Our Guild Mission

General Discussion
41

(Part II, YaBBc workaround)
Problem: Knots:
“What is a knot? What isn’t? How can I tell?”
Even if we assume a basic level of functionality (e.g. “a clever kink in a cord”) in response to these customary (quasi-rhetorical) questions, that’s not even a start, if knots are the IGKT’s raison-d’etre. I’m not just punning here, without a definition of what is and is not a knot, how can anyone hope to eliminate the dizzying ambiguity used throughout this field of study?? Without a clear (language-independent) method for determining “knotness”, how can IGKT hope to be “International”?

Sub-problem:
Why do some knots have so many names, yet some very good knots have naught but a number in ABoOK? Specifically, how can I tell you to tie a ______, unless we each have the same reference? Numbers are OK, if there’s a list somewhere with one number per knot, one knot per number (unlike ABOK). That same list with names might be an impossible dream. But a Bowline by any (of a half-dozen) other names will still “untie itself” if you don’t properly finish tying it.
Sub-solution: break down knots into their atomic (i.e. most fundamental) aspects - turn, bight, strain, nip, cross, tuck, etc. - define those and how to link them together to define the knot(s).

And that leads to a bigger “knot” problem:
The vast array of “almost like” knots (this one is almost like that one, except for this wee twitch in the kinking) leads – pardon me, “procedes in like fashion” – to such a scrambled state of nomenclature (names of things within a category) that I personally can’t see how (without detailed drawings which are impossible for some of us to render) this subject can be communicated in the first place! From history (Day, Bowling, Smith, Ashley), it appears it cannot be! Even CWA introduced errors into the information stream, despite his extreme level of care, interest, and concern! And that’s just on the knots with names!
And that problem has sub-problems too: The “Sailor’s Hitch” and the “Icicle Hitch” don’t appear in the “standard reference” ABoOK, but there are useful alternatives, e.g. ABOK#1743, 1760 - 1764, etc. (If new, named knots come along, how do they get “hallowed” into the “standard reference”? Also, if old knots get “rediscovered” & subsequently named, how does the “standard reference” get updated?)

Examples:
Why is a “Flying Bowline” called that?? It’s cuteness hardly justifies the ambiguity it introduces into what’s already an “information-light” world. I can see where “Angler’s Loop” might seem passe’ on the docks, but “you can stand in the garage & holler, but that doesn’t make you a car.”

I’m sorry, as I know this isn’t much help. The answers are the responsibility of the IGKT, as I really don’t care what you call them, as long as they come out of my hands when I need them, and I can teach them to the hired help.

IMNERHO (In My Not Even Remotely Humble Opinion), the only valid reference on Knots should be the IGKT. Not Ashley, not “Mr. Complete” Budworth (though each should get due credit for their contribution(s)), not any of the others, but the Guild itself. IGKT “needs” (IMO) to “step up” and make this happen. If not the International Guild of Knot Tyers, then whom?

Nice start, SquareRigger, but you’re refreshing tracks laid down by a lot of us. Good luck and keep going!

Jimbo

42

In short; i think it is just a tough problem that will take a number of times of hard headed peoples running into the wall to knock it down. Perhaps this is the time it will happen, perhaps not; but i hope for no loss of the energy of enthusiasm as it is pointed out to what depth, width and height the wall to overcome is.

Personally i think that knots are so simplistic and commonplace as to be tough, even though the answers lie right before us in examples all around, like other mechanics that we blindly use everyday. This is not the fault of anyone here, but rather jsut what has been handed down to us over the ages for one of the most elemental, yet seemingly intricate machines known.

i think that knots (at least the working class) should be broken down, not into their uses, but their mechanics. At least in naming, it is alas a little late for that now, as would only add to the confusion; for would be a total overhaul to what is already known and understood in most cases.

i am a tree climber; i’ve climbed on both the Icicle and the Sailor’s Gripping hitches as friction hitches for ascent and descent. i’ve even modified the Sailor’s Gripping Hitch to end with a Backhand hitch rather than Half; and think it is great. Many friction hitches in the DdRT (Doulbed Rope Technique of 2:1 mechanics as opposed to the SRT 1:1 of Singled Rope Technique that you can’t descend on friction hitches in) require a hardware ‘tender’ to serve the hitch upward/ keep slack out of the line on ascent with 1 hand. These mentioned moslty self tend without the hardware.

