Poi Theory of Everything - An ongoing collaboration

- - -- - --- - ---- - ----- - ------ - ----- - ---- - --- - -- - -

Introduction:

Our idea is to create a structured way for the global poi community to all collaborate on an ongoing multimedia Unified Poi Theory of Everything. It is inspired by the theory in physics that all matter and energy can be explained by understanding the link between the four most basic known forms of energy. We want to do something similar with poi. We want to see the art of poi separated into it's fundamental elements, on which all other movements are based on. Then explain the way it all works and connects through a continually evolving, community sustained, multimedia pool of information.

All the information already exists. Most of it is even already written out or filmed on the various discussion forums, articles, and videos. We want to take that information and consolidate it.

Some drawbacks we see for this are that first of all, people will argue a lot over terminology, but in the end this may help establish more of a standardization, which is good. Secondly, Everyone thinks differently. We all have somewhat different ways of understanding the various concepts within the art and this project may help establish more of a standardization, but we don't know how we feel about that. We don't want to affect the way people think without knowing what we are doing and then end up creating limitations for them. If we state this knowledge as unquestioned fact from a position of authority, then beginners may not have as much of an incentive anymore to go develop their own understanding. We have learned a tremendous amount from the work we have done already of our own versions of the Theory and we are hesitant about possibly taking that journey away from younger poi artists. While we recognize that there are different types of learners, we think that overall the best way to learn is to discover something for ourselves rather then studying too much what other people have found.

When people read this we advise that they not take our words as undisputed truth. You will gain the most in the long run if you take the time to truly understand these concepts for yourself, with only as much guidance from your teachers as is necessary for you to take your next step.

Everyone must journey in their own way, the path can not be walked for us. There are people who have explored further down the path then us, and as those early people who blaze the trail move on ahead, they can beat open an easier way for others to follow. They can leave behind signs to show the people following them which way they took. This is the essence of teaching. This is why we have all those videos and articles on how to do whatever it is we are trying to learn. They are footprints for us to follow so that we don't have to completely reinvent the journey ourselves but rather learn from the successes and failures of the travelers before us and continue on with our own understanding.

Here is what we have so far:

- - -- - --- - ---- - ----- - ------ - ----- - ---- - --- - -- - -

Table of contents:

- Introduction
- Guidelines
- Construction Methods
- The Theory
- Concepts
- Exercises
- Families of Movement
- Variables of Movement

- - -- - --- - ---- - ----- - ------ - ----- - ---- - --- - -- - -

aaaaaaaargh!

so, on the whoe, I think what you have done is great. but I cannot agree with:





this implies not only that we only have control over our poi movements within circlular motion, but even worse, that what we do with our bodies is irrelevant to what the poi are doing.

there're a few other points I'd like to bring up, but not sur how you want them dealt with....?

Rob, we are going to send you the log so if you want you can go in and made corrections.

As far as discussion around your point goes, while I do believe fundamental poi is based on the circle, I agree with you that there are movements that are not based on it. Got any ideas on how that statement can be reworded to make it true? Or would it maybe be better to take that bit out?

I actually hadn't begun to think about fundamental poi in terms of stemming from our body's movement. Not in the context of this project anyways. I've understood for a while how most poi momentum is an extension and result of some motion in the body. So on an even deeper level then the motion of the poi itself we could say that all poi spin is based on a sustaining of momentum given by the wrist/arm/etc. Or are we maybe on the wrong track?

I've sent a PM through to you theory, I've got a few suggestions and have highlighted them through different colour text in a word document (which I can send through regular email if OK). I think that, based on comments from others, I'm in agreement that this is a good idea. If the idea is to generate a Wiki though would it not be better to just update http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poi_(performance_art) with the info collated here or are Wiki's generally meant to be kept to a generalisation of a subject? Either way I'm willing to assist where I can

Gresk, the wikipedia entries for poi HAVE been updated and they've been dropped for getting too techy. Wiki is basically if you've never heard of it before.

I thought the unit circle had a diameter equal to the length of the poi as with an isolation rather than having a radius the length of the poi?

Someone more cluey on the unit circle specifics might want to chime in here on that one.

@ Gresk, I'll go sign in and make sure you've gotten the log in info right after this post. I'm thinking if people have corrections or suggested corrections or even alternative explanations we can add those in different colors directly into the Theory or make some sort of other note which shows that it is an alternative or "unverified" entry (if we are unsure or still thinking about it). I wouldn't bother with external documents for now. That is just my opinion on that, you can do what ever you think best for the collaboration (aside from deleting it please).

