[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]
Re: Pennsic Seneschale's Court and Requirements This Year
Poster: Logan and/or Arielle <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I will address your points directly following their respective sections.
Phillip Jones wrote:
> Poster: Phillip Jones <jonesj@InfoAve.Net>
> Sorry, Your Grace, but I believe that the answer may not be so obvious as
> you believe.
> Let us refer in detail to THE LETTER itself.
> "This means courtesy. Courtesy and the other chivalric ideals is what sets
> us apart and helps define the SCA. We are blessed that most of the gentles
> at Pennsic are honorable, courteous, play by the rules and go out of the way
> to help. Without this, Pennsic could not exist.
> The most common definition of courtesy is the golden rule. Do unto others as
> you would have done to you.
I always thought it was "do unto others _before_ they do unto you" 8^)
> But there are always a few who fail to understand that courtesy demands that
> we treat others in the best possible manner at all times. And for those who
> do fail to understand this, or momentarily forget, there is Seneschal
I don't think anything has changed as far as the rules are concerned. The only
change I see here is that there is now a body of people that are responsible for
ensuring that the blatant rule breakers are dealt with. There is also a
sounding board for dealing with the things that violate the common aspects of
communal (camping) living for the 10,000 attendants.
> Now then, none would disagree with or disparage Your own courtesy without
> answering to a score of scores, still, one who had been privy to some of our
> conversations might dispute your intentions from time to time.
Not all are as wise and informed as you my friend. 8^)
> Note that we
> are called upon by THE LETTER in Section VI, Paragraph IV, Sentence VII to
> treat each other in "the best possible manner at all times". Now then is it
> possible to treat one courteously, but not in the best possible manner?
> Surely sincere courtesy is of much more value than insincere, which indeed
> mocks courtesy. And surely agapic, or even selfless courtesy rises to a
> higher level than does courtesy which has as a motive some sort of gain? And
> so, even your peerless courtesy must be called into the Seneschales Court if
> it is insincere.
I disagree with your concept of "the best possible manner". I firmly believe in
the "reasonable man" theory. Courtesy should be extended in the best possible
manner at all times to the level that a reasonable man would extend it. If
someone is unknown to me, I extend them a high level of courtesy. If, however,
I know a person to be a manipulative liar, he will only receive the courtesy of
my ignoring his presence at all times. In the latter example I strongly believe
that I am extending courtesy to him in "the best possible manner at all times"
as can be expected of a reasonable man. This also deals with your question of
> And shall we let this stop at matters of courtesy? For unless I am mistaken
> in my readings of others here in the tavern, proper attire is a method of
> demonstrating courtesy to others. Sine we have noted that courtesy must
> transcend the act and be rooted in a proper, even pious , attitude, then we
> can also say that it is not sufficient that one be properly dressed. No,
> friend, we must insist that all be so dressed for the proper reasons.
No, what we insist on is the following of the rules. The letter reminds us to
be polite in our teaching of others. I find stories of people being threatened
with eviction from site for not having the right fabric or style or whatever in
their garb to be less than believable. However, it can be equated to my going
to someone's house and being told I must go outside to smoke (of course since I
don't smoke anymore it really doesn't matter!). If I think it's a pain to
follow their rules, I stay away from their home.
> I believe that we may learn much about sincerity and how to judge it by
> simply paying more attention to the writings of certain priests. Torquemada
> comes immediately to mind. Unfortunately, he and his companions in the Holy
> Office have been cast out of Pennsic because someone interpreted their tools
> as implements of S&M or bondage rather than as Tools of exploration.
> Phillip Jones
Again I fall upon the reasonable man argument. Their "tools" may truly be tools
of exploration (in their minds) but not in the minds of "reasonable men". The
same as a Swastika is nothing more than a religious symbol and the word
"nigger" refers only to a peon and if you are "gay" you are merely having a fun
and happy time. I think it's safe to say "reasonable men" simply do not agree,
and therein lies the yardstick in which we must measure.
p.s. did Dagonet get back to you about a box of paint? I know he wanted to buy
some from you but you had already left the site when we were packing up.
Vis, Fortitudo, Prudentia
"For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the
List Archives, FAQ, FTP: http://merryrose.atlantia.sca.org/
Admin. requests: email@example.com