Viewing all threads involving 7b_wizard
Congratulations to the Void!
I have just read on a Facebook post from Donald Grant that he has passed his 6th Dan Kendama exam. this is the highest level and he has become the first ever non-Japanese to manage it. I know that he has had several attempts beforehand and that it had proved elusive even though all the individual skills were doable. So many congratulations on his perseverance.
Apologies for the uncapitalised 't' at the start of a sentence. Just goes to show I should read my posts more thoroughly before hitting the post button.
Thank you, Nigel. I'll even forgive you the "t".
I wrote a Twitter thread about it, that starts here:
Today I became the first non-Japanese player to pass the highest grade of 6th Dan in kendama. It's the hardest thing I've ever done. 1/- pic.twitter.com/SdzusdcqQn
— The Void (@TheVoidTLMB) October 14, 2017
This is really cool. Congrats.
Is there an easy to read list of the tricks you needed to do, with video links?
I don't know enough about kendama to be sure, but this video claims to show all the tricks for 6th Dan in kendama: https://youtu.be/Yx47Uh6OfQo
http://kendama.co.uk/tricks.html lists them all, with gifs, if that will do you. Right hand column of the Advanced/Dan table will show you how many of each one I had to do successfully in 10 attempts. (Plus, of course, having previously done all the stuff to get to 5th Dan, and then wait a year before being allowed to try.)
Yes, the list is good and the rules are clear. The gifs make my eyes bleed though, so the video was highly appreciated.
If you want to read the long* story, it’s at http://kendama.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3098.msg29896.html#msg29896 (after the tweets).
* Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
That was a great read thank you. The story is always much more interesting than just the bare facts. All the more satisfying to learn that your achievement was in spite of sub-optimal conditions.
* As ever I disagree with the insinuation that 'long' equals 'bad'.
I go along with that.
On foreign terrain it's so much the better an achievement as the natives always have an edge or two with a long tradition an' all on their side. On a side note, as a halfway decent chess player (over 50% on club level), I had been into Chinese Chess, Xiangqi, for a while, and the natives (real-life and online play) gave me a hard time to even win one game and leave rookie level, while I could win games against germans or other longnoses. However.
Congrats, The Void!
When I work on inverted sprung cascade, my elbows hurt the next day, even though at the time the pattern feels relaxed and lovely. I've not pushed things lately, but I'd really like to work on this (and some related patterns) harder.
Does anyone have any experience with prehab for elbows? The range of motion certainly isn't straining my flexibility, but would stretching help anyway?
 - this is what ISC looks like, so you can see the particular movements: https://www.instagram.com/p/BXOR0PMloE3/
 - looking for something more than a "it couldn't hurt!" answer here.
Try not to damage your elbows. I've had a recurring sore elbow for the past few weeks.. wasn't sure why, perhaps it's something juggling related. I have been practicing hi-lo inv box recently (still not running it but getting closer). My pain is at the top of my forearm, opposite side of elbow. I had tennis elbow a few years back, it took months to heal! A tennis elbow pressure strap, regular hard self-massaging to the painful area, and Ibuprofen helps alot. Ice is good too. ISC looks really crazy, I don't think many people can do that!
The pain your describing sounds like the same injury I've had a few times, practicing similar patterns. The first time, when I didn't know the warning signs, I was out for ~2-3 months.
Perhaps it's time to invest in a tennis elbow pressure strap. Thanks for the thoughts.
In this trick you're placing sideways stress on a hinge joint. That's never any good, and I don't think you can do much to strenghten that joint.
What you probably can do is stretch and train the muscles around your shoulder to more actively and easily make the outward rotation. A physio/sports therapist should be able to guide you in that!
Interesting, thanks. I've heard other box jugglers talk about shoulders hurting from practicing these types of things, but I've never had any shoulder issues (I guess I'm lucky with those joints!). I'll be sure to be cognizant of that potential injury, though.
I don't think you're potentially injuring your shoulder, I think your shoulder should be capable of taking the impact which is now getting on your elbow. Stretching the shoulder might help it do that!
Lift your arm to the front, and then bend the elbow with your forearm going up, so you're making pretty much the position you hold in the inverted sprung cascade. Now try to rotate your fore arm outwards while keeping the elbow in the same spot in space. This movement comes from the shoulder, not the elbow. However, if the shoulder is incabable of making this move easily, you might put some stress on the elbow joint sideways, which it can't deal with very well. By becoming more flexible, and/or stronger so that you can make the rotation more actively, you could release the stress on the elbow.
