Calling All Theorists
View previous topic | View next topic >
Post new topic Reply to topic
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Weaves Discussion
   
Author Message

Joined: April 02, 2008
Posts: 2266
Submissions: 42
Location: Lincoln, NE

Calling All Theorists
Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Feb 14, 2011 7:15 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Has anybody ever written a basic weave theory guide? I have been through all the different threads and discussions and while there are many people who have a good understanding of weave theory, but I cannot find an article anywhere where someone has said "THIS IS BASIC WEAVE THEORY." Now from reading the discussions I know that this can be a heated and touchy topic, but even to have a MAIL article done on the subject by a former, current weave admin or highly informed member would be helpful for those people wishing to learn about weave theory. Even collaborative article that discusses the basics of weaves would be nice.

I am interested in learning more, but beyond asking questions and getting answers from a couple of people it would be nice to at least have an article that people could start from. I know that connections and interactions are a big thing, but is there really anything else that people can agree upon? Most of the things out there dealing with weave theory are either along the lines of organization or guidelines for new weave submissions. Can anybody help me out?


Once you stop learning, you stop living, so...
Ask questions.
Try new things.
Share what you know.

MailleCode V2.0 T5.3 R4.4 E0.0 Feur MFe.sBr Wg Cwb G.7-5.1 I3.1-11 N20.5 Pj Dcdjt Xa1w2 S08

Joined: April 02, 2008
Posts: 2266
Submissions: 42
Location: Lincoln, NE

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Feb 15, 2011 1:52 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

OK so nobody wants to respond to this one. In that case I may have to write something myself and let me present this to you. If someone was to want to study weave theory what do you feel they should look at to get a basic understanding. Let's all make a list:

1. Family characteristics
2. Ring interactions and connections


Anybody else have other things that should be studied?


Once you stop learning, you stop living, so...
Ask questions.
Try new things.
Share what you know.

MailleCode V2.0 T5.3 R4.4 E0.0 Feur MFe.sBr Wg Cwb G.7-5.1 I3.1-11 N20.5 Pj Dcdjt Xa1w2 S08

Joined: August 25, 2010
Posts: 167
Submissions: 0

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:24 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

On a large forum like this I would wait longer than one night to assume no one is going to respond to your post. There are some members on these forums who don't visit more than once a week if even that much.

I could be interested in working on something like this but I do have one question about the project...

Whats wrong with the discussion topic you had last week regarding ring theory?

Joined: April 02, 2008
Posts: 2266
Submissions: 42
Location: Lincoln, NE

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:52 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

True I should probably wait a bit longer, but I figured after 40 some views and no responses I would nugde the topic a little.

What was wrong with my ring theory discussion? Nothing, I was just hoping to broaden the topic and try to get more people than just Zlosk and Phong to participate. I feel that some people are hesitant to respond and question answers after big names respond (I know I was/am) so I am just trying to throw my net to a larger crowd.


Once you stop learning, you stop living, so...
Ask questions.
Try new things.
Share what you know.

MailleCode V2.0 T5.3 R4.4 E0.0 Feur MFe.sBr Wg Cwb G.7-5.1 I3.1-11 N20.5 Pj Dcdjt Xa1w2 S08

Joined: August 05, 2010
Posts: 620
Submissions: 28
Location: Bar Harbor, ME, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Feb 15, 2011 5:15 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Questions:
What would 'family' contain?

Would it be describing the MAIL categories for weaves?
Or would it be a precursor for the ring interactions section?
In short, I think they really overlay in ideas because family names are often used for their dominant ring interaction classification.

Suggestions:
There should definitely be a section on form (ie unit/chain/sheet/solid).
This is really the dimensional characteristics of how a specific weave can be expanded upon (theoretically infinitely), as opposed to the repeated pattern of interactions.

Possibly another section could be 'alterations of weaves', which would include how to take existing weaves and generate new designs using the same ring interactions.
This would encompass 'kinging', 'mobius-ing', 'web-sheeting', and other stuff along that lines.

