Re: swords (was ...Eras)

*snip* Swords can be cool as long as

> you don't get all freaky.
> Nate
> Hey now, Nate. Swords are very cool indeed, and
> since they've kept me
> fascinated and actively growing for the past
> forty-odd years, I'm not sure
> whether I resemble that "all freaky" remark or not.
> ...I feel so insulted.

Do you imbue your sword with some kind of mystic
dogma?
Hmm. Well, that's not at all the way I'd describe it, Nate, but I have a
sneaking suspicion that you would regard my answer to that question as a
"Yes."
Do you believe that once drawn a sword has to
be used, or it will implode?
Heh. I've met a couple of guys like that. "Sure you can see my sword:"
(here you get the benefit of the best Dark Smouldering Glance he can
manage:) "but it must taste blood before it is sheathed again..." Good
manners only require you to get out of earshot before you start laughing.
No, unless the person is known to come out of an unbroken cultural tradition
(and I think the Ghurkas are the about only ones this still applies to
today... and at that, I'm not sure the oral tradition is true regarding them
either), then I've found this view to be one of the surest signs of an ego
on legs rather than a martial artist. Almost without exception, there's a
lot less skill than mouth wearing that blade.
...Sure, my swords let me know if they haven't been used in too long, but
it's not as if they have to be used _on_ somebody. What _is_ the proper use
of a sword, indeed? The Heiho Kaden Sho of the Yagyu discusses the idea of
the "Life-Giving Sword" - and I think Munenori (wasn't it he?) was working
toward an idea that is still worth developing today. If the sword is
important still - and I am not alone in a profound conviction that it is -
then it's important that the idea of using a sword should continue to
evolve. This is the line of thinking that has led to every "michi" (or
"do") approach growing out of the old "jutsu" forms of the Japanese weapon
arts. Yes, a good sword should be used. It's an insult to the sword not to
do so. But the best use of the sword is not - with blessed few exceptions -
to cut down a life. That, as the Yagyu book suggests, ought properly to be
reserved for those times when one person's evil has come to a peak. And
modern law generally puts it in rather similar, if less poetic, terms.
Do you really think that
piece of steel is your soul?
Mine? No, my soul is complicated enough without having to incorporate a
dozen or so good pieces of steel. A decent sword tends to develop its own
soul, or something suspiciously like one, if used with respect. It could be
something of an awakening process rather than development, I'm not honestly
sure. I only know that I get a sense when someone's "home" in a blade, and
it leaves me with a very clear understanding of why the tradition might
arise of the sword being the soul of the bushi.
As long as you answered "no" to these, you're not a
freak.
And your point would be...?

> How to handle this sense of wounded dignity in a
> mature and rational
> manner - ha! Got it!
> Nate, we're going to have to have a duel.
> Gereg

Only if I get to choose weapons.

I choose Main Battle Tank. Mine's an M1A2--yours?
Y'know, I had a strong suspicion you were going to take this kind of
unsporting attitude. Nah, I figure, we're on a Japanese history list, so
those Euro-centric, "I-challenge-so-you-choose" rules don't apply. There's
only one weapon suited for a civilised disagreement between gentlemen: the
sword. It's the Mythically Correct solution.
...Of course, if you're going to remind me that neither of us could in fact
be considered a gentleman under the very definitions I'm calling for (and it
would be just like you to do that), then I'll have no more telling response
than to run like hell (unless I can arrange to be closer to you than you are
to your M1A2 when our negotiations reach this unhappy stage).
This is what I hated about the Boxer Rebellion, too.
Gereg

--- Silk Road School <silk.road.school@...>
wrote:

>
> Do you imbue your sword with some kind of mystic
> dogma?
> Hmm. Well, that's not at all the way I'd describe
> it, Nate, but I have a
> sneaking suspicion that you would regard my answer
> to that question as a
> "Yes."

The sword itself--not your practice of the art.

