In Richard Kaeuper's book "Chivalry and Violence in Medieval Europe", Dr. Kaeuper makes the arguement that all students of chivalry -from every era- are attempting to be reformers. Chivalry is always something that needs to be re-designed, refined or razed and re-created. If you care about the whole idea, you can't really escape the label of a reformer.
Since the SCA offers the largest medieval "world", with tens of thousands of potential students, teachers and like-minded playmates all over the world, it has very high stakes for the more vocal reformers. Since Kaeuper also talks about how there can be no chivalry without a competition-obsessed social enviroment, we have a large canvas on which to paint.
What I want to know is this- what is at the bottom of your particular vision of Reform? Will the changes you envision serve you, your friends, your Kingdom, your "side" -or serve the people- better? What is at the bottom of your desire to change things, or to keep things as they are? Can you be truly honest- even if you reveal something unsavory about yourself?
Do you fear change because your "honor" is firmly entrenched in the old ways? Do you desire change because you have little hope of winning worship and honor with the way things are now? Do you resent those in power? Do you think that Knighthood is the ultimate goal? Do you know people who have quit because they know they can never win a Crown? Do you hate the SCA because your ego isn't stroked enough- because nobody recognizes you as the brilliant and superior person you are? Did you quit because it's unfair? Join because the real world is unfair? Why put your butt on the line? Why endure beatings and the humiliation of defeat? What the hell do you want? Why do you want it?
As a reformer, what do you have to gain from your efforts? To lose?
-Vitus
A long, long look in the mirror...
-
Vitus von Atzinger
- Archive Member
- Posts: 14039
- Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Louisville, Ky. USA
-
armouredhedgehog
- Archive Member
- Posts: 87
- Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Austin, Texas USA
Many of the things I want- I want but I don't neccessarily expect. Kinda like I want to win the lottery but I don't expect to win the lottery. That doesn't mean I'm not going to do anything to bring me closer to what I want, it's just I know I can only do so much. That being said here we go...
I want armour to be counted as worn. This has been discussed time and again, and I think it would be a good idea AND I think it would encourage all those invoved to strive for better period armour, not sport armour. How does this effect me? Sure it gives me an advantage over those who would wear nothing but hidden armour (hidden=none). I want no exposed smurf plastic. Once again, this has been duscussed at great length. How would this effect me? It would simply be more visually pleasing to me, as it would IMHO to most everyone else. Madus? hear me out... I say sure, allow them- AS MADUS. In other words you can use them all you want, but don't make me pretend an antler on a stick is going to go through full gothic plate. You wanna use a madu on an unarmoured combatant, go right ahead. All these things would complicate the rules a bit but I can accept that. As far as political changes are concerned...I couldn't give a rats ass. I don't involve myself with politics, nor will I. I avoid it like the plague.Looking back on what I said I can see how counting armour as worn might discourage newbies who haven't had the chance to work on a good kit yet. In that case, if the rule was changed to armour as worn, perhaps with keeping in the spirit of chivalry all of us who have these great kits should keep a minimal suit in our armour bag and let them wear ours at their first few practices. I'm babbling. I'll stop now and let someone who has better things to say step in.
I want armour to be counted as worn. This has been discussed time and again, and I think it would be a good idea AND I think it would encourage all those invoved to strive for better period armour, not sport armour. How does this effect me? Sure it gives me an advantage over those who would wear nothing but hidden armour (hidden=none). I want no exposed smurf plastic. Once again, this has been duscussed at great length. How would this effect me? It would simply be more visually pleasing to me, as it would IMHO to most everyone else. Madus? hear me out... I say sure, allow them- AS MADUS. In other words you can use them all you want, but don't make me pretend an antler on a stick is going to go through full gothic plate. You wanna use a madu on an unarmoured combatant, go right ahead. All these things would complicate the rules a bit but I can accept that. As far as political changes are concerned...I couldn't give a rats ass. I don't involve myself with politics, nor will I. I avoid it like the plague.Looking back on what I said I can see how counting armour as worn might discourage newbies who haven't had the chance to work on a good kit yet. In that case, if the rule was changed to armour as worn, perhaps with keeping in the spirit of chivalry all of us who have these great kits should keep a minimal suit in our armour bag and let them wear ours at their first few practices. I'm babbling. I'll stop now and let someone who has better things to say step in.