i think in the working class, it is all mechanics of these knot machines that do work for us. That is why i think that knots should be broken down by these mechanics. i think Ashley tried to serve some towards that end; with chapters broken down by how some knots grab a spar by parallel or perpendicualr use, and that there is a great key to the mysteries in that, by their mechanics.

i think a bowline should be seen as a sheetbend to self to form eye; and how that changes the mechanics to make a bowline safer. i also think that a clove/ cow is not 2 opposing half hitches, but rather a leading (closest to initiating pull) crossed turn; that then leads to a hitch. In short all mechanics, and the secrets can’t be found until that view is taken.

In short, it is all just a knotty problem; but is no time to give up. i think rigging is jsut enalrged knots, with the same working forces, with the same linking material.

43

Thank you KC and especially thank you Jimbo!

You have brought the knotty issue to a very fine point viz: what are we talking about, how does it work and why do we care? I am all-fired transposed about the subject of Mission Statement and where it goes. Some others obviously care (including the non-web-enabled), and some like just to tie the darn things, never mind the names and mechanics of it. All views are important and that means that all require attention. KM has done a fine job for the IGKT in having members’ expressions put in print, but where does the rest of it go? We are in a communication-filled age and it should assuredly not be beyond our capabilities to arrive at a means to include all the reasonable parts that will help to:

a) Define what we do
b) Define what it looks like
c) Define how it works
d) Name people or groups to deal with things
d) Tell it like it is, in a language that all can see and understand.

I want to be a part of the answers to this and I think right now that the IGKT is a good place to start finding the answers, with like-minded souls, having a more or less common language, using tools available to all. We could spend a VERY long time trying to please all, or we could spend a reasonable amount of time trying to do a bang-up job with what we have, in a direction that looks right for now, leaving the door open for future changes. I vote for the second alternative (there probably are more alternatives, but I have not tried to put them on paper as ideas yet).

How can the IGKT start be brought about? One way would be to look at the Mission Statement and get some things more clear, like:

  1. How long is this Mission supposed to take?
  2. Have we bitten off more than we can chew?
  3. If not, who is chewing and who is doing?
  4. Have all reasonable parts been included (see above a through d)?
  5. Is there a mechanism for adding something we have yet to see or might want to include later?

I am putting together a Word document to submit to the IGKT at our meeting in UK in May, which submittal I would like to use as the springboard for getting 'er done! I will be happy to use your information (yes, this includes the information you still want to include but have yet to put on paper or the web-page) or to leave it at the dock for another voyage. The ship (putting the message together) will be leaving the dock at 1200 GMT on April 30, 2006 so that I can be sure the sailing time is sufficient to get to the Guild for the May meeting. Want me to add your two cent’s worth? That’s the deadline! Thank you ALL for your contributions. If you prefer to have your contribution not aired in front of the WWW then send me an IM or private e-mail. Cheers!

Lindsey

44

Dear lindsey, I have quickly read your thoughts on the direction that the guild should be going in. I will read it in more detail latter, I have been trying for some time to push the guild forward Its been a struggle. Please kick my back-side if you think I could do better, all thoughts and ideas will be gratefully recieved and I, as long as I am Chair of the committe, will be put to the committee.
Iwill read your comments in more detail and get back to you .
Happy Knotting,
Dave Walker,
Chair IGKT

45

One of the things I find perturbing is the proliferation of sites. If becoming THE authoritative body is a desired goal, then khww and the new wiki are not particularly helping the cause. Effort is spread out and dissipated, not to mention difficult to keep track of, even for the enthusiast.

I have many times thought of spawning off a group focused on decorative knotting, but firmly believe that such a thing should be a subset of the IGKT.

46

Hey knot heads.

Well to reply to the post above. My intention for KHWW is not to become the authoritive body. KHWW, is just a place for the artist and craftsman to mingle and just maybe get to know one another. Though thousands of miles may seperate the artists, they can still communicate and share with one another.

I believe the Guild is doing the best that they can with what they have to work with. I love that the Guild is here just as much as I love KHWW being there.

47

Edit: Knot Head types faster than me i guess; i reply to what he has replied to.