> ...Sure, my swords let me know if they haven't been
> used in too long, but
> it's not as if they have to be used _on_ somebody.

*cocked eyebrow* Um, and HOW exactly do they do this?

> And your point would be...?

You asked me what my criteria was. Or rather, you were
offended without knowing the criteria. So I gave it to
you.

>
> I choose Main Battle Tank. Mine's an M1A2--yours?
> Y'know, I had a strong suspicion you were going to
> take this kind of
> unsporting attitude.

Unsporting? Not at all. It's only fair for each of us
to use something we are trained with, correct? My
background is with tanks. Hence, my choice of weapon.
Use a sword if you wish. It's magical soul will
protect you from 120mm APFSDS-T, I'm sure.

There's

> only one weapon suited for a civilised disagreement
> between gentlemen: the
> sword. It's the Mythically Correct solution.
> ...Of course, if you're going to remind me that
> neither of us could in fact
> be considered a gentleman under the very definitions
> I'm calling for (and it
> would be just like you to do that), then I'll have
> no more telling response
> than to run like hell (unless I can arrange to be
> closer to you than you are
> to your M1A2 when our negotiations reach this
> unhappy stage).

Closer won't help you--you'd have to know how to start
the thing. :)



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Message: 20
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:28:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Nate Ledbetter <ltdomer98@...>
Subject: RE: swords (was ...Eras)


--- Silk Road School <silk.road.school@...>
wrote:

>
> Do you imbue your sword with some kind of mystic
> dogma?
> Hmm. Well, that's not at all the way I'd describe
> it, Nate, but I have a
> sneaking suspicion that you would regard my answer
> to that question as a
> "Yes."

The sword itself--not your practice of the art.
Still have to stick with my answer, I'm afraid. I think there's a spirit
in most swords - particularly well-made ones - and I think it becomes more
'awake' with love and use. That's the impression that's grown on me over
the past thirty-some years of practise. I will admit that it's an
interpretation of available phenomena that is open to argument, but that's
my view.

> ...Sure, my swords let me know if they haven't been
> used in too long, but
> it's not as if they have to be used _on_ somebody.

*cocked eyebrow* Um, and HOW exactly do they do this?
Until you've been guilt-tripped by a sword that feels neglected, you've
never been guilt-tripped. "How" is a very reasonable, but somewhat
difficult, question to answer, as the most natural response falls into the
"If you have to ask, I can't explain it" category - a category that holds so
much specious crap in this world that I really hate to place another datum
into it. Particularly one that I care about. Let's just say - until I get
my brains back again as I kick this flu - that the spirit of the sword makes
it very clear to my own spirit that it hasn't been out dancing in too long.
Not, to be honest, that I believe that description will convince you: but
there it is.

> And your point would be...?

You asked me what my criteria was. Or rather, you were
offended without knowing the criteria. So I gave it to
you.
Well, truth to tell, I didn't get offended. (Maybe I should use some of
those silly 'emoticons' after all... NAAAAH.) That was my sense of humour,
such as it is, at work. I regret that you took this aspect of what I had to
say even remotely seriously. Swords have spirits? Serious. Offended?
Challenge you to a duel? Joke.

>
> I choose Main Battle Tank. Mine's an M1A2--yours?
> Y'know, I had a strong suspicion you were going to
> take this kind of
> unsporting attitude.