I second Stuart's comment about Wikipedia dropping the techy updates we've tried to add into their poi articles. Richee and a few others have tried to do that but Wikipedia does not want to be a instructional instrument with advanced technical jargon. We want Wikipedia to stay more true to a simple encyclopedia. Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not

@ Stuart, I think you are correct about the unit circle having a diameter equal to the length of the poi. That makes more sense. Alien Jon was the one who popularized the idea and I suppose I still don't fully understand it. I'll see if I can coarse him into coming here and fully explaining it himself but until then we will do our best. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_circle

Seeing that wiki link only confuses me further on the actual meaning of the unit circle in poi... i think it supports your definition better than my own but I feel that my definition better suits how it relates to poi theory as well as my own understanding of previous entries relating to the unit circle...

So after reading that I'm much more on the fence, but its a point I'd definitely like cleared up anyway.

I'll have a quick re-read of entries on the forum relating to the unit circle and get back to you if my views are solidified one way or the other, I think coercing Jon into posting would be a great idea, though, I think he's one of the main people alongside Richee to use that term.

that wikipedia link actually confuses me too. When you find good entries on poi unit circle m will you post links here so we can check them out?

"a unit circle (the smallest circle the poi body can make, diameter=the poi length ie an isolation, so the radius=1 unit= half the poi body),"

Is a quote from Jon embedded in a comment about cateyes.

So Danny brought this up over on the Garden and it is something I want us to consider. I've got to rush off now but I will come back to this later

A unit circle has a radius of half the length of the poi.

Think about a poi spinning normally. As you start to isolate it, the disk it is spinning in gets smaller, until you get to the halfway mark.

Once you pass that and start heading to a pure point isolation, the disk gets bigger again, only with your hand on the outside.

Unit circle diagram. I must emphasise that this is as I understand the concept. It may be wrong.

Aston, I think that is correct. I am going to put your diagram in the Theory.

I think there is a minor problem Dyami, I'm guessing that multiple logins to the one acct are overwriting each other when editing. I just added a load of changes/suggestions and published, only to refresh 5 mins later to find them all missing. I think that maybe someone else was editing the same text at the same time therefore one over wrote the other.

Hope that makes sense. I'll try again making sure to keep the same text as there is at this present moment.

Have made some amendments that need to be verified - I've used hideous colours so that you can see where the amendments are, if in agreement then simply change them to black, delete, discuss etc

Wow !!

Great OP, so that's what a lockout is..cheers.

Re the unit circle. How does this concept fit into poi spinning at all ? I could see it as some sort of fancy way of describing crossover points if one assumes the shoulder as a center of rotation, but given that we have several points we can use as a center of rotation ( hand, elbow, shoulder, isolation ) to me, it seems an idea that doesn't really "fit" into poi theory.

Maybe I'm missing something or maybe it's one of those Richee-esque ideas that need a clearly defined analysis to demonstrate it's relevance to poi.

A unit circle can be useful for describing certain elements but its not useful on its own.

A perfect cateye is a 1:1 ratio antispin with a hand circle equivalent size to a unit circle, for example.

It helps to understand Richees posts a bit better because I believe it is integral to his thought processes on poi.

Jons theory of the grid of infinite circles is also based on unit circles.

You can vary your flowers to be based around a unit circle rather than a complete longarm motion and that can greatly change the look of the flower.

yeah... that doesn't sound good. Everyone who works on this should maybe check the Who's Online before they start and more importantly back up your work somehow in an external place. I've been saving drafts of the back end code in my email and I'm going to start saving them in .txt documents as well.
It would also be nice if we could establish some way of tracking changes. Like maybe when ever someone makes a major change of any kind we could announce it here? I don't know, I'll think about that some more.

We really need a real Wiki. That's all there is to it. This is only meant to be a practice draft and a place holder until the real wiki arrives.

alright, I like the idea of having in place discussions in annoying colors so let's add some structure to that.

how about this?:
proposed alterations or additions in green
in place discussion around a statement in red
notes, comments, or requests concerning the expansion or deletion of something in blue

It would maybe be good to sign and date each of these. If we like all that, let's put a color coded key somewhere in the introduction section.

Yes.

However if we use the confusion on this thread as an example of what happens when you take an existing mathematical concept and change it to make it fit into poi theory.People naturally want to expand on their knowledge by doing when they search on the term and in this case, run into a description ( eg wiki ) that runs contrary to what they've just read there's bound to be questions...like what are you talking about ?

