|
Post by csthundercat on Apr 28, 2011 4:25:41 GMT
Ahhh.... pride and honor. Who can separate them? :lol: I beg mods: please do not lock the thread and punish the whole class just for the misbehaviour of one student! If you must take action, please do so against individuals, not the group. Séb, you and SBG are very welcome for the review. I have used this board as a reference for production and some custom swords for a while now; it is time I gave something back - regards.
|
|
|
Post by Student of Sword on Apr 28, 2011 5:15:54 GMT
(1) First. I have a problem understanding how the phrase "became a basic form" to mean any other than until that time, it was not fully formed. That prior to that "form" it lack the "basic" to make it what it is. Which means that it has one or two feature but not all the features. A good analogy is baby. A baby "became a basic form" at XX weeks (I don't know the exact weeks). It means prior to that, it had some of the features of the baby but not fully formed. It is only a embryo.
Your argument is akin to saying that a "horseless carriage" is a car. Of course, if you are writing about history of automobile. You have to talk about horseless carriage" since cars eventually evolve from them. They had some features of cars, but they are not car since there were no combustion engines.
It is important to make a distinction between the ancestor and the descendant. They are not the same. Modern English is not Middle English.
(2) Second. Classification and History go hand-in-hand. You cannot separate them. Each type correspond to the general time frame in history.
(3) Third. I will get back to you on the clear definition of shinogi zukuri which I am certain you are wrong. I remember there is a page with illustration in Nagayama's book which he defines it. Wikipedia has a definition of shinogi zukuri as "a curved blade with yokote and a ridge (shinogi) quite close to the back edge (mune). Also known as hon-zukuri (本造?, main style)." The entry's reference is page 53 of Nagayama's book. I am pretty sure that Nobuo Nakahara also define it that way. But I will find out with clarity in a few days.
|
|
|
Post by csthundercat on Apr 28, 2011 5:40:40 GMT
He didnt write "a basic form", he wrote "the basic form" i.e. the profile which became "the basic form" of swords thereafter. Really, what is so hard to understand about that?
My argument is not akin to that. Again, I am just going on what Nagayama said of jokoto kenukigata tachi - ie "The blade is obviously shinogi-zukuri."
I have made that distinction very, very clear in this thread. If you still can not understand I then I am at a loss of how better to explain it.
There are exceptions to every rule, which is why when talking about the emergence of a blade profile, you can not simply say they started at the time when they became popular. They started BEFORE they became popular. The shinogi zukuri blade profile emerged in the jokoto period and afterwards, in the late Heian, "became the basic form". Again, what is so hard to understand about that?
Again, I am simply going by what Nagayama wrote about kenukigata tachi (from jokoto) being of shinogi zukuri form. ("The blade is obviously shinogi-zukuri.")
Wikipedia is not a sword authority, and even if you are right about blade classification types, we are not talking about blade classification - we are talking about the evolution of blade profiles. Even by your definition of "classification" it doesnt change what Nagayama said about kenukigata tachi from the jokoto period being "obviously shinogi zukuri". I might add that there are a number existant examples of kenukigata tachi from jokoto with a slight curve (near the handle), so would still by your definition be classified as shinogi-zukuri - so, logically we can conclude that: The shinogi zukuri blade profile emerged during jokoto times and was derived from earlier kiriha zukuri blade profiles. It then became prevailent by the late Heian Do you refute that, Student?
|
|
|
Post by James Gall on Apr 28, 2011 6:50:59 GMT
Over the years, i have continually referred to Kokan Nagayama's "The Connoisseur's Book of Japanese Swords" whenever i had questions. It is a tremendous resource to Japanese sword enthusiasts. I didn't stumble upon this book by shear accident .... it had been recommended to me time & time again by some of the most respectable men in the sword industry. I have heard many people even go so far as to call it "the bible of the Japanese sword" - not to compare the two books factually - but in popularity.
This is not to say that this book is indisputable, but i would take his word & interpretation over Wikipedia's any day.
Nagayama-sensei is a Living National Treasure in Japan, he is one of the most renown sword polishers & appraisers who EVER LIVED, and spent his ENTIRE LIFE learning & teaching these arts.
csthundercat, quoted Kenji Mishina's translation of Nagayama-sensei's writing's - verbatim. I think i will take Nagayama's word for it, which was pretty clear.
