That is fine, I can take that.
There is no argument against it being true in this statement, so I am not sure why you are pointing this out? Either way, I agree with the statement, but it is not an argument against my position.
Regarding what you wrote about cigar box juggling and the situation with your flower pot, I will let that slide. The inconsistency in your argument is too obvious in these instances, that I need not point it out, the reader themselves can decide.
The irony. Are you asking me to discuss wether something that has the word “juggling” in its title, belongs in the genre of juggling, or not?
I assume it is this sentence you refer to?
"The first juggler who obtained any prominence did balancing stunts, and although juggling has departed from the lines on which he worked, his place in tradition is secure."
I can see how you read this as “balancing is not juggling”. But it can also be taken as in that the line of work has changed. Also, if “tradition is secure” what does that imply? That its traditional juggling?
The rest of the article continues to list many things that fall out of your definition, and uplift several “great jugglers” whose work was mostly “not juggling”.
I agree with the article. When asked “can you juggle?”, a 3 ball cascade is generally what is implied. I have stated this many times. It refers to the specific activity of juggling.
I agree. It has a stronger cultural identity of its own.
It is mentioned many times in several works of literature. I did not have any examples at hand, so we can drop that if you do not take my word for it. I did find this one though, from Edgar Heyl:
The point I am making is not that no one holds the position that you hold. I am against the idea that everyone that does not subscribe to your position, is wrong. I would think that if a substantial part of the literature of a field used a certain language to describe it, and the “general understanding” of the field differed from this understanding, it would be pointed out. In juggling, it is pointed out that literature that describes juggling as magic, is wrong. But there is no trace of any dispute of the literature that describes juggling as a genre, even in the most known works of juggling literature. If “The Complete Juggler” had chapter on how to play the guitar, Someone from the field would point it out just like Edgar Heyl did, regarding “The art of Juggling”, in the clip above. But there is no trace of that.
Let me start with 4.
I think there is a documented understanding between experts and practitioners of juggling, that this definition could be dropped. If I was consulted to write a definition for a dictionary, I would not include it. In fact, I would point out the difference between magic and juggling. Would not you?
Cinquevalli in 1895:
M. Wilson Disher in 1937:
Marcelo Truzzi, in 1974:
Regarding 5. Here, juggling is used as a metaphor, it is not a reference to the field we are discussing. I personally ignore it, because the artistic field of juggling came first, and this is a secondary reference. If someone wants to take it into consideration, I would not have anything against it, but I personally do not take it into account, because it is obvious that it is not relevant.
It would be the same as to discuss what impact yoyo dieting has on the definition of yoyo.
Regarding 3. As in 5. this is a reference to the field and culture of juggling, so it is secondary. Soccer players use the word, because they see a connection to the artistic field of juggling. I am not concerned with it, and if someone wants to deal with it that is fine.
This leaves me with 1. and 2. …which is basically the definition I wrote, but in other words. You are saying that juggling is X and everything similar to X. This means that the specific activity of juggling is X and the genre of juggling contains X and everything similar to X.
In 1. you try to describe the method that the specific activity of juggling is based on. I did this too, in the beginning of my work, but called it a phenomenon, or relationship between the objects inside the juggling. The way I described it, was very similar to what you write, but with one difference. There needs to be a time delayed collapse, that creates an urgency to reset control. Your definition ignores this pressure. If the points of control are less in number than the amount of tasks, the tasks can avoid collapse, if the state change between control and collapse trajectory are properly interlaced, thus they share points of control. Your definition does not describe this, which means you could basically have three maracas on a table in front of you and lift each one up and shake it, then put it down, in sequence. There is no time delayed collapse that is avoided by the sequence, and I think that this is something that needs to be described. This phenomenon (or method, as you call it) is something I was planning to discuss further, in terms of a technical language, but I am ok to start that now. For the definition that I wrote, it would be the same to use the activity where said phenomenon (or method) is present, as some kind of default of juggling (which has been discussed if you paid attention - shower, cascade or all toss juggling?), but I thought that the three ball cascade served this spot better, for a number of reasons.
- It is specific
- It’s what is generally implied, when asking “can you juggle?”
- It is the technical foundation for much juggling
I also think that when the word juggling is used, it is generally to represent an activity, rather than a method (or a phenomena inside an activity).
In 2. “a genre of activities that display similar unusual dexterity”, You use “similar”, I used “connection to”, which is basically the same thing. I do not think “unusual dexterity” works very well, because it is unusual to who? also dexterity is problematic. But genrally speaking, it is the same concept as what I proposed. If you are happy with 1+2, I’d give you a virtual high five (and a real one, next time we meet IRL).