Barung(s) for you

[MABAGANI]

If you ever notice I rarely write my sources online, unfair? but always good to do your own research and cross reference, otherwise we end up not thinking for ourselves. On a hunch and through study again IMHO, the barung deals with the rise and fall of the Maguindanaos and the rise of Tausug as power shifts and transitions. I'll reserve my thoughts about footage from the Sulu Seas video. "Suicidal frenzy" doesn't cut it, you have to be taught how to use the weaponry or you'll end up hurting yourself. I'd comment that you can't separate the culture from the weapon, sure you can use basic principles but then its still incomplete, at least spiritually and physically especially when dealing with Moro swords. btw Battara, the avatar is a signal for the sword to come home some day...

[Federico]

Without citation, we kill any possibility of an academic discussion, as citation is the core of a proper academic discourse. Without citation, the discussion turns quickly to a discussion of personal opinion. IMHO it is the lack of citation that tends to lead to a lack of research. It is amazing, how many un-backed claims are picked up on in weapons collecting circles as truth without question. Then through repitition of such claims, they gain validity through weight of voice, and not merit of factuality. And without citation, it becomes difficult to verify or negate the validity of such claims. Eg. if I say, observers saw ancient Filipinos use kampilan. Without citation, or in the very least some point of reference, it is contextless. What account am I referencing? Whom exactly are these observers? Are there alternate motives behind the account? Or even a temporal date is lacking (eg. does ancient mean 1600, 1700, 1950, etc...)? Also, which account is being referenced, particularly when multiple accounts exist? However, if I say in Pigafetta's account, he noted warriors used kampilan. Others can go back to the account, and note, hey he never used the word kampilan, where am I getting this claim from. While, it makes it easier for others to dis-agree, it does keep a higher standard of academic research. Of course, when common knowledge is being referenced, particularly amongst peers, for brevities sake one can forgo alot of citation.

As for the training of the barong. Well, what constitutes training? Does one have to wear a gi, and have a belt ranking system, to be "training" in a style? Does working out scenarios with family members constitute training? I do believe mindset plays a very important role in fighting ability, often overlooked by many Westerners. However, from a sheer mechanical perspective, at the bare minimum there would have to be at least enough training given to utilize a tool. Cutting with a blade for many is not an instinctual action, let alone cutting with a barong. Pure logic in itself would suggest that not training would make it impossible for there to be any regular success of cutting to happen, let alone a reputation for being skilled workers to be formed. That being said, how much training is truly needed to create a good warrior, is something that is debatable.

[themorningstar]

Originally Posted by Federico

Without citation, we kill any possibility of an academic discussion, as citation is the core of a proper academic discourse. Without citation, the discussion turns quickly to a discussion of personal opinion. IMHO it is the lack of citation that tends to lead to a lack of research. It is amazing, how many un-backed claims are picked up on in weapons collecting circles as truth without question. Then through repitition of such claims, they gain validity through weight of voice, and not merit of factuality. And without citation, it becomes difficult to verify or negate the validity of such claims. Eg. if I say, observers saw ancient Filipinos use kampilan. Without citation, or in the very least some point of reference, it is contextless. What account am I referencing? Whom exactly are these observers? Are there alternate motives behind the account? Or even a temporal date is lacking (eg. does ancient mean 1600, 1700, 1950, etc...)? Also, which account is being referenced, particularly when multiple accounts exist? However, if I say in Pigafetta's account, he noted warriors used kampilan. Others can go back to the account, and note, hey he never used the word kampilan, where am I getting this claim from. While, it makes it easier for others to dis-agree, it does keep a higher standard of academic research. Of course, when common knowledge is being referenced, particularly amongst peers, for brevities sake one can forgo alot of citation.

As for the training of the barong. Well, what constitutes training? Does one have to wear a gi, and have a belt ranking system, to be "training" in a style? Does working out scenarios with family members constitute training? I do believe mindset plays a very important role in fighting ability, often overlooked by many Westerners. However, from a sheer mechanical perspective, at the bare minimum there would have to be at least enough training given to utilize a tool. Cutting with a blade for many is not an instinctual action, let alone cutting with a barong. Pure logic in itself would suggest that not training would make it impossible for there to be any regular success of cutting to happen, let alone a reputation for being skilled workers to be formed. That being said, how much training is truly needed to create a good warrior, is something that is debatable.

the day has finally dawned. let me kindly address a few things in this post. 1. citations, i have no need of so-called citations or your research. i lived in sulu and grew up w/ a barung as my blanket, my life was my research and that is all the verification required. 2. training, there was no gi or belt ranking system in my family's style of silat. yes, working out scenarios with "family members" actually constituted a large part of training as our art was only kept within the "family" direct or extended. cutting w/ a blade actually is an instinctual action amongst those that were raised by the old law of the barung that effected a natural as well as necessary instinct. cutting with a barung is an art and science unto itself that escapes many, especially those that train in a closed-guard. pure logic suggests nothing because that is its essence, logic is logic, suggestion borders on assumption. and finally, ioo (in our opinion) a warrior's skill is not measured by their amount of training, but in their ability to use their training, and that is not debatable.