One could argue that "its all in the interpretation of the reader", or even translator. But this book has proven to be accurate time & time again over the years - which is why it is considered such a valuable guide for people who are Japanese sword enthusiasts.
|
|
|
Post by csthundercat on Apr 28, 2011 7:35:28 GMT
Indeed indeed. Thanks to you James for mentioning this I forgot to include the caveat that it was actually Mishina who wrote the english for this book. As James said, some will no doubt argue it down to interpretation of the reader, or that certain nuances were "lost in translation", however, since both the men involved in the production of this book are at the absolute pinnacle of authority regarding japanese swords, I tend to take their words as 'gospel' :twisted:
|
|
|
Post by Crimsoned on Apr 28, 2011 16:01:32 GMT
Well I don't think this thread should be locked, too much good information is found here. I think csthundercat owes an apology to Student of Sword (SoS already gave his). csthundercat pointed to ad hominem during the first few posts, which were incorrect words. SoS's "attack" was based around csthundercat's motive for responding, which is the need for controversy. Therefore due the motive, being mostly out of emotion, it becomes difficult to stay in the factual arena (albeit csthundercat did well). Personally I found some condescending language used by csthundercat. Claiming to know absolute facts that you quoted is a silly thing not to mention cheap when it isn't even your own work (this goes for you too SoS, albeit you are studying traditionally are you not?). The few people that could be boasting "real" facts are real experts, not quoters Let us take a lesson from TomK, remaining cool, collected, and most importantly neutral even when faced with horrendous attacks (I nearly puked watching that video). That's all I will say, let go your pride chances are you don't have any as every man and woman falters.
|
|
ecovolo
Senior Forumite
Retired Moderator
Posts: 2,074
|
Post by ecovolo on Apr 28, 2011 16:37:39 GMT
These analogies are subjective interpretations of the subject in question; you will need to relate your attempt at describing "basic form" specifically to the swords in question for the benefit of the forum in order to better support your argument. Consider using another sword type, (ie. cruciform) in an attempt to support this argument, because another sword type is at least in the same ballpark: swords.
So far, CSThundercat has quoted evidence using valid sources, yet you have no clear evidence countering this-- to say, 'He posted it for you' is incorrect, due to the fact that his argument is supported by quoted text, yours is not.
If you're quoting a book, I expect to see the MLA style I explained earlier *and the text you are referencing, verbatim*. If you're quoting a website, we will need the website's source material as well in addition to verbatim text. As of recent posts, you have failed to do so, and your argument goes unsupported.
Classification is, again, subjective to the person creating the classification system. Reference the system in question if you're going to use it in your argument, otherwise its validity is suspect, and your argument, faulty.
--Edward
|
|
Sébastien
Senior Forumite
Retired Moderator
Posts: 2,967
|
Post by Sébastien on Apr 28, 2011 16:59:52 GMT
Personnaly, I believe small condescending remarks motivated by pride went both ways. Maybe it went more one way than another, but I don't think we should decide that here and now, it isn't the subject of this thread and I don't think it would improve the mood.
At this point, what I think we should all try to be a good sport about this debate and to do it for the informations that might benefit others on this forum. It doesn't matter who is or isn't right (although I think it matters a lot to Cs and SoS).
My two cents on that, take 'em as such.
|
|
|
Post by Bryn on Apr 28, 2011 17:03:14 GMT
While I do enjoy thorough and serious debate regarding the origins and historical context of this sword, you know what I would enjoy more? ...... A cutting video
|
|
Sean (Shadowhowler)
VIP Reviewer
Retired Moderator
No matter where you go, there you are.
Posts: 8,828
|
Post by Sean (Shadowhowler) on Apr 28, 2011 17:13:23 GMT
Aye... +1 How about it thundercat? Can we see that baby in action?
|
|
|
Post by Student of Sword on Apr 28, 2011 21:17:24 GMT
This disagreement will be concluded by Wednesday next week, when a friend will mail to me Nagayama's book. There is a page where he defines with great clarity what is a true "Shinogi Zukuri." I will quote verbatim what Nagayama said. That page also has an illustration which I will be more happy to scan and post on this thread.
