In einer eMail vom 3/3/2006 10:16:29 PM W. Europe Standard Time schreibt
editor@...:

I disagree with a lot of what Bill said in his original post, and agree
with much of Brian's critique that we ought not to define classica fencing
as something in opposition to sport fencing, but insofar as he said "the
introduction of electric equipment and changes [i.e. standardization] in
the concept of right-of-way" "were not considered a "catastrophic
reaction", but rather viewed as improvements over failings in fencing
prior to their introduction (simple human failing to see touches, bias in
the judges, as well as the fascination with technology)." To the contrary,
all of these are *very much* manifestations of an Enlightenment,
positivist mentality.

I'm amazed. Ken, please read what I wrote. Brian, do the same. Offlist I
have already showed how you misquote me. I nowhere mention electrical
scoring. Nowhere. I write about values. I mention sport fencing in one place,
at
the end, as having abandoned tradition. As an artifact of the post-WW2, Cold
War world. Which it is, on both counts. No opinion, that's a fact. Here in
Germany, you can in fact trace its abandonment of tradition not from electrical
scoring but from international competition pressures, plus eastern teachers
who came from where...folks were winning, and French and Italian grips were
dropped like hot potatoes.

So is the un-defined thing we call classical fencing a post-Cold War,
postmodern artifact, literally cobbled together with little coherence right
now.
At least, without a genuine definition.

You know perfectly well the 20th century's cultural and political reaction
to Enlightenment values was a catastrophe, and I wrote that sport fencing's
break with tradition was "subsequent" to that. Secondly, I do not "define
classical fencing as something in opposition to sport fencing." I define it
positively in terms of a set of ideas which I explicitly situate in a
particular
period, roughly the mid-17th century to 1789. When I say not "period
dependent," I then lay out how classical practice changed, elaborating the same
values over time. Go back and read me. Or...just read me. Thirdly, I
explicitly
state that the 20th century reaction was foreshadowed by 19th century
romanticism. Read Bazancourt on fencing after 1848--when a movement supported
any
old hit anyway you can-- and the reaction that brought Napoleon III to power.

Now we have some substance--however irrelevant--to chew on with the ideas
behind electrical scoring. Yup. Faith in technology is there. Yup. Making
things better was there. Let me refer you, in brief, to Modris Eckstein's
excellent study of the run-up to WW1 and after, Rites of Spring. He discusses
how technology was adapted by the irrationalists of the proto-fascist
Right--especially aviation, but no matter--to enhance what was called "the act
of the
deed" by the superior individual, the Uebermensch.

After WW2, the stress in most popular sports was toward speed and spectacle
and media exposure. The aesthetic was there. Feeding it in Olympic sports
was something you rightfully criticize in a fine essay, "Daggers of the Mind."
Nationalism. Last I studied that, it was an anti-rationalist romantic
movement, or I misunderstood my Herder. I am not a technological determinist,
Ken. In fact, I have no quarrel with electrical scoring...if the use of it is
consonant with well-established rules. The problem is, those rules have been
abandoned largely in favor of "winning." That was propelled in the FIE not
by technology but by nationalist and Cold War competition. Plus the emergence
of what Guy Debord called "the society of he spectacle," which had its model
in....US media and...yup. The regime whose name we dare not speak.

Resurrected in the foil rules, Ken, is a bias toward "superior will." Ring
a bell? Sound like the "elan" of the First Big One? That "act of the deed?"
It's culture, values, Ken, not machines I deal with. I'd be happy offlist
to debate the black eye sloppy and theory-driven professors have given he
Enlightenment, if you wish.


Now to the "positivist" mentality. You know, Ken, that this twist emerged
in the run-up to postmodern academia's assault on Western values in general.
It's very sloppy. It also is derived from the very anti-Enlightenment
reaction I don't like: You can't have it both ways. It was informed by
Nietzche,
but especially by Heidegger and Foucault (also a Nietzsche-Heidegger fan).
Heidegger never repented and I suggest you read his post WW2 essay on humanism.
Fencing does not take place in a vacuum, guys.

Are you guys reading what I wrote? I could give a hoot what sport fencers
do. When you attribute ideas about it to me I don't have and are not in my
screed, well, what did that postmodern guru say about the death of the author?
That any old meaning was as good as another? Is any old fencing as good as
another? I care what we do.


Meanwhile, our classical fencing is an Enlightenment artifact. I'll take
all comers on that. You got any better ideas?

Cheers! Whoopee! A debate! Thanks!

Bill Leckie
_flanconade@..._ (mailto:flanconade@...)












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