View source for Zombo's Discourse on the Metaphysics of Pen Spinning

In 2010<ref>[https://upsb-v3.spin-archive.org/topic/24116 Archived UPSB V3 page of " Discourse on the metaphysics of Pen Spinning" by Zombo]</ref> [[Zombo]] released an article detailing his observations made to answer the question "What is Pen Spinning, exactly?". It attempts to tackle what the hobby is at the most fundamental level possible, analysing what it is and is not. It was originally titled '''Discourse on the Metaphysics of Pen Spinning'''.

As with many [[UPSB]] research articles it was hosted on the [[UPSB Wiki]], which has since shut down. The article can be retrieved via archives<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20181002011443/http://www.upsb.info/wiki/index.php?title=Discourse_on_the_metaphysics_of_pen_spinning Archived UPSB Wiki page on "Discourse on the Metaphysics of Pen Spinning"]</ref>, and the original text is provided here for completeness.
==Original Text==
===Discourse on the metaphysics of pen spinning: 3 guiding questions===
The following article will investigate in depth the nature of pen spinning, its essence and defining features and offer guiding questions which will help us better understand the future of pen spinning and its development. No answer will be provided to any of the questions asked, but suggestions will be offered. Examples will also be offered. 
====Definition====
The most basic definition of pen spinning is: "the artistic manipulation of a pen in an aesthetically pleasing fashion." This is a definition which is simple enough that it can be understood intuitively yet it is varied enough to cover most of pen spinning. Let us first cover the semantic aspects that this definition does not cover, for these are fairly trivial. Pen is used singularly, but it is implied that multiple pens can be spun. Aesthetically pleasing is also debatable because it is a subjective attribute. If you look at a combo and think it's ugly, surely you will not argue that it is not pen spinning, which is what this definition would imply (you would simply say it's a bad combo). The intent of "aesthetically pleasing" is that the person making the pen spinning combo is striving to be aesthetically pleasing, even if in reality the execution might prove faulty. However, even then we might get situations where a person is spinning a pen intentionally to make it look ugly. In such a case, it still trumps our definition of pen spinning even if the tricks used are recognized as "pen spinning tricks." Therefore the real meaning of "aesthetically pleasing" is any spinning where the person cares about the aesthetics of his/her manipulation. This does leave us a final exception to consider, where a person unintentionally manipulates a pen in an aesthetically pleasing way. What this means is not that the person is subconsciously spinning his/her pen, it means the person is manipulating his/her pen, presumably for some other purpose (maybe writing), and it happens to be aesthetically pleasing (but that was not his/her intention). This definition would not call that pen spinning, although it might be. However, this case is rare and will not be considered. 
===Guiding questions===
In this sense, we can break down the definition into three aspects: "manipulation," "pen," and "aesthetics." These provide us with the guiding questions we seek. 
===="What is a pen?"====
This is probably the most discussed question of the three, so we will not spend much time on this. Our first question consider what kind of objects can be manipulated while still be considered pen spinning. So far, there is only one established convention: pencil spinning is also considered pen spinning. Beyond that, there are no consensus answers. Are pens limited only to what you can buy? Are modified pens acceptable? What about mods that do not use a pen as base? Is there a limit on pen weight and length?

As you can see, the reason we don't differentiate pencil spinning and pen spinning, although it would technically correct to do so, is because it simplifies our language. We don't have to write "pen or pencil spinning" everywhere, we treat the specific term "pen" to cover pens and pencils. Now the question is whether or not this pen designation should cover mods, rods, batons, sticks too. If spinners of long and heavy mods would consider themselves rod spinners instead of pen spinners, there would be less contention on the issue. But it seems that they still consider themselves pen spinners because they do that generalization which is accepted for pencils.

Likewise, markers are also commonly accepted for pen spinning at the same level as pencils. 
===="What is manipulation?"====
The second question covers what is considered manipulation in pen spinning. One observable trend is that we have a well established repertoire of known tricks; when someone introduces a concept radically different from that repertoire, it is rejected as "not pen spinning." This is because they don't believe that kind of manipulation to be a "valid" manipulation for pen spinning. We must then ask "what sort of manipulations are acceptable in pen spinning?" Do we take the literal meaning of manipulation, which is simply the handling of the pen in any fashion? Or are there any additional restriction? Is it simply a question of experience, where new manipulations can be added to the repertoire only if they are similar or derived from current established knowledge?

Please note that we cannot define manipulation for pen spinning in terms of aestheticism. This is because aestheticism is actually part of the general definition of pen spinning itself. Aestheticism is an aspect in itself which will be covered next.

Let's consider a concrete example: toss juggling. Essentially, juggling pens is a form of manipulation because we are using our hands to do something with the pens. In toss juggling, what matters is not really how the pens themselves are tossed, but the fact that they form certain aerial patterns. Can we therefore say that juggling pens is a pen spinning manipulation form, or is it simply "juggling with pens," or are both definitions equivalent? What if additional restrictions are added so that the way the tosses are made now matters. For instance, consider a [[Multipen|3P2H]] combo with a lot of aerial tricks, which has the property that at least one pen is always in the air (not in contact with any hands). Does this now become accepted as pen spinning? What makes this different from just any juggling of pens? One might say it is because it contains regular pen spinning tricks, but then, why shouldn't regular juggling tosses with the whole hand not be part of the pen spinning repertoire?

