ANST - The infinite peer theory

[Paul Mitchell]

Galen here...

Lionardo, I'm still in this conversation because I don't get
the sense that you understand what I'm trying to say.  I'm
not content to "agree to disagree" if I don't feel that my
point of view is getting across.

>This is one item I do wish to correct in the focus of my arguments. I am NOT
>supporting any particular proposal in these arguments, I think we are a bit
>early for looking into that. 

Unfortunately, Sir Jon's proposal is exactly what we are
presented.  We are debating, specifically, adding several
areas of expertise to those which, when mastery is combined 
with the "qualities of a peer" would qualify for elevation
to an order of peerage in the SCA.  Sir Jon's proposal
specifically included scouting, seige weapons (use, not
construction), equestrian, archery, and rapier combat.
This proposal was posted in detail to this list, and Baron
Kazimir was referring to the debate on this proposal when
he started this thread yesterday.  The proposal is based
on the belief that _each_ of the things I've just listed
is fully as important to the SCA as are A&S, service or heavy 
weapons combat.  I don't think any of those things are as
integral to the SCA as are A&S, service, or heavy weapons
combat.

>Instead I am only discussing recognition for
>people who in all other ways fit the definition of a Peer, but whose main
>activity is not one currently recognized by the current Peerage structure
>(with rare exception). As such I do not feel qualified to address, at this
>time, the specifics of any other proposal for answering that need, only to
>argue if there is a need to begin with.

Which creates the necessity for me to ask:  What activity
do you want to count as being equal to those which already
get peerage recognition?

>Perhaps not as strong in this Kingdom (although it still exists in those who
>gain power and would prefer to insist on reminding the members of the Order
>of the White Scarf that they are "only a Grant-level"). Other Kingdoms have
>not been so easily accepting. (Of course, that is their prerogative.)

Is it really their prerogative?  The proposal is for the Board
to create a peerage for _all_ the kingdoms (not optional) to
recognize these endeavors.

>Sir Galen later wrote:
>> The "stated purpose of the SCA" is a flawed attempt to describe
>> what we do for tax purposes.  Sure it plays down the combat and
>> emphasizes school demos.  I don't consider myself or the SCA to
>> be bound by this description.
>
>I believe that is a misconception of the requirements of tax law. 

No, it's not.  It's a disparagement of the notion that the SCA
should conform to a legalistic definition, which was never that
accurate a description of what we are.

<snip>

>My argument is not actually that anyone should pursue an activity so that
>they can become a Peer, but that those who are achieving excellence in the
>SCA and in their pursuit, and who in all other ways show the aspects and
>abilities of a Peer, should be recognized as a Peer, by whatever means.

Again we come back to the question, which activities?

>You are right, that is NOT what I really wanted to say. Of COURSE those
>activities are productive to the SCA, but I was only hoping to point out
>that I could not see how these other activities were counter-productive, or,
>indeed, were not just AS productive to the current SCA as those areas
>currently recognized. 

I never suggested they were counter-productive.  My point
is that, without the activities mentioned in Sir Jon's
proposal, we still have an SCA.  Without heavy weapons,
or A&S, or service, it's not the SCA anymore.

>> Without service, no one holds office, or puts together
>> events.  Without arts, no one has a costume or armor
>> or entertainment.  And without tournament combat, it's
>> just not the SCA.  These are the things that are universal
>> and essential to the SCA, everywhere.  Take away any of
>> these, and you don't have the SCA anymore.  All of the
>> things mentioned in the "4th Peerage" proposal are fun
>> and worthwhile, but we still have the SCA if those things
>> don't exist.  I submit that peerage is to recognize excellence
>> in the _essential_ activities of the SCA.
>
>I could suggest to you that bobbin-lace is NOT essential to the SCA. Neither
>is embroidery, or illumination, or spear combat. Yet these things DO enhance
>and improve the SCA. The inclusion of these things as a PART of the
>recognition for a Peer has not been detrimental in any way that I can tell

Right.  So what do you want to change?  You abandoned Sir Jon's
proposal.  What are you arguing in _favor_ of?

<snip>
<Give a
>Peerage merely for skill in scouting? Of course not, but we expect the
<snip>

If you can say "of course not" to one of the activities in
Sir Jon's proposal, why can't I say "of course not" to the rest?
Because a peerage for scouting is _precisely_ what's proposed.

>Indeed, and we may have to agree to disagree on this point. I can certainly
>see where what I have said may be construed as insulting and as such I offer
>apology for my zealousness. In no way have I meant offence and I am only
>hoping to further our understandings on both sides of the issue, as all of
>the arguments I have seen so far have been enlightening. Please accept that
>any words above that may seem offensive were not meant in that manner and it
>is only my excitement at discussing such well reasoned responses that drives
>me to write, perhaps, in too much haste.

Accepted.  Ditto.

>Honos Servio,
>Lionardo Acquistapace, Bjornsborg, Ansteorra

- Galen of Bristol

_____________________________________________________
John 20:21-23

============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.