A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum

[xarax]

how can the majority of authors be encouraged to show the back of the bowline?

The back of the bowline...? Piece of cake ! Show them this smashed Stone Tablet where it is carved, along with the front side - or, if that is not enough, show them your future Nobel Prize  !    ( i.e., implement a Goedel s backwards-in-time-like solution to your inability to understand that there are no front or back sides of the knots, or, for that matter, of anything else in the Universe - at least in the Universe as it is formed after the collision of the two initial cosmic branes !  )

[alpineer]

I can also see dl's point, if only one side is to be shown, why not let it be the side which is more interesting.

Absolutely. It's at the user's/author's discretion, as was stated in the opening post of the DEAD THREAD. I personally think that all of the information to discern the Common Bowline's central structure is easily accessible from either side of the knot. I would also agree with Dan Lehman that a greater portion of that information is more directly displayed from the side typically labelled as "Rear view". However, I do not agree this argument has enough merit per se to justify a reversal of nomenclature. Labelling convention is an issue we should not be overly concerned about here. The greater question is; what side/aspect of the Bowline should be given viewing priority? If D.L. doesn't like the term "Rear view" associated with his preferred view, the simple solution is to leave the image un-captioned. Done deal. No conflict.

The question, then, is how can the majority of authors be encouraged to show the back of the bowline?

By showing it.
 

[Dan_Lehman]

I would agree that new labels should not be transpositions of old labels.
I can also see dl's point, if only one side is to be shown, why not
let it be the side which is more interesting. 

If only one side is to be shown, why not let it be the side [that]
most clearly shows the way the knot is finished
(which is also the ergonomically-tied, traditional side)?
After all, who doesn't tie a knot to inspect it?
It's far more important to communicate correct tying.

I don't think the rear view of the simple bowline is interesting.
The rear view of the Water Bowline is downright messy and confusing.

Exactly what I'm arguing --i.e., about the better way
of tying the knot, which has more going for it in any
"ergonomic" sense than the popularly presented side.
Not that I expect you to recognize that any time soon.
As for inspection, probably the vast majority of bowlines
are tied without expectation of inspection (esp. that
of some knots-in-the-wild photographing knothead!).
But we can cite continual complaints that the bowline
--which sadly has been presented in one way, which
way I feel is partly to blame-- is hard to check; my
surmise is that were the other-than-usual aspect
presented, these complaints would be fewer.

As for the water bowline --leaving aside what exactly
should be denoted by that name (i.e., the once-shown
structure with well-separated/-spaced nipping turns,
or the tied-with-clove-hitch-base more recently shown
knot)--, I dare say that the very "messy" aspect you cite
is just what is in need of SEEING and not hiding to
make for some deceptively clean image.  QED!

As for Agent_Smith's choice, again, he can present the knots
with how he wants them tied, and consider the aspect shown
to be "front" or less afrontingly "presentation view" to which
the reversed view can be called "reverse view".

--dl*
====

[xarax]

   If only one side is to be shown, why not let it be the... the ergonomically-tied, traditional side ?
   It's far more important to communicate correct tying.

   There is no ONE ergonomically-easy way to tie the bowline ! Any number of times a mistake is repeated, it will remain a mistake, I am afraid. There are many ways to tie the bowline, most of them as ergonomically easy as all the rest. Also, many quick-tying methods start from a slip knot, and not from a single nipping turn.
   I have described and shown one of those many ways, which involves the same clock-wise twist of the wrist, just as the supposedly Chosen ONE does, which, supposedly again, dictates which is the Chosen "front" side of the bowline !
  The "correct tying" is the tying which is not a result of parroting the one knotting myth after the other ! A tying method that has been implanted into the brains of the students by brain-washing, forces them to remain ignorant of how the bowline works for the rest of their lives - as we have seen during this discussion.
   It has been almost a fashion to try to shift the goalposts of issues one does not understand by any means - and the most easy and drastic of them is to try to move the thread to another section. It has been done again with the thread about the characteristics of the bowline, which was considered not a practical enough knot ! ! ! , and that was advocated by people who had not participated in it ! Why do I suspect that something like this is attempted here, again ?

This discussion probably is better placed in the Chit Chat forum.  It'll still be a duly ignored tempest in a duly ignored teapot.   

