Swetnam’s Postulate

Filed as Classical Fencing, Destreza (Spanish swordplay), Fencing, Geek Stuff, General, Historical Fencing, Italian Rapier, Opinion with 11 replies

(9/28/2009)

“…yet regard chiefly the words rather than the Picture.” ~ Joseph Swetnam

First, a postulate is to maintain or assert that something is self-evident.  It is part of the fundamental element or basic principle of a logical argument.

Second, a primary source is an original text (like a fencing manual) or an object (like a sword).  We will use a primary source to draw conclusions about a topic.  A fencer might study the book of Salvator Fabris to understand Italian rapier.  Darkwood Armory might study a rapier from the original time period to understand how to create a training weapon for fencers today.

In our case, a primary source is important in identifying the origin of the information we want to interpret.  Primary sources are given greater value than secondary sources.  A secondary source is information or discussion of the primary source that is not originated from the primary source.  For example, you could argue that our recreation of Destreza based on an English translation is a tertiary source because it is based on a secondary source (the English translation).

This becomes tricky in a fencing manual when we consider the images.  For example, Ridolfo Capoferro’s work has been subjected to some intense scrutiny in this regard and I have been involved in some heated discussions about the position of the feet, the nature of offline steps, and the gaining of the weapon.  While the plates in the text are very important we need to remember Joseph Swetnam’s advice.

“…yet regard chiefly the words rather than the Picture.”

I call this Swetnam’s Postulate.  Unless the fencing master himself is listed as the artist, the images are not a primary source of information but rather a secondary source.

Interpreting a Text

When interpreting a fencing text, I use a hierarchy of sources in which item 1 is given the highest priority and item 7 the lowest.

1. The text in the original language is a primary source.
2. Swetnam’s Postulate – Unless we can prove the master created the images, the artwork is a secondary source.
3. The translated text is a secondary source.
4. Masters in the same tradition, weapon, and time period can provide insight to technique.
5. Masters in the same tradition, weapon, and a different time period, can also provide insight.
6. Masters in the same tradition with similar weapons (for example classical Italian fencing) can provide insight.
7. My own experience or experimentation.

For example… If Capoferro indicates that I should travel directly forward on the line of direction, I should obey the text even when it contradicts (or seems to contradict) the images rather than reinterpret the author’s instructions based on my understanding of pictures created by an artist.  If other sources within the tradition also seem to confirm Capoferro’s text, rather than a picture that could arguably be on the line or off it, this provides us additional incentive to trust the author’s voice.

Likewise, as an interpreter, I need to be aware of my fencing biases and try to avoid item 7 as much as possible.  When I change ‘canonical‘ technique or add technique of my own this needs to be clearly stated in my interpretation.  (In this sense, I use the term ‘canonical‘ to indicate a deviation from the original text or texts.)

For example, at WMAW 2009 I applied principles from Ettenhard’s book in order to create new techniques appropriate for left-handed fencers.  When I demonstrated these variations to the class, I made certain to explain that these were my variations and not Ettenhard’s original work.

By expressing some dissatisfaction with the images in his book and asking the reader to give his words precedence over the plates, Swetnam reminds us that the author’s voice is the first and primary source of information an interpreter should consider.

Spanish Fencing Notation Part 2 – Footwork and the Circle

Filed as Classical Fencing, Destreza (Spanish swordplay), General, Historical Fencing, Italian Rapier, Movie Reviews, Opinion, Reviews with 12 replies

(8/24/2009)

LINK TO ARTICLE 1

In the Italian tradition there is an imaginary Line of Direction that describes the shortest path to the adversary.

The Spanish tradition uses this line and expands on the concept to create a 2D planar map of possible footwork laid out in a circle.  The Spanish Circle is one of the defining elements of the science and various authors have presented it differently while preserving the core concept.

Carranza’s Circle

Here is the same image with labels to provide us a reference.

The Diameter – The imaginary line separating the two fencers is called the Diameter.  It represents the shortest path to the target.  The Diameter starts at the lead toe of the fencer (bottom of the red line) to the the lead toe of the adversary (top of the red line).  The correct length of the Diameter should be the distance at which the fencer can observe the adversary’s offensive actions and still respond in time.