Unsporting? Not at all. It's only fair for each of us
to use something we are trained with, correct? My
background is with tanks. Hence, my choice of weapon.
Use a sword if you wish. It's magical soul will
protect you from 120mm APFSDS-T, I'm sure.
Nate - apostrophising the possessive "its"? Tsk, tsk. Now: having struck
at you on the battleground of words, allow me to answer you more directly:
my swords' spirits I regard as no more "magical" than my own. (As I recall,
the term 'kami' can technically be applied to anything possessing a spirit,
including humans and trees: the idea here is not dissimilar.) Please bear
in mind that while I have seen considerable magic in my life, I do not
believe in the supernatural. I do, however, regard nature as a much bigger
box than human science has succeeded in enclosing... or ever will.
As to protecting me from whatever ammo that is (isn't it?), I repeat my
complaint about the Boxer Rebellion. Likewise the Amerindians' Ghost Dance.
I tend to believe that the sheer fact of belief itself has a fair amount of
power, so that (and I'm oversimplifying grossly here) if a man with a sword
faces off with a man with a rifle, and they both believe in the power of
their weapons, the power of each belief tends to cancel out the belief of
the other, leaving the functional power of certain forces that do not rely
on belief... or have been believed in for long enough to have established
more of a foothold in reality... I refer here to mundane matters like the
laws of physics, muzzle velocity and the kinetic energy inherent in a sharp
piece of steel swinging.
There's an equation in there that I do not fancy.
"Unsporting..." Well, let's put that in perspective: that is the
favourite cry of the losing sides in the technology wars throughout history,
is it not? The French knights said it about the English longbowmen, the
longbowmen said it about harquebusiers (and so did the samurai, for that
matter)... It's an ancient and well-worn excuse, and I think it's good for
another round or so yet.
There's

> only one weapon suited for a civilised disagreement
> between gentlemen: the
> sword. It's the Mythically Correct solution.
> ...Of course, if you're going to remind me that
> neither of us could in fact
> be considered a gentleman under the very definitions
> I'm calling for (and it
> would be just like you to do that), then I'll have
> no more telling response
> than to run like hell (unless I can arrange to be
> closer to you than you are
> to your M1A2 when our negotiations reach this
> unhappy stage).

Closer won't help you--you'd have to know how to start
the thing. :)
Um... truth to tell, within the utterly facetious scenario I was
envisioning, by positioning myself closer to your chosen weapon than you, I
had some hopes of preventing _you_ from starting the damned thing! Knowing
nothing whatsoever about your hand-to-hand skills, I'd still rather take you
on with no weapons aside from our bodies... than let you get inside a tank.
Call it shallow and narrow-minded of me.
Unsporting, even.
Gereg

--- Silk Road School <silk.road.school@...>
wrote:

> think there's a spirit
> in most swords - particularly well-made ones - and I
> think it becomes more
> 'awake' with love and use. That's the impression
> that's grown on me over
> the past thirty-some years of practise. I will
> admit that it's an
> interpretation of available phenomena that is open
> to argument, but that's
> my view.

If you want to argue that a sword has "spirit" as any
piece of art would, I'll buy it. If you tell me your
sword talks to you, you're nuts. Sorry.

> Until you've been guilt-tripped by a sword that
> feels neglected, you've
> never been guilt-tripped. "How" is a very
> reasonable, but somewhat
> difficult, question to answer, as the most natural
> response falls into the
> "If you have to ask, I can't explain it" category

And here I thought you were better than all the
wannabe samurai, Gereg...

Nate - apostrophising the possessive "its"? Tsk,

> tsk.

Have I ONCE ever criticised someone for making one
mistake? No. Do I consistently do this, to the point
of sheer idiocy, while everyone pleads with me not to?
No. You're starting to push my buttons, Gereg.

Please bear

> in mind that while I have seen considerable magic in
> my life, I do not
> believe in the supernatural.

And yet you believe your sword has a soul. Um...?

Gereg, I think you're an otherwise intelligent human
being. I'll agree to disagree on this--but to me it
sounds just as bad as any of the morons who believe
Hagakure and garbage like that.

A sword is a weapon; it can be a work of art. However,
it's not born, does not go through adolescence, learn
to drive, take dates to the prom, or have kids, age,
and die. IT'S NOT ALIVE. It's an object. It's a
physical entity, not a spiritual one.



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

Nate Ledbetter wrote:

> If you want to argue that a sword has "spirit" as any
> piece of art would, I'll buy it. If you tell me your
> sword talks to you, you're nuts. Sorry.