Maybe lookup "external shoulder rotation"
Ah, thanks for setting me straight, I had completely misinterpreted.
I've looked up external shoulder rotation, thanks.
practise versus ``talent´´
(no matter which level you're on - just started or world champion ..)
How much do you think that all your skills are (to which part) a result of practise or hard ``work´´, perseverance, or else
(to which part) did they ``come to you´´ by a natural preference for juggling (or object manipulation or artistry oror) or by a natural predisposition or a love for juggling making learning easier (than e.g. for the average juggler, or e.g. than learning another skill or art of motion or sportive activity)?
A few aspects helping to answer:
Even Gatto said sth like, there's no such thing talent on his level or for him - it was all hard hard work.
Think of what you can't do even though you think you should.
Was your decision or how you got to juggling totally intrinsic (=absolutely "yours" and the only thing to do, ``necessary´´ in a way) or could it just aswell have been something else, another hobby or activity.
Do you see yourself improving and learning much faster than others (that's the point, not learning easy stuff fast only).
Do others admire the speed you improve or learn (while you yourself might not have noticed).
And a question that I'm interested in:
Do you think or have you experienced a hidden talent waking up after already having juggled for a good while? Do you think that's possible to ``wake up the natural inside you´´?
I myself am somewhere between 2 and 3, but sill blundering a real lot when not yet warmed up or when not concentrating, also failing over long phases, makes me say "2", even though I hope for it to become easier, maybe the natural skill inside waking up, some day when I've reached my goals and then not having to so much do at the limit anymore. I don't think I'd have gotten where I am without the inner decision to dedicate to the 7b cascade, which is maybe rather a preference than ``natural talent´´, who knows.
You're asking multiple questions at once, which makes it hard to answer correctly...
I think I have some but little natural talent in learning object manipulation skills. However I am extremely predisposed to love juggling which makes it incredibly easy to spend countless hours on practice. So effectively my natural affection for juggling makes me a good juggler?
Yes, [>>"multiple wording"<<], wanted to include a wide range of viewpoints for "talent\\not talent".
Okay, that makes it a bit difficult ("little natural talent, but love for juggling making practise easy"),
but, as the question is scaled along "talent vs. practise", I'd say, your description says, that your love for juggling sort of enables or helps you to make up for little natural talent. But you don't sound, like new skills ``come to you´´ or that your natural afffection for juggling makes learning (notably) easier than for the average juggler or than another activity - at least not in a way that would spare you to still having to practise a whole lot. That would be a clear "2", I'd say.
So, @ all, if in doubt, feel free to read the options as roughly ..
1. 0-5% talent - 95-100% practise (hard work only)
2. 5-25% talent - 75-95% practise
3. 25-45% talent - 55-75% practise
4. 45-55% talent - 45-55% practise (equal)
5. 55-75% talent - 25-45% practise
6. 75-95% talent - 5-25% practise
7. 95-100% talent - 0-5% practise (pure talent, just do it and it will naturally succeed in ridiculously short time)
I put myself down as a number 2. I think I'm very similar to Daniel, I got good at juggling because when I first started I enjoyed it so much I did nothing but practice. Perhaps because of my enjoyment I didn't realise it was 'hard work'.
Agreed. The choices are made a bit complex by the 'love of juggling' part, which I think makes the vote lose focus on the nature vs nurture argument. I think that any natural aptitude is very small, but I voted 2 for the same reason as you.
Interesting Gatto's comment that he thinks it was all hard work. Where does that quote come from? On his own forum years ago he said that he believes he has some kind of natural advantage and sees things "in slow motion". Although I don't believe that at all I do think that believing it helped him a lot.
I always thought that seeing things in slow motion is acquired. When you first start attempting 5 balls it feels frantic and crazy fast and impossible. After a while (perhaps a few years or more), it can seem slow and simple. Gravity obviously hasn't changed but your perception has.
Sometime after I was pretty solid with 5 balls, I remember when it really clicked even more and became truly effortless. I fondly remember that as my juggling nirvana.