The Major Circle (Greater Circle) – The central circle shown between the two fencers is called the Major Circle or sometimes just the Circle.  By rotating the Diameter about its center, we can create an imaginary circle which functions as a one piece of a footwork map.

The Lines of Infinity– The two parallel lines shown in green are called the Lines of Infinity or Infinite Lines.  In the same manner as the Diameter, the distance between these lines is defined by your ability to observe and react to the adversary’s offense.  Crossing the Line of Infinity means closing distance into the adversary’s offensive measure.

The Minor Circle – The smaller circles on either side of the Major circle are called the Minor Circles.  The fencer and the adversary each stand in the center of a Minor Circle which is defined by the positions of the feet.

The Circle represents a moment of fencing time – The circle is not fixed in location, but instead describes the distance and possible steps within a specific fencing action.  Just as the Italian Line of Direction changes when the adversaries move, so to does a new circle occur when the fencers change position.  If an adversary has broken your defense and closed measure, the text may advise you to step onto a new circle and this represents the need to reestablish correct distance.

Pacheco’s Circle

Later Pacheco describes a similar circle.  Note that the origin point for the fencer is at one end of the diameter (bottom of the circle) while the adversary stands on the opposite side (top of the circle).

The primary addition to the Circle is the Square which like the angular lines above in Carranza’s Circle provide us with another indicator for footwork.

We can also map a series of vectors onto this planar diagram which allows us to precisely describe footwork.  Remember that a vector is a line with direction and magnitude.

General Notes

The Spanish treat a step as a motion that starts in stance and ends in stance which requires a motion of each foot.  When the fencer moves only one foot, this is specified in the description of the footwork.

To compare this to Italian fencing, we know that an advance starts in the guard and requires a movement from the lead foot followed by the rear foot returning to the guard.  Likewise a retreat starts in the guard and requires a movement from the rear foot followed by the lead foot returning to the guard.

By contrast, when an Italian fencer executes a lunge, the fencer starts in the guard and moves only the lead foot.   The final position of the lunge is not the guard.

Forward Step

(En español – Compas Accidental )

The fencer advances along the line of the Diameter.

Backward Step

(En español – Compas Extraño )

The fencer retreats in line with the Diameter.

Lateral Step

(En español – Compas de Trepidacion)

The fencer steps along the Line of Infinity either to the left or right.  When stepping towards a direction, unless directed otherwise, the fencer will avoid crossing the feet.  For example, when stepping to the right, the fencer will lead with the right foot.  When stepping to the left, the fencer will lead with the left foot.

Curved Step

(En español – Compas Curvo)

The fencer steps along the Circle either to the left or right.  When stepping towards a direction, unless directed otherwise, the fencer will avoid crossing the feet.  For example, when taking a Curved Step to the right, the fencer will lead with the right foot.  When taking a Curved Step to the left, the fencer will lead with the left foot.  At the completion of the Curved Step, the fencer should be in profile facing the adversary.

IMPORTANT NOTE: There is a misconception that stepping along the circle does not close distance.  This is demonstrably incorrect as shown with this simple triangle in green, purple and blue overlaid on the circle.

If you step along the circle you should be aware that you have entered the adversary’s range.  Walking along the circle without reason provides your adversary with one unit of fencing time with each step and I don’t recommend it.

A Curved Step along the circle is a common method of gaining ground gradually and is often used in response to an offensive action from the adversary.

For example, if the adversary executes a cut, we may intercept the attack with the blade and then step forward along the circle to deliver a riposte.  Because the adversary has moved forward already, our step moves only slightly forward and takes us off the line.  After we have delivered a riposte, we might back away safely past the Line of Infinity.

Transverse Step

(En español – Compas Transversal)

The Transverse Step is a type of angular advance either to the left or right along the square shown inside the circle.  The Transverse starts with the lead foot and is followed by the rear foot.  At the completion of the Transverse Step, the fencer should be in profile facing the adversary.  When there is an exception to this, it is stated in the description of the step and may be called a Mixed Step (See below).

The Transverse Step closes distance more aggressively than the Curved Step shown above and is typical of offensive actions or attacks into the adversary’s preparation.

Mixed Step

(En español – Compas Mixto)

A Mixed Step is a combination of two other types and are often angular retreats either to the left or right away from the circle.

