Authenticity, philosophy, and advocacy (was Re: SC - questions)

[CBlackwill at aol.com]

In a message dated 6/15/00 9:35:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ddfr at best.com 
writes:

> >Because I choose not to accept that standard for myself.  However, I do not
>  >have the right to insist that others meet my standards.  There is nothing
>  >inconsistent with that.
>  
>  Sure it is. You are deciding to base your standards on something that 
>  according to you doesn't matter. 

That's wrong, and if you re-read the post, you will see why.  I am basing my 
standards on something that matters _to me_.  Other peoples standards do not 
matter _to me_, nor should mine to them.  This _is_ a point of philosophy...

> Suppose you had written:
>  
>  "The only thing that matters about a car is how many miles it gets to 
>  the gallon" and then went and bought a large gas guzzler. Wouldn't 
>  that be inconsistent?

Certainly that would be inconsistent.  However, it is not a good analogy when 
taken in the context of my post.

>  >  >  By
>  >  >  saying that you don't, you imply that you believe that something else
>  >  >  does matter--perhaps that it is worth making the SCA better, which
>  >  >  includes educating the people who would enjoy an out of period feast
>  >  >  so that they will enjoy a period feast instead.
>  >
>  >By saying that, I am merely implying that something else matters "to me".
>  
>  And you believe that your preferences are simply chosen at random, 
>  out of the air, with no reason?

On the contrary.  My preferences are personal preferences, arrived at by me, 
for my own well being, peace of mind, or enjoyment.  They have been gained 
through experience, in my own time, and in my own way.  Just as I have said 
before.

>  If you don't believe that, then 
>  presumably it matters to you for reasons, and those reasons can be 
>  offered to other people to explain why it should matter to them.

When you begin a discussion about why something "should" matter to someone 
else, you begin to step on very dangerous philosophical ground.  Allah loves 
wonderous variety!  Not everyone finds solace or comfort in the same things, 
or in the same way.  This runs the gamut from preference to colors, scents, 
textures, foods and, yes, even food preparation techniques and research.

>  
>  It appears to me that your underlying philosophical position here is 
>  a form of radical scepticism which neither you nor anyone else 
>  actually believes in--as demonstrated by what people do, not what 
>  they say.

In point of fact, my philosophical position is about as far from scepticism 
as can be had.  I "say" I leave people to decide on their own, and that is 
what I "do".  Again, as I have posted previously, if _asked_ for an opinion 
or assistance, I will offer it.  It is neither my right nor my place to 
impose my will or philosophy on others without first being asked.
 
>  >   I
>  >am saying that it is worth making the SCA better "for me".  There is no 
> world
>  >but that which I maketh myself...
>  
>  Do you mean that statement literally? Do you think that if you don't 
>  believe in the law of gravity, you can walk off a cliff and not fall, 
>  as per various cartoons?

Would that that were true...:)  But of course I do not mean that literally.  
What I mean is that no man can be shown the world around him and gain a true 
appreciation for it.  He has to experience it, and grow within it, himself, 
in his own time, and in his own way.

>  Or is there a real world that we all live 
>  in--in which acts have consequences, people can acquire some 
>  information about the consequences of acts, and they can then 
>  usefully transmit that information to other people?

Again, if this were a job or a prison, rather than a simple hobby, I would 
not have a quarrel with the phrase "acts have consequences".  However, to 
imply that there are dire "consequences" for failing to prepare a period 
feast, or even delve deeper into period cooking techniques, in a hobby in 
which you have paid to participate, sounds rather silly.  I, frankly, would 
have a hard time _not_ laughing in the face of someone who said that to me in 
person.


>  
>  >It is my sincere belief that those who
>  >will enjoy a period feast will come about it in their own time, and in 
> their
>  >own way.  The same holds true for garb, illumination, brewing, singing, 
etc
>  >ad nauseum...
>  
>  Independent of what anyone else does--in particular, independent of 
>  whether anyone puts on period feasts for them to enjoy, or tells them 
>  about period cooking, or feeds them period food so that they can find 
>  out it isn't horrible? Human beings don't affect each other?

