In art, I use words as I please, to mean whatever I like,
and I’ll invent a word if I feel it necessary. But in science I prefer to be
precise, clear and consistent. I strive never to use one word to describe two
different things, or two different words to describe the same thing. When using
a common word in a specific way as a “term of art,” it never hurts to define
your terms. So I shall.
The use of the word “man,” as in swordsman and horseman, is
currently unfashionable. In the interest
of inclusiveness and equality in diversity, various alternatives have been
proposed. I thought I should explain why I would employ such a “politically
incorrect” term as “swordsman,” so as not to give offense when I do.
The word “man” has it’s origin in the root of the
Sanskrit “manas,” the Indian word for
“mind” or the “eternal thinker. “Man” is not synonymous with “male,” but rather with “human being.”
When writers mention “man’s inhumanity to man” they don’t mean “Males’
inhumanity to males,” implying that the females of the species are neither
guilty of inhumanity nor targets of it, , but rather “human beings’ inhumanity toward human
beings.” If a plague wipes out all “mankind,” both males and females of the
species will vanish. When the Oracle at
Delphi admonished, “Man, know thyself” the admonition was not only to those
human beings who happened to have a penis. Really, it seems to me either quite
“dumbed down” or smarmily disingenuous to equate “man” with “male.” I think it’s much more about grinding a
political axe than it is about semantic clarity, but then, I’m suspicious by
nature.
Let me be clear on this point: I am aware of the ill effects of patriarchy on both men and woman, and I abhor them. I have always believed in the complete social, economic and political equality of the sexes. I taught sabre to women long before the Powers That Shouldn't Be finally "allowed" women to fence with the sabre.
I use “sword” + “manas”/man, meaning “mind,” to say that the
swordsman is a human being whose consciousness is integrated with the use of
the sword and is thereby altered. Horse
+ “manas”/man, or “horseman,” denotes a human being whose consciousness is
integrated with that of the horse and is thereby altered. You could say that
the “horseman” is one who is so intimately connected to the horse, that they
are now part horse and part human. Likewise, the swordsman may never again be
“whole” without the sword.
Some people have suggested using “person” instead of “man,”
as in chairperson, or waitperson. “Person” comes from the Latin word “persona,”
which was the mask an actor wore. So the
“chairperson” is someone who puts on the
“chair” mask to run a meeting; a waitperson is someone who puts on the
mask of waiting, usually between auditions. “Person” seems to me superficial
and, temporary, and not at all the sense I want to give you in describing the
martial artist having a peak experience via the practice of the sword.
Instead of bowman we could say “archer,” instead of swordsman
we could say “fencer,” instead of horseman we could say “rider,” but these
things all merely describe what someone does, not what someone is. That is,
they describe physical activities, not altered states of consciousness. Fencing is external to the individual; swordsmanship is internal. Riding is external; horsemanship is internal.
Maybe we need a new word.
If someone invents a better one,
one that makes sense, one that has the right denotation and connotation, and
rolls trippingly off the tongue, I’ll happily adopt it. Meanwhile, I will use “man” as term of art
with the specific denotation and connotation herein described.
No offense intended.
-aac