Ah, but it does, my precious. Late at night, when everyone'sss assssleep. It
tellssss me to kill.... It wantssss me to kill it doesssss.... yessss my
precioussssss.

>Gollum<

> A sword is a weapon; it can be a work of art. However,
> it's not born, does not go through adolescence, learn
> to drive, take dates to the prom, or have kids, age,
> and die. IT'S NOT ALIVE. It's an object. It's a
> physical entity, not a spiritual one.

Now you're hurting the feelingsss of my precioussss.

My dear Magonote-maru....


Tony (over caffeinated)
--

Anthony J. Bryant
Website: http://www.sengokudaimyo.com

Effingham's Heraldic Avatars (...and stuff):
http://www.sengokudaimyo.com/avatarbiz.html

Grand Cross, Order of the Laurel:
http://www.cafepress.com/laurelorder

You know, the Ring was the first thing I thought of
when people talk about this.

And now I'll get a torrent of "you just don't
understands" and "you're no true samurai" posts. Of
course, I DON'T understand, and these people aren't
"true samurai" either, but that will do nothing to
dissuade them.


--- Anthony Bryant <ajbryant@...> wrote:

> Nate Ledbetter wrote:
>
>
> > If you want to argue that a sword has "spirit" as
> any
> > piece of art would, I'll buy it. If you tell me
> your
> > sword talks to you, you're nuts. Sorry.
>
> Ah, but it does, my precious. Late at night, when
> everyone'sss assssleep. It
> tellssss me to kill.... It wantssss me to kill it
> doesssss.... yessss my
> precioussssss.
>
> >Gollum<
>
> > A sword is a weapon; it can be a work of art.
> However,
> > it's not born, does not go through adolescence,
> learn
> > to drive, take dates to the prom, or have kids,
> age,
> > and die. IT'S NOT ALIVE. It's an object. It's a
> > physical entity, not a spiritual one.
>
> Now you're hurting the feelingsss of my precioussss.
>
> My dear Magonote-maru....
>
>
> Tony (over caffeinated)
> --
>
> Anthony J. Bryant
> Website: http://www.sengokudaimyo.com
>
> Effingham's Heraldic Avatars (...and stuff):
> http://www.sengokudaimyo.com/avatarbiz.html
>
> Grand Cross, Order of the Laurel:
> http://www.cafepress.com/laurelorder
>
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Jazz up your holiday email with celebrity designs. Learn more.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com

Nate Ledbetter wrote:

> You know, the Ring was the first thing I thought of
> when people talk about this.

Th'art not the only one...

> And now I'll get a torrent of "you just don't
> understands" and "you're no true samurai" posts. Of
> course, I DON'T understand, and these people aren't
> "true samurai" either, but that will do nothing to
> dissuade them.

Well, there ya go. You're officially beyond hope. Well done. :)

Tony
--

Anthony J. Bryant
Website: http://www.sengokudaimyo.com

Effingham's Heraldic Avatars (...and stuff):
http://www.sengokudaimyo.com/avatarbiz.html

Grand Cross, Order of the Laurel:
http://www.cafepress.com/laurelorder

>If you want to argue that a sword has "spirit" as any
>piece of art would, I'll buy it. If you tell me your
>sword talks to you, you're nuts. Sorry.
>

Nate,

A little strong I'd say. Let's take a different approach. You pick up
*something* that you are trained to handle. The weight, balance and feel are
perfect for *you*, not in any way you can express. Something subliminal.
Then that object *speaks* to you. I know I felt that way the first time I
picked up a Glock 19 (and proceeded to put an extended clip in a silver
dollar sized circle at 30 yards. Some of my best shooting ever). Sure a
standard issue M1911A1 will do the job, but it doesn't feel the same. For
the same reason I haven't bought a takeyumi at Asahi. Nothing there *spoke*
to me. As a craftsman, lots of things *speak* to me on some level. I expect
it's projection, like people ascribing human emotions to thier pets.