I am not absolutely certain, but I am 90% sure, that it is in page 53 of the book. Furthermore, I am confident (but not absolutely certain) that the wikipedia entry I mentioned came directly from that very page. The verbiages from Wikipedia sounds very familiar. CSThundercat can be in good faith, look up page 53 and tell us what Nagayama say about "Shinogi Zukuri" or I can do it next week. Either way, the outcome will be the same.
|
|
|
Post by csthundercat on Apr 29, 2011 0:53:00 GMT
Student, im almost sorry to say that there is no disagreement remaining. Let me know what point it is you will be trying to make with info from page 53. I have already summarily dismissed your attempts to discredit my ascertations about when the emergence of the shinogi zukuri blade profile occured. Your arguments were thoroughly disassembled and I proved my points with the very book you referenced me to. You then attempted to twist my words and quotes to make them suit your outlook, saying that they supported your argument - a rather slippery and underhanded approach I would say, thanks to ecovolo to pointing this out to the class, I couldnt be bothered In addition to this, knowing that you were fighting a losing battle (your initial ascertation about shinogi zukuri was that it was, and I quote you, "the last incarnation" of the japanese sword) you began to attempt to change the order of debate towards "classification" and about what is classified as a "true shinogi zukuri". I never entered into this classification debate with you, I have made no comments about the importance of classification, but I can only 'lol' as you try to use whatever you can to back up your claim that.......what........im guessing you will try to say that jokoto shinogi zukuri are not "true" shinogi zukuri? Even though it says in the book that they are "obviously shinogi zukuri"? LOL Yes, the outcome will be the same. It will be meaningless to this debate - which is over. In any case I will leave it to you to do so, partly because I do not have a hard copy with me, partly because you need some practise quoting your sources and partly because it is a moot point to this discussion. It will be interesting though to see how you attempt to use the information you find to justify your ever changing stance and focus of debate. Crimson, its nice to know you think I "did well", but I never claimed to know "absolute facts". I take what Nagayama says about japanese swords to be fact, but then again he is a human being, thus fallable. I ask you though - how is it a "silly thing" or "cheap" to quote legitimate, respected sources and go by them? Especially considering who's quotes they were. If it was "my own work" I can assure you that no one would agree with or respect them. I certainly would not attempt to pass them off as my own work, which would indeed be cheap. By your logic though, doctors are silly and cheap for relying on work that "isnt even their own" as fact in order to treat patients. We learn from others, those that came/went before us; we use the knowledge given to us by trusted ones and take it to be fact until something proves it otherwise. That is basically how education works. The fact is, in this thread SoS made a great number of incorrect statements whilst implying that what I was saying was untrue. I refer you to this: then this: then this: SoS attempted to make me appear ignorant to other board members and arrogantly referred me to a book I have probably learned more about japanese swords from than any other. He insinuated that I was making up history as I went along and that I was ignorant. Basically, he insulted and disrespected me - which of course there is no law against - but at the same time, if he wants to do this then he had better be willing to deal with my reaction and the consequences, which is me calling him out in public to defend my standpoints and exposing his hypocrisy and ignorance. I did this in the fairest possible way, by quoting the very source he referred me to. I do not believe I owe him any apology for this, regardless of whether or not I used "condescending language". In addition, attempting to label me early on as a controversy seeker is not fair to me, again, I think it is pretty underhanded and objectionable. FYI this is an "ad hominem" attack, so I did not use incorrect words. My reaction was not based on being contraversial or emotive, it was about establishing the facts and making very clear what I meant by my statements. My reaction to people is usually (though I am by no means perfect or even close) fair and balanced and in accord with what I am initially presented with by them, however once certain boundaries are crossed I am not afraid to stand up for myself. In this case it was the inference that I was making up history and the suggestion that I should go back and reference my own reading material. It is a shame that a review should be sidetracked into this, but Im not the type to "take it lying down". Sorry if I have offended anyone.
|
|
Marc Kaden Ridgeway
Member
Retired Global Moderator
Awful lot of leaving and joining going on here for me .... And gosh I can't recall doing a bit of i
Posts: 8,778
|
Post by Marc Kaden Ridgeway on Apr 29, 2011 11:41:30 GMT
Yawn...
I used to engage in debates like this , until I realized that even true experts rarely agree and no "facts" are absolute.
I'm bored.