[Federico]

Originally Posted by themorningstar

the day has finally dawned. let me kindly address a few things in this post. 1. citations, i have no need of so-called citations or your research. i lived in sulu and grew up w/ a barung as my blanket, my life was my research and that is all the verification required.

Well if you feel that there is no need for my "research" feel free to ignore my posts. However, not growing up in Sulu, with a barung, then should I consign myself to never understanding the history or the weaponry of the region? As such, it would seem that most of us on this forum should thus give up our discussions, since the vast majority of us are not and will never be from the places from which the weaponry we collect are from. However, if we want to play "academics", then we must conform to some form of standardization. Now, if we dont want to play "academic" that is something else, and fine then there is no need for citation. However, the very fact that you can claim that your knowledge comes from first hand experience, to me would count as citation of some sorts. It is knowledge that is coming from a source (eg. your personal experience), and has some quantification. However, I would prefer to avoid mystery in our discussioins. I try to be forthcoming about who I am, and what constitutes what little knowledge I have to form my opinion. I understand some knowledge must be kept secret, for cultural reasons. But if we are going to attempt a discourse, if we limit our discussion by secrecy we hit a dead end of communication real fast.

Originally Posted by themorningstar

2. training, there was no gi or belt ranking system in my family's style of silat. yes, working out scenarios with "family members" actually constituted a large part of training as our art was only kept within the "family" direct or extended.

This was in fact the original point behind my post, that what to some observers may not qualify as "training", due to a lack of perceived formality such as gi's, it is still valid training. I am not, and I stress once again, I am not arguing that one needs formality to constitute valid training.

Originally Posted by themorningstar

cutting w/ a blade actually is an instinctual action amongst those that were raised by the old law of the barung that effected a natural as well as necessary instinct. cutting with a barung is an art and science unto itself that escapes many, especially those that train in a closed-guard. .

Again, there is a caveat in this statement, eg. it is natural amongst those who are raised in said environment implying a some form of training no matter how altruistic. However, stick a barung in the hands of someone growing up in the US who has never handled a blade other than a steak knife, they will not be able to instinctually cut with it. Which was my point. The ability to cut is not universal instinct innate amongst all people. Training, even if something as innate as cultural immersion is still necessary. I have hung out with enough people, who have never handled a blade longer than 3", to know that even though my own small background growing up with bolo may not seem all that much, it is far more than what they had and makes the difference between being able to clear the backyard of weeds with a bolo, and swinging and swinging without ever cutting anything.

Originally Posted by themorningstar

pure logic suggests nothing because that is its essence, logic is logic, suggestion borders on assumption. and finally, ioo (in our opinion) a warrior's skill is not measured by their amount of training, but in their ability to use their training, and that is not debatable.

Ok, I am a little lost by the quote on logic. I am also unsure if when stating in our opinion, you are in fact multiple people posting under one handle, or a single individual representing a group of people (your profile is rather blank). However, I meant to simply suggest, on a pure statistical level, without training the chance of people picking up an un-known weapon and suddenly becoming succesful at its use against trained opponents is very low. I am sure there are people who are natural warriors, but to assume that an entire population can without training be filled with natural warriors is to me logically un-sound (now again mind you I am still unclear what you meant in your discussion of logic as logic). Now, again I did not mean to imply there is some fixed amount of time of training that creates some super warrior, but rather skill varies for individuals. And while there are some who can pick up skill sets quickly, many cannot. Hence the debatability of the validity that any set amount of training, is more dependent on the individual, rather than X amount of years. Hence, what may seem like a short period of training to some, may in fact be all that was needed by a certain individual. Whereas others to achieve the same results may take years to attain.

[themorningstar]