I wouldn't worry about it unless the gollum conversations begin. ;)

M.J.Peters

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

--- Michael Peters <shdwstel@...> wrote:

> A little strong I'd say. Let's take a different
> approach. You pick up
> *something* that you are trained to handle. The
> weight, balance and feel are
> perfect for *you*, not in any way you can express.
> Something subliminal.
> Then that object *speaks* to you. I know I felt that
> way the first time I
> picked up a Glock 19 (and proceeded to put an
> extended clip in a silver
> dollar sized circle at 30 yards. Some of my best
> shooting ever). Sure a
> standard issue M1911A1 will do the job, but it
> doesn't feel the same. For
> the same reason I haven't bought a takeyumi at
> Asahi. Nothing there *spoke*
> to me. As a craftsman, lots of things *speak* to me
> on some level. I expect
> it's projection, like people ascribing human
> emotions to thier pets.

I understand *THIS* perfectly. I've got no problem
with *THIS*. You appreciate the weapon as a fine piece
of machinery, or as a superb instrument for putting
lead on target--agree completely. The M1 Main battle
tank is a BEAUTIFUL thing, and there's nothing quite
like the feel of launching 120mm downrange and nailing
a moving target centermass from 3 km away.

The difference is that when you say something *speaks*
to you, you are using asterisks around the word. I
understand you don't literally mean it has a mouth and
words come out. I don't really thing Gereg means that,
quite, but with some people I wonder. And I find it
highly troubling.



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

There is a significant difference between appreciation and mystique.

One can appreciate the craftsmanship of a sword, a piece of
calligraphy, a poem, a blossom, a tank, and F1 racing car ...
in fact just about anything.

One of my favourite sights, when working in an office overlooking
S London (low skyline) was Conorde on the Heathrow approach.

But that does not mean I am subject to the mystique of the thing.

I have often wondered whether the mystique - the mystery - of the
sword stands in some way as a marker of man's removal, or distance,
from that which the sword represents.

I don't think the sword carried quite as much 'spiritual
significance' to the Sengoku and earlier samurai. Their approach was
somewhat more pragmatic. The sword represents them, rather than
they being symbolised by the sword. The names of sword, as discussed,
owe nothing to mystique, more to about how someone came into
possession of the blade.

There was probably one called 'the shop on the corner'.

Mystique - I don't think so - just the sepia-tinted voice of
ignorance, sentimentality and nostalgia.

(If one hand to examine the effect of the sword close up, I bet that
goes some way to dispelling the mystique)

In fact, I wonder whether 'mystique' occurs when one doesn't know
enough about the object to appreciate it properly?

Thomas

Ok I dont quiet understand. Are you saying that one can not feel mysticism in objects or things if you will? Because you know thats not true. If people can worship differntly then that means they can feel differntly about things right. Say for instance, you have something you love. You do have a love dont you? Be it your wife or your sword and what ever that love my be you probably look at it as more than just what it is. My wife to me is more than just a woman, my GOD is more than just a spirit and my sword is more than just a piece of steel. GOD BLESS YOU ALL.

peace

Thomas Davidson <tom.davidson@...> wrote:

There is a significant difference between appreciation and mystique.

One can appreciate the craftsmanship of a sword, a piece of
calligraphy, a poem, a blossom, a tank, and F1 racing car ...
in fact just about anything.

One of my favourite sights, when working in an office overlooking
S London (low skyline) was Conorde on the Heathrow approach.

But that does not mean I am subject to the mystique of the thing.

I have often wondered whether the mystique - the mystery - of the
sword stands in some way as a marker of man's removal, or distance,
from that which the sword represents.

I don't think the sword carried quite as much 'spiritual
significance' to the Sengoku and earlier samurai. Their approach was
somewhat more pragmatic. The sword represents them, rather than
they being symbolised by the sword. The names of sword, as discussed,
owe nothing to mystique, more to about how someone came into
possession of the blade.

There was probably one called 'the shop on the corner'.

