[ Posted by Janka
Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:11:38 GMT ]
The whole first paragraph is one sentence in the original. Seriously.
112) Striking is the main means of offense.
To strike, I must have arrived to distance.
I must throw forward my body, legs, arms, everything, as one, smooth motion.
The front foot moves if, and only if, it needs to. If I am late, or the adversary is fast, it does not need to, as the distance is already closed by him.
113) Striking can be done in several different ways: either I move and the adversary is still, I am still and he moves, or we both move. He can move either to strike, or to seek measure. When he moves to strike, my measure is that of the fixed foot; when he moves to seek measure, I can strike him on the measure of the advancing foot.
114) I can strike from the inside, in quarta, or from the outside, in seconda. I can also strike high or low. All this depends on what parts of him are exposed to give me measure.
115) Every strike is a parry. If I am on the straight line, at the correct distance, and strike when there is time to do so(1), the adversary can never hit me (neither with a thrust or a cut), because my forte moves in a straight line and will cover my body(2).
116) The edge is not really important. To strike with it, you need to completely move your sword away from any line to the adversary, uncovering your body. Granted you can sometimes make use of a cut, but in those situations you could also have simply used a thrust.
117) Well, except on horseback, where it actually does make sense to cut, because you cannot control your seeking of measure and timing very exactly, but you can wheel your arm about as much as you like.
(1)
Yay for avoidance of technical terms. That's all mine, not CF, obviously.
(2) Cover, as in, make it impossible for his point / debole to get to me in time, because they are on the wrong side of my sword and arm.
Posted in Plain English | Tags paraphrasing Capo Ferro | no comments
[ Posted by Janka
Sat, 03 Oct 2009 15:00:00 GMT ]
First time since I started that I had to push myself a bit to actually do the planned reading. Might be that it is Saturday and I have to interrupt my other programme (such as idling on the interwebs and preparing to paint our gaming room table with blackboard paint) to do it, instead of doing it on the commute. That, or he is really starting to get on my nerves.
104) There are two parts to offense: seeking measure, and striking.
105) Seeking measure means to be on guard, trying to get to striking distance.
106) There are three circumstances of seeking measure. Either I move and the adversary stays still, or I stay still and he moves, or we both move.
107) The timing of these actions needs to be exact, and end when you get to the outer limits of your striking distance. From there, you move to the tempos of striking.(1)
108) To achieve exact timing, you need to be patient when seeking measure, and not try and attack too early.
109) For example, if I am still in guard while seeking measure and my adversary is moving towards me, it is best to remain still until he arrives exactly at the border of my striking distance, instead of moving myself. You can think of it as the whole moving to measure being one "tempo", regardless of how long it takes, because during that time nothing else can happen. Hence, there is no hurry, and if I move, it might happen that when he crosses that border I am moving too. If I am, I miss the exact time when we move to measure, which is the next tempo.(2)
110) Many in seeking the striking distance disengage and counter-disengage, perform feints and counterfeints, stingere too far, and step from every side, and twist their bodies and stretch them, and retreat in many whimsical fashions, which are all stupid, even though they might look clever and difficult to foolish people.
When you need to stringere when seeking measure, it is not necessary to actually close the line and touch the adversary's sword, it is enough to stay on the straight line and without touching place the sword so that your forte is ready to meet his debole when you move to strike.(3)
111) Disengaging when seeking measure is good only if the adversary has me pushed off the straight line. In that case it is necessary to retreat a bit, at least with the body, and to place the sword immediately back to the straight line. You need to retreat because to stringere, he needs to bring the sword forward and so to disengage you need to bring yours back.(4)
(1) What I take this to mean is that any action you take to get to measure should land you on the outer limit of the measure, not somewhere deep inside to it, or else there will be time when you are inside his measure but still moving to a position useful on measure yourself, creating time and opportunity for him to strike.
(2) It makes more sense inside my head. I am developing a funny way to think about tempo, but it is funny in a way that I like much better than the mechanical, not fluid-enough thinking I had before.
(3) Which to me seems to suggest by raising the hand in terza a bit, but I have to actually hold a sword against someone else to figure out if I have this right.
(4) It is unclear from the context whether he means this to hold when seeking measure, or as a general principle. I have never thought disengage needing a withdraw, but then again I am constantly pulling my arm too far back anyway, so it might be I just haven't paid attention.
Posted in Plain English | Tags paraphrasing Capo Ferro | no comments
[ Posted by Janka
Sat, 03 Oct 2009 13:21:36 GMT ]
Sorry for the flood, need another public test post.