i apologize, because i am not able to ignore your posts when i know certain information written by you is either wrong or inaccurateand i feel compelled to enlighten. yes, i would feel it a great gesture if you did take the time out to thoroughly study and research the history and cultural context of the weaponry of the region and accurately disseminate its beautiful existence.but for you to include other forum members in your statement is rather uncalled for, for none have tried to play the role of expert. i do agree w/ you however that if we were to "play" academics, that we would need some form of standardization as well as citation. but since most of the academic knowledge i have acquired came from the lips of old men and not papers, what good would it do to cite those sources? i have preserved their knowledge for many years, shouldn't that be all the verification needed? it's possible, but i have also done my research outside and all it has done is authenticated that knowledge. it may serve to your benefit, a display of my information, but by not doing your own research you would rob those who did search, sacrifice, preserve and utilize that knowledge of their hard work and honor. that is very admirable of you to be forthcoming of who you are and your information, the fact that my profile is blank is mostly due to laziness and other things,but i am not a difficult person to find out about or find for that matter. i am thankful that you realize some information must be kept secretive, but to say our discourse has hit a dead end due to "secrecy" is rather odd because i thought it was due to a lack of citable sources. the statement on logic was my pointing out of the oxymoron that had occurred in your sentence regarding pure logic and how it suggests, suggestion borders on assumption. logic is logic for a reason, its relative to fact. and yes i will clarify for you that i am one individual behind the keyboard speaking on behalf of those that are no longer here.

[Federico]

Originally Posted by themorningstar

i apologize, because i am not able to ignore your posts when i know certain information written by you is either wrong or inaccurateand i feel compelled to enlighten. yes, i would feel it a great gesture if you did take the time out to thoroughly study and research the history and cultural context of the weaponry of the region and accurately disseminate its beautiful existence.but for you to include other forum members in your statement is rather uncalled for, for none have tried to play the role of expert. .

Well, I would like to think that I have not tried to pass myself off as an expert by any means. I used to write in my profile, that I was just a bum who had access to the library. And in many respects I still feel that I am still just a bum who has read too many books for his own good. If it seems like I was talking like an expert, then I apologize, as I am far from it. I am just another forumite (and thus felt myself in the same category as the other forum members here who are not from Sulu), who after a few years of trying to research, is left only with more questions than answers. So feel free to correct me if I am wrong, I am still learning. However, I may still ask why I am wrong, so that if I am on the completely wrong path, then I can get off it.

Originally Posted by themorningstar

i do agree w/ you however that if we were to "play" academics, that we would need some form of standardization as well as citation. but since most of the academic knowledge i have acquired came from the lips of old men and not papers, what good would it do to cite those sources? i have preserved their knowledge for many years, shouldn't that be all the verification needed? it's possible, but i have also done my research outside and all it has done is authenticated that knowledge. it may serve to your benefit, a display of my information, but by not doing your own research you would rob those who did search, sacrifice, preserve and utilize that knowledge of their hard work and honor.
.

For me the words from the lips of old men, is the best form of citation/reference and I value it far above what has been written in some book by some Westerner. If I had access to old men who still knew the knowledge, I would be at their feet asking at my most humblest to see if they would be willing to share their knowledge. Some of my best memories of my childhood, are exactly such episodes, sitting at the feet of the old Manongs as they told the stories of the past. Unfortunately, I live in Minnesota, and access to those with such knowledge is severely limited. In fact, most of the elders in my hometown have long since been dead, and hence my memories are only that of a child. I would like to wish one day that I could make a journey to places where such knowledge remained intact, but unfortunately my bio as a bum, is not all together un-warranted. I lack the funds for such a trip, and must content myself to pursue knowledge where I can find it, via books and from those willing to share on such forums as this. Even then, I have tried to credit those individuals who have helped me, as would be noted on my website. However, it is helpful for me, that if knowledge is coming first hand, to know where it is coming from. Otherwise, I can only guess that a forumite is like myself, reading accounts in books. When that is the case, then I would like to know if I have read those same books, to see if I draw those same conclusions. But if it is first hand, well then that is enough for me. This is just a hobby for me, and citation does not need to be overly formal, however a statement such as "this appears in legends". Well what legend? Maybe Ive heard it before, and can check if I remember seeing it. Perhaps it is a path I should seek. I have always valued those who did not give information, but have instead pointed me to where I should look.

Originally Posted by themorningstar

that is very admirable of you to be forthcoming of who you are and your information, the fact that my profile is blank is mostly due to laziness and other things,but i am not a difficult person to find out about or find for that matter. i am thankful that you realize some information must be kept secretive, but to say our discourse has hit a dead end due to "secrecy" is rather odd because i thought it was due to a lack of citable sources. .

What I meant by our discourse hitting a dead end, is that in the past I have had discussions where it has ended because of "secrecy". If we are discussing, lets say the origin of the barong, and someone says well I know the true origin of the barong, but cannot discuss it because of "secrecy" that is a dead end because they refuse to discuss further. Or if I am wrong, but there is no reason given why, just a simple statement that I am wrong, yet the reason why cannot be given due to secrecy then that is a dead end. I am more than willing to change my opinion, but will reserve the right to form my own opinion in lieu of evidence provided. If no evidence can be provided, then what am I to form my opinion off of? Also, I will be the first to admit, there are a million and one things that I am probably dead wrong on, I can scrap all my knowledge (which I am often tempted to do) as being wrong, but if part is right then it would be helpful to know which parts are wrong. If we are overly trapped by secrecy, there is only so much we can discuss before we can discuss no more due to secrecy.