Like many things, i think that can go either way; depending on how you lend yourself to it/ how you work it. Even the bitters can become lemon-aid…

The work can evolve other places; and be sewn together here at maturity etc. There doesn’t have to be loss. Much knowledge is already spread to many special-ties that won’t just come running here; but will be more comfort-able in it’s own environment i believe.

Allowing whatever it takes to build it high, without losing sight of the end goal, can be very powerfull. By allowing the forces to play out as they best can, not dampening spirits towards any good targets. It might take more work to bind it to-gather at some points; but the total might hit a higher order if let to flow unfettered and just softly funneled into 1 at the right timings.

No worries, just write!;D

Orrrrrrrrr something like that!

edit: nice sight KnotHead, have to add it to my links page at next re-vision!

48

KC has put it in more eloquent words than I. Thankyou for your reply kind sir. :slight_smile:

49

Thanks to Dave W, to KC, Knot Me and to Knot Head!

I absolutely echo what KC has said - the thing I find most daunting is to sort out the wheat from the chaff - maybe I need to get a different filter and start seeing food Vs waste instead? Dave, I shall look forward most definitely to hearing more from you, KC keep keeping it write and Knot Me and Knot Head - it will all come out right in the end and you are just the people to make it come out that way.

In the power of one there is only effort, in the power of many there is synergy, teamwork and the power to do anything. Many hands make light work!

Lindsey

50

I should point out (since upon reflection my original post just sounded grumpy) that khww and the wiki (already!) are both fine sites. It is due to the fact that they are informative, lively and cannot be dismissed that makes them so annoying. 8) 8) 8)

Structure (and a single data stream) would do much to help us fight the information overload.

51

Hi Carol,

Thanks for your response - what do you suggest should be the format of the structure you are seeking? If we know what to use, maybe we can use the same structure in all three places? One thing seems certain - we are awaiting the word from the Guild - maybe we just have to provide the word ourselves and then run it up the flagpole to see who salutes it?

Lindsey
PS Are you going to San Francisco for our PAB AGM in June/July?

52

the avenues are many, but a single web forum, single rss stream, single email list come to mind.

even a single rss stream backed by multiple sites might not be too painful. the easiest thing for the site creators to do would probably be to send all their updates to a single email notification list with a nice set format (not HTML, please!) with linkbacks so that pictures and threaded discussion could be viewed if so desired.

ps. yes, still planning to come. 8)

53

I would like to respond to KnotMe and KnotHead. I must admit that I am a bit of a counterculteral type myself.

The sense of sharing in non-formal relationships is something we all share and aim for - especially in a community like this. Superimposing stucture via rules spelled out by the IGKT will inevitablly lead to a conflicting sense of what the IGKT was set out to accomplish. Is it a community? Is it a hierachy?

For a member, like mself, posting from a distance, this can be difficult to thrash out. I like a sense of community! When we agree or differ or posit a solution to a question, we want respect. When we finally agree on method (how to tie) we all hope for a naming convention we can refer to and respect even if we don’t initially agree on the name. Should we always agree on the name? NO! But we should be able to say that the IGKT (as a whole) has a position on the name (or use, or purpose) or even historical discription of etc. - such that we can cite the IGKT and then state our disagreement. etc…

Of intererst to me…KnotHead has noted the importance of Wikipedia. Personally, I think Wikipedia has been getting better and better and so on… I finally learned the Eskimo Bowline from Wikipedia.

I’m not sure how this would happen… I would hope that Wikipedia would accept or would, as a formal matter, be respectful of official postings by the IGKT! Links back to the IGKT would refer the viewer back to either a) a decription b) a dicussion
I would hope Wikipedia can accomodate either a link on its own site or a link on an external (IGKT) site.. (but honestly I don’t know)

Personally, I think we have joined the IGKT because it is bigger than us, but in the end it is us.

If I’ve not understood the points made by KnotHead or KnotMe, my humble appologies. I’m just trying to advance the IGKT.

54

hello SKellyog…
…i’m not sure if you know but Derek made an IGKT-Wiki page/site:

http://igkt.pbwiki.com/

…it’s in the process of becoming official and it works great…just take time to look through the tutorials…
Dan-Alaska

55

As this thread is all about going forward, I made the Wiki as an experiment to see if this style of internet tool could be valuable in promoting the Guild Mission and enabling contributors to directly create content, instead of having to wait for seasonal updates of the official site.

