The ARMA and everyone else.

[Michael Eging]

Gentlemen,

Now we are becoming embroiled in matters of semantics.

Both regarding what the word Master means (again...., and to which I have clarified earlier in this thread) and to what Living Lineage means.

Maestri Martinez and Sinclair I know can rightly claim a tradition of tuitional knowledge from the late C18th and C19th centuries, but this does not in any way limit their knowledge and indeed what they learned, as being classical fencing only.
I myself have been recipient of what is likely the last surviving lineage of singlestick tuition in Britain, passed from the continued military tradition to the first fencing master I studied under and then to myself. Even so, this does not limit my knowledge and ability to singlestick alone.

I have referred constantly through this thread to what I deem to be the stronger and truly unbroken lineage of the principles of Nature, these being what the Art of fencing and Defence is based upon.
This is the real living and surviving knowledge that can be known, understood, applied and imparted no differently today than it has been for centuries (yes, according to the specific mechanics and effective application of the specific weapon in hand).

As such, the term "living lineage" does not necessarily mean or in any way imply "from All historical masters" (or those that published at least!).

Yours Very Truly,

Macdonald

I don't think it is a matter of semantics as much as it is a sweeping generalization being tossed about as if it were fact. I would argue that the Nature of human mechanics does not qualify one to effectively master or teach medieval martial arts, so much as sweat, practice and mental focus (both in studying and practicing). Muscle memory is not inherent nor somehow endowed based on our participation in the human experience or through some spiritually sweeping generalization. The Art as it existed in 1400 does not exist today. We as students are seeking to recreate something that is centuries removed from us.

Now, are the principles of teaching the same? Is that what you are getting at? Maybe they are. Maybe they aren't. I know many of today's students would go crazing if teachers used metaphors as the masters did in their written/drawn records. As for imparting it no differently than it has been taught through the centuries, that is the whole crux of this. Claiming this is just semantical circular dialogue at this point is not true. We cannot impart the craft of medieval and renaissance swordsmanship as the medieval masters due to some esoteric connection through our metaphysical human-ness.

We are not the masters. Have neither their muscle memory, their life experience with students or battle, nor their intimate understanding of the source material that remains to us. We have these wonderful records, but they are not the same as stepping into the "medieval classroom," nor are they the same as taking that learning and then fighting for our lives in a back alley or on a battlefield. We are separated from them, from that environment, from so many aspects of their world that we are merely scratching the surface on medieval swordsmanship as students.

As I indicated earlier, your sweeping generalizations have meaning. Maybe try to avoid them if clarity is not possible.

All the best,
Mike

[Francisco Uribe]

We are not suggesting it is impossible that someone could become a master of these arts again, it's just that these arts are still in their infancy.

I disagree with you here. Sam.
These arts are extinct. There is no way that anybody that merely practices reconstructed version, could claim mastery of something that never had to test for real.
I does not matter how good we may think the person is, the fact is that they will never have the chance to prove and improve upon real empirical fighting situations.
It is a complete self serving statement to equal oneself with the mastery of the old, since for them this was a set of tools for fringe situations (far more common than we have or want nowadays)
I'm not saying that is matter of how many people you kill to be a master, is a matter of how many times have you succesfully survived using "the Art" in a life threatening situation.

If our gunpodwer civilizationc ollapses and we return to swords, arrows and shields, it may be very possible that masters of this new versions of "older medieval systems" may appear over the generations... but it will be a new version, not the real old stuff.
You may consider it a case of convergent evolution.

The point is... without the natural selection, to weed off the unsuited, everybody can claim to be a master... specially using mathematical properties such as transitivity.

An example.
My guess is that all masters should be familiar with what a master zornhau or a volarica may imply... the use of cuts as conterstrikes in defenses is well referenced.

However there is an ongoing discusion in Myarmoury, regarding if a conterstrike zorn should be a single or double time action.
Everybody argues... and have reasons for each point of view.
The day we actually fight for dear life, will be the day that will stablish the relative efficiencies of each "version" of the same technique.
Would one bet one's life in a better or worse technique?
The bloody statistics will have the final words... guys with more efficient techiques will be the ones to survive and teach them to others.
Biological entities are difined by theri own biology. Swormanship is nothing but a biological expresion... so it is subjected to natural selection.

Too much rambling (one too many papers today, excuse me)

[Francisco Uribe]

Gentlemen,

Now we are becoming embroiled in matters of semantics.

Both regarding what the word Master means (again...., and to which I have clarified earlier in this thread) and to what Living Lineage means.

