Firewooding philosophy question -

[woodbooga]

This is based on a bit of local lore - the parable of the same ax twice...



An old hilltop Yankee - probably near or about 80 - is splitting kindling in his dooryard one afternoon when he is approached by a traveler is in need of directions.

After telling the traveler that "you cahn't get thay-ya frahm he-yah," the old Yankee does give directions based on well-known (to him) local landmarks (e.g., over to the ol' Paige fahm - aboaut 2 rods thencefore, yah'll come to a four conners...")

The traveler expresses his thanks, and compliments the gray haired denizen of the foothills on the large pile of kindling he'd made from what came from his cedarswamp.

To this, the oldtimer gets a look in his eye that's a combination 1,000-yard stare and a look of almost tender endearment.

"Now this he-yah is one fine splittin' axe. Used it ahll muh loife since in my growin up years."

He runs his thumb along the edge of the ax and recalls, "Ah-yuh. Donn hadda replace the handle more than a couple three fou-ah times. And the axhead also too back to 1971. Dahn fine axe this is he-yah."

At this time, the traveler bade his farewell and set about his way. As he passed the old Paige farm and approached the aforementioned 4 corners, he wondered, "With both the handle and the axhead having been replaced over the decades, is it the same ax, or a different ax."

After failing to find several of the local landmarks, the traveler had some difficulty unencrypting the old timer's directions. He eventually arrived at his destination - but had yet to satisfactorily resolve in his mind the parable of the same ax twice.

______________________

What do you all think? opcorn:

 

[mga]

not the same as the original.

 

[Dave]

I've got stuff like that, as long as you've had your hands on any part of it, it's original. What the Yankee didn't tell is that the axe was originally his great grandfather's and every generation had done the same repairs to it.

 

[Laird]

This is based on a bit of local lore - the parable of the same ax twice...


"With both the handle and the axhead having been replaced over the decades, is it the same ax, or a different ax."



______________________

What do you all think? opcorn:

Yes

 

[wood4heat]

The head is what makes it an axe, when he replaced it he put an old handle in a new axe.

 

[woodbooga]

not the same as the original.

One of my favorite ways to spend an afternoon is helping the FIL on his many Model-A's.

The one we worked on most recently a '29 Model A on its 3rd engine, has had countless hoses, mounts, and brackets replaced, has replacement running boards, etc etc.

Is this still a '29 Model A?

 

[danieltree]

The axe probably sat in the same place all those years. So when he goes to the shed to get THE AXE its the one in that spot . Old handle new head new handle old head I think they stay linked as being the same tool .​

 

[Dave]

The head is what makes it an axe, when he replaced it he put an old handle in a new axe.

Around here, we call an axe without a handle a wedge.

 

[wood4heat]

Around here, we call an axe without a handle a wedge.

My thought was that you can put any number of different heads on the handle and have a sledge, pick, etc.. No matter what handle you put in the head you're gonna have an axe. The head IS the axe.

 

[woodbooga]

The head IS the axe.

What is the purpose of the ax?

 

[wood4heat]

What is the purpose of the ax?

To split wood.

Is it ax or axe?

 

[jburlingham]

One of my favorite ways to spend an afternoon is helping the FIL on his many Model-A's.

The one we worked on most recently a '29 Model A on its 3rd engine, has had countless hoses, mounts, and brackets replaced, has replacement running boards, etc etc.

Is this still a '29 Model A?

I would say the joy the model A (or axe in the first post) is what makes it what it is. You wouldn't put the time effort or parts into either if the item didn't bring you joy in the first place, therefor as long as he still feels the same about the axe, then it is infact the same......... at least in my warped head.

 

[wood4heat]

I think as long as everything replaced on the '29 model A was appropriate to a '29 model A then it is still a '29 model A. But it's not original.

 

[danieltree]

when did it stop being original, 10 percent new parts, 51 percent, 99 percent.​

 

[mga]

One of my favorite ways to spend an afternoon is helping the FIL on his many Model-A's.

The one we worked on most recently a '29 Model A on its 3rd engine, has had countless hoses, mounts, and brackets replaced, has replacement running boards, etc etc.

Is this still a '29 Model A?

lol..see, the thing is, it's still called a '29 model A. altho it's not the original '29 model A.

likewise, it's still called an axe, but it's not the original axe he began with.

 

[woodbooga]

To split wood.

Is it ax or axe?

Yes. It is a tool with a specific purpose. But that purpose can only be realized if the ax is put to use. In realizing its usefulness, the ax experiences wear and tear. The repair and maintainence of that tool becomes a part of its ongoing continuity. The essence of that tool lives on in the hands and heart of the old timer who uses it.

Conversely, lets say the old yankee has a next door neighbor that's a yuppie who's decided to rustically decorate his den. There's a similar ax mounted on his wall. The antiques dealer the yuppie bought it off from has a complete provenence of the tool - that it was all original and sat in a widow's barn for the past 50 years after having been used maybe once.

Which ax more closely carries forward the fire of its original spirit? The repaired ax in continued use? Or the yuppie den decoration?

PS - my dictionary says both ax and axe are correct. Like potato/potatoe.

Thanks for axing the question.

 

[wood4heat]

when did it stop being original, 10 percent new parts, 51 percent, 99 percent.​

I guess that would be up to each persons particular taste. A collector might say it was when he started replacing parts with serial #'s. For me it would be when he replaced it's heart, the motor.

 

[woodbooga]

lol..see, the thing is, it's still called a '29 model A. altho it's not the original '29 model A.

likewise, it's still called an axe, but it's not the original axe he began with.

Originality seems to be where the discussion is focused.

There are multiple ways of understanding originality.

For example, in the appendix of a book on US history I own is the text of the Constitution.

Now if I were to rip out those pages and bring 'em to Sothebys to auction off, they'd laugh at me and tell me to go back to the hills.

However - the text contains the same words and are emblematic of the same ideas of those that were scratched on parchment 200+ years ago.

So here's the question - if I get into a constitutional debate with the curator of manuscripts at the national archives...he quoting from the original copy from Philadelphia and me from my reprint...are my arguments automatically less valid because I am not using the original?

 

[wood4heat]

Wow bugga that was deep! Gotta find my snorkel before I can reply to that.

My feeling is that when he had to replace the head the axe was worn out. The head could still carry sentimental value and maybe find a place to hang on the wall of the barn but it could not be replaced. It's value comes from it's history and doesn't have to be lost just because it no longer serves it's original purpose.

As for the yuppies axe it completely carries it's original spirit, all it ever did was sit.

I still feel when he replaced it he had a new axe.

 

[mga]

So here's the question - if I get into a constitutional debate with the curator of manuscripts at the national archives...he quoting from the original copy from Philadelphia and me from my reprint...are my arguments automatically less valid because I am not using the original?

so long as both are of the exact same language and written with the same words, it matters not. however, you're using a copy of the original. in other words, for your example above, it matters not if yours was printed in 2009, as long as the wording is exactly as the original. your debate could only be on interpretation of the constitution, not on who's is more original, since the curator would be in posession of the original document.

so, with the axe in question, could the old man actually say truthfully it was the exact same axe he started with many years ago? not really. since both the axe head and the handle has been replaced, the original axe is now long gone. like you, he now has a copy of the original axe.