That 'love of juggling' wording is due to me trying to exclude, that ``talent´´ (which anyway is hard to seize as notion) need be determined by some genetic predisposition, let alone by a distinct ``juggling gene´´. And I tried to allow, that a wunderkind could feel as a natural without a need to have genetic evidence, without the need to have been ``born as juggler´´, just with love of juggling, then. Also, I wanted to avoid any discussion about whether ``(genetic) talent´´ even exists or not.
That Gatto statement is nothing like a citation with a source; I had it in mind, read it somewhere - it might be a mere rumour or misinterpretation (alas, I have no idea, where I got that from).
I'd put me somewhere between 5-6. When I can dredge up enough time to practice daily, I feel my progress goes by leaps and bounds, and it seems like I could be /very/ good if I were to try to make a career of juggling (or prioritize it higher).
There are certainly people who pick things up faster than me, but that population seems to be somewhere between 10-25 % of jugglers I know. There's probably some selection bias in there.
I'm a 2. I find it very difficult to understand juggling patterns and I've always learned everything slower than most. My love of juggling has helped me keep up the practicing.
This poll has now ended. The results are:
EP10 of JJ with Manuel Mittasch
The 10th episode of Juggle Jabber! I didn't think there would be so many when I started, but now I can't wait to work on the next 10! There might not have been a single interview ever without the Edge, so thank you guys :)
As always, comments and feedback are welcome in any form!
Hi, I happened to just watch the Triolar I'view that was still on my to watch list - funny atmosphere (You did well as ``Pascha´´ - "You girls do the talking, I'm meanwhile in charge of the goodies on the table and will interfere only when a topic is done."). I didn't acoustically understand it all, though, .. I think most people interviewed aren't aware, a far away micro needs an effort to speak clear, .. half sentences are being swallowed still well understood in the room, but not by the micro that doesn't get the full volume, not the full sound-spectrum of the voice - maybe it's an option to consider, putting a micro near the talk, on the table or so. The Matthew Tiffany one was great, very interesting. I'm very much looking foreward to the Gilligan one. I hope, you get more feedback.
Useless fecking loser needs TWO hands to catch the last one! What a pathetic waster, he's going nowhere fast.
Queer .. I saw nothing, only a still picture of the solar system with a tiny lightblue brahman hovering a handwidth above ground on Jupiter. Guess, my subconscience did that to protect me.
I flashed 8 balls today. I was bored, had to wait 15 minutes, there were some cheap beanbags lying around... I don't even juggle beanbags, ugh! Worst of all, I did it after only 5 minutes of trying so then I had to kill another 10 minutes somehow..
Where are my cool points?
The future of juggling
Juggling will be more popular. - It's not as exhausting as jogging or workout studio and also burns fat in a fun way. It will then also naturally be a topic in sciences and in the media.
There will be a glossary.
There will be more holsters and helps of various kinds.
There will be lots 'a minicopter juggling and a humanoid juggling robot.
There will be world-rankings and distinct proficiency / difficulty-levels, dans or alike.
Rackets will be used.
Many-ball-patterns will be rolled on big inclined planes and there will be more helium prop juggling.
Chinese Circus will (re-)discover toss-juggling.
.. maybe, I could imagine.
Yeh, some of it has been done before or exists already, but isn't as common as it will be and not yet as popular as playing frisbee.
History repeating. I'm looking forward to the 20s, they'll be the next 90s, just as the 90s were the next 60s. History repeating.
Hm .. siteswap and stickmen weren't there before, though. Some, maybe a lot of old, ancient skills and fashions might have gone lost, but juggling has overall grown in complexity and I wish it furtheron will. I think it deserves it.
Internet video has contributed much to the complexity of juggling. The general image of juggling (to non-jugglers) is changing too. In the future juggling might be seen as cool and sexy. Pre-xmas perfume commercials will feature jugglers. 'Kasscade.. le new fragrance.. eau de toilette'.
Believing to not offend anyone as it's public lists, I have crossposted `our´ 9b cas records' list to reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/juggling/comments/6zg68w/how_many_or_who_are_there_9_ballers_in_the_world/.
Feel free to object (without need to give a reason), to update or to kiebitz there.
Over 40 years old, juggling 7 balls/beanbags...
