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

[david friedman]

At 1:45 AM -0400 6/16/00, CBlackwill at aol.com wrote:

I wrote:

>  >  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.

The word "dire" was not anywhere in my statement--you added it. Why?

If someone said "there are consequences of cooking a period feast," 
would you laugh in his face? It seems an odd response to a perfectly 
obvious statement.

One consequence of cooking a period feast is that the people who eat 
it learn a little more about the Middle Ages. Another consequence is 
that the people who help you cook it learn more about medieval 
cooking. One consequence of cooking a strikingly mundane feast is to 
make it a little harder for people at the event to imagine they are 
really in the Middle Ages. One consequence of cooking a "medievalish" 
feast--one based on a vague guess about medieval cooking, but no 
actual information--is to spread false historical information, since 
some of the people eating it are likely to assume that the cooks know 
what they are doing, hence that serving those foods means they were 
actually eaten in period.

Do you disagree with any of those statements? Are they not 
information that one person can learn and usefully transmit to 
someone else?

>  >  >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..

That may have been your topic, but it wasn't the topic of the posts 
you responded to. The sequence was:

Mercedes posted some queries on Sunday

Several people responded. Among them Anne-Marie, on Sunday, who 
correctly described SCA practice as ranging from entirely OOP feasts 
to quite authentic feasts, and incorrectly (in my opinion) implied 
that all of those were equally good and appropriate. Her actual words 
were:

" Nothing is wrong with ANY of these, you need to decide what YOU 
want and what would make your branch happy."

Note that she is not saying "you should not force people through 
intimidation and denigration not to serve baked potatoes and corn on 
the cob." She is saying "Nothing is wrong with serving baked potatoes 
and corn on the cob." Note also that she was responding to someone 
who had asked her opinion--and her opinion was that there was nothing 
wrong with serving strikingly OOP food at an SCA feast.

Ras responded on Tuesday, strongly disagreeing with Anne-Marie.

You responded on Wednesday, saying that:

"Actually, it depends entirely on the group putting on the feast, the audience
the feast is intended for, and their views.  As for being "acceptable"...if
they and their guests accept it, then it is entirely acceptable."

I defended Ras and argued with you.

So the position you (and Anne-Marie) have committed yourself to is 
not merely "people should be permitted to serve baked potatoes and 
corn on the cob at their event," which we all agree with. It is 
"There is nothing wrong with ...  . It is entirely acceptable." Yet 
you simultaneously say that if people asked your opinion, you would 
advise them not to do it. You seem to see nothing inconsistent with 
believing that there is nothing wrong with doing something, yet if 
asked you will advise people not to.

You wrote that "the topic at hand was not whether we should offer period feasts
to the populace." But that was precisely the topic at hand. Ras was 
arguing that SCA feasts should be period. Anne-Marie and you both 
believe they should be period, but you are so caught up in never 
"imposing" your beliefs on other people that you end up asserting 
that it doesn't matter whether they are period or not--"Nothing is 
wrong with ANY of these"--for fear that actually expressing your real 
opinion will be pushing some poor defenseless person around.

>  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.

And who, at what point in the thread, offered resources that were not 
requested?

>  >  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?

Of course not--what does the Bible have to do with any of this? You 
don't believe in your philosophical position because you don't 
practice it. You feel perfectly free to tell Ras that what he is 
doing is wrong--which you wouldn't be doing if you really believed in 
the position you are arguing, according to which nothing is really 
right or wrong, and even if something were, nobody should ever tell 
anybody that anything is right or wrong without being asked. As I 
said a little earlier in the post you were answering, " a form of 
radical scepticism which neither you nor anyone else actually 
believes in---as demonstrated by what people do, not what they say."

If you believed in the position you are arguing, you would have told 
Ras that some people encourage cooking by being tactful and gentle, 
and other people do it by browbeating anyone who doesn't come up to 
their standards, and  nothing is wrong with ANY of these, you need to 
decide what YOU want and what would make you happy. But you didn't 
tell him that because you don't believe it. And a good thing too.

Furthermore, you don't really believe that information should only be 
offered with gentleness and tact, because that isn't how you act--as 
this thread makes perfectly clear. When you strongly believe 
something, you feel perfectly free to engage in what you (mistakenly) 
describe as "intimidation and denigration" and I would describe as 
impassioned argument.

>  >  >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"?

And if someone, responding to a query about authentic feasts, wrote:

"I would never serve New World foods at a feast--I'm neither that 
ignorant nor that comtemptuous of my guests"

And you objected that he was insulting people who were less authentic 
than he was,  would you regard "the statement above was directed 
towards me" as an answer to your objection?

>   >  >  >  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.

There doesn't have to be any connection between those two things.

You made a general statement--that the two questions were the same. I 
demonstrated that the statement was false, by offering an example 
where they were not the same. I picked one I was fairly sure you 
would agree with. Having agreed with it, you then have to recognize 
that the two questions are different, at which point you abandon that 
claim and we get on with the argument.

>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 am not implying that. I am implying that the question of whether 
doing something is all right is not the same as the question of 
whether people should be permitted to do it. That is why I started by 
saying "They are not the same." You claimed they were the same, I 
offered an example to show that they were not.

In the other half of this bifurcated argument, Balthazar writes:

(quoting me)

>   Is it only other people who are obliged to tone down their language,
>   pretending they aren't confident of things they are confident of in
>   order not to offend anyone?

>Of course not.  Your point is well made, and taken.

Unfortunately, you are taking it in just the reverse of the way I am 
trying to persuade you to take it. I'm not complaining about your 
language--I think when people feel strongly about things they ought 
to say so. If you really lived up to your expressed views, your posts 
would be deadly dull and of no use to anyone--it is because your 
practice is so much better than your theory that it is possible to 
argue with you.

But if, as you suggest in your final post (so far) in this thread, 
you think it is time to quit, I am willing. Feel free to treat all of 
the questions in this post as rhetorical or--better--as questions I 
want you to think about but don't necessarily expect to see answers 
to.

David/Cariadoc
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/