Maestri Martinez and Sinclair I know can rightly claim a tradition of tuitional knowledge from the late C18th and C19th centuries, but this does not in any way limit their knowledge and indeed what they learned, as being classical fencing only.
I myself have been recipient of what is likely the last surviving lineage of singlestick tuition in Britain, passed from the continued military tradition to the first fencing master I studied under and then to myself. Even so, this does not limit my knowledge and ability to singlestick alone.

I have referred constantly through this thread to what I deem to be the stronger and truly unbroken lineage of the principles of Nature, these being what the Art of fencing and Defence is based upon.
This is the real living and surviving knowledge that can be known, understood, applied and imparted no differently today than it has been for centuries (yes, according to the specific mechanics and effective application of the specific weapon in hand).

As such, the term "living lineage" does not necessarily mean or in any way imply "from All historical masters" (or those that published at least!).

Yours Very Truly,

Macdonald

In other, and less words, Mr. MacDonald...
Are you saying that because you have some sort of mastery in a type of fencing (namely FISAS master, may I add singlestick?) that grants you immediate facility to grasp and claim mastery in OTHER types of swordmanship?
And just because everything is conected in the fabric of space tiem continuum?

Sorry, dude. That doesn't fly.
It will be like me claiming to be a master medical doctor or a master theoretical Phycisist.

[Paul Macdonald]

Mr. Uribe,

I have several times here stated quite specifically and clearly as to the subject of my qualification. That is - Fencing, the Art of.

Not singlestick.

Singlestick tuition (in the form of military sabre) was simply one example of receiving a real living tradition of weapon skills and form in my lifetime.

The main weapon of the Academy is backsword. This is taught in its various contemporary forms such as backsword and dagger, with targe, and against smallsword and rapier. There is also Academy tuition presently being given in quarterstaff, smallsword, rapier, Italian cane, spadroon, and longsword to name a few.

The specific weapon forms are however not as important as the effectiveness of the methods being taught with each. Each are taught according to the most effective working principles of the Art of Defence.

And gentlemen, as suggested here, that does indeed take years of blood, sweat and tears in regular training to know and understand.

Yours Very Truly,

Macdonald

[Sam Nankivell]

Mr. Uribe,

I have several times here stated quite specifically and clearly as to the subject of my qualification. That is - Fencing, the Art of.

Not singlestick.

Singlestick tuition (in the form of military sabre) was simply one example of receiving a real living tradition of weapon skills and form in my lifetime.

The main weapon of the Academy is backsword. This is taught in its various contemporary forms such as backsword and dagger, with targe, and against smallsword and rapier. There is also Academy tuition presently being given in quarterstaff, smallsword, rapier, Italian cane, spadroon, and longsword to name a few.

The specific weapon forms are however not as important as the effectiveness of the methods being taught with each. Each are taught according to the most effective working principles of the Art of Defence.

And gentlemen, as suggested here, that does indeed take years of blood, sweat and tears in regular training to know and understand.

Yours Very Truly,

Macdonald

To have qualifications for the "Art of Fencing" is a rather general field, don't you think? After all, a Japanese master of kenjutsu would have the exact same qualifications then. However, my main point is actually something pointed out to me by Mr. Uribe in a previous post. Without a method of natural selection, we really don't know over the long run what techniques will work and which won't. Sure, we know the general ideas, but we still don't have an effective way for figuring out the specifics. Even, teachers of Sport fencing and kendo have quite a clear method of weeding out ineffective techniques: competition. However, the same cannot be said for WMA or many styles of EMA that are not made for sport. Normally, these styles would have combat to test themselves in, however, we don't even have that nowadays.

Sometimes I think that even martial arts that have a very direct lineage to combat martial arts still won't be effective if they aren't used. Take many Chinese weapon arts for instance, they are not sportive and they are not used in combat. So what happens is these once functional styles become more showy and flowery, doing what looks good rather then what works in combat. There have now been efforts to bring Chinese weapon arts back to their combative states as we have done for Western martial arts, but it will take quite a bit of time. Since they not only have to figure out what the original techniques were like, but they have to go against the "masters" of these arts who believe that they already have a combat effective style and do not have to prove it by open sparring. Although a few masters have started to come to the functional side, the majority still either a) don't even know it exists or b) if they do know, refuse to go back down to the status of a student and accept that their "mastership" is only in demonstration arts.

[Michael Eging]

And gentlemen, as suggested here, that does indeed take years of blood, sweat and tears in regular training to know and understand.


Macdonald

And we are not arguing this here. The "rub" was the linkeage with some sort of "Art" and the metaphysical type of linkeages. Thus, my use of this was as a contrast to something that was getting very "squishy."

