ANST - The infinite peer theory

[Paul Mitchell]

Zarlor wrote:
Galen again...

> On Fri, 15 Oct 1999 17:17:44 -0500,Sir Galen wrote:
> 
> >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.
> 
> In that I think I must agree from here as well, because I also sense
> we are arguing at cross-points. So hopefully we can find the common
> ground. :)

OK, so we're both frustrated.  I hope the rest of the list
isn't too bored with this dialog.
 
> Here's the rub for me. Yes, Kazimir was referring to the arguments
> from a list generated to discuss that proposal, but he presented the
> other arguments as well as other possible "solutions'". I've been
> trying to argue the premise, the basis of the need for some "solution"
> to begin with. Before any solutions can be considered, I feel the
> problem has to be defined.

Fair enough.  So how do you define the problem?

> >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.
> 
> To a certain extent, I disagree. Any specific art or weapons form or
> specific service in and of itself would not, in my opinion, cease to
> allow the SCA to be what it is. I do think the SCA is richer for that
> diversity, however. Any of the activities mentioned is just adding to
> that diversity. For example, ask any Laurel in this Kingdom what they
> got their Laurel "for" and they'll all be more than happy to tell you
> it was not for one specific thing. Same could be said of Pelicans, no
> specific act of service. Knights could be considered a bit more
> exclusive in this respect (and in some Kingdoms it would appear,
> according to some on that other mailing list, that they are in
> limiting to those with prowess only on the tournament field, not in
> war). However in this Kingdom a diversity still appears to be looked
> for and prowess at war is considered prowess none the less.

I'm just gonna come right out and say it:  I don't understand
the point of the above paragraph.  It's certainly true to say
that no specific service, nor specific weapon, nor specific work
of art will get you a peerage.  So what?  No one suggests that
peerages should be granted for a narrow set of skills; except
Sir Jon's proposal, which would grant peerages for any of a list
of skills including the scouting of which you said "of course not".

> >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?
> 
> Any of them. 

Any of which?  You said you weren't addressing any specific
proposal.  _Any_?  In Sir Jon's proposal, scouting is proposed
as an area of activity suitable for earning a peerage.  But
you earlier said "of course not" about this one.  So I have
to conclude, not just "any".  

Right now, you can get a peerage in the SCA if you:
a.  Demonstrate the elusive "qualities of a peer"
b.  Demonstrate sufficient expertise/achievement in either:
    i. service
   ii. a&s
  iii. armored combat

>I could list Unarmored Combat as an example of one I am
> familiar with and that many in this Kingdom would be aware of. I think
> we can all agree that Peerage should not be giving for prowess in that
> alone, just as we expect that Knighthood is not given for prowess in
> armored combat alone.

Knighthood is given for a. plus b.iii. above.  Are you advocating we add
(iv. rapier combat) to the list I've just made?  For a Society-wide
peerage
order?

> >Is it really their prerogative? (to not me acceptiging of these other activities -LA) The proposal is for the Board
> >to create a peerage for _all_ the kingdoms (not optional) to
> >recognize these endeavors.
> 
> Ah, but it is optional for the Kingdom to never elevate anyone into
> that Order. Just as now the Knights do not have to recognize anyone
> into their Order that they (and,of course, primarily, the King) do not
> wish to add for WHATEVER reason. Inclusion in an Order is NOT
> mandatory. By not adding an unarmored combatant to the ranks of the
> Peerage a Kingdom may then show their vote against such activity.

Yes, and some kingdoms treat Mastery of Arms that way now.  But when
one moves in, they have to accept them.  I could no more ask Calontir 
to accept a knight in rapier combat moving in from Ansteorra than I
would 
be willing to accept a knight for scouting moving in from the East.

> Yet I would argue that the SCA DOES conform to that legalistic
> definition. Members of the SCA learn about pre-17th century history,
> ergo we have fulfilled the definition. And I strongly believe that
> there is no loftier goal for us to uphold than to be students and
> teachers to each other. For me THAT is what the SCA IS. Our
> differences may very well come from that basic assumption on how we
> view this organization.