Looking to gather together 40 somethings working on 7 balls/beanbags... would love to share some stories/thoughts/ideas. :)
I'll turn 48 next month and I can still juggle 7 balls, although I'll confess that about a year ago I stopped working on it daily. I can still do it when I try, but it's not as consistent as it was. I've never been great at 7, with my personal best being only 70 catches. I have qualified 8 balls and flashed 9, but I'm not really much of a ball juggler. I can still flash 7 clubs, which I think is pretty decent for an old fat guy with health issues. So, that's where I'm at. I'm still learning new stuff all the time, but it's just not stuff where I'm trying to keep up with the 16 year olds.
Doesn't match: >50yo, going for 9b.
No, serious, ..
Hi emead, matches for me (serious for 7b at about 36yo, now daily practise).
I am 46 and can qualify 7 balls (pb=20-30 catches). I have (re-)started juggling 4 years ago, learning 4 ball tricks and siteswaps. After about half a year I have learned the 5 ball cascade. I mainly juggle self-made Russian balls. Progress with 7b is very slow compared with all other tricks. Now, I focus more on body throws, box variations, and passing (clubs).
43, will start working on 7 balls pretty soon. Solid 5, taking juggling class since last week. We all need challenges, right?
Wow! Good to hear there's more than a few of us. :)
I know one thing that has surprised me is that I never seem to get that "one day" where I best 30 catches and then the next day it's 40 and the next 70, etc. That happened for 5-balls, but 7-balls just seems to be one and a tenth step forward, one step back......
49, solid 5, occasional qualify of 6, 7 still eludes me. Mostly I juggle homemead Russians (90g)
Hi emead, welcome aboard. I'm (counts on fingers) 38 so not far off age wise. I'm regularly at around 20-30 catches, 7 balls is definitely a skill I'd like to keep into my 40s & beyond.
I'm 37 and haven't learned to juggle 5 balls yet... I will, though. Counting on having many years left to improve my juggling.
Awesome! Keep at it. It definitely takes more time than you expect (based on your history), but keep at it! Post your progress! Helps to have a sympathetic ear. ;)
Yeah, I think learning 5 balls will take a while, since I don't juggle balls very often. All the scheduled juggling practice is usually spent on clubs. I'm planning to learn 5 clubs, too, but that is difficult and there are many other things I want to learn, too, so I don't spend a lot of time on that either. Plus a full time job makes it difficult to find enough time for juggling at all.
Oh, and if there is such a thing as having the "talent" for juggling, I don't think I have it. You can get pretty far with determination and lots of work though. :)
Thanks for the encouragement. :)
I disagreed immediately. I mean, why would such a smart fellow choose to film in portrait?
— The Void (@TheVoidTLMB) July 14, 2017
I agreed with the preamble, but it got problematic when the actual definition started. But is such a long definition useful?
I followed a little of the Facebook discussion about how this definition had been whittled down to mere pages (or was it reams?). I'll have a look at that if it appears but I don't consider a 15 minute video to be information, especially one which didn't seem to yield a point when I skimmed through it
Barnesy, here you go:
Juggling is a genre of activities related to the default form. The default form is the three ball cascade.
How far does the border have to be from the 3b cascade before it becomes 'not juggling'?
It's not about distance. It is an on or off switch. Is there a relevant relation or not? Is there another genre that has a stronger connection to the subject than 3 ball cascade, or other established forms of juggling?
One thing to always remember, is that we are dealing with communication and the meaning of a word here. For an example, if I walk into a pizza place with another juggler and the pizza chef is throwing the dough around, I could easily start talking to my juggling friend about the pizza tricks as juggling, and he would know immediately what I was saying. If the person I was talking to was a non-juggler, it might be harder, since it is not as certain that he would see a connection to other already established forms of juggling.
Perhaps dance is the default form? I think there's an 'outside' and 'inside' of what juggling is. The inside is - feeling a motion.. a dance. The feeling is the same as dancing, you're using an object/s (balls, poi, pizza etc) to feel the dance instead of your body. Skateboarding is using your body and an object to feel it. The playing of a musical instrument isn't related because of the lack of motion.. you're feeling rhythms & melodies.. but not motion. Does that make any sense? Not sure myself.
Juggling is a genre of activities related to the default form. The default form is the three ball cascade.
"Juggling a three ball cascade" is already juggling - can it then serve for defining juggling? (Howto define "juggling" in "juggling a three ball cascade"? .. to me, that's circular, tautologic, self-redundant reasoning)
Far TL; Can't be bothered to W - but:
Is a definition even useful?