Posted in Plain English | 1 comment
[ Posted by Janka
Sat, 03 Oct 2009 13:15:19 GMT ]
Seems that currently what bugs is the atom feed (http://www.orava.org/janka/log/articles.atom), while the RSS feed (http://www.orava.org/janka/log/articles.rss) seems to function as supposed to. While we hope to get the first one to not be a moron sooner or later too, meanwhile you might want to point your readers to the RSS one instead.
Thanks to all who gave feedback on this.
Posted in Plain English | Tags meta | no comments
[ Posted by Janka
Sat, 03 Oct 2009 09:47:29 GMT ]
Commenting on the blog seems to be borked. Thanks for those who repoted; I have managed the replicate the bug after some poking around, realized I have no idea whatsoever how to even start fixing it, and reported it to admin dearest. Stay tuned.
I also have heard from one source about a broken RSS feed; I cannot replicate that one, so kindly if you see a broken feed (the bug is such you should still be able to see this, yes, give me some details on it).
Update: RSS feed seems to do weird and wonderful random things. Working on it, too.
Posted in Plain English | Tags meta | no comments
[ Posted by Janka
Fri, 02 Oct 2009 10:53:58 GMT ]
Blah blah blah. Can we get to the bit where there is actual swordsfighting, sometime soon?
95) So that was the first part of the handling of the sword, which was about distances and body positions and such.
96) Next we'll talk about the second part, which is about defense. First we talk about actual defense, namely the guard, and then about offense.
97) The guard is a position of the body, as follows: the arm and sword on a straight line in the middle of the offendable parts of the body, and the body settled to the "ordinary pace". The idea is to hold the enemy at distance, but to be able to attack if he comes close.
98) Terza(1) is then a position that is exclusively a guard and nothing else. Do not hold the terza outside of the knee, but so that it properly is in line with the middle of the body both horizontally and vertically, and ready to attack and defend on all possible lines.
99) Prima, seconda and quarta are not guards(2), because they are not well-suited for seeking measure, as they uncover too much of the body and are not equally close to all places you potentially need to defend. They are a means of striking, not of guard.
100) There are three things that make striking a target difficult. First, being too far away from it. Second, if it is covered. Third, if there is something close that can come to its defense quickly.(3)
101) All these virtues are in our guard. By leaning away from the adversary and keeping weight on the left leg we create distance. By holding the sword in the middle of the body we cover most of the target areas, and what is not covered can be quickly made covered. Thus one walks safely to take well the tempo and measure, which thing is the ultimate perfection of the guard.
102) To me, it does not make sense to talk about changing from guard to guard. You either are on guard, or you are not.
103) Offense is the type of defense where I actually try to hit the opponent.
(1) For the unenlightened: I am sure he will explain these things sooner or later. While wishing for that, think of it this way: terza, the third position of the arm/sword, is when you hold the sword in front of you, true edge facing down. Seconda is when you turn your arm and hand so that the blade is horizontal and to your right, true edge facing right; quarta is on the opposite side; prima is when the hand is above your head and true edge facing up. So from the top, first, second, third, fourth follow each other in 90 degrees.
(2) Err. Right. What
ever...
(3) The target being able to move away quickly apparently does not count.
Posted in Plain English | Tags paraphrasing Capo Ferro | no comments
[ Posted by Janka
Thu, 01 Oct 2009 11:18:09 GMT ]
83) In guard and while seeking measure, the right foot should point directly forward and the right calf and thigh form a straight sloping line. The left foot should point directly to your left, and the knee be bent as far as possible. Knees should be on line with feet. Left heel and right heel should both be on the line(1).
84) In striking, the right knee is bent as far as it can go, the calf forming an acute angle with the thigh(2). Now, the left calf and thigh form a straight sloping line.
85) "The pace" is a certain distance between the legs that is suited for what it is used for. The concept applies both to standing still and to movement. The distance can be almost non-existent, half a pace, an ordinary pace, or an extraordinary pace.(3)
86) In fencing, the ordinary pace is the best. Using it, your body rests naturally at guard.(4)
You can then seek striking measure with tiny advances of the pace, little by little, without changing the position.
If you make your position narrower, your balance will become worse.
If you take steps towards the adversary that are of a half-pace or longer, you can lose tempo(5) and strike slower.
Other steps can serve out of measure for walking and getting into guard.(6)
87) The pace of fencing, we will, for better understanding, name "military" or "soldierly".(7)
The paces we use are ordinary, and extraordinary.
The ordinary is the one in which you are on guard; the extraordinary are the one you use to strike.