Two common examples of Mixed Steps are Mixed Backwards and Lateral to the left or Mixed Backwards and Lateral to the right.  In this case, the Mixed Step starts with the rear foot and is followed by the lead foot.  At the completion of the Mixed Step, the fencer should be in profile facing the adversary.

Another common Mixed Step is the Transverse Step to the Left using the right foot, followed by a Curved Step with the left foot.

This image is my copy of a Circle from Ettenhard’s book in 1675 which describes the footwork.

1. The lead foot takes a Transverse step along the square pre-turning the lead foot to point back to the adversary.  (The weight rests on the ball of the lead foot.)

2. Pivoting on the ball of the front foot, the rear foot moves in an arc landing on the adversary’s Line of Infinity.

3. The lead foot passes behind the left executing another pivot and placing the fencer in profile with respect to the adversary on his Line of Infinity.

Other Footwork

Other footwork is explicitly described in the text.

For example:

The Italian gaining step would be described as “bringing the rear foot forward close to the heel of the right foot.”

The Italian lunge would be described as “an extreme forward step of the lead foot while keeping the rear foot fixed.”

Opposition of Footwork

According to Ettenhard,

• The Forward Step is superior to the Backward Step
• The Forward Step is defeated by the Transverse, Curved, Lateral, and Mixed Backward and Lateral Steps.  (Stepping off the Line of Direction will defeat an advancing opponent.)
• The Transverse and Curved Steps can be defeated with the Transverse and Curved Steps.   (When an adversary circles toward you, either moving into them or circling away can defeat their action.)

Application to other Traditions

Again this material can be tradition agnostic.  Using the Spanish Circle as a footwork map provides us with a useful guide for describing to a student how fast we want them to close measure.  We can also advise the student to step inside the square or outside of it provide more nuance.

In addition, the Spanish codify angular and circular footwork which has been largely excluded from modern fencing traditions.  As Ettenhard states, countering a circular step with a circular step is a good solution and we see this understanding in Destreza, Aikido, and many other martial arts.

The Public Defenders Will Execute People!!

Filed as General, Opinion, Politics and News with 26 replies

(8/18/2009)

I thought it might be fun to spread my own wild and unsupported accusations in the Health Care debate.  In order to get us there, we need to look a bit at the public defenders first.

Mirandizing

This quote above is a typical script used when arresting someone in the United States.  To understand this script we need to understand two landmark cases from the 1960s.

Gideon versus Wainwright (1963)

This ruling guarantees the right of a public defender and here are two key portions of the ruling:

“Not only these precedents, but also reason and reflection, require us to recognize that, in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person hauled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him.”

Miranda versus Arizona (1963)

Here is a key piece of this ruling:

“The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.“

The Safety Net

The key idea here is that the poor had no legal safety net and our government provided for their protection in the courts.  What the poor have in legal representation many of us lack with regard to health care.

There is no basic health safety net and we instead practice a draconian form of Social Darwinism that affirms that the poor deserve no protection because of their own lack of ability to produce enough income to pay for it.

“The poverty of the incapable, the distresses that come upon the imprudent, the starvation of the idle, and those shouldering aside of the weak by the strong, which leave so many “in shallows and in miseries,” are the decrees of a large, far-seeing benevolence. It seems hard that an unskilfulness which with all his efforts he cannot overcome should entail hunger upon the artisan. It seems hard that a laborer incapacitated by sickness from competing with his stronger fellows,  should have to bear the resulting privations. It seems hard that widows and orphans should be left to struggle for life or death. Nevertheless, when regarded not separately, but in connection with the interests of universal humanity, these harsh fatalities are seen to be full of the highest beneficence—the same beneficence which brings to early graves the children of diseased parents, and singles out the low-spirited, the intemperate, and the debilitated as the victims of an epidemic.”   ~Herbert Spencer (1851)

Boiled down to the core idea, wealth = merit.  There is no need to feel any concern over the suffering of others because it is actually good that these weaker people (widows, orphans, etc.) die.

There has been plenty of frothing hysteria and misinformation from the right wing about what a public health care option would bring to the country.  If we compare a public health care option to the public defender system we might get a better understanding of how it might work.