Definitions usually only serve so you can point at things which don't fit the definition and exclude them. Something I haven't been interested in doing with "juggling" for a while
I like the idea of exploring the boundaries of a concept, as it lets you find areas that haven't been explored yet. However, defining what the word juggling means is a different exercise of defining what "juggling is", or can be. Completing the first step is probably useful before beginning the second step.
However, if I'm to watch a long video, it has to be more interesting than that in the first minute for me to continue on with it.
Luke, if you want to claim that the word juggling represents something different than "what juggling is" you will have to explain that difference. The word juggling is only a representative for a concept. I does not matter if you try to leave the area of language and the meaning of words, when you still use language and words. Using words in communication confines you to their meanings, unless you explain how they would differ.
We use the word juggling, and we mean something when we do. Therefore, I did not make a definition. Its already there, I have no say in the matter. I can only describe what the word means already.
Q: Is a definition even useful?
A: Yes, because when we understand deeper what it is that we are doing, we can reach further, and be more effective. We can communicate better. Removing confusion is both pleasant and aesthetical.
"Definitions usually only serve so you can point at things which don't fit the definition and exclude them."
For sure you can come up with more uses to understanding language and the meaning of words, than that one.
Not only exclude what is not juggling, but also for example seize the ``essence´´ of juggling, or e.g. define its outlines, yes, as what it's not, as opposed to where juggling stops to be juggling. Like, " Is it right, is it well communicated, to call a throw (that dough across the snack-bar) juggling or is it very artistic skilled throwing, but not really juggling? " .. What do I expect of myself when saying that I am a "juggler", being able to throw dough like him for me wouldn't be enough. I'd like to know what ``exactly´´ juggling is and what ``exactly´´ it requires. I don't feel like a juggler yet with enduring 5 balls for minutes, but not managing a 5b s'swap. I would drop even a 3b cascade when talking to someone at the same time. My 3b tricks go a few rounds to collapse (doing at the limit, tho). I'd say, for example, being able to do a lot of 3b tricks, stable(!!) and transitioning between them makes you a "juggler". Also challenging 2b tricks. But is throwing one ball up and clapping your hands or eating an apple with the other hand really what we understand by "juggling"?
Void, I was rushed and time was limited. The purpose of the video is to reveal the general thoughts. I am not great at explaining, and I am afraid those who wants to understand might have to get involved in the discussion. What is unclear? please tell me, and I will do my best to explain. Not only has the definition of juggling been an area of much disagreement, it also seems as the approach to it differs greatly, from person to person.
For those who find this video too long to be palatable, start here:
And here is a summary of the definition, which may or may not make sense unless you watch the whole thing.
"Juggling is a genre of activities which are related to the default form. The default form of juggling is the 3 ball cascade."
Topic of discussion: is the default form really the 3 ball cascade?
I am now tempted to watch the whole thing because that is not something I'd expect from Erik. There must be a lot more to it than that.
I always use the definition: "Doing what doesn't need to be done in the most difficult way possible."
I've tried to find the source of this definition a few times. Earliest reference I can find is from Jerry Carson in 2001, which is almost certainly where I picked it up from originally. However, Jerry's message suggests it comes from further back.
Wouldn't that definition include many other activities such as skateboarding, rock climbing and base jumping?
If someone is interested to read more about the definition of juggling, there is some discussion about it in this thread:
That link didn't work for me but http://objectepisodes.com/t/the-definition-of-juggling/18/2 does.
The Kingston Jugglers have, "Doing the unnecessary the hard way" on their t-shirts and they've been around a while. Greg Phillips would probably know when they started using it.
Slightly different wording from 1993: http://dev.juggle.org/history/archives/jugmags/45-3/45-3,p28.htm 2nd paragraph.
Longtime friends David Cain and Jay Gilligan won the Fargo Intermediate and Juniors Championships
David, are you younger than I think, or is that sentence missing a 'respectively'!
Why is it important to define juggling? Is it just so you can deny it includes poi?
You can decide for yourself if it is important or not. The word juggling already means something, otherwise we would not use it. "Convention" and "juggling convention" would mean the same thing, and they do not. If I tell you I am going to a juggling convention, you will get a different idea about what I am about to do, than if I said I am going to a convention. I, or anyone else did not make up what the word juggling means, but we can try to articulate its meaning by looking at how the word has been used.