Lastly, there should be some form of 'disclaimer' section, which supports the idea of differing views on the subject. A hazy part that I often run into is that of when a weave is considered 'new' when it moves between form changing forms.
It should be clear that different people develop different ideas on when alterations in 'base weaves' allow for a new weave to be coined. I'm relatively on the conservative side with coining new weaves, but that's just my opinion.


while(!project.isFinished())
project.addRing();
// Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Eo.n Fper MFe.s Wsm Caws G0.8-1.6 I2.4-8.0 Pn Dcdejst Xw1 S07

Joined: December 22, 2007
Posts: 4610
Submissions: 106
Location: Hampton, Virginia USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:47 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I am firmly on the pro side of discussing weave theory and on writing articles about it. However, this post here sums up why I don't hold high hopes for any concensus being reached.


"I am a leaf on the wind." ~ Wash
Lorraine's Chains
Gallery Submission Guidelines

Joined: April 02, 2008
Posts: 2266
Submissions: 42
Location: Lincoln, NE

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:26 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Thank you for chiming in Lorraine Very Happy

In all truth I am not worried about a concensus, or trying to firmly establish what is or is not a weave with this discussion. If it happens that is a bonus, but not the goal.

My goal is to try to write, start, encourage others to write articles about the basics of weave theory. So that people can start having more intelligent conversations about the topic (I do not mean to say say they aren't already intelligent) because as people flux in and out if we do not educate people on the basics the great people you mentioned in your thread will be the only ones.

Ideally we would have people from both sides of a discussion writing articles on what they think and believe and the community is richer for it. I just would like us to set up in our articles a place for theory and create a curriculum of sorts that would allow someone who is interested in learning a starting place, a place to get the basics and than read through the threads and form their own opinions.

Wouldn't it be nice to cultivate a new group of maillers who where not only great at their craft, but could step in at the drop of a thread and have an educated discussion on the validity of a weave. If they all agree great if not it is a new viewpoint that can change the world.

Sorry, maybe it is the teacher in me that wants not only to understand, but to educate people in order to further this great craft.


Once you stop learning, you stop living, so...
Ask questions.
Try new things.
Share what you know.

MailleCode V2.0 T5.3 R4.4 E0.0 Feur MFe.sBr Wg Cwb G.7-5.1 I3.1-11 N20.5 Pj Dcdjt Xa1w2 S08

Joined: April 02, 2008
Posts: 2266
Submissions: 42
Location: Lincoln, NE

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:45 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I will try to address your questions, but also make sure to read what I wrote to Lorraine as to my goals as you read my responses.
TrenchCoatGuy wrote:
Questions:
What would 'family' contain?

Would it be describing the MAIL categories for weaves?
Or would it be a precursor for the ring interactions section?
In short, I think they really overlay in ideas because family names are often used for their dominant ring interaction classification.

I was looking at starting with what MAIL has established for the 'families' already. The old descriptions are no longer there because DL is engaged in the daunting task of updating it for us, but that is where I would start. I think that describing the MAIL categories is a precursor to talking about ring interactions because if you don't understand the interactions how can you understand what currently defines a family?
TrenchCoatGuy wrote:

Suggestions:
There should definitely be a section on form (ie unit/chain/sheet/solid).
This is really the dimensional characteristics of how a specific weave can be expanded upon (theoretically infinitely), as opposed to the repeated pattern of interactions.

Possibly another section could be 'alterations of weaves', which would include how to take existing weaves and generate new designs using the same ring interactions.
This would encompass 'kinging', 'mobius-ing', 'web-sheeting', and other stuff along that lines.
I agree that these should all be talked about at some time.
But right now I am interested in finding out what people think the basics of weave theory would be. If we boiled it all down what should someone interested in learning about it know?

I have started something and it is in no way complete or comprehensive it is just what I have been putting together and what initiated these conversations. This is what I have come up with and there may be totally wrong information in there, but it is a start for me.
I will try to address your questions, but also make sure to read what I wrote to Lorraine as to my goals as you read my responses.
TrenchCoatGuy wrote:
Questions:
What would 'family' contain?

Would it be describing the MAIL categories for weaves?
Or would it be a precursor for the ring interactions section?
In short, I think they really overlay in ideas because family names are often used for their dominant ring interaction classification.

I was looking at starting with what MAIL has established for the 'families' already. The old descriptions are no longer there because DL is engaged in the daunting task of updating it for us, but that is where I would start. I think that describing the MAIL categories is a precursor to talking about ring interactions because if you don't understand the interactions how can you understand what currently defines a family?
TrenchCoatGuy wrote:

Suggestions:
There should definitely be a section on form (ie unit/chain/sheet/solid).
This is really the dimensional characteristics of how a specific weave can be expanded upon (theoretically infinitely), as opposed to the repeated pattern of interactions.

