hmmm- seems to me that things are either juggling or they aren’t? how can something only kind of be juggling? or partly be juggling? if there is a thing that is not quite all the way juggling, i’m guessing there is some other word for that thing that we just haven’t recalled yet.
what you see, vs. what you communicate are 2 different things. that’s also the beauty of what erik suggests… that it does not rely solely upon intent. if it did, then anyone could say anything in the world is juggling “because that is my intention when i do it” (for example, tying my shoe). its totally cool that you can’t find a connection between balancing a stick and what you are calling juggling. but i think you have to acknowledge you are part of a community where some people do find a connection there. again, you are looking at technique i think. balancing is part of the genre of juggling, and this has been backed up by historical evidence. historical evidence which leads us to where we are in this very day right now. if you think balancing should not be part of the genre of juggling, you are talking about a future definition that does not exist yet. and, if you refuse to acknowledge that part of the juggling community holds this belief, that balancing (among other techniques) is part of juggling, then you are removing yourself from the community, and furthermore from the conversation. because then you will not be able to effectively communicate with the community, since no one shares a clear, common belief of what juggling is.
yes, and we are stuck with that right now. just because you don’t want balancing to be included in juggling today, doesn’t mean it magically happens. the process by which that happens first starts with all of us understanding what juggling is. then we can discuss how and why we want to change it. i find this to be the most important part of erik’s work- juggling has gathered a bunch of steam over the past few decades. rapid growth, both in technique and culture has occurred. and its time that juggling is mature enough to start having these larger discussions of concepts in order to look forward to the next few decades. but i have covered all this before in other answers in this thread.
i feel we are stuck in some sort of situation that goes like this- erik comes along and says the meaning of juggling includes balancing. you say that it not correct. erik gives a bunch of evidence which points to why and how he reached that conclusion. you assert your opinion again, that balancing is not juggling, and state you are confused without giving any clear evidence that balancing does not belong inside juggling. … at the very least i think you have to acknowledge that there are people who believe balancing is part of juggling. what do you do then? do you stop talking to those people? clearly not, because we are still able to have these conversations here of which i am very very grateful and respectful of your time and responses. so then what is the next step of the process for you? we can go, technique by technique, through how balancing, ball spinning, rolling a ball on top of an umbrella, etc. is connected to the default form in an effort to convince you? that might also be good for others who are reading this?
it is not possible. the 4 club fountain has a very clear and most obvious of all connection to the default form. again, its actually not about original intent at all. it seems now there is a pattern of you having difficulty understanding how things can be related to the default form. and maybe there is where we should spend our future efforts?
the genre does not need to be named in 1 or 2 words, it just has to actually exist. the genre of “weird tricks people have learned to do” is not actually an established genre that you can refer to using language today and have people understand what you are talking about.
why do you have to write toss juggling in the sentence above!?!??! if you have to make a distinction, then you have just proven to yourself that there is a genre under which all these techniques fit!!! you are stuck on technique, and juggling is not only about technique, it is also about context. if juggling meant today, right now, in this very moment, what you claim it does, then you would have written “sure, people occasionally lump these activities in with juggling and call it all juggling, but i’d say this is technically incorrect usage of the word in today’s language. etc.”
again, i ask you, if balancing a stick is not juggling, then what is it? and the thing is, there is no answer to this. because there is no established language which describes balancing outside of juggling. we could invent a word, and clearly we should do this in the future! but for now, we are stuck with this inherited meaning of the word juggling which has absolutely no regard for the logic of what techniques were lumped under its meaning.
this has been stated many times elsewhere, but its pretty easy to repeat:
step #1: i see something and i ask myself is this activity juggling?
step #2: i then ask myself is there a connection between this activity and the default form?
step #3: if the answer is yes in step #2, i then ask myself if the activity already has a stronger cultural identity than juggling? (such as rhythmic gymnastics)
step #4: if the answer in step #3 is no, then the thing in step #1 is juggling! if the answer in step #2 is no or the answer in step #3 is yes, then the thing in step #1 is not juggling!
so, i am “anyone” and i can use the definition super easily! much much more easily than any other suggestion of a definition that i have ever encountered in my life. which, just for fun, i will summarize here in this short list, and for balance i have also included your suggestion:
- juggling is throwing and catching more objects than the number of hands involved.
- juggling is the organization of objects in space and time.
- juggling is doing the unnecessary in the hardest possible way.
- juggling is object manipulation for the sake (or with the intent) of object manipulation.
- juggling is a method of controlling the motion of a number of objects in a manner where the control of one object must be released to attend to another.
- juggling is a genre of activities which are related to the default form. the default form of juggling is the 3 ball cascade.
i think this is really an important thing. perhaps the most important of all of this. the thing is- i don’t think its possible to know at all what we are missing because we don’t have this common understanding. we are where we are culturally. until someone invented the wheel, could we have talked about the car? in juggling its impossible to say what new concepts we will find once we can have a conversation where we truly understand each other. one thing i really believe in personally is that my own work would benefit greatly from a clear, technical language. i could of course just make my own, and keep it to myself. but i think this is less effective… we have all seen how technique develops and spreads in trends over the whole world, especially now with the internet and youtube. its much more efficient and practical that the community as a whole is involved in creating the future of juggling and not just individuals struggling alone here and there. before having a better language to talk about what we are doing, we need to have a common starting point. and if we can’t even agree what the word juggling means, then how in the world should we expect to agree on how to proceed with finer details inside of juggling?
another example comes to mind- if me and you had been talking to each other in 1985 about a juggling manufacturer in the future called mr. babache making a ring that is 24cm big, what could we have said about it before it existed? would we have been able to guess that if you combine it in a multiplex throw with other sizes of rings, they would separate vertically, allowing ring tricks that had previously only been possible with balls… and all without having the ring in our hands, to try out physically, to experiment with, and to have a clear understanding of what is possible? i find it hard to believe, especially since the ring was created without any of those thoughts in mind. so once we have agreed upon a clear definition between us, i have absolutely no idea what great new juggling insights we could come up with. its the same with my color ring project… i have no idea what it means to juggle rings in shades of blue. i have some theories, deeper than when babache created the 24cm ring, but still it is untested. however, i do have faith that it will eventually lead somewhere productive, even if i can’t for the life of me imagine what that is right now! and i have this faith because its happened to me in my life with juggling over and over and over again. tom renegade sends me 5 rings in 5 different sizes and asks me to create something with them. i have no idea if there will be any good tricks with those rings! and yet now its one of my favorite pieces i currently perform (mostly because i find truth in the techniques that came out of the rings… tricks that could only be done with 5 different sized rings, and not possible with balls or clubs, etc.). when we made renegadesignlab, we pushed and pushed tom to make us different shapes. at one point i got scared because… i didn’t know if any of them would be worth anything! and yet, each of them has proven to be a huge step forward. some more than others, but even the ones that didn’t yield the best result pointed out the next iteration for the next step of the process and saved us from being lost. so i have faith that if this definition can be worked out, we will all benefit in ways we have never even dreamed. before site swap came around, we could not have talked about taking glow balls the color of the rainbow and lining them up in the air using 97531.