For instance, there's a natural assumption that the 1 in the unit circle would refer to the length of the poi...right ? Not half the length, which would make the whole unit circle concept applicable to isolations only. If that's the case, then it should be stated, or possibly renamed, the isolation unit circle.



I have no idea what you mean here. Where would the center of rotation be in this pattern ?

Oh wow, 46 seconds ago. I go for a walk and get back just as you reply...

The unit circle becomes the hand path as with the cateye.

It just leads to overlapping petals, really, but its an easier way of doing it than just guessing, its a mental reference point.

I very much agree with your point and I think "Isolation unit circles" is a great idea, but thats still semi-confusing if you take it to mean an isolation unit, because then its still 1 and not half... but its much less confusing than simply "Unit circle"

I'd never had any trouble with unit circles because I first discovered them within poi, but as you say, people with a mathematical mind or quite simply google enthusiasts will come across issues.

I'm thinking Isolation Circles might be nicer but given that 'unit circle' is already in use, isolation circles may come off as a different name and create even further confusion... so I don't know why I mentioned it. Lets say its 2:30am and I'm too stressed to sleep.

I'm good with that

Excellent. I totally side the idea of the unit circle being a visual aid. IMO there should be some sort of explanation of just how this concept applies to poi included in the "Theory of Everything", just for the sake of completeness. This isn't the first time somebody's compiled a document like this and every time somebody does, it's just that much better than the previous attempts

I sure liked Max's style and approach, but this document has "more" in it.

Cheers guys.

Dudes! Question on the unit circle discussion. Is this causing more confusion then it is worth? Would we be better off taking it out of the fundamental concepts and turning it into more of a side note deeper in the page? Someone has already removed it from that "condensed answer to all poi" section.
The main reason it is relevant for me is not because of it's actual shape or definition (smallest circle the poi can blah blah) but rather that grid Jon derived from it. But even that is not a rule but really more of a guideline on one way of thinking about the movements. hence it's position in Concepts, not Moves. Personally, I rarely use the actual "unit circle" in my patterns because to me full long arm looks better.

If we are going to continue terminology discussions of this sort can I request that we move them to external posts, link to them from here if relevant, and keep this thread more on the track of figuring out the overall management and structure of the Theory itself?


I agree with that. Will you write it? do you need someone to send you the log in info?


you talking about these?

Duvan's Poi Guidebook For Everyone: homeofpoi.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/621063/
and Richee's Poi(Reference guide book): homeofpoi.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/876426/

I don't always follow Richee's logic but Duvan's Poi Guidebook For Everyone has been one of my big inspirations in the work I've put into the Theory. I would like to see that work more directly added to this one.

Yes, it was causing confusion but it appears to be resolved by describing it as a visual aid. It's my assumption that AlienJon introduced the idea and (hopefully) he'll come here and clarify just what he means. I/we could be missing something.

As of right now, I'd like to see it in the isolation's subsection as the working description is rather counter-intuitive to what someone might picture when they try to apply the unit circle concept to general spinning.

I haven't seen the grid, nor read the theory.



That might be easy to miss, especially if someone is reading an "old" thread and needs a quick reference in order to continue following the discussion. It might be worth considering that were someone using this document to "translate" an old thread, they might only read the one or two sentences related to the topic at hand.



By all means.



I'm not the best person for the job, unfortunately, I better read Jon's theory first.



Yep. I really liked Duvan's effort, but this looks "more complete" Richee's, OTOH, if found difficult to use. Say I were reading a thread, and needed a definition of a move or concept, I found it distracting to say the least to click on what I figured would be a definition only to be deposited into another discussion that may, or may not contain the info I'm looking for.

Stout... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOlCZMFIBMI

Cheers MNS

I don't know about putting it under isolations. As I understand it, an isolation defines the unit circle but the concept has applications beyond just that. Can we leave it as it is under concepts for now until we get some real clarity on it?

I think the "The answer to all poi" section is causing confusion since it includes things which are repeated latter. What does everyone think of my dissolving it into the concepts.

I'll wait a few days for response.

Adapted from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars

Wikis do not have firm rules besides the general principles. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying content. Although it should be the aim, perfection is not required. Do not worry about making mistakes. We try to keep back up copies of all prior versions of the article.
- - Be bold: If you see something that can be improved, improve it!
- - Editing policy: Improve pages wherever you can, and do not worry about leaving them imperfect.
- - Ignore all rules: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

I am going to log in and change that one title from "The answer to all poi:_(as condensed as possible)" to "The Theory, as condensed as we got it so far"