ANST - The infinite peer theory

[Zarlor]

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. :)

>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.  

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.

>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.

>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. 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.

>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.

>>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.

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.

>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. 

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

>>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?

I am arguing that all other things being equal (even going so far as
to say that, esoterically, nobody in the SCA WANTS an award, they just
are here to learn and enjoy, for the sake of argument alone) 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? 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. 

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. 

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. :)

><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".

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.

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!" :))

Honos Servio,
Lionardo Acquistapace
============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.