88) You can step in a lot of ways: forward, back, sideways, diagonally; crossing the legs or not; moving one leg or both; keeping the distance between the legs the same or shortening or lengthening it.
89) But I think that you really only need the two leg positions I already described.
90) I think stepping sideways serves only to deceive or threaten the opponent, or to scout his strength.
When your opponent steps off the line, it opens an opportunity for you to use all sorts of narrower paces and so forth, but in my judgment the ordinary pace is still the best.
91) Some say you should step towards the side when the adversary is on an oblique line, in order to stringere on the outside. I think it is better to just go into measure on a straight line, instead of pursue the play off it.
Some also say that stepping to the side is a good way to avoid a strike, but seriously, if you had any concept of tempo and measure you should be able to do that in normal quarta or seconda on the straight line.
92) Crossing your left foot toward the right side to do an inquartata(8) is worthless and can be a risk, preventing the body and the right arm from supporting the strike and losing tempo. Stepping right leg towards the left to do an inquartata is just something people do by chance, and has no place in a real fight.
93) Passing steps(9) are not good, because they lose measure and tempo. When you are moving your left leg, your sword arm and the right side of the body are unable to strike fast enough, and without the risk of a riposte.
94) Retreats are mostly used after a strike. When I strike I necessarily open myself, and if I stay still after a strike the adversary can easily strike back.
(1) Wherein by "the line" we mean the straight line forward towards the adversary. He actually says they "directly align", but since two heels are just two points, the line between them is always direct, so you need to take that in context of some other line. There's at least three different ways (the other two left as exercise) to formulate which, all leading to the same practical conclusion.
(2) For the love of gods, don't attempt to reach such a deep lunge before practicing for a long time and being completely confident your knee is tracking over your foot even at full speed. You'll bust a knee.
(3) I started to render this simply as "normal and long step", but then I figured I have to give some credit to established terminology, even when I think it is too prone to making something mystifying from simple ideas.
(4) I think, but am not sure, that he says that the length of the guard position regarding the legs should be that of a normal step. I was about to say noway, it's much longer really, but then I tried it and in fact my optimal guard position does come pretty amazingly close to steps of a brisk walk.
(5) Because when you are taking that step, you cannot do something else. If a step is very short, it takes more steps to get to wherever but each individual step takes much less time, which means that times when you can change your mind and do something else instead of stepping (ie, tempos for you) recur more often.
(6) Or something. The whole paragraph is one ran-into sentence that is extremely difficult to parse. He might as well be saying that a good length for a pace is that which you use for walking. Someone sell this man punctuation...
(7) Though why exactly, and what does it mean, I cannot say. If someone else felt their understanding bettered, do share.
(8) No, I don't remember what it is either.
(9) Passatas, passes; steps that switch legs (ie, bring back leg to be the new front leg). And yes, he does passes all the time in the plates, I think.
Posted in Plain English | Tags paraphrasing Capo Ferro | no comments
[ Posted by Janka
Thu, 01 Oct 2009 10:51:39 GMT ]
Typo, the blog engine, has been updated. So far I have noticed nothing seriously wrong, but if something is broken, let me know.
Posted in Plain English | Tags meta | no comments
[ Posted by Janka
Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:40:23 GMT ]
I was asked yesterday by a friend whether I think Jungian psychotherapy makes sense.
There’s unfortunately no polite answer that would not immediately get me a derisive “What exactly do you know about Jungian psychotherapy, anyway?” from someone who actually does, and fair enough. I know next to nothing. So I am not going to answer the question.
Instead, an observation. Based on my granted sort of limited experiences in psychiatry, psychotherapies work, in the sense that a lot of people get help and insights from it they estimate they would not have gotten otherwise. There is very little scientific research on it (though there is some), and of course double-blinding between not getting and getting therapy is impossible, but still, what there is and experience seems to suggest there is a point to psychotherapy both as a treatment of many conditions and as a way to help perfectly sane people to gain understanding of themselves and control of their lives.
The weird thing is this: it seems to matter very little what the so called “theoretical background” or “school” of the therapist is—indeed, whether they are Jungian, or something else. The ways these schools describe the mind, and the development of the mind, are wildly different, and often contradictory. Yet whichever way to conceptualize it you give to people, whatever theory of mind, they find a way to use that as a useful metaphor for their own self, and to gain insight.
I think there is probably something fundamental and profound in that ability to insight that we possess.
Posted in Plain English | Tags mieli, psykiatria, psykoterapia | no comments
[ Posted by Janka
Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:43:56 GMT ]
Is it just me, or have we started to confuse the concepts of “responsibility” and “fault” at some point, so that you only are expected to feel responsible for fixing something if you are actually the culprit in breaking it?