Possibly another section could be 'alterations of weaves', which would include how to take existing weaves and generate new designs using the same ring interactions.
This would encompass 'kinging', 'mobius-ing', 'web-sheeting', and other stuff along that lines.
I agree that these should all be talked about at some time.
But right now I am interested in finding out what people think the basics of weave theory would be. If we boiled it all down what should someone interested in learning about it know?

I have started something and it is in no way complete or comprehensive it is just what I have been putting together and what initiated these conversations.

TrenchCoatGuy wrote:

Lastly, there should be some form of 'disclaimer' section, which supports the idea of differing views on the subject. A hazy part that I often run into is that of when a weave is considered 'new' when it moves between form changing forms.
It should be clear that different people develop different ideas on when alterations in 'base weaves' allow for a new weave to be coined. I'm relatively on the conservative side with coining new weaves, but that's just my opinion.


In my mind the more views the better. You don't learn a subject well if you don't study all the opinions. I have usually made my greatest advancements by listening to someone I don't agree with and discuss the sides. At times I find that I actually agree with them and I have learned something. I hope that this becomes something that grows and there are not just one article on a topic.
TrenchCoatGuy wrote:

Lastly, there should be some form of 'disclaimer' section, which supports the idea of differing views on the subject. A hazy part that I often run into is that of when a weave is considered 'new' when it moves between form changing forms.
It should be clear that different people develop different ideas on when alterations in 'base weaves' allow for a new weave to be coined. I'm relatively on the conservative side with coining new weaves, but that's just my opinion.


In my mind the more views the better. You don't learn a subject well if you don't study all the opinions. I have usually made my greatest advancements by listening to someone I don't agree with and discuss the sides. At times I find that I actually agree with them and I have learned something. I hope that this becomes something that grows and there are not just one article on a topic.


Once you stop learning, you stop living, so...
Ask questions.
Try new things.
Share what you know.

MailleCode V2.0 T5.3 R4.4 E0.0 Feur MFe.sBr Wg Cwb G.7-5.1 I3.1-11 N20.5 Pj Dcdjt Xa1w2 S08

Joined: August 05, 2010
Posts: 620
Submissions: 28
Location: Bar Harbor, ME, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Tue Feb 15, 2011 10:11 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

[quote:6a910e84c1="MusicMan"]I think that describing the MAIL categories is a precursor to talking about ring interactions because if you don't understand the interactions how can you understand what currently defines a family?

I often point new weavers to 2 in 1 Chain's description which is a rather interesting starting point. Perhaps my question was slightly misunderstood, because I seem to agree on that point.
[quote:6a910e84c1="MusicMan"]1. Family characteristics
2. Ring interactions and connections

How are family characteristics different from ring interactions and connections? I find them too closely related to be indistinguishable.

[quote:6a910e84c1="MusicMan"]
[quote:6a910e84c1="TrenchCoatGuy"]
Suggestions:
There should definitely be a section on form (ie unit/chain/sheet/solid).
This is really the dimensional characteristics of how a specific weave can be expanded upon (theoretically infinitely), as opposed to the repeated pattern of interactions.

Possibly another section could be 'alterations of weaves', which would include how to take existing weaves and generate new designs using the same ring interactions.
This would encompass 'kinging', 'mobius-ing', 'web-sheeting', and other stuff along that lines.
I agree that these should all be talked about at some time.
But right now I am interested in finding out what people think the basics of weave theory would be. If we boiled it all down what should someone interested in learning about it know?
I was suggesting that this was part of the boiling down part, to include 'form' and 'alterations of weaves' in the theory discussion/article/base knowledge. The depth of course would be left up to whoever the final product is written by and how eager the reader is willing to search for the answers they seek.