Mystique - I don't think so - just the sepia-tinted voice of
ignorance, sentimentality and nostalgia.

(If one hand to examine the effect of the sword close up, I bet that
goes some way to dispelling the mystique)

In fact, I wonder whether 'mystique' occurs when one doesn't know
enough about the object to appreciate it properly?

Thomas





---
Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
---


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/samuraihistory/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
samuraihistory-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.





---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: Thomas Davidson tom.davidson@...
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:26:26 -0000

Tom et al-
I found a few things I couldn't agree with here, I offer here my opinions
which grow from my own experience, as a counterpoint, and I hope you'll
take
them in the spirit offered;

"I have often wondered whether the mystique - the mystery - of the

sword stands in some way as a marker of man's removal, or distance,

from that which the sword represents.
I don't think the sword carried quite as much 'spiritual

significance' to the Sengoku and earlier samurai. Their approach was

somewhat more pragmatic. The sword represents them, rather than

they being symbolised by the sword."

I think you'll find that in addition to being tough and pragmatic the
Sengoku warrior was also very superstitious. It was during this period that
we see the greatest number of carvings on sword blades and the majority of
these were religeous in nature. The sword in addition to being a weapon was
a talisman. At the time the signature, carvings, fittings and even temper-
line were seen to carry good or bad fortune. Not just the sword but his
armour as well often carried symbols of his belief in certain deities or
sects. Yes they stood in the line and saw for themselves the awesome power
of the sword and for that reason they fervently said their prayers and were
convinced a good sword was more than just good steel. The swords passed
down
to us today were preserved because they were of better make but also
because
they saved Great-Granpas rear on some long ago battlefield.

"The names of sword, as discussed,

owe nothing to mystique, more to about how someone came into

possession of the blade."

The great swords of old were appreciated from the time of the first Shogun
and before. Onimaru Kunitsuna and Dojigiri Yasutsuna to name two, were
famed
for their cutting ability. The Hi no Moto cherished spear of Kuroda Bushi
fame proved it's worth in battle and recieved it's name and fame before the
"poofy" days of the Tokugawa. Yes there are the Matsui Go and Ikeda
Masamune
but also the Dragon-fly cutter and the Devil's Butcher knife!

"Mystique - I don't think so - just the sepia-tinted voice of
ignorance, sentimentality and nostalgia."

Again, I would point out that the famed swords which we know today, were
famous BEFORE the Tokugawa and recieved their names from the
battle-hardened
Sengoku samurai we like to hold-up as the ideal.

"If one hand to examine the effect of the sword close up, I bet that

goes some way to dispelling the mystique)



In fact, I wonder whether 'mystique' occurs when one doesn't know

enough about the object to appreciate it properly?"

I would agree with this last bit especially as it concerns modern man
making
a show of naming his newly acquired "samurai sword." However it is a matter
of historical fact that Tokugawa Ieyasu (a very practical fellow by all
accounts) forbid anyone to carry a Muramasa blade in his presence because
he
was convinced that they were especially unlucky for members of his family.

-t


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

Ladies and Gentlemen
I have thought long and hard about commenting on this threat as it appears
that misunderstanding and ridicule may be the only rewards. However, I trust
that the following might be relevant.

As a student of Japanese swords for many years and having handled and
closely studied thousands in this time, this is what I think.