Much can be achieved by motivated contributors if they are given the means, or in this case the medium, to do it. Look at Wikepedia as an example of how much can be created using a Wiki. But the internet is a place of evolution. Ideas which find favour blossom, whereas ideas and sites which attract no use or interest die quickly.

The IGKTWiki is only an experiment. Only if it is of value will it be reasonable to consider it for formal inclusion within the Guild services. A static website is ideal to hold hard formal unchanging information together with structural links to various parts of the Guild services - Merbership, Contact, SubGroups, Forum and perhaps the Developmental Wiki.

Only time and use will tell if the Wiki is of any value to the knotting community, but of course, in order to make that asessment, the Wiki has to be there in the first place to allow knotters to think - Is that of any use or value to me? - Is it part of what I have wanted for a long time? - Do I want something better?

56

Lindsey has posted an important issue here.

I am not a member of IGKT. That fact should be important to the IGKT leadership and sheds some light on why Lindsey’s post is so important.

I am a chemist, and have spent the whole of my career firmly reliant upon, and part of, the numerous Associations, Bodies and Guilds which define and support my industry. These Professional Bodies are driven by their membership and act purely as ‘co-ordinators’ to collect and direct endeavors.

As a hobby knot tyer (with a background of rock climbing and a nautical father) I was naturally drawn to the International Guild of Knot Tyers, expecting to find a professional body of the ilk I had been used to working within.

What I found was a disappointment. The IGKT appeared to be nothing more than a small (even though International) group of amateurs, swapping the occasional knot discussion on the forum. The website - which I had expected to hold a reference list of knots, their names and histories, their uses and methods of formation by different occupations, their strengths and weaknesses, and of course, all legislative and CoP aspects of knotting - in reality contained none of this, to such an extent I felt that the IGKT would be of no value to my hobby other than to follow the postings on the forum.

A Google search of the web lists over 27 million hits for knots, that does not even include the fields of rope, thread, braid etc. the specialist fields of sport, industry, decoration and so on. There is MASSIVE interest in this arena, but the IGKT reflects, promotes and co-ordinates none of it (at least through its web presence). I recognise that the IGKT also operates the KM and that other streams of information could well be available though that publication, but I surmised that as there was no indication of the IGKT playing the role that its rather grandiose name implied and its mission statement implied it to aspire to.

Against this, Lindsey has highlighted the key issue by posting his question re the Guild Mission. To Lindsey’s question must be added three more:-

What do the present Guild officials want the Guild to become?

What does the present membership want the Guild to provide?

What does the ‘Industry’ want from a truly representative Guild?

The opportunities and challenges facing the Guild are arguably too big. Even the name containing the word ‘International’, challenges the Guild to achieve levels of involvement beyond the scope of just about every other professional body in functional operation today.

To me, the key question is :-

Does ‘The Guild’ want to stay essentially a ‘Hobby’ Guild, or do they want to satisfy the need for a professional Guild in this field (i.e. reflect the current mission statement). The latter is eminently doable, but as Lindsey and others have pointed out, it requires structure, plans, leadership and above all - considerable work and funding.

So, if the IGKT are standing at a critical junction in its evolution, could I suggest that everyone with an interest, contributes to the production of a ‘Road Map’ of the process the Guild faces in order to get to the goal we each desire. This forum is a good tool to discuss points of view and issues, but it is not ideal to formulate a consensus plan. To this end, I have added a ‘Road Map’ page to the Wiki, which is of course a far better tool to create such a plan. Visit the page at http://igkt.pbwiki.com/IGKT%20Mission and log in with name, email address and the password igkt in order to edit the page. I will kick off the process with my own contribution for others to reshape as they see fit.

57

Good Morning Derek,

I really appreciate your having added more questions - the answers are important to know, and I would like to be part of the formulation of the answers and an individual who is able to use the answers. Principally, I think the Guild was set up as a “hobby mostly” group, with dreams of making it much bigger, based on the first writings and notions of which I am aware. The fact that an authoritative body was needed to resolve the question initially posed in the Times (of London) gives credence to this thought and that may have been the driver to include that wording (authoritative body) in the Mission. Add to that a “somewhat” more fanciful idea of finding out how knots really work scientifically and you have the makings of the Guild’s Mission. Right now, the hobbyists are alive, active and kicking butt to get the answers - but sometimes those answers exist in some as-yet-undefined manner, loosely coming together now or then and perhaps being answered. Much (but certainly not all) of what exists is happenstance, rumor, belief, hand-me-down and supposition, rather than hard fact defined by scientific study, using methods that statistically eliminate a majority of other possible answers, much in the same way as scientists do their work today so as to reduce the possibility that another answer exists.