As I also noted, study of Fiore, or Talhoffer, etc., etc. are crucial. As is a "martial" focus. I think no one is questioning the effort, etc. We questioned use of some important terms as well as the linkeages you made through use of the vague term "Art" as if there was an innate human collective memory of human martial arts skills. Further, gaining skill in medieval and renaissance weapons cannot come from direct application of classical fencing from the 1700s and 1800s or from sport fencing, etc.

All the best,
Mike

[Francisco Uribe]

Mr. Uribe,
I have several times here stated quite specifically and clearly as to the subject of my qualification. That is - Fencing, the Art of.

Yes you have said so...
Nontheless what you say has no substance at all. Because you wnat us to belive that your "mastery" can be extrapolated to any weapon and historical period.
Not to even mention the "solid" trajectory, past and tradition of FISAS as an entity granting master at arms recognitions.

You are simply deluding yourself. But that is OK.
"There is every flavor in the gardens of the Lord", they say.
If you want to consider yourself the high master of the art, I do not have any problems with that either.

However you try desperately of convincing others of something that is not true. That makes of you a gullible person or a liar.
It does not matter how many times a lie is repeated is does not come true.
I'm sorry that you think otherwise.
Certainly you will find people who will take your "points of view" without any analisis, but that will not be here.

You offer confuse, general and often contradictory statements, regarding the matters at hand.
"It is easier to catch a liar than cripple".
I do think you are a liar Mr. McDonald, and not particularly a very good one. I was told that was the case, but I had the chance to see it for myself trough this exchange.

I regret that you had chosen not to give the due importance to the deeds of MR. Loriega.... but I guess that since he is a ninja master, that allows him to automatically master any other system he sets his eyes on.
Finally... what is another extra lie?

Thank you Mr. McDonald.
Very, very illustrative.

Francisco

[Paul Macdonald]

Mr. Nankivell,

The Art of fencing is, I would suggest, a broad (and also very deep) field but a very specific Art.

A Japanese master would have a similar qualification, but not the same, as Worldwide, all Arts are subject to differences in geographical expression, and specific expressions can be studied and known. This is True for music, visual Arts, poetry, dance, and of course fencing.

European fencing masters and students study, understand, apply and impart those Arts of their own culture.

Regarding natural selection, this is indeed something we can clearly observe in Nature, in Animals.
If we only wish to know humans as animals, then we can live as such.

The very point of any Art is that we might have awareness and learning ability enough to develop ourselves beyond instinctive animalistic reactive behaviour in order to measure and overcome any opponent or hardship before us.
The unique inherent qualities of man that separates us from the animal kingdom can be surmised in a simple observation.

Monkeys don`t Fence.

Any animal may fight but that is not the Art.


Mr. Eging,

I agree.


Mr. Uribe,

I can only conclude that you are quite intent upon branding myself personally and professionally as a liar, and might take my every word as false.

You seem to be a man quite sure of yourself.


Yours Very Truly,

Macdonald

[Will Adamson]

Regarding natural selection, this is indeed something we can clearly observe in Nature, in Animals.
If we only wish to know humans as animals, then we can live as such.

So humans are not part of the animal kingdon? I may have gone to government schools, but at least I understand human taxonomy...and evolution.

Oh, and we do live as "animals". Creating art, and using language and technology are adaptations humans have managed to use to change the evolutionary dynamics on ourselves and thus make us more likely to survive. Any organism would do the same.

[Francisco Uribe]

Mr. Uribe,
I can only conclude that you are quite intent upon branding myself personally and professionally as a liar, and might take my every word as false.

You seem to be a man quite sure of yourself.

Mr McDonald,
I do not have the intent of "branding you" as anything.
I was merely trying to form my own opinion of your ideas and stances trough this exchange.
If I was so clear in stating my personal views about your person, it is just because I do not want you you to say that I'm implying or telling stuff to your back. As I said I'm pretty forthcoming.
I just wonder how the opinion of one such as me can have so much weight in your concience.

So again, not to leave place to doubt.

I do think you have constructed a castle of lies and manipulated information. I do believe that you lie about certain critical areas of your profesional expertise, specifically to those that reffer to a degree and qualifications as master of the art of fencing. I also belive that you are involved in fraudulent actions along with other IMAF "masters". What is not clear to me if all this self-serving attitude is a matter of egos, money or a mixture of both.

If beyond these subjects you also lie about other things, that is a matter I cannot judge. Although a similar behavior in your personal life wouldn't be surprising. I mention this just because you reffer to the matter yourself. And to be fair, I do not think that you maybe the devil incarnate, Mr. McDonald, just a simple liar.