Possibly.  Is your view one that holds the primary focus of 
the SCA to be academic in nature?  Because to me, the primary
focus of the SCA is idealistic in nature.  I know of no other
group of people anywhere in which being called "dishonorable"
is taken seriously.  Among us, it is.

> >Again we come back to the question, which activities?
> 
> As I mentioned above, ANY activities. I really could care less about
> Sir Jon's proposal for our purposes here, I am really interested
> instead in defining the need to begin with for which his proposal is
> only one possible solution. As such I refuse to be limited to his
> definitions of those activities.

Fine.  But SCA peerage is given for peerage qualities plus
expertise in "something".  Are you saying that the list of 
"somethings" in which one can demonstrate expertise + peerage 
qualities and be rewarded with a peerage is too short?
 
> >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.
> 
> I realize you never meant to imply they were counter-productive, but
> A&S or Service are VERY broad categories and encompass a great deal of
> ground. Eating into any particular activity of those does not, in and
> of itself, make the SCA not the SCA, to my way of thinking. Nor if we
> were to remove a particular form of armored combat, either. 

You're missing my point entirely here.  My point is that peerages are
given for the essentials.  If there is _no_ service, then you don't
have an SCA anymore.  If no one practices A&S at all, then you might
have some sort of odd stick-fighting club, but it wouldn't be the SCA.
And if there's _no_ heavy-weapons combat, again, it would something
else very different from the SCA.  If an entire field of endeavor
for which we now give peerages were to cease to be practiced, the SCA
would no longer exist.

But without war, or without equestrian activities, or without archery
or rapier, we would still have the SCA.  It wouldn't be quite as
neat, nor as much fun for as many people, but it would still be the
SCA.

> I simply
> think that the current Orders have excluded individuals, not out of
> malice, but out of the feeling that "they don't do what I do."
> Something like "Of COURSE that person is a Peer!, but they don't do
> quite what my Order is set up to recognize so maybe that other Order
> will take them in instead." 

So you're say here (correct me if I'm wrong), that someone who
exhibits the quality of a peer, but who neither fights like a
knight, does A&S like a laurel, nor service like a pelican, should
still be able to get a peerage?

For what activity -- specifically -- should such a person be able
to get a peerage?  Or is "bearing of a peer" sufficient in your
opinion to merit peerage itself?  (If so, you should realize that
you're arguing for at least half the kingdom to get peerages.  There
are many, many people who have the bearing of peers but who have
not the achievement in a peerage discipline.  When we're all peers,
what's the value of peerage then?)

> None of those activities at their core
> prevent the SCA from being what it is, 

Of course other activities don't detract from the SCA; assuredly,
they enhance the SCA.  I skipped the tourney in Raven's Fort
to watch equestrian.  I have sponsored archery tournies because
I enjoy archery.  The SCA is better because it has people doing
these things.  But these things are not _essential_ to the SCA,
and peerage is given for _essentials_.  In my opinion.

> nor do I think the other
> activites we do recognize would prevent the SCA form being what it is
> if we removed some small piece of them. 

That's true, but irrelevant.  A&S is much more than just bobbin
lace.  We could get by without that, or without florentine, and
still have the SCA.  But since you're not refuting my point,
this is a non sequitur.

>As a whole they greatly
> enhance the SCA, though, if you ask me. They are just forms that get
> passed along as somehow not fitting into the current definitions,
> otherwise I think they WOULD be recognized.

Since you're not addressing any particular proposal, I have to ask,
_WHAT_ "are just forms that get passed along as somehow not fitting 
into the current definitions"?

<snip>
> >Right.  So what do you want to change?  You abandoned Sir Jon's
> >proposal.  What are you arguing in _favor_ of?
> 
> I am arguing that all other things being equal (<snip>) if an
> individual is in all other respects a Peer, but do not participate
> directly in the activities the current Orders are set-up to recognize,
> then why should they not be allowed to receive the recognition? 

Lionardo, I'm sorry to have to be the one to point this out, but
you have completely dodged my question here, answering it with
another question.  Have you considered running for office?