My version (depending on the context - like "among jugglers", but not apt for Wikipedia) would be sth like:
" Juggling is the rhythmic displacement* of objects in a way that allows to do sth else during that displacement ongoing. This is achieved by aiming the object, thus controlling where it will land, with no need to track it. The skill of juggling lies in using that time for doing more displacements of the same kind or sth completely different in a rhythm. This in turn ("using that time") is achieved by synchronizing the body's movements with the pattern (or: "trajectories") juggled (and vice versa, by adapting, tuning, synchronizing the pattern to fit optimal body motion). "
The borders to other kinds of object manipulation transition smoothly. Object manipulations, that are not juggling, include e.g. cutting a slice of bread or sausage or drinking a cup of .. erhh .. revitalizing hot beverage, or moving your whole household to another town with two or more cars than you have helps (then called "logistics").
* displacement - also e.g. rolling
______________ ________________ _____________ _____________ _______________
Thoughts that brought me there:
Maybe it makes sense to include the juggler in a definition of juggling. I mean, the props don't juggle by themselves - it looks so mechanical, so high-tec, when a robot juggles, while, in turn when a human juggles like a robot, it's an artsy illusion, sth haunting, mesmerizing, a different feel, an uncommon onsight. So the (human, or be it then a robot) juggler is a necessary part of the whole setup of "juggling". Juggling is then the juggler moving right in rhythm with the props and the pattern, as a whole. It would distinguish "juggling" from "juggling pattern" or from "juggling (default) form" or alike, as a result of juggling, but not the whole of "someone juggling". Can juggling exist without being actually done by someone? Else "(the) juggling" and "doing juggling" would be two different things, which in reality, practically, they are not.
Or else - let then juggling be the result of what jugglers do, just like there's dance even when no one is actually dancing it -, a definition should then still include how and why this result is achieved. We'd then get: "Juggling is a juggler juggling the three ball cascade."
Or at least include some physical stuff: "one object in the air" .. what does that mean? - It's timing, time gained by throw height (or roll distance), time to do sth else before catching it again, it's rhythm, tact, (music?), and the juggler needs to account for all that by moving in ways allowing for it to happen: posture, technique, pattern an' all.
A whole lot has been said about this in the thread on Objectepisodes.com
Feel free to join.
Thanks, I mean, no thanks. Prefer to stay here. Why spread the online juggling community onto lots'a different places - it's a lot more clicking and logging in, but, main thing is, content gets partly reduntant, partly exclusive or not to find anymore, also later. Same discussions - like this one - will be unnecessarily parted onto different threads, and by nature have less participants. The whole thing gets ``decentralized´´.
But you are participating in this discussion in the decentralized location. The centralized location is on OE.
I understand the generality of your argument, but I think it can only be used against:
a) New, undeveloped forums that
b) Are redundant with current forums
a) is arguable with OE,
b) is different in that it is (descriptively) for serious discussion about juggling, with a few of the current best thinkers on juggling.
I replied to Scott Seltzer, who linked to youTube.
I think, I have good arguments:
That "default form" stuff and that "Juggling is juggling the 3b cascade" thing is self-referring, so not a definition.
My version proposed above does several things:
It includes contact juggling, poi swinging, patterns rolled on a billiard table (by using the "displacement" instead "tossing or rolling or moving or handling").
It includes the juggler, as what I argued for above to me is part of poised juggling. Juggling without a juggler doing it is maybe a "juggling pattern".
It includes the rhythm, so that a single throw or a gimmick or a standalone flourish or an ass catch on its own are not juggling.
Aspects, that the "best thinkers of the juggling scene" upto now haven't yet accounted for. So I must be completely wrong. Juggling is a highly complex form of movement (of a person actor) and with objects. Calling it an "activity related to a basic pattern", the latter an algorithm, that stickman can do, is way beyond what doing juggling actually is. Every activity in the universe is maybe "related to a default form", in the end, that's then like positing: "Juggling exists." is the definition of juggling.
Thanks for your thoughts.
"I replied to Scott Seltzer, who linked to youTube."
I was referring to your comment in response to erik's offer to join OE.
"That "default form" stuff and that "Juggling is juggling the 3b cascade" thing is self-referring, so not a definition."