So... no, I guess I do not have a very positive opinion of you at this point, Mr. McDonald. But this is a label that you, alone and by your own words here, have put around your neck. It is you who speak for yourself, I just made some conclusions based upon the exchange of facts, ideas and your behavior regarding the refferenced matters.

One final suggestion, regarding animal behavior, evolution, natural selection and humans...
I would recommend to stick to fencing when telling your theories abouth the space-time continuum. Evidently biology is not your strong point.
Your expositions were pitiful as they were. There is no need to keep digging yourself in any further.

[Paul Macdonald]

Dear All,

The mark of a learned human, above all animals, is as a free-thinking individual.

Those that exhibit more animalistic tendencies act no differently from one another, and to be honest, I have faced and taken as much as is tolerable from this pack on this forum.

Mr. Uribe has become more and more personally insulting and is clearly either unable or unwilling to rationally discuss any matter with myself.

Know, Mr. Uribe, that my concience carries no weight in this or any matter in Life, personal or professional, as I am clear and honest enough in my dealings. If you doubt this, ask my students or my customers.

Know Sir, that you have not moved my justifications in any way, but have only served to increase my sorrows for the unreasonable man.

Yours Very Truly,

Macdonald

[Francisco Uribe]

Mr. Uribe has become more and more personally insulting and is clearly either unable or unwilling to rationally discuss any matter with myself.

Mr. McDonald,
Since the begining I've been trying to stablish a dialog with you.
You even forced me to repeat my questions several times.
You have not presented arguments or evidence at all. Nothing that supports any claim that you have made for yourself or others.
What you only offer is your personal opinion in matters of metaphysics.
Surely you realize that opinions are not facts, and cannot be used to back up any sort of claim.

Also, you have contradicted your own statements and logic more than once in this thread. This is a point that has not been only noticed by me.
Every single time you have been presented with arguments and facts that show the weakknesses of your postures and postulates, you limit yourself to repeat what you have you just said, without taking on the points at all.

Surely, you do not expcet that in any discussion I will just take any unsatisfactory point and explanation, without further analysis and questioning for a better understanding. Specially if the answers are so confuse and unclear.
That is simply being not good scholarly.
It is not my intention to interview you. My intention is that you clarify for me some issues that go against any rational thinking. It is evident you see something we don't. Why are you so particular about sharing it?

Now, considering all this, I find particularly amusing that is you who whines of me being unrational and unwilling. Why don't you tell that to me instead of involving everybody else?

There is a simple solution to all this. All you have to do to put me in my place and demosntrate your teaching abilities, is to explain thematters hand as I were a 4-year old.
Simply and direct.

Now... along this discussion I posed several questions myself. Some others have also. I feel there are still some unresolved questions.
Should I make a list, so you could expand on them?

[Sam Nankivell]

O.K., I am not exactly sure of the full history of conflict between ARMA and the IMAF, but we still have to put this crap behind us. Guys, lets try and keep it professional here.

Mr. Uribe, there is no need to be so biting, it really doesn't achieve much besides venting anger.

Mr. MacDonald, Mr Uribe has some good points. It seems like you are avoiding many questions and giving relatively general answers to others. I am not sure if this is intentional on your part or not, but it is clear that there is some communication barrier between you and us. Right now it would be quite nice if we could break that barrier, since that would make this discussion much more productive.

Miscommunication frequently leads to anger, so please, try and be as direct as possible when answering inquiries. I personally don't think I am too stupid to understand you, nor are you unable to answer questions, so lets try and actually make this discussion work. Otherwise, we'll all go home thinking the other guys are complete morons and jerks, which won't do anything but cause more problems.

[Gene Tausk]

O.K., I am not exactly sure of the full history of conflict between ARMA and the IMAF, but we still have to put this crap behind us. Guys, lets try and keep it professional here.

Mr. Uribe, there is no need to be so biting, it really doesn't achieve much besides venting anger.

Mr. MacDonald, Mr Uribe has some good points. It seems like you are avoiding many questions and giving relatively general answers to others. I am not sure if this is intentional on your part or not, but it is clear that there is some communication barrier between you and us. Right now it would be quite nice if we could break that barrier, since that would make this discussion much more productive.

Miscommunication frequently leads to anger, so please, try and be as direct as possible when answering inquiries. I personally don't think I am too stupid to understand you, nor are you unable to answer questions, so lets try and actually make this discussion work. Otherwise, we'll all go home thinking the other guys are complete morons and jerks, which won't do anything but cause more problems.

Mr. Nankivell:

Do not use profanity on our forums.

[Jake_Norwood]

I hope you're not referring to "crap," "morons," or "jerks," Gene? I'd hardly call any of that profanity.

Jake