So... cutting vid?
|
|
|
Post by johnwalter on Apr 29, 2011 14:06:20 GMT
I thought this was a sword review,LOL. A fellow Iaidoka and good friend of mine placed an order with Huawei awhile back.Details were discussed and agreed upon,and full payment was made.Sword would be ready in a couple of weeks.1 month goes by with no correspondence.My buddy sends an email with no reply,after several emails he recieves a reply.Your sword was sent to another customer by accident.A new one will be ready in a couple of weeks.3 weeks later,no news.He emails,no reply,1 week later he gets this,the wrong blade was polished.Your sword will be ready in a couple of weeks.1 month goes by with no news.Then his money is refunded to his account and he gets an email-We will not be making your sword.Here is your money.No explanation of why and he did not harass them.
Just thought people should be aware that things do not always go smoothly with this dealer.
I am glad you had a good experience.Nice looking blade too.
|
|
Sean (Shadowhowler)
VIP Reviewer
Retired Moderator
No matter where you go, there you are.
Posts: 8,828
|
Post by Sean (Shadowhowler) on Apr 29, 2011 17:07:57 GMT
Gah... that is worse then my experience... except at least he did get his cash back.
|
|
|
Post by Crimsoned on Apr 29, 2011 17:18:22 GMT
First off your attitude is pompous and not well received by me. I was merely providing neutral criticism, yet you choose put words in my mouth, and try to label me as what, please speak clearly as I dislike being vague I quoted you saying you would "give" SoS facts, as if you were someone who could do that when in reality all your doing quoting other's work. You did not serve facts, Nagayama did that. All you did was refer them, so stop with your pompous attitude.
The doctor analogy is incorrect, you are no doctor and you are no professional you do NOT receive the same type of credit as a professional would nor are you doing the same work as a doctor or professional. You are right we do learn from others, however we must also progress. This is one way to differentiate many professionals from many non professionals. A doctor can be cheap, and useless that much is known. Doctors are in a large way scientists if they are not progressing in their field then they are not worth their salt, albeit it is appreciated if they are saving people. Many medical doctors while they work in hospitals have their own research going out, I am unsure if you knew this please see some medical journals many entries there are made by practicing doctors.
You are no scientist, nor are you an expert so to have the audacity to say you are going to "give facts" is nothing short of laughable. Anyone can quote, and I mean anyone. You should be careful to try taking pride or try defending your pride (or ego) when what you say are not even your own words but Nagayama's own words.
What I am trying to say is: Drop your superiority complex because you are not worth anything more then SoS, regardless of who is right or wrong. It is not your credit, nor your right, nor your privilege to take pride or defend the pride of your words when they are not your own. That is what I am saying. SoS probably realized it, and apologies for his rudeness, you have yet to step up to his level in my eyes.
|
|
|
Post by James Gall on Apr 29, 2011 23:55:18 GMT
Wait a minute .... i was trying to stay out of this thing, but neither side have been saints here... When are the assertions of a resource ever good enough? Quoted or not, this isn't the word of the guy down at the street corner, this is a renown expert on the subject. csthundercat (i don't think) is AT ALL taking pride in Nagayama-sensei's words, or trying to defend them as his own. He was responding to StudentoftheSword's implying that csthundercat's understanding of history was "nonsense", suggesting he pick up a book instead of "believing in your own version of history and disregard established facts" - when in fact - he had cited the very resource SoS suggested he read. "The Connoisseurs Book of Japanese Swords" - by: Kokan Nagayama (Kenji Mishina translation) - Page 12 The shinogi-zukuri profile of blade (as csthundercat cited) was present long before the development of the nihonto. "Nihonto" being - the first purely Japanese sword, designed, developed, and produced by Japanese craftsman. Something can't be "the last incarnation" if it was technically the first. Either words have meaning - or they don't... Nagayama-sensei is saying very clearly here, that the kissaki-moroha-zukuri profile - more specifically the famed Kogarasu-maru itself was not the first truly Japanese sword, but was one of the many iterations - along with kenukigata tachi - that led to the transition to the nihonto. "The Connoisseurs Book of Japanese Swords" - by: Kokan Nagayama (Kenji Mishina translation) - Page 14 "The Connoisseurs Book of Japanese Swords" - by: Kokan Nagayama (Kenji Mishina translation) - Page 53 Here is the 53rd page - as per StudentoftheSwords request Personally, i am not happy with the way this debate has developed into "oneupsmanship". And frankly, i am disappointed that people can't swallow their pride, show a shred of humility, and admit when they were wrong on an issue, or at the very least, agree to disagree. Twisting & shifting the argument is never beneficial to anyone. What ever happened to respectfully disagreeing with someone? Why does every debate degrade into this ego fueled, insult laden, type of bickering? Both sides get so wrapped up in discrediting each other, when they should be working together to reach an understanding that benefits us all. Why can't everyone just be polite...? I would very much like to see csthundercat & student of the sword, shake hands (so to speak) and work towards sharing ideas and information instead of trying to prove 'who is smarter' or 'who's resources are better'. That's not going to get us anywhere.Now, please, don't 'open fire' on me now for posting these scans - which i apologize for the poor quality, my scanner is old - i am not taking sides here, i am just doing my job, and trying to help us all get along with each other here.
