Dec 21 2011 11:12 pm
Here I do not mean that a two handed rod provides a mechanical advantage while fighting a steelhead. Of course it obviously provides said advantage, but this is beside the point.
We are here concerned with the metaphysical mechanical advantages. The concept of the rod itself and its action “on” the water and “on” the fish and “on” the angler are still as yet unpacked. It is still a concept unanalyzed. Surely it has been treated by its practitioners in some cursory way, but the actual practitioners of a craft have no monopoly on its analysis. In fact, it is widely known that said practitioners do not possess the sufficient critical distance from the craft to involve themselves in its analysis.
TO WIT: I SWEAR TO YOU NOW THAT I HAVE ONLY EVER USED A TWO HANDED ROD WHEN I WAS ABSOLUTELY FORCED TO DO SO AND EVEN THEN REGRETTED IT. ALSO, I DO NOT OWN A STICH OF PATAGONIA. AND I'VE NEVER FISHED AN INTRUDER. I DON'T EVEN LIKE BEER!
But what is it that we take conceptual analysis to be and how should we proceed in the analysis of our particular concept?
We shall take each concept and break it down with the knife of our mind into its component concepts and break those down into their component concepts until we arrive at a set of concepts atomic: a collection of indissoluble ideas over which we can gaze and proclaim something profound about their properties and perhaps about their relation to one another from which we can hopefully garner some insight and thus further expand our knowledge of the complex concept from which they were originally cleaved.
We shall lay the river bare and expose its fishes.
But from whence the atomic concepts? An anchor placed is an anchor placed and a swing is a swing is a swing. How do I justify my belief in a mend? How do I justify my belief in swimming big flies across the slow currents of the lower river?