In the Shinto religion, many things are credited with having a spirit and
the sword is not an exception. However, this was then and now is now. When
one picks up a sword of great antiquity and of historical importance, a
sensitive and sympathetic person cannot help but be greatly impressed. The
sugata, texture of the steel and the activities in the hamon will convey the
beauty and grace of the sword if the viewer has the necessary expertise to
understand and appreciate it. It is possible in some cases to see and begin
to understand the spirit the maker has imbued in the sword and maybe his
character also. For instance, a sword from the often flamboyant Osaka Shinto
school quite obviously reflects the somewhat brash nature of that city at
the time. However, I think in many ways this is similar to seeing the
tortured emotions of Van Gogh in one of his paintings. But to attribute this
to a mystical force is probably ill-advised in this day and age. It
surprises me that martial arts people feel that a "sword is talking to them"
when this does not seem to be the case with those more familiar with swords
unless being able to learn when, and where it was made and maybe its
historical context by close scrutiny, may be considered as communication
with the sword. I have always considered that in Japanese sword study, kendo
(or Iai-do) is the practical side of the academic study of Japanese swords,
but that it is all kendo in the final analysis and both are equally
important and need to be undertaken together. In other words, kendo people
are missing a great deal by having no understanding of the Japanese sword
and the reverse also applies.

We are taught to view swords calmly and in a relaxed and unexcited manner
whether we are looking at a National Treasure or a kazu-uichi-mono. In this
way we will see everything that the sword has to offer. It may not talk to
us, but the educated and informed viewer will know the sword intimately.

I hope I've not bored you to death with the above and that it at least makes
a modicum of sense.
Regards
Clive Sinclaire

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Davidson" <tom.davidson@...>
To: <samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 12:26 PM
Subject: [samuraihistory] Re: swords (was ...Eras)


>
>
> There is a significant difference between appreciation and mystique.
>
> One can appreciate the craftsmanship of a sword, a piece of
> calligraphy, a poem, a blossom, a tank, and F1 racing car ...
> in fact just about anything.
>
> One of my favourite sights, when working in an office overlooking
> S London (low skyline) was Conorde on the Heathrow approach.
>
> But that does not mean I am subject to the mystique of the thing.
>
> I have often wondered whether the mystique - the mystery - of the
> sword stands in some way as a marker of man's removal, or distance,
> from that which the sword represents.
>
> I don't think the sword carried quite as much 'spiritual
> significance' to the Sengoku and earlier samurai. Their approach was
> somewhat more pragmatic. The sword represents them, rather than
> they being symbolised by the sword. The names of sword, as discussed,
> owe nothing to mystique, more to about how someone came into
> possession of the blade.
>
> There was probably one called 'the shop on the corner'.
>
> Mystique - I don't think so - just the sepia-tinted voice of
> ignorance, sentimentality and nostalgia.
>
> (If one hand to examine the effect of the sword close up, I bet that
> goes some way to dispelling the mystique)
>
> In fact, I wonder whether 'mystique' occurs when one doesn't know
> enough about the object to appreciate it properly?
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
> Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
> ---
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com, "Clive Sinclaire"
wrote:

> It is possible in some cases to see and begin
> to understand the spirit the maker has imbued in the sword and

maybe his

> character also. For instance, a sword from the often flamboyant

Osaka Shinto

> school quite obviously reflects the somewhat brash nature of that

city at

> the time. However, I think in many ways this is similar to seeing

the

> tortured emotions of Van Gogh in one of his paintings. But to

attribute this

> to a mystical force is probably ill-advised in this day and age.

I have to agree with the above. Arguing about spiritual
otherworldly forces and divine powers in this situation is
apparently tantamount to arguing about religion. Some believe, some
don't, and there is no way to prove it one way or the other. I
think it is reasonable to say that a crafted sword is a work of art,
and many people attribute power and emotion to works of art - i.e.
Van Gogh's angst. It is actually quite subjective. One can "sense"
power in a sword - but that is very likely because of the symbolism
of the sword in both Japanese history and world history as well. We
LOOK for it. Carl Jung talked about symbolism and the subconcious,
humans look for symbolism - objectively speaking a piece of sharp
metal should invoke nothing, but subjectively the sword is a symbol
of power, that can invoke various emotions and feelings.
I agree that swords are awe inspiring and have an aura about them
because of the history and symbolism, but I think it is reasonable
to say that a sword doesn't contain otherworldly spiritual energy.
But again, arguing something like this is tantamount to arguing
religion, and will go nowhere.
So everyone can feel free to go back and forth on this, but I find
it doubtful that this will go anywhere too useful.