Originally Posted by themorningstar

the statement on logic was my pointing out of the oxymoron that had occurred in your sentence regarding pure logic and how it suggests, suggestion borders on assumption. logic is logic for a reason, its relative to fact. and yes i will clarify for you that i am one individual behind the keyboard speaking on behalf of those that are no longer here.

As for logic, well yes it was meant to be an assumption and not fact. Most of what I type is pure speculation, and by no means meant to be hard fact. Like I said before, I am far from an expert, and like to stir the pot and see what comes out. As for your clarification, thank you. Anyways, it seems like our discussion is mostly off-topic for a public forum. If you would like to continue perhaps in Private Message or Email. Perhaps there I can give you a better perspective of who I am.

[MABAGANI]

Originally Posted by Federico

This is just a hobby for me, and citation does not need to be overly formal, however a statement such as "this appears in legends". Well what legend? Maybe Ive heard it before, and can check if I remember seeing it. Perhaps it is a path I should seek. I have always valued those who did not give information, but have instead pointed me to where I should look.

This statement was in regards to the kampilan known throughout the islands, if you cared to observe, I did point towards Nothern Luzon, which left either the northern mountain provinces or Ilocano region, it was the Ilocano's well known epic "Lamang", if you cared to keep searching.

Re:secrecy and my own research on an open forum- secrecy has not stopped me from finding answers or sharing information where I see fit, I'm careful about what I write so it doesn't haunt me at some later point, I have published for academic institutions- Mindanao State University (MSU Marawi), University of the Philippines-Islamic Institute and the Philippine National Museum, also local colleges and universities. If you know me personally, I've shared my collection openly among scholars and most gratefully in return they have shared their knowledge openly with me. I also bring my collection to local PI cultural events. I'm merely and most humbly a collector who has been fortunate to meet other researchers on my personal journey. Honestly, it is self-sacrifice because I've found its done mostly through your own time and funding.
Since this is an open forum with relaxed standards as far as citations it wouldn't make sense to expect every forumite to have their libraries and books available after every statement to cite and footnote, I don't expect it, and if I cared to find answers I'd do it on my own anyways.
I still have much to learn and I'm not an expert but someone seeking knowledge for my own satisfaction and IMHO, I agree much of what we are searching for are not even in books, that's what our minds are for...

[tom hyle]

I had some thoughts that might be illuminating in this matter. I had them the other morning on the way to work, and wrote them down, so you won't be getting fresh or perhaps in-depth versions, but I still feel there's a certain relevance. The subject isn't swords, the subject is logic and argumentation etc. (tune out here.....) Also this isn't about anything hurting my feelings, though I do keenly feel that I "resemble those remarks". It is, like any argument, properly (duly noted), about finding the truth. I think I have found a way to make clearer and more interculturally penetrative (you like that?) the value of unsuported/nonfactual/etc. evidence. We have discussed the concept that fact and opinion are two different things, but that hardly covers the spectrum. Also very much to the point is that fact and truth/reality are two different things, as well. This goes to the bases of science and logic, BTW. A fact is not something that is true. A fact is something that has been PROVEN to be true. A theory is something that has been proven to be largely true, without rising to the level of absolute proof. The term fact only has meaning in the context of some group or institution that will approve or disapprove of the proof (perhaps appropriately and perhaps not, but that's not my point). Truth is simply true, and whatever some might tell you, reality is simply real. So a thing might be completely true without having been proven, or without even being provable or testable (this is a good example of what real science teaches and claims vs. the social-religious institutional beliefs and behaviors of its claimed followers; kinda like "Christians" burning people to death; funny how I don't remember Christ doing anything like that....); lack of proof is not a valid assault on reality, and not a good reason to disrespect or disregard a person.
Say we are hungry in the forest. I come and say I saw an animal go by. You ask me to take you to a track so we can follow it. I look around where it was, but can't find a track. Now, we don't have a track; no hard evidence we can use to kill dinner, but I did see it (or so I say; but would you address one so in the forest?), and I saw which way it went, and we can try to find tracks over that way, and use our imaginations and geographical and biological knowledge to figure out where it went. As we have no other resources, is this information, which is not as good as it might be, useless, or might it help us eat?
Formal "Western" logic in its basic "logic meet" (yes, they're real; they might be called logic bees; I can't remember) form must assume premises that are true; if you argue from false premises with it you get false results. But in the real world it is rarely safe and sure what is true, and we must argue, and indeed act, on questionable premises all the time. I wonder if "higher levels" of formal logic, or non-"Western" thought systems take this into account, and allow for or even enhance thinking of the kind we must do in the world we really inhabit?