“I take full responsibility” implies “it is totally my fault”. “Well it’s not my fault!” implies “so you cannot expect me to do something about it”.
I have - seriously - seen this go the extent where people argue that a father is not responsible for paying something his sons broke, because he was not personally there throwing the stones at the windows, and a teacher claim she cannot be held responsible for explaining the basics again and again to a child, because it is not “her fault” the kid has not gotten it yet and she needs to move on with the others. (Maybe the teacher does need to move on. But that has nothing to do with it being or not being her fault that one child is behind.)
Most far you see it go with people (not) taking responsibility for their own happiness. Somehow, there seems to be a subtle pervasive thinking that if you are responsible for fixing it, you must be somehow guilty for it, so that in response to things that might need changing people (yes, including me) tend to err to two completely borked reactions.
I’ll skip the first one, which is the “it’s unfair I have to actually work to overcome my faults, I was born this way, you can’t hold me responsible!”, because that is usually only spoken out by people who will not read this far anyway, because I am already being so unfair here and being mean and making, indeed forcing them to feel guilty for stuff that is totally not their fault.
But the second, infinitely more usual is that people actually decide that they need to take responsibility—and then immediately feel guilty for whatever it is they need to change. This results in them feeling so guilty for being such bad persons as to be unhappy that they then avoid doing anything because the guilt is so uncomfortable to face.
Quite often, when people need to change something in their lives, that “something” is not really “their fault” in the sense that they would be somehow morally bad for having it in their lives in the first place. The people who do the first borked reaction are actually partially correct: it is usually in no way your fault if some things are harder for you than others. If concentrating on things is not easy for you, if you get easily irritated by what others consider small stuff, if you have difficulties controlling your urges for food or drugs, if you are shy in new situations, if you find it terribly hard to be organized—more likely than not, that’s not something to feel bad about. It’s just the way you are. You were very likely born, raised, or both that way and should not feel any sort of personal guilt or shame over it.
But that does not mean you are not responsible for it. It is ok to find concentration difficult - but if you are a student, you still need to find ways to help you study. Others can help, but you need to invest in finding out what helps and what hurts, and then implementing that help. It is not shameful to be one of those people who cannot used alcohol without getting addicted - but you are still responsible from abstaining if you cannot control it. It is ok to be shy in social situations - but that does not mean you cannot figure out how to overcome that fear so that you can still take part in what is important for you, in a way that works for you. It is ok to find organization hard - but sometimes naturally disorganized people need to work harder than others on keeping a routine in order to be able to function in certain jobs.
With responsible, I do not mean “you are a bad person if you do not fix it”. That is confusing guilt with responsibility again. You are not guilty of anything if you have things in your life that do not work for you. Even if you could have done something about them a year ago, not having done it yet is usually not “your fault” in the sense that repentance or asking someone’s forgiveness or hiding away in shame would be necessary. It is just how things are, it is how you have lately been. No need for guilt. But if you want stuff changed now or in any point in the future, more often than not, the only person that you can expect to change it is yourself. Even if the stuff is actually the fault of someone else, it is still often your responsibility to initiate the change. Even if they are a circumstance you cannot make away with, it is your job to try and find help living with them.
I know, it is often not fair. But “fair” enters the equation about as much as “guilty” does.
People react in two ways to hearing that a particular child as ADHD. One group of people says: “Oh! That explains why he is like that, guess we just need to tolerate it.” The other group says: “Oh! That explains why he is like that. I guess we need to work really hard to maintain order, so that he is not constantly disturbed.” The second group is actually trying to help the child. The first one is avoiding responsibility.
Any more than a child, you cannot simply decide to be different: to be more organized / restrained / social / industrious / whatever. You are what you are and for most of these things, you will be that way for the rest of your life, at least to some extent. But that’s ok. What is important is what you want to do about it. Any time you spend feeling guilty over stuff that is not in your control is time not spent in figuring out how to live with it.
Note that there is an important “if” there hidden in the above: “if you want to change this or that”, “what is important is what you want to do about it”. Feeling guilty about something in your life that you do not even think you want to change is the most borked option of all. You can perfectly well choose not to do anything at all about something that is suboptimal, and there is no need to feel guilty about it, regardless of what some other people think. Deciding what you will change and what you will let be is also part of the responsibility that is yours.
(How to make changes happen once you have accepted that you need to is much harder. I am with the Zen Habits school of thought there: slowly, and one thing at a time.)
Posted in Plain English | Tags unsolicited advice | 2 comments