   

[Dan_Lehman]

I can also see dl's point, if only one side is to be shown, why not let it be the side which is more interesting.

I personally think that all of the information to discern the Common Bowline's
central structure is easily accessible from either side of the knot.

Although arguably we who know it so well
are not best to judge this (with all of our points
pro/con).  We should recognize that this issue
is one that is amenable to TESTING/research,
trying one vs. the other tying & presentation
to various collections of new-to-knots (and
"to knots" by requirement more than interest)
students --the young & restless, the old & stodgy
(boy, some of those SAR types can be so!    ).
One can try the different aspects in instruction
and see how well each does --is there much of
a difference?  --would there be comical (to us)
results of differing results per type of group (!)?
--or maybe a helpful indication of tying by one
method and seeing one presentation (and not
the comical one of incompatible ones!).

I would also agree with Dan Lehman that a greater portion of that information
is more directly displayed from the side typically labelled as "Rear view".
However, I do not agree this argument has enough merit per se
to justify a reversal of nomenclature.  Labelling convention is an issue
we should not be overly concerned about here.

I continue to believe --and think it worth reiterating--
that this conflict is much less felt/observed/important
than your comment implies --something that maybe
those who are steeped in knotting and history.

(And, boy, do some of the knotters seem knuts about
the tradition, yet woefully unaware of how dubious is
the literature in documenting/reporting that history!!
Again, Pieter van de Griend's A Letter to Lester is quite
telling of how incredibly, appallingly bad has been some
of the knotting documentation --and if they got that
much so wrong, can one have confidence in the other,
so-far uncontested, right-seeming information?!)

...
By showing it.

Yes, by showing it, Agent_Smith will have presented
how to tie various bowlines, and the presented view
should fit with the tying (though, maybe I'm presuming
more than reading his work --to date--, which is more
the presentation of completed knots and not how
to arrive at this?!), and I would be taken aback if the
naturally presented view were called "back" --which is
what the, um, backside to this view deserves, in THIS
presentation.

.:. I don't hold that knots are in general so well regarded
as to carry PER KNOT notions of front/back, at much
remove from some source's presentation of them.
In the bowline case, the ubiquity of the (wrong, IMO)
presentation gives strength to claiming otherwise;
but I don't believe that, among the general knotting
public, there is so strong an attachment to it that would
founder a presentation contradicting this.
AND, if my opinion of ease of tying, of understanding,
of comprehending
(which is X.'s primary contention/point/interest)
the bowline is valid, there would even be some
appreciation/thanks for having broken tradition here.

Beyond this, though, there will be issues regarding
the more complex, extended bowlines.  We'll need
("Joni's") "both sides now" viewing (but hope for
better results! --knowledge, not illusions  ).


--dl*
====

[alpineer]

But we can cite continual complaints that the bowline
--which sadly has been presented in one way, which
way I feel is partly to blame-- is hard to check; my
surmise is that were the other-than-usual aspect
presented, these complaints would be fewer.

I'm not sure about this myself Dan, but I'm certain you have done more musing on this than anyone else, and your surmise may very well be correct.

 

As for Agent_Smith's choice, again, he can present the knots
with how he wants them tied, and consider the aspect shown
to be "front" or less afrontingly "presentation view" to which
the reversed view can be called "reverse view".

Acknowledged.
 

[Dan_Lehman]

   If only one side is to be shown, why not let it be the... the ergonomically-tied, traditional side ?
   It's far more important to communicate correct tying.

   There is no ONE ergonomically-easy way to tie the bowline !

And I will continue to argue more strongly --not merely
to claim various, but to argue in favor of a different one--
that, at least for tying the bowline eye-outwards
(SPart and line continuation are away, as when a climber
ties into her harness), it is better (not equal, let alone worse)
to work with the working end taken beneath the held
line and turned upwards & around, using gravity to
advantage and not having to compensate for its
effects on parts of the rope by re-gripping some part
or making extra contortion to make the initial reach=
&-twist (for, at this point, too, gravity takes the SPart
downwards --not held out conveniently forwards of
one to accommodate one's reach-&-twist!).


One further, reiterated objection to "over-/under-hand" :
those are not perspicuous, commonly used terms; and
the entail an assumption of *direction*/flow which
goes to needing further understanding, initiation;
is the reference for "flow" always that of the ultimate
knot, or is it in reference to one's current working
of parts --which could run counter to that?!  I don't
care to try to define & promulgate such concepts.