I think we need to do just as you have suggested - decide what it is we do. There are other groups who also have an interest in what we do - manufacturer groups who have a different focus for themselves, anthropolgists who argue with themselves, criminal analysts, fashionistas, you name it… Can we provide answers for all? I think not now, but eventually probably we can answer, say, 99.9% of questions. That would be a part of the goals we would have to set for ourselves in defining what it is we do.

Right now we SAY that we do much and we do much of what we say we do, but in a less-than-focussed form and without adequate funding. Let us get some focus, define what we do and then the devil take the hindmost - whether or not we do this as volunteers, we can still achieve great things. Anecdotally, I have had the good fortune to work with some volunteers who are unusually dedicated to what they do. They usually know what they can achieve collectively, given a goal, a driver and a willing team with people willing to step into the breach when things are not as quick or as complete as they would have liked. I know we have such a team among our members - I know we have such goals among our own dreams - and I think we can do it. Every tool we can find to help achieve our goal will be welcomed - but first we have to decide what our goal is, define it some and then set about working up a plan to achieve it. In saying “we” have to decide it, “we” have to decide what “we” do. I would like the “we” to be reflective of our Council, hence our membership, and hence ourselves, so that as a Guild “we” can set about achieving our goals.

Thanks again for your interest and input.

Lindsey

58

i too have stopped by several times over the years to scour around these parts for answers about working class knots of a more mechanical, safety, strength etc. focus, along with pulley use etc.

Kinda where you would go as an extension of ABOK etc.; for more modern, scientific evaluations and updates etc. as referance and authority.

Until visiting so; i’d kinda forgotten there were ornamental knots; so beyond a reminder of that; found not much to help me and others of the working fields.

i think this working class of knot lacings is vast, and laoded witht he simplest and very powerfull mechanics that ‘binds’ it all together.

Only force can overcome distance. The flip side of that as promised by the Equal and Opposite duality; is that only force can keep somethng from gaining distance that wants to move. Knots are man’s simple way to do so, and full of history because of it. To sieze, apply power to, or compound the powers of seperate events together; knots were man’s first choice; and probably predates cooking. So, to me it is science/ mechanics.

If the IGKT doesn’t wish to lead so, someone else eventually will; but noone will be as setup and logically looked to for this task, methinks.

59

just one thought about increasing membership:

  • give or set a greatly reduced membership cost for scouts/guides/cubs/brownies/sparks/etc.

  • perhaps a junior or associate membership (give them an email knotting
    matters vs paper to differentiate and keep costs down?)

  • reach out to allied guilds/crafts: in particular, i think there is a ropemaking group. also the braid society. probably there are climbing and fishing groups and a host of sailing groups.

  • i have mentioned before and i will say again that there are decorative knotting groups in Taiwan, Korea, Japan, and probably China as well. I have unverified information about Korea and Taiwan…

60

This is a reaction on KnotMe, but it is an idea I have been thinking about for a while, I even have spoken about it a few times.

I feel it is time to send a personalised letter to every magazine/organization to do with knots. Like (but not just) sailing magazines, outdoorsports, crafts (esp needlework with a broad view), scouting, …
In that letter can be a bit about the guild, international and per country on country level. Or even on local level for local magazines or groups.
A paragraph on some members working (hobby or professional) in the field of the magazine or organisation, with names and contact information, by preference within traveling distance so the magazine can interview them.
And if there are any, contact information for ‘local meetings’. (These can also be national or international meetings.)

The letter will be in English, as it is an official outing from the guild, but should be translated to the languages of the magazines or organisations to which they are addressed.
I think local members should translate the letter and add the personal information, of course only with the consent of the persons to be listed.

To get the letters to the people to send them we need to know the field of knottying of many of our members so we can co-ordinate who to send it to and which magazines they can reach.

I am willing to do my part, and translate into Dutch and send it to all magazines where decorative knot tying can be at home.

Willeke