If there keeps being mixups and misunderstandings with your most streamlined definition, I don’t think you can keep blaming those who are trying to understand it or apply it. I think you’ve failed by trying to make it so streamlined that you’ve missed out something key that others aren’t getting. Of course those things are clear in your head, because you’ve gone through the process of writing a 20 page essay on the subject, made a video, done a lecture, etc, etc.
Here is a quote by Einstein:
“It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.”
Turns out what he means is:
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.”
Einstein’s first quote uses overly flowery language and gets in the way of communicating his own message, which is quite ironic based on the point he was making. But it was good for his intended audience at the time. The second (and more commonly quoted) version of the same phrase is much simpler, but still gets across the point. The point, of course, isn’t “Everything should be made as simple as possible.”
What you’ve done with this definition is made it too short and too simple. You’ve aimed for “elegant” but fallen into the trap of ignoring the key part: “… but no simpler.”
If your definition wasn’t overly simple, you wouldn’t have literally every single response to it being a disagreement which turns out to be a misunderstanding, or request for clarification.
And because it is so overly simplified, even I, someone who read and gave feedback on the 20 page essay earlier this year, am confused by the words you are using in your shortest definition. Questions I and others have had:
- What is a “connection” or “relation” to an activity like a three ball cascade?
- What is a valid connection?
- How many steps or links can there be in a chain of connections?
- Is my own judgment valid enough to make these decisions myself, or should I submit to a higher or more knowledgeable authority?
All of this is so nebulous and vague that it feels like anything can be juggling, so much so that the default form (the three ball cascade) is just arbitrary.
The best thing you could do to stop the confusion is help people out a bit more with your definition. It’s not very helpful to anyone if, each time you show it to someone, they have to read through 20 pages of an essay or a 80 post thread on a forum to really understand it. That’s not a failing of the people wanting to understand it, it’s a failing of yours in communicating it.
It’s like when people ask me if I believe in god. I say “First you define what you mean by god, and I’ll say if I believe such a thing is real or could exist.” You know why I reply like this? Because everyone who asks the question has a different understanding of what THEY mean by god, and I’ve only got a 1% chance of guessing what they mean. Like a Judaeo-Christian God? The universe is god? A super powerful alien outside of our reality?
I’d love to discuss it more, and continue the conversation past this definition, but I’m not going to put any effort into doing that here, not even responding to your more direct comments on my above post. I’ll only put more effort into the discussion if you make the definition clearer.
For example, how about adding back some of the connections?
“Juggling is an activity or genre of activities with strong connections to the default form of juggling. The default form is the three ball cascade, and activities can be connected via shared skills (throws, catches, etc), a person’s relation to that activity (desire to learn tricks and create routines, their approach to practice or performing, etc), and the activity’s position in the subculture of juggling (currently or historically associated to juggling more than another distinct subculture).”
If your definition was more like that, I’d be happy to continue the discussion, but so far those clarifications about connections require too much reading by everyone involved, so much so that we just have to guess at what you might think is a valid connection. That’s not fun for anyone.