--dl*
====

ps : re "bowline is hard to check" : one can read
this on nearly every rockclimbing (and other like application)
debate about Fig.8 eyeknot-vs.-bowline !

[alpineer]

I can also see dl's point, if only one side is to be shown, why not let it be the side which is more interesting.

I personally think that all of the information to discern the Common Bowline's
central structure is easily accessible from either side of the knot.

Although arguably we who know it so well
are not best to judge this (with all of our points
pro/con).  We should recognize that this issue
is one that is amenable to TESTING/research,
trying one vs. the other tying & presentation
to various collections of new-to-knots (and
"to knots" by requirement more than interest)
students --the young & restless, the old & stodgy
(boy, some of those SAR types can be so!    ).
One can try the different aspects in instruction
and see how well each does --is there much of
a difference?  --would there be comical (to us)
results of differing results per type of group (!)?
--or maybe a helpful indication of tying by one
method and seeing one presentation (and not
the comical one of incompatible ones!).

I would also agree with Dan Lehman that a greater portion of that information
is more directly displayed from the side typically labelled as "Rear view".
However, I do not agree this argument has enough merit per se
to justify a reversal of nomenclature.  Labelling convention is an issue
we should not be overly concerned about here.

I continue to believe --and think it worth reiterating--
that this conflict is much less felt/observed/important
than your comment implies --something that maybe
those who are steeped in knotting and history.

(And, boy, do some of the knotters seem knuts about
the tradition, yet woefully unaware of how dubious is
the literature in documenting/reporting that history!!
Again, Pieter van de Griend's A Letter to Lester is quite
telling of how incredibly, appallingly bad has been some
of the knotting documentation --and if they got that
much so wrong, can one have confidence in the other,
so-far uncontested, right-seeming information?!)

...
By showing it.

Yes, by showing it, Agent_Smith will have presented
how to tie various bowlines, and the presented view
should fit with the tying (though, maybe I'm presuming
more than reading his work --to date--, which is more
the presentation of completed knots and not how
to arrive at this?!), and I would be taken aback if the
naturally presented view were called "back" --which is
what the, um, backside to this view deserves, in THIS
presentation.

.:. I don't hold that knots are in general so well regarded
as to carry PER KNOT notions of front/back, at much
remove from some source's presentation of them.
In the bowline case, the ubiquity of the (wrong, IMO)
presentation gives strength to claiming otherwise;
but I don't believe that, among the general knotting
public, there is so strong an attachment to it that would
founder a presentation contradicting this.
AND, if my opinion of ease of tying, of understanding,
of comprehending
(which is X.'s primary contention/point/interest)
the bowline is valid, there would even be some
appreciation/thanks for having broken tradition here.

Beyond this, though, there will be issues regarding
the more complex, extended bowlines.  We'll need
("Joni's") "both sides now" viewing (but hope for
better results! --knowledge, not illusions  ).


--dl*
====

I understood hardly any of this. But the testing idea would, I'm sure, be fun to say the least.

[Dan_Lehman]

I should remark that when I tie to a ring or an
*away* object (eye away, SPart near), I will
likely cast the nipping turn by capsizing one
that I form with the tail around the SPart,
and will have the traditional perspective now.

And similarly for the "slip-knot" method,
as my natural inclination is to being the SPart's
tucked-through bight upwards, tuck the tail,
and then it capsizes (not always (so well)!)
into the traditional view.


--dl*
====

[alpineer]

ps : re "bowline is hard to check" : one can read
this on nearly every rockclimbing (and other like application)
debate about Fig.8 eyeknot-vs.-bowline !

Whellll! those silly brainwashed climbers are just parroting what they've been told instead of figuring it out for themselves.

[xarax]

If D.L. doesn't like the term "Rear view" associated with his preferred view

   Personally, I do not care if Dan Lehman, or anybody Else, "likes" a term or not - and I have seen that he, too, does not care either, if other people use other terms than the ones he uses - he keeps repeating his own terms, some more successful (PET) and some less successful (TurNip). I can not say if this will be proven, some time in the future, to be a more successful or a less successful strategy... 
   Also, the expression "his preferred view "(sic) is not less completely wrong than the "God s view", the "Chosen One view", the "intrinsic" "front" view, etc... The view that shows more and hides less of the geometrical and structural details of the bowline, is not somebody s view ! Dan Lehman pointed out something deeply simple, that should have been obvious to all of us right from the very beginning - but we just could nt see under our noses ! It is not Dan Lehman who "likes" or "prefers" this view ( that is not very important ), it is COMMON SENSE which dictates to use a more useful view, if we have to use one only view ( useful, according to well defined criteria, of course ).   
   However, this thread was not meant to be about which one of the two views one would or should prefer, and for which purpose - it was meant to resolve the issue of proper labels for both views. I propose we remain focused in THIS subject, and proceed to the next only after we have agreed on SOMETHING !     

[Dan_Lehman]

ps : re "bowline is hard to check" : one can read
this on nearly every rockclimbing (and other like application)
debate about Fig.8 eyeknot-vs.-bowline !

Whellll! those silly brainwashed climbers are just parroting what they've been told instead of figuring it out for themselves.

The criticism has been made that the main reason
for finding it hard to check is simply lack of familiarity
with it!  Still, there is enough *smoke* about some
difficulty of understanding the knot to make one
wonder about better presenting it.  For myself,
I can only testify that IIRC I lonnnng ago learned
the sheet bend but didn't learn the bowline
and don't recall recognizing their similarity of structure
(and they were --in Chapman's Piloting Guide--
presented with opposite aspects).


To X., I've never used 'TurNip', but 'turNip' --the capital
is the result of the *impact* of fusing the two words
with same letter abutting and thus rising up into CAP(S)!
And "PET" is courtesy of Rob Chisnall, and a useful
aspect to mind.

X. wrote:

Also, the expression "his preferred view "(sic) is not less completely wrong than the "God s view",

It's quite so : you are confusing simple denotation
with some kind of blessing --I've been consistent
in expression, which expression can thus be cited
(without fully re-expressing); that is all.
Now, the contention that my & God's view might
be the same, and so equally not less completely
wrong --in fact, completely right--, is a flattery
I'll consider later, if need be.   


--dl*
====

[Dan_Lehman]

   However, this thread was not meant to be about which one of the two views one
would or should prefer, and for which purpose:  it was meant to resolve the issue
of proper labels for both views.
I propose we remain focused in THIS subject,
and proceed to the next only after we have agreed on SOMETHING ! 

Discussion has been pretty constrained to this.

There is benefit in Agent_Smith's presentation to
holding ONE VIEW constant, so as to give an equal
basis for comparing variations; so far, he's given
both opposite views.  There might be cases where
one or the other of trad. "front/back" views gives
a better view of the particular variation --they can
be complex.  I don't think that he's found a need
to try to economize on imagery --that he'll thus
preserve the both-sides-now presentation.

IMO, "front" has *qualitative* connotation,
and maybe "back" also,
whereas "reverse" & "opposite" seem more
unjudgementally related to the immediate
context, and so make less contentious terms
for replacing "back".  Now, to replace "front",
perhaps there's a handy, pretty-well-seen-to=
be-limited-to-current-presentation term he can
introduce/define.
(I'm signing off at this point, no immediate ideas
for this term --noting that "view" is much shorter
than "orientation", for any compound term such
as "document view", "parts view" --thinking of
the early diagram where he identifies parts of
the structure.)

--dl*
====

[xarax]

Now, the contention that my & God's view might be the same, and so equally not less completely wrong --in fact, completely right--, is a flattery

   As it has been so fashionable to the "majority" in this Forum to portray me as the Devil, the contention that the Devil s view and the God s view might be the same ( be them completely correct or completely wrong ), means something for the Universe per se ! There is no intrinsic Evil and intrinsic Good outside black holes ! 

[alpineer]

There is benefit in Agent_Smith's presentation to
holding ONE VIEW constant, so as to give an equal
basis for comparing variations; so far, he's given
both opposite views.  There might be cases where
one or the other of trad. "front/back" views gives
a better view of the particular variation --they can
be complex.   

Consistency is a good thing. And the "priority view", whichever is deemed to be, should always be shown on the left-hand side of the page. Or right-hand side for the Chinese translation.