Your Grace, the topic at hand was not whether we should offer period feasts 
to the populace, but rather; should we force (through intimidation and 
denigration) our views upon those who may not be willing or able to dedicate 
as much time and energy (and money) to the effort of research and redaction, 
etc..  However, all of the above factors and statements not withstanding, I 
believe that anyone who is interested, whether they have ever had a period 
feast or not, will find a way to gain the information on their own.  The fact 
that there are resources available is a boon, to be sure.  However, I firmly 
believe that it should only be offered with gentleness and tact, and then 
only when requested.  That is the crux of the matter, I believe.

>  >I do encourage others in that belief.  I do not, however, do so by 
> providing
>  >negativism and nay-saying.
>  
>  I think you have just jumped from defending what you wrote on moral 
>  and philosophical grounds--grounds you don't believe in

What basis, if I may ask, do you have for making that statement?  Are you 
referring to my dismissal of the Bible as a worthwhile document?  If so, I 
may point out that morality does not, by necessity, come out of a book.  But, 
that is a topic I do not think the List Administrator would like to have 
discussed in this forum...

- --to 
>  expressing an opinion about what style of argument is most likely to 
>  persuade people, or perhaps what style of persuasion is most 
>  courteous.
>  
>  After all, if the bits I quoted from you earlier are true, how can 
>  you, with a good conscience, encourage other people in a belief? 
>  Whatever you do, they will come to the belief (or not) in their own 
>  time and their own way, as you have just told me. And since all you 
>  have to tell them is that something matters to you, and what matters 
>  to you is irrelevant to what should matter to them, why would you 
>  expect them to be interested?

I neither expect nor require that my interests or philosophies interest 
anyone else.  Again, I have stated numerous times now that I offer assistance 
only when asked.  If someone finds my opinion on a topic worth seeking out, 
then I will provide it.  If not, then no harm is done to my ego.    If my 
opinion is offered, and it does not fit with what the hearer needs or 
desires, then I will not pursue it further.  It is not my place.

>  
>  >I cannot, in good conscience, do that.  It does
>  >not detract from my enjoyment of the Society to see others running around 
> in
>  >a tunic-over-jeans ensamble and gnawing on stuffed baked potatoes at an
>  >event.  I am not that, for lack of a better word, anal-retentive.
>  
>  You seem entirely willing to apply pejorative terms, such as 
>  anal-retentive, to people who disagree with you about how to promote 
>  authenticity--at the same time that you object to other people 
>  engaging in negativism and nay-saying.

The statement above was directed towards me, and not anyone else.  Perhaps a 
better phrase should have been used.  How about:  "I am not that particular"? 
 
>  
>  >  >  You keep jumping from the question of whether things are "all right"
>  >  >  to the question of whether you can "make the choice for them." Those
>  >  >  are wholly different questions. You write as if expressing an opinion
>  >  >  about what other people ought to do is the same thing as being a
>  >  >  dictator forcing them to do it.
>  >
>  >The questions are the same, Your Grace.
>  
>  They are not the same. Is it "all right" for someone to spend an 
>  event sitting in a corner feeling miserable? I don't think so. But 
>  you have neither the ability nor the right to "impose your will on 
>  someone" by forcing him not to.

I fail to see the connection between sitting in a corner feeling miserable, 
and not preparing a period, authentic feast.  Are you implying that those who 
do not prepare authentic feasts are, as a result, destined to be miserable 
for the entire event?  I have not prepared authentic feasts numerous times, 
and still, somehow, managed to thoroughly enjoy myself at events.

>  I do not equate "what other people ought to do" with
>  >"forcing them to do it".  I do however, equate it with "attempting" to 
> force
>  >them to do it, by means of intimidation and ridicule.
>  
>  And describing other people as "anal-retentive" isn't intimidation 
>  and ridicule?

Please see above...

Balthazar of Blackmoor
Mr. Wizard, what happens when you combine pasta and antipasta?