[quote:6a910e84c1="MusicMan"]In my mind the more views the better. You don't learn a subject well if you don't study all the opinions. I have usually made my greatest advancements by listening to someone I don't agree with and discuss the sides. At times I find that I actually agree with them and I have learned something. I hope that this becomes something that grows and there are not just one article on a topic.
Someone new may or may not know that there are many differing views, and that the 'weave theory' everyone talks about is a blend of opinions. Explicitly telling them would hopefully assist in the learning process. Perhaps not in the form of a disclaimer, but I think they should be informed nonetheless. Lots of people are very careful to include 'I think' and 'in my opinion' when talking about weave theory, which can be overlooked. I fully agree that more opinions should be shared, which is why I shared mine.


while(!project.isFinished())
project.addRing();
// Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Eo.n Fper MFe.s Wsm Caws G0.8-1.6 I2.4-8.0 Pn Dcdejst Xw1 S07

Joined: April 02, 2008
Posts: 2266
Submissions: 42
Location: Lincoln, NE

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Feb 16, 2011 2:54 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Thanks for the reminder of the 2in1Chain article I have always loved that one. It does a good job of describing things. As far as the Family Characteristics I was thinking something like:

European Family
The most familiar weave family to most people is the European family. Characterized by a 'Through the Eye' connection and having rings where the entire rows lean the same way. The alternating lean as rows progress is often called the grain of the weave.

I just made this one up quickly, but was thinking on starting a new thread to try see what people think the characteristics of the different families are.

This gives people the general characteristics of the family and than once they know what to look for talk about ring interactions similar to this thread:
www.mailleartisans.org/board/viewtopic.php?t=16137

I think that a section that discusses different forms such as units, chains, sheets, webs would be a good thing to discuss and goes a long way to understanding the possibilities of a weave. Even discussing the different alterations such as scaling, doubling, kinging... would be helpful so people can understand how things go together


Once you stop learning, you stop living, so...
Ask questions.
Try new things.
Share what you know.

MailleCode V2.0 T5.3 R4.4 E0.0 Feur MFe.sBr Wg Cwb G.7-5.1 I3.1-11 N20.5 Pj Dcdjt Xa1w2 S08

Joined: March 3, 2002
Posts: 4378
Submissions: 79
Location: tres piedras, new mexico

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:20 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

i don't like the idea of trying to cement weave theory into canon.

anyone who has followed the progress of weave theory over the last decade knows how drastically different it is today. hopefully, in another decade, we will understand it that much more.

i would say that no one understands weave theory enough to write it down at this point... or get a consensus on what constitutes a weave attribute.


PSA: remember to stretch.
3.o is fixing everything.

Joined: April 02, 2008
Posts: 2266
Submissions: 42
Location: Lincoln, NE

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:43 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Thank you for your thoughts sakredchao I have always valued your opinions and have missed you in discussions.

I don't want to cement it into canon so to speak, but give a snapshot of what 'we' view as weave theory now so it can be compared to what was thought in the past and help us into the future.

If we can track the changes it could allow new people like myself to learn and participate in discussions easier. You have been in on the few theory discussions I have participated in and you know how poor I am at it. If we had some documents that gave the nuts-n-bolts of what we feel/understand now it would help not only have better discussions, but to help us move to our future understandings. There are fewer and fewer people around who can discuss weave theory on a steady basis and I don't want the knowledge that all of you know to be lost.

Things will always change, but to not document what we currently understand doesn't help our current understanding or our future. How much information did we loose during the Dark Ages because people felt books were evil?

Again I do not want to cement anything as this is the only way and it must stay that way forever, but I do want to document what we know so people who want to learn about the topic, myself included, can do so. Going through threads can be good but tedious.


*edit* thanks for the list of threads in Lorraine's thread I had never thought of doing something like that. Like I said your presents has been missed.


Once you stop learning, you stop living, so...
Ask questions.
Try new things.
Share what you know.

MailleCode V2.0 T5.3 R4.4 E0.0 Feur MFe.sBr Wg Cwb G.7-5.1 I3.1-11 N20.5 Pj Dcdjt Xa1w2 S08

Joined: May 08, 2010
Posts: 1157
Submissions: 11
Location: Chesapeake, VA, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:44 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Wow, I didn't even realize there was a "theory" to weaving. I'm happy just making stuff. Coif LoL

Joined: March 3, 2002
Posts: 4378
Submissions: 79
Location: tres piedras, new mexico

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:53 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

musicman, i fully agree. we -should- have all of the available theory information organized in a single place, in chronological order... so that people wanting to step into theory have a place to start.

i applaud you for starting this thread and beginning the avalanche.


PSA: remember to stretch.
3.o is fixing everything.

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT. The time now is Mon Dec 16, 2019 8:35 am
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Weaves Discussion
Display posts from previous: