get up again, or knights needed cranes to get on their horses.
But you're right. I cannot stop people from lying. If people want to lie about doing 'medieval martial arts' I cannot stop them. All I can do is point out they're liars. I had hoped this thread might try and convince a few people to be honest, but I now realise that's hopeless. People are too comfortable being liars. Yet another reason for me not to bother with the re-enactment movement.
_________________
The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
See http://www.swordsmanship.co.nz/ |
|
|
|
Anna Cruse
Location: Auckland City
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:48 am |
|
|
Phil - I recognise the differences caused by philosophy - I mentioned it in my first post about belief in Jehova. There are also differences due to different body types, steel qualities, social restrictions etc etc, but I have done no martial art that would restrict a person to a technique that wouldn't work for them, or in the situation they find themselves in, to the cost of losing the fight. My Ai Ki Do sensei taught me to stick the boot or fist in whenever convenient... I guess that also shows that I have not been trained by fundamentalist fanatics.
That's probably why my experience leads me to the perspective of convergenge. I'm not wrong about my perspective, though it may not coincide with yours. Perhaps part of the fuzziness comes from the fact that I am female, and most fighting techniques were developed by males - I'm encouraged to use techniques that better suit my strengths and limitations of size / balance / strength etc and they may not be strictly by the book.
I wonder, if the WMA styles you said were not subject to competition would have prevailed if they had been? Or how they would have evolved to fit the new circumstances? It's academic, anyway.
Colin - you'll know when I'm making a logical argument - it has two premises followed by a logical conclusion. Don't worry - I won't waste it on you, given that the strawman sobriquet fits so well. Do please understand, if I ignore your rantings, that I don't want to be like you, and would be embarrased to grace your dogmatic poison with an answer.
Anna |
|
|
|
Colin
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:53 am |
|
|
| Anna Cruse wrote: |
Colin - you'll know when I'm making a logical argument - it has two premises followed by a logical conclusion. |
I await with bated breath the day you can do just that. I do admire how you keep trying to bring back the argument to religion:
"I guess that also shows that I have not been trained by fundamentalist fanatics."
"...does that make them or the Gods the master sword wielder?"
"Fanatical fundamentalism has always been a part of the human experience. There will always be someone who will say you are not following the True Path. There is no point arguing with them - they are not subject to reason."
I hope your ability to form a logical argument won't resort to hyperbole like you've done so far (or logical fallacies for that matter).
_________________
The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
See http://www.swordsmanship.co.nz/ |
|
|
|
|
|
Please read the terms of use