>I know
> of individuals who know a great deal about their chosen time and
> place, know and teach several arts & sciences, are well researched,
> well rounded, of noble bearing and demeanor, know chess and other
> period games quite well, can dance, play music, are very knowledgeable
> in the field of heraldry and participate in many activities in the SCA
> as well as provide service in many areas, on and off the list field.
> Individuals who have been recognized, more than likely, by their own
> peers, but who will not be recognized as a Peer of the Realm, because
> they fight unarmored combat, or are archers, or whatever.

Yes, so do I.  You've just described several of my best friends.

> I think it would be great to say to these people that their
> contribution to the SCA is, indeed, invaluable and that they should be
> recognized with what the SCA has chosen to be it's highest honor, the
> Peerage.

OK, if I'm still reading this in proper context, you are saying that
someone who exhibits all the qualities of peerage except excellence/
achievement in heavy weapons combat, or a&s or service, in fact _should_
be able to get a peerage?  Or is it important that they be an archer,
equestrian, or fencer in some way (but not a scout, per your prior
post)?
Sorry, but I'm still not clear on this point.

Are you saying someone who has the bearing, conduct and character of a 
peer should be made some sort of peer, even without displaying expertise
in any specific field?  Or are you saying that you want to see peers who
have these things, but also hit the archery target a certain percentage
of the time?

If the former, I say you would be greatly diminishing the importance of
the existing peerages, diluting them to the point of irrelevance.
If the latter, I disagree because archery is not indispensible to
the SCA; in my opinion, peerages should only be given for the
essentials.

> Now that is what I am arguing FOR. Now many others may not see this as
> a need to fulfill, and that's fine. I only ask that it be considered.
> If the SCA really does not want to see these individuals recognized in
> the same way as Peers are recognized, then that is how it is decided.
> I don't think it hurts to ask them mebers to find out, though. :)

I agree there's no harm in discussion.  I've found it most interesting
it's served to clarify my thoughts on the topic immensely.

> ><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.
> 
> Actually my suggestion is recognition for any activity not recognized,
> but only if it contributes and they are well-rounded enough of an
> individual to otherwise be considered a Peer. If I were the only
> person who would consider that some friend or acquaintance of mine
> should be recognized, then I wouldn't have a leg to stand on in the
> argument. But apparently there are quite a few people out there asking
> themselves the same question (although maybe not on this list, since
> I'm starting to feel a bit lonely with only a couple of us in support
> of this.;-)). As such I think it a worthy argument to look at. And so
> I argue the point because my honor states that it's the "right thing
> to do".

By all means, argue for what you think is right; don't count the
numbers;
I've seen "12 Angry Men".  But what do you mean by "only if it
contributes"?  
Are we limiting this idea to combat-related activities that aren't
recognized?  
What about non-combat related activities that "contribute".  How about
on-line criticism?  Should we give 'wolf a peerage in recognition of all
his time, effort and thought that's gone into so many debates on this
list?
He's argued (not without basis) that that's a contribution to the SCA. 
Is
it possible to do this to the level of peerage?  Would it really be
service, or maybe something else?

> So, no I don't expect to see someone who is "just a scout" or "just a
> rapier fighter" or "just a hot tourney winner" or "just an autocrat"
> or "just an embroiderer" be given a Peerage.  I would like to see the
> well rounded versions of those individuals who contribute to our
> enjoyment of the SCA be recognized, though.

Again, I think this is a non sequitur.  I think this goes without
saying,
that we aren't talking about giving peerages to people who lack peerage
qualities.  It's a debate about which areas of expertise should be 
recognized with peerage.

> Thank you again for continuing this discussion with me. Hopefully we
> can both get a better idea of where the other is coming from. (And if
> this is just for the two of us to understand each other, maybe we
> should go private... anyone wants me to quit babbling, just go ahead
> and send me a message that says "Shut up!" :))

Well, I didn't get any.  Did you?

> Honos Servio,
> Lionardo Acquistapace

Finally, no one should be surprised that a 20-year SCA member with two
peerages would defend the status quo in this debate.  I've got a lot
invested in it.

- Galen of Bristol
============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.