I found this a bit of a frustrating straw man argument. Why use "juggling" twice in its own definition, then call it self-referring? Erik posted his tl;dr definition above, which reads: Juggling is a genre of activities related to the default form. The default form is the three ball cascade.
His definition does not use the word "juggling" at all, and is not at all self-referential. It is an example of an ostensive definition, which is a valid and common type of definition.
I'll discuss your definition in a separate comment, because I feel that these are separate ideas.
["offer to join OE"] Yes, I understood that. And I was referring to you stating, OE were the centralized place ( when speaking in such terms - it's become a long thread there, and it's become a long thread here, rather independently from one another, exept for Erik Aberg linking there, late this thread. So inviting me to join there ((and having to register an' stuff an' all)), I took as actually a redirection ).
["3b cascade ``unjuggled´´"] Then, I think, in juggling defined as an activity, maybe there is no ``default form´´ "3b cascade", without it needing actually juggled. You can make it an algorithm, you can make it an abstract concept, you can make it a standalone pattern independent of juggling (using quarks or cars or stickman, or people walking zig-zag in cascade pattern or mere points and vectors in a coordinate system), but when using it as an activity to define juggling, using it to precise the activity of juggling, then surely as the juggled cascade. So, in that "default form"-statement, I read the word and notion of "juggling" (the 3b cas) included, even if it's not explicitly written, and I think, that is also what Aberg meant - the activity of juggling a 3b cascade (it in fact reads to me as that word juggling were omitted or expected to be thought included). Else, some major abstraction level would have escaped me ..
["ostensive definition"] I'll have to look that up. So far, I can only say: The ``default form´´ of a horse are neither a "hoof", nor a "mammal" which would be a general category and a property defining it (the classical way), while I can't see how "A horse is a gender of living things related to the default form 'standard-horse' like that one over there [points to one]." can be an useful definition.
Going through the suggested definition bit by bit...
" Juggling is the rhythmic displacement*
I don't see juggling as necessarily rhythmic, at least not in the sense of any definition of rhythmic I could find (e.g. a strong, regular, repeated pattern of movement or sound.). I could juggle briefly in a completely unrepeated style that would clearly still be juggling.
[...]of objects in a way that allows to do sth else during that displacement ongoing.[...]
I'm not convinced this is necessary, but it is an often-seen attribute of typical juggling.
[...]This is achieved by aiming the object, thus controlling where it will land, with no need to track it.[...]
What about freestyling, where sometimes the juggler doesn't really aim? What about the passing game "garbage", where you throw horrible throws to your partner, absolutely necessitating them to track the object?
[...]The skill of juggling lies in using that time for doing more displacements of the same kind or sth completely different in a rhythm.[...]
Same argument against rhythm. And without rhythm being included in the definition, the definition is by far overly inclusive.
[...]This in turn ("using that time") is achieved by synchronizing the body's movements with the pattern (or: "trajectories") juggled (and vice versa, by adapting, tuning, synchronizing the pattern to fit optimal body motion). "[...]
Juggling is very easy to do, and in fact always done, without "optimal body motion". This part of the definition also uses "synchronizing" loosely. Taken literally, it doesn't make much sense, and taken loosely, it doesn't state things precisely enough for a definition.
(general) I feel that your suggested definition describes a lot of juggling, but not all of it. I also feel like it uses far too many parameters, some of which seem to be intended more literally than others. Some of the parameters are categorically different than others:
rhythm being necessary is very different than demanding optimal body motion.
I'm glad, you had to dig deep and find unusual, rare counter-examples, in order to query, attempt to refute, to discuss the the proposed definition.
>I could juggle briefly in a completely unrepeated style that would clearly still be juggling.
Cool! But I think this might then be either "learning to juggle", or else pretty hard and then rather one of the many exotic, experimental forms of juggling, if really done with no rhythmic feeling, also without half or quarter tacts (e.g. shapeshifting which is still a rhythm). But, yeah, one could go through slightly or completely different heights in order to achieve that - would look pretty "Frankenstein", or "casual", though. [//And that's where our new discipline "casual juggling" (without any rhythm whatsoever) is born.//]
Maybe your word "repeatedly" could be of use for a definition (e.g. in order to distinguish from single throws, gimmicks, that could then be "elements of juggling").
>And without rhythm being included in the definition, the definition is by far overly inclusive.
Hm .. rhythm is indeed, if not crucial (as you put it), a major constituing aspect I see in the ado of juggling that I find needs to be included in a good definition. (But maybe it's not the best word). By "rhythm" I don't mean a tact, a beat, a cadence, but also e.g. galopped tacts, also speeding up or down shortly (in relation to a given beat), or also a funky, maybe broken rhythm (but I think, that was also your wide understanding of the word).
Maybe abstract it to sth like "recurring along spacetime" or so (which sounds queer and awkward).
I do still think that usually juggling goes with a rhythm (in that broadest sense).
[// I don't want ``my´´ definition to be "overly inclusive" °gnarghh°//]
>Juggling is very easy to do, and in fact always done, without "optimal body motion".
I don't see that. I see that alternately throwing a weight (also that of the arm itself!?) left--right--a.s.o. requires countermovement and keeping th balance - the whole body is involved to provide for the right positioning of hands and arms when throwing and catching (in the rhythm dictated by the pattern). Doing (or tuning) this awarely and as optimal as possible is crucial for juggling well, fluent, with no superflu tensions. A question of posture, anatomy, action patterns, the system: "juggler juggling".
[>"synchronizing"] When building a juggling robot, you will have to synchronize throws (height, direction, timing) and where the robot's hand or bowl or what it's got, shall catch. Same for our human hands - where the hands are needs be synched with where the props fall. And what goes for a single throw and catch will take place all the time when juggling a pattern, else you drop.
[>general] Yes, juggling has a lot of aspects that want to be included in a definition. And rating a definition's valuability or aptness or usefulness in deep will lead to having to in turn defining the words used in it.
One more thing .. a definition of an activity, of object manipulation, as broad as juggling, can by nature not be completely clear, not complete, not as binding as in e.g. natural sciences, but can still be ``better´´ than in e.g. social sciences or in humanities. It transitioning fluently at its borders doesn't mean it can't be defined as what it's usually. Any exotic derivations are then exactly that, not "juggling" in it's common sense, but "experimental" or "exotic forms", or "unclear to draw a line there". It needs be done pragmatically a bit, I guess.
I mean, it would be cool to have a widely agreed upon definition, instead of year by year when that topic rises up again, resigning on the many exception there are counteracting every attempt to define juggling while we all know what it is.
I disagree that my counterexamples were rare, particularly the not having "optimal body position". Consider a beginner, walking around in an uncontrolled fashion, has optimal body position. Certainly juggling, certainly not optimal body position!
Really though, I don't think "optimal body position" is important to your definition, and I feel it would be stronger without it.
I certainly understand the differences between levels of acceptable precision between natural sciences and social sciences (I did a BSc and MSc in natural sciences, and am doing a PhD in social science). I believe that a definition should encapsulate the uncertainty of the act. I think this is a great strength of Erik's definition. With his definition, it can account for context and culture, both of which can affect whether something is juggling. If Erik's definition is a Gaussian centred around a 3b cascade, I think yours is a similar curve, but with the tails cut off.
 - Arguable, probably?
Okay, I think, we've both thrown our arguments into the webspace now, and there's partly rather controversial opinions or viewpoints, some bit of agreement; but we both put foreward some aspects to maybe be accounted for in future attempts on defining "juggling". [ #definitions ]
Which non-juggling exercises are there to keep a beat, a tact endured well in beat?
Different moods make different inner or mind's speeds; pulse, heartbeat and breathing rhythm do their part; let alone any (a)rhythmic sounds around.
I'm thinking of counting seconds for a minute and check a stopwatch if you were right; or else meditate on controlling your heartbeat; or else tapping fingers on table or armchair or use some drum (but with what gauge?); or else .. ; headbanging? lol
But I don't feel, any of these is the `right thing´, and suspect, there might be well-tried exercises to achieve keeping a constant beat.
Only thing, I found searchengining was this: http://www.daniellaberge.net/music/rhythm/exercises/1-1.html with a few audio .. thing .. erhh, wait .. renditions! .. audio renditions [at about middle of page] (and a lot of music-only results).
Does anyone do exercises of the kind or for instance use a metronome for juggling?
[ #beat #tact #tactspeed #endurance #keepingRhythm ]
View older threads
Subscribe to this forum via RSS
1 article per branch
1 article per post
Green Eggs reports