i honestly can’t understand what the problem is at this point-
its clear that there is a genre of juggling and a specific activity of juggling. even if you don’t like the word genre, or the phrasing “specific activity of juggling,” the concepts remain the same = there has been one word (juggling) which has had a tangled meaning that has not been uncovered or discussed before. and in the past when 2 people talk, one person might be talking about the genre, while the other one is thinking about the specific activity and the result is a miscommunication. this is self-evident at this point, if only because of the length of this thread here and all the crazy shit going on over at arthur’s status right now. if there was no confusion over what the word means and how it is used, this discussion would not exist here now.
so there is a genre (or category or whatever) and the genre includes many activities. and what that genre includes currently varies from person to person. so when you talk to me, i include bouncing a ball on my head as juggling, where as if you talk to dan holzman he will say juggling is only throwing more balls than hands in the air or something like that. but that the genre includes many things that are all lumped under the label of “juggling” is indisputable. at this point the argument should only be about what those things are and how they are part of the genre. erik has offered a suggestion of a solution where its based upon things being related to the 3 ball cascade. he has suggested several ways this relationship can occur. its still a flexible system. it still allows individual opinion. and at the same time it also very accurately describes how people are using language out there in the world today. it clears up all the confusion of how people are using the word in different ways. if you see a relation to the default form, no matter how long a path that takes, then its juggling to you. if you don’t, then its not. it depends on context, not technique. i really really really don’t understand what is the problem with that? why not just agree with that and say, wow what a good insight, thank you for making it public, i can move on with my work now that i have this new understanding? sure, anyone can offer an alternative, but unless its backed up and explained as clearly as erik has done so far, then there’s no point? let’s say erik is wrong, well its the best we have to go with for now. it seems people are just arguing to argue. its some sort of weird human nature thing. or just stuck on personal egos. i for one and so grateful that erik took the time to work this out so i don’t have to. i’ll sing his name from the highest mountain for the rest of time for this. i don’t need any credit in this game. i just want to do my work and make my art and this helps me. so why make a problem of it unless there is some credibly demonstrable position to be in?
then, after the genre there is the specific activity- well, there’s a great discussion going on here about how to proceed with that. lots of progress has been made. and even as a (small) community… it hasn’t been all from erik for once. at this point we are just trying to decide on the best way to articulate what we all intuitively know about the properties of a cascade, or toss juggling, or whatever you call it. my point is that we have established the broader strokes here in concept, and now we are just trying to sort out the details. so let’s not get lost again, by having the details distract us from the progress we have already made in the larger picture. let’s stop getting caught up on each little word… this is a process, we can help each other. if you don’t like one word, try to abstract the idea and see if there is a larger point being made. then we can find a better way to explain it to each other. it just seems that at every step, unless erik doesn’t say something 1000% correct, everyone freaks out on him and goes back to the starting point of this whole thing. concepts can be true even if the smaller details are not ironed out yet.
i really don’t get point of being contrary to anything- its so simple: if you have a different opinion then offer it AND THEN BACK IT UP with credible evidence. this is what erik has done. don’t just argue to argue. don’t just argue to placate your ego. if you feel something that is said is intuitively wrong, show the same curtesy that erik has done and spend some time with yourself to work out that intuition and articulate it as best you can before pouring the burden of proof onto erik.
juggling is a genre of activities. these activities are related to the default form of juggling which is the 3 ball cascade.
we can discuss if its toss juggling instead of a 3 ball cascade, a 3 ball shower instead of a 3 ball cascade, tricks with sticks instead of the 3 ball cascade, etc.
we can discuss what a 3 ball cascade actually is, the meaning of the specific activity.
we are beyond trying to define juggling by technique alone. we keep going in circles over and over again. so much wasted energy. such a fractured community. i look forward to the time in 20, 30, 40 years when us old timers will be out of the game (or dead), and the new generation will just accept these truths and build upon them (such as what happened to siteswap), instead of spinning in circles… getting lost and having to fight each battle new every day. exhausting.