Socialism

Socialized Medicine – This is a big deal for the right wing and the insurance companies actively try to play up the idea of a completely nationalized medical system like China’s.   This isn’t remotely what is being proposed and to suggest otherwise is lying.  What is being suggested is an optional government sponsored insurance program that scales the fees to meet the individual’s needs.  People who don’t make enough money to pay the premium receive the coverage at no charge and it functions as a safety net.  People who want to continue their current coverage aren’t directly affected (although it may lower their premiums as insurance companies try to compete against the public plan).  Nothing about offering public health insurance implies a government seizure of the medical system.

Socialized Public Defenders – All lawyers work for the government and lawyers are assigned to cases by the government.

Rationing

Medical Rationing – This is a convenient shell game in which the proposed free medical coverage is instead portrayed as a removal of existing medical care for everyone.  In this argument the government will ration all medical care.  (It neglects the current situation where 7 large corporations seeking a profit already ration your medical care and try to rescind existing policies that become too expensive.)

Public Defender Rationing – Only a certain number of cases will be granted a public defender.  The remainder of defendants will be required to defend themselves or will be found automatically guilty.

Bankruptcy

Bankrupting Insurance Companies – This myth promotes the idea that everyone will immediately turn to a public option and the insurance companies will go bankrupt.  As much as I might like this to be true, it is pretty unlikely.   We have had Public Defenders for over 40 years and private attorneys seem to be doing just fine.  Imagine Coca Cola, Microsoft, or Exxon using a public defender and you can see how laughable this really is.  I haven’t seen FedEx or UPS go out of business yet even as they compete with our socialized postal service.  This is capitalism at its finest.

Bankrupting Lawyers – Public Defenders are free and therefore all private attorneys will go out of business.

Bureaucrats

Government Mandated Medical Decisions – This is the classic “government bureaucrat between you and your doctor” argument created by the private insurance companies.  This is particularly heinous considering insurance companies have actually pulled patients off of operating tables mid-surgery to deny medical claims.  While the idea of a government bureaucrat sounds scary, what we have today is a corporate suit trying to make a profit and that is much worse.

Government Mandated Public Defense Decisions – A government bureaucrat decides what you will plead in each case and makes decisions about your legal strategy.

Loss of Benefits

Losing your existing Coverage – In this myth, the government removes your existing coverage and forces you into the public option using government doctors.  No one has suggested anything but adding an additional public insurance plan to cover those without insurance.

Losing your existing Lawyer – The government fires your existing lawyer and forces you to use a public defender.

Obama Wants to Kill Your Gramma!

Death Panels – This particular piece of hysteria has been Sarah Palin’s newest talking point.  In the Palin-Reality the government will create a panel concerning end-of-life decisions with the power to euthanize you or your children.  This seems to be inspired by an option in the current bill that permits doctors to receive Medicare compensation for voluntarily discussing living wills with patients.  Let’s just say that Sarah Palin’s reality is not to be confused with actual reality.

Public Defender Vigilantes! – Public Defenders chase down suspected criminals and execute them on sight.

This current discussion is a lot more about trying to bring Obama down than it is about the evils of socialism.  In any case providing a public insurance option is not socialism any more than the U. S. Postal Service, the Police, Firefighters, or the public defenders are socialism. What we have seen is that when the neoconservatives on the right-wing disagree with you they:

• Lie
• Shout down any debate
• Bring assault rifles to political town hall meetings

The new Star Trek film… It’s about the consequences…

Filed as Geek Stuff, General, Movie Reviews, Opinion, Reviews with 4 replies

(5/8/2009)

Puck’s Review – A+

I went to see the new Star Trek film last night and the thing that struck me was that all the reboots of recent franchises like Batman, James Bond, and Star Trek are grittier and more difficult for the characters.

American action movies developed this cliche where the hero would punch some trash-talking bad guy and then recite a canned pithy statement.  It was tame and safe violence that reinforced the cowboy aesthetic that we were always right and violence was justified.  We’ve lived through the Bush era now and Americans as a culture have begun to understand that the pithy cliches have consequences in the real world.

In the film Witness, we see this play out magnificently when Harrison Ford is accompanying an Amish community into the local town.  When a redneck heckler starts bullying the Amish, Harrison Ford punches him.  It’s classic cowboy cliche and we’re all prepared to lean back and feel good about it until the camera remains on the scene and we start to see the uncomfortable consequences of the violence.

