Good Day Don,
I'm sorry you think we have to agree with each other or "be more on a similar plane of thought," to have a learned discussion about a topic. I feel that as long as someone has reasonable emotional/intellectual intelligence, they should be able to dialog about a topic, even if they have different experiences or concepts. I for one, grow each time in mind and soul, when I have an exchange that makes me think in a different light.
the way you have contextualized it, it is not a question of an all inclusive survey of Japanese architecture and construction techniques.
I don't believe I contextualized anything, nor did I request a survey. I quoted what you said, made a counter point, and asked for a reply that would demonstrate further facts about your position, it's that simple.
I still would like to do that, not only for my own interest in the topic, but for others that may read this post thread. The topic is "draw joinery," and "stiffness," in Asian/Japanese timber framing. It would be fine, at another time and post thread to discuss Japanese joinery, but I'm still waiting for you to address the sections of your quoted remarks that I have written comments to. We do not need to discuss "Japaneseness,," I have not mention anything relating to "Japaneseness," nor did I claim that "draw boring," was Asian or Japanese. As far as, "point counter point," well that kind of is idea about discussing something with someone that you might have a different perspective from.
Were there such a consensus, then relating it back to say, draw boring in this case, maybe that would be more interesting.
Lets get to the discussion of "draw boring." Please address what I wrote in the last thread post and here, about the realities of it in Asia/Japan, and what experience or reading you have done to show that it was not as I have described it.
That the existence of examples of this technique (draw boring,) doesn't qualify it as representative or something we could call Japanese.
I, nor anyone else, called draw boring Japanese, just that it is used and relatively common.
That in order for that to be the case there would have to be, for one, widespread use, that is to say that it was a technique that carpenters commonly used or used on a standard basis.
Again, I'm not claiming that draw boring is Japanese/Asian. I am stating that many of the joint, in common use in Japan and Asia, today and antiquity, are "drawn joints," either by offset trunnel, wedge, and/or sloped geometry of a joint.
Equally as important, that the means of producing it with reasonable effort were readily at hand and that there was a need for its use or it fulfilled a function that couldn't be dealt with more effectively otherwise. You see where I'm going, I think. It comes down to the old necessary and sufficient argument.
I do clearly see your argument, and have addressed it. They had the "need," as anyone that is constructing anything of wood, to secure it snuggle and tightly together, as they have for several thousand years. Simple put, Asian joints are very tight, always have been.
It may be so that I have climbed a mountain once or even many times, but does that mean that I can claim to be a mountaineer?
I was going to let this go, and pass over it. I just can't, I am a mountaineer and AMGA Certified member. I have been rock climbing on and living in mountains, and in the wilderness, most of my life. I teach indigenous life skills. If someone does something once that does not identify them with those qualities but, yes, if someone tries, even in failure, to try something many times, I would identify them with that action.
You, and others, say examples of draw boring are found in contemporary and historical Japanese buildings, so draw boring is Japanese. I say it may be that there are instances of draw boring throughout Japanese carpentry but it's not characteristic and wouldn't call it Japanese
I and others do not say that draw boring is Japanese. I never have and I never will, what I have said was that many of the pegged joints in Asian and Japan are "drawn joints," it isn't just a random "instance." Is there a degree of subjectivity, of course. There is on any topic.
I was looking for something from Zerger that you may have read, other than on page 122, as I already explained in my last entry, this is not a very good description of "drawn trunnel technique."
Regards,
Jay