|
|
|
Post by Crimsoned on Apr 30, 2011 0:24:13 GMT
Actually he most definitely is taking pride in talking about it by the way he speaks. He makes pokes at SoS, and boasted already that he would give SoS facts, as if he were qualified to do so. All he has been doing is quoting for Nagayama, yet continues to poke at SwordofLord with comments like "Really, what is so hard to understand about that?", "If you still can not understand I then I am at a loss of how better to explain it.", " Again, what is so hard to understand about that?".... This is just from one post, there are many others, on both sides. The difference is that SoS has apologized already. Both parties have exchanged prideful comments, neither of them deserving to take pride in anything they have seen whether right or wrong. There is nothing to be proud of to quote from a book. Specially when both are wrong as all swords hailed from the ninja-to as sensei Park has probably said. :roll: JKJK couldn't help it.
That is what I was getting at, instead of having a neutral discussion a la TomK style (he not once said one negative things when speaking with the disrespectful and immature "Sword dancer").
|
|
Sébastien
Senior Forumite
Retired Moderator
Posts: 2,967
|
Post by Sébastien on Apr 30, 2011 0:39:24 GMT
Crimsoned, calm down, relax, jeez. I don't think you are bringing anything useful or positive to this thread with these two posts.
Maybe CSthundercat sounded a bit mocking, but frankly, he wasn't the first nor the worst on this thread. And now, you are three waging this keyboard war. Really, what is there to gain from this feud... It's useless. Stop it and get good infos out instead.
|
|
|
Post by csthundercat on Apr 30, 2011 1:04:45 GMT
James said it all. Seb, thanks. Crimson......sigh......sorry, but I dont care about stepping "up" (lol) to any level in your eyes, I dont post on sbg to impress you :lol: Not eveyone is Tomk. Sorry if I do take some pride in being right after being repeatedly told by someone equally pompous and arrogant as myself that I was wrong AND with the material I was referenced to by them. The doctor analogy is correct - but whatever. The part about "sticking facts" was just a play on words in reference to the quote above it. You make assumptions about my professional qualifications ("you are no scientist") without actually knowing what it is I am...but none of this is either here nor there.
Again, James seems to get where im coming from but perhaps I went too far, and for that, to all I apologise. I believe however that a distinction should still be made between fact and fiction, and for that you often need to quote literary resources. Crimson, you may think the difference between right and wrong isnt important, but I do.
Student - though I may not have come across as such, I respect your interest in japanese swords and your knowledge, which is considerable, I just dont like being made to look a fool when I am not. When I AM being a fool (I made myself into one here by ranting) I can accept it being pointed out to me. I was foolish for getting emotively too caught up in this, but again, who wants to be considered a fool when they know they are not? I was right and you were wrong - but it would have been impossible to have such a debate with someone who wasnt passionate about japanese swords, so the mere fact that it went on for so long is testament to this - just please dont ever refer me to literature I am familiar with again. I believe that in nearly all situations people have knowledge to exchange and I have no doubt I may be able to learn something from you.
Thanks to James for scanning and highlighting all the relavent info. Again, I apologise to all concerned if I came across as a pomous ass, that side of me comes out under certain situations. Sometimes to me, being "right" (especially when someone is publicly trying to imply that I am wrong) takes priority over everything else.....I guess this is somewhat of a character flaw; but sometimes I just cant help myself. Im working on it. (But....I was right.)
Anyway...with all that said, a cutting video will need to be produced.
|
|