In the first five minutes of the Star Trek film, we see an unwinnable conflict in which people die.  I remember when Americans thought women shouldn’t be in combat, but here you see women not only fighting, but dying as well.  It’s harsh, jarring, and more sincere.

It’s clear that these characters are paying a price for their actions.  When Kirk fights in the bar it isn’t Smokey and the Bandit, it’s more like Fight Club and his face is so bloody and battered at the end, that you worry he’s going to lose teeth.  Kirk’s life is hard and he’s struggling to cope.  His battered face and the visible emotional struggle behind it are light years away from Shatner’s suave, father-knows-best character.

That’s what makes the film so fresh and powerful.

Fact versus belief… The Search for Root Cause

Filed as Geek Stuff, General, Opinion with no replies

(5/5/2009)

In my work as an engineer, I troubleshoot customer hardware and software design all day.  In that line of work, opinion and a whole list of other social niceties take a back seat to fact and the scientific method. The search for a failure’s root cause is the primary goal of an engineer like me and it doesn’t provide any room for opinion.

I want to start with two quotes that illustrate my point.

On the meaning of San Diego

Ron Burgundy: Discovered by the Germans in 1904, they named it San Diego, which of course in German means a whale’s vagina. Veronica Corningstone: No, there’s no way that’s correct. Ron Burgundy: I’m sorry, I was trying to impress you. I don’t know what it means. I’ll be honest, I don’t think anyone knows what it means anymore. Scholars maintain that the translation was lost hundreds of years ago. Veronica Corningstone: Doesn’t it mean Saint Diego? Ron Burgundy: No. No. Veronica Corningstone: No, that’s – that’s what it means. Really. Ron Burgundy: Agree to disagree. ~Anchorman

Math Impressions

“Instead of having ‘answers’ on a math test, they should just call them ‘impressions,’ and if you got a different ‘impression,’ so what, can’t we all be brothers?” ~SNL’s Jack Handey

What is Fact?

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation; in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts. Factual accuracy is not forgiving or understanding of our feelings.

• Consensus does not create fact
• Repetition does not create fact
• Compromise does not create fact
• Emotional overtures do not create fact
• Civility or the lack of it does not create fact

Let me create a hypothetical demonstration to illustrate the above points:

A 747 is flying over the Atlantic when the copilot runs to the bathroom at the back of the plane. While he is gone, the pilot has a heart attack and dies at the controls leaving the plane descending towards the ocean.

FACT: Without a pilot the plane will crash.

The failure of consensus – The copilot rushes back towards the cockpit when a passenger named Joe stands up and proclaims that God will save them. All the other passenger’s agree and block the copilot from getting to the cockpit.

The failure of repetition – The copilot asks the crowd to move so he can regain control of the plane. Joe repeats that God will save them and the rest of the passengers repeat it as well continuing to bar the copilot from the cockpit

The failure of compromise – The pilot asks the crowd to move again. Joe agrees to a compromise and lets him halfway through the cabin but not all the way to the cockpit.

The failure of emotional overtures – Seeking to make the copilot understand Joe picks up a baby and, with tears in his eyes, explain that God loves them all and couldn’t possibly let a bad thing like a plane crash happen.

The failure of civility – The copilot finally screams, “Get the Hell out of my way you stupid moron!! This plane is crashing!!” Joe and the other passengers are shocked at his outburst and Joe replies “I think your bad manners have proved my point.” and the other passengers all nod together right before they crash into the ocean.

While compromise, consensus, and civility are all wonderful things when dealing with other people, none of these makes any difference when attempting to establish factual accuracy. (If these things did make a difference with regards to facts, the clients I work with wouldn’t need me.)

Keep in mind that proposing a bogus theory isn’t bad science.  In fact, it is great science provided that you objectively test and verify the result. Bad science is clinging to a bogus theory after the facts have shown it to be incorrect. Once we go there, it becomes a belief system and we get to file for tax exempt status as a church.

To bring this back into my everyday life, once you can identify the root cause you can proceed to a solution, but all the wishing and arguing in the world won’t solve the problem without addressing the facts.