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 06:33:48 -0000
From: "Kitsuno" <samurai-listowner@...>
Subject: Re: swords (was ...Eras)


--- In samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com, "Clive Sinclaire"
wrote:

... But to
attribute this

> to a mystical force is probably ill-advised in this day and age.

I have to agree with the above. Arguing about spiritual
otherworldly forces and divine powers in this situation is
apparently tantamount to arguing about religion.
That would appear to be the case, all right. In some ways I wish it had
never come up, as I had no intention of parading my religious views here -
let alone any desire to feel I needed to defend them. However: please note
that from my point of view, and likewise from the Shinto perspective as I
understand it, there's nothing "otherworldly" about it. It's a perfectly
natural part of this world.

Some believe, some
don't, and there is no way to prove it one way or the other. I
think it is reasonable to say that a crafted sword is a work of art,
and many people attribute power and emotion to works of art - i.e.
Van Gogh's angst. It is actually quite subjective. One can "sense"
power in a sword - but that is very likely because of the symbolism
of the sword in both Japanese history and world history as well. We
LOOK for it. Carl Jung talked about symbolism and the subconcious,
humans look for symbolism - objectively speaking a piece of sharp
metal should invoke nothing, but subjectively the sword is a symbol
of power, that can invoke various emotions and feelings.

Someone once described Jung as a Taoist mystic masquerading as a
psychoanalyst. And I can't argue that I, reared on King Arthur, Beowulf and
the Greek myths from childhood as I was, do tend to look for the magical in
the everyday world. But one can look at that two ways: it could be said
that we see things like symbols of power because we look for them (with the
implication that they might not be there if we didn't project them there),
or on the other hand, it could be said that if we're trained to the correct
sensitivity, any of us can be capable of perceiving things that others, who
lack that training, may overlook.
No, it cannot be proven one way or the other. And I profoundly doubt that
my experience is going to persuade anyone who has not shared some similar
experience. (In fact, I think I'd be a little nervous about anyone whose
worldview was so easily shaped by others: that sounds like raw material for
the nearest odd cult.)


I agree that swords are awe inspiring and have an aura about them
because of the history and symbolism, but I think it is reasonable
to say that a sword doesn't contain otherworldly spiritual energy.

It is no more reasonable to deny that a sword might have a spirit than to
assert that it must. Neither is ultimately a statement of reason at all.
Both are statements of faith in a particular paradigm, or worldview. That
one of these views is more prevalent today does not make it right, any more
than the Church was right when it forced Galileo to recant his heretical
views about the earth revolving around the sun. "Reasonable" ideas change
with every generation. I dare say there isn't a one of us who embraces
every "reasonable" idea that our parents held: let alone our grandparents.
Nor is it clear that every such change in cultural paradigms is for the
better: that concept is part and parcel with the paradigm that holds that
progress moves us always onward to better and better things. And if that
were so, then I imagine the quality of the air and water today would be
greatly improved since our great-grandparents' time...


But again, arguing something like this is tantamount to arguing
religion, and will go nowhere.
So everyone can feel free to go back and forth on this, but I find
it doubtful that this will go anywhere too useful.

It may at least serve the useful purpose (as I see it) of keeping us all
from getting too confident that our worldviews are complete and absolute.
I've had to reconsider some of my views, and that's always a good thing, as
it keeps me from getting complacent; and it's possible I'm not the only one.
One can hope not, at any rate.
If I've waxed a little sharp on this subject - and under provocation, I
have - I hope you will all pardon me. But please bear in mind that much of
the commentary I've seen on this subject has taken for granted that a number
of ideas related to my own religion are unquestionably and obviously false:
and I think most of us are liable to get a little touchy when we hear that
sort of thing. After all, any religion (and any paradigm) can be made to
look ridiculous if one addresses the matter with certain assumptions firmly
in place.
Blessings and good faring, all.
Gereg