Essentially there is a blurry line between what counts as "another manipulation using pens" and "pen spinning tricks borrowed from other arts." A purist definition might be that any manipulation that can only be done with pens is real pen spinning. The most generic definition would be that any kind of manipulation, regardless of its source, can be considered pen spinning.

Also, most of the manipulations we have now involve manipulating the entire pen. But a pen is made of parts. So why not manipulate parts of the pens? [[tohlz]] used to do "opening/closing" combos, where he would uncap a pen, hold the cap while spinning the pen and then cap it back. Are these kind of manipulations acceptable in pen spinning? To complicated this matter further is that the manipulative force can matter. In the common situation, the manipulation is done by the hands. In recent years, arms and legs manipulations have become more popular so they could be considered common knowledge. Therefore, should this be extended to cover any part of the body? What about the environment? Can the pen be manipulated by wall, table or other objects and be considered pen spinning? I attach a pen with strings, and I indirectly manipulate the pen with my hands through the strings. Is that pen spinning? Now replace my hands with a system of levers and pulleys which I control. Is that still pen spinning? I make a whole combo where the pen is manipulated by other pens, but never directly touch my hands. Is that pen spinning? What's the difference between that and "devil sticking with pens?"

Perhaps the most conservative definition when it comes to this dimension is whether or not actual pen spinning tricks are executed, regardless of what manipulative force is behind the execution. However, the incentive for using external forces (such as walls, table) is because they can allow us to make tricks that are otherwise not possible with just hands. Should those still be considered? If partially, what makes some acceptable, others not? 
===="What is aesthetic?"====
The final aspect is what it means to be aesthetic. Like I mentioned before, this aspect could be overshadowed by the nature of manipulations in pen spinning. However, if we want to analyze aesthetics separately, we should make a definition of aesthetic which is compatible with any definition of manipulation and that means the most general one where any manipulation is possible.

We can easily see why aesthetics is an important part of pen spinning. There are ways to manipulate a pen that has nothing beautiful to it whatsoever. For instance, writing requires manipulation of the pen, but obviously it is not done for an aesthetic purpose. Writing is therefore not pen spinning. But what about calligraphy? It is the art of writing beautifully. It is a manipulation that produces something aesthetic. Shouldn't that then considered pen spinning? This is probably easy to refute because the aestheticism comes from the words and characters produced by manipulation, but not the manipulation itself. Therefore it is the words and characters that are aesthetic, not the manipulation. Similarly, you can refute a person writing a poem.

There is however another aspect to calligraphy: the strokes. Yes, not only is the final product on paper important, but the way it is drawn is also important. The strokes must be fluid and aesthetically pleasing, which sounds an awful lot like pen spinning. In fact, any calligraphy movement can be considered spinless pen tricks with hand and arm motion. So why not consider it part of pen spinning?

Let's think about it the other way as well, pen spinning is about the beauty of the motions of the pen. But can we supplement that beauty with other forms of aestheticism? I think actually this has already started to seep in the pen spinning repertoire, where not only does the pen must make beautiful movements, but the hand spinning it also. We are starting to see fingers twisting and motions that are not related to spinning the pen being executed in order to enhance the beauty of the combo. We are even starting to see situations where the opposite, non-spinning hand, is doing a gesture while spinning. In those situations, it is not just about the pen anymore, but also the beauty of the hand. So then, if beauty does not necessarily come from the motion of the pen, can we supplement pen spinning with calligraphy? If we write beautiful characters while spinning a pen, does the beauty of the written text supplement the beauty of our pen and the whole be considered pen spinning?

What other manipulations are we doing with pens beside spinning and writing? It is also something pen spinners have invented: pen modding. That's also a form of pen manipulation, but it is not aesthetically pleasing. If pen modding itself could become beautiful to watch, could it also be considered pen spinning?

We must also not forget that there is a tactile dimension to pen spinning. The person doing the combo receives a sensation which s/he may consider as the reason why they like doing pen spinning. However, this tactile perception is not transferable to people watching the combo. We are focusing here on aesthetics that can be perceived by others using our current technology.

Finally, we must refer back to the earlier argument that said writing is not pen spinning because the beauty comes in the written text, which is only a product of manipulating the pen. In that sense, we think that the aesthetics should come directly from the pen. Well how about pen tapping then? It is the idea of making a musical beat with pens. The music comes directly from the manipulation, and it is aesthetically pleasing. Can that be considered pen spinning? Or is it strictly related to visual beauty? Or could it be supplementing visual beauty? A related topic, which is much more "standard," is creating aestheticism by synchronizing the motion of the pen with existing music. That is already pretty much established as within the limits of pen spinning, although it has received only limited success so far. 
===Conclusion===
As you can see, discussions on the very nature of pen spinning can get very far-fetched very fast. But it is when we question the very nature of our art that we can produce some of the most creative ideas. By constantly trying to stretch the definition and the limits of pen spinning, we can discover new ideas. The most important however is the ability to integrate those ideas in our current system. Marginal ideas that cannot be reconciled with the current repertoire won't become popular unless they develop into their own discipline. I believe that there is much to learn within our current established boundaries from a creative point of view, but thinking "outside the box" can lead to spectacular results if they are well implemented. It truly shows the limitless possibilities of pen spinning.
==See also==
*[[Pen Spinning Theory]]
*[[Zombo]] 
==References==
<references />
[[Category:Theory]]