-
Bob H
- Archive Member
- Posts: 21273
- Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Tri-Cities, TN
- Contact:
One tired old saw keeps creeping back into my mind - "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and annoys the pig." Every time I get fired up about reform I have this haunting notion that the SCA does not want to be reformed, and a goodly part of the Society is a bit insulted that reformers feel that it needs it.
Also, I'm often torn about degrees of reform as well. Is it correct to help someone cover plastic armour in order for them to look more period, when you know that while it is better than the current situation the whole idea of it is still terribly wrong?
My focus has subsequently turned inward, to improving myself and my understanding of gentlemanly mores and behavior. Please accept my apologies if some of that oozes out at times; it merely shows that my study is incomplete.
Also, I'm often torn about degrees of reform as well. Is it correct to help someone cover plastic armour in order for them to look more period, when you know that while it is better than the current situation the whole idea of it is still terribly wrong?
My focus has subsequently turned inward, to improving myself and my understanding of gentlemanly mores and behavior. Please accept my apologies if some of that oozes out at times; it merely shows that my study is incomplete.
I think reforming the SCA to be more period in anything, including armor, starts at home. Right now I am working on getting my own personal transitional rig the way I want it before moving on to trying to help others. Any type of reform starts at home. to me it is important because, knowing the things I have learned over the last couple of years about real history and accuracy there to, it really messes with my experience to see the plactic Paladins who wonder the list field looking like something out of a bad movie. Later.
Angus
Angus
-
Brennus
- Archive Member
- Posts: 2841
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Morganton, NC
- Contact:
Vitus I can't help but think you touched on this in the discussion we had the other night. I read this and decided to hold off on replying for a day until I had time to think about what you said.
here are some questions I have that you have inspired.
1. is Chivalry a static concept or is it a living philosophy that changes with each age?
2. Is the SCA the proper vehicle for chivalry and knighthood.
3. Is the SCA overall a Chivalrous organization or does it only give lip service to the idea and act against it.
4. Is reforming the SCA the goal or is reforming yourself the goal ?
5. Should I seek the Accolade from SCA or from my own heart ?
6. If I recieve the accolade from SCA is it of any worth if you dont hold those (The order of Chivalry in your kingdom) in esteem as worthys of the honor themselves. Is it my place or anyones place to question if Peers are worthy, if not who's place is it?
7. What are the reforms for? Who does Chivalry demand we serve ? Ourselves? the Chivalry? The people? the kingdom?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Vitus:
<B>What I want to know is this- what is at the bottom of your particular vision of Reform? Will the changes you envision serve you, your friends, your Kingdom, your "side" -or serve the people- better? What is at the bottom of your desire to change things, or to keep things as they are? Can you be truly honest- even if you reveal something unsavory about yourself?
Do you fear change because your "honor" is firmly entrenched in the old ways? Do you desire change because you have little hope of winning worship and honor with the way things are now? Do you resent those in power? Do you think that Knighthood is the ultimate goal? Do you know people who have quit because they know they can never win a Crown? Do you hate the SCA because your ego isn't stroked enough- because nobody recognizes you as the brilliant and superior person you are? Did you quit because it's unfair? Join because the real world is unfair? Why put your butt on the line? Why endure beatings and the humiliation of defeat? What the hell do you want? Why do you want it?
As a reformer, what do you have to gain from your efforts? To lose?
-Vitus</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I must ask myself what reforms I want. It bothers me that sport is more important than accuracy. It bothers me that Chivalry is lip serviced so often.
It bothers me that if you ask the question how can we make this hobby better the powers that be say the SCA is perfect as it is and there is no need to change. Thats why I make a big fuss it bothers me to the point of distraction that people believe what we currently have is the best possible world and I act against it.
Should one keep quiet and act only for the goals of the Order even if those goals are opposite of my moral compass?
Is self sacrifice the only way to the accolade and should it be?
here are some questions I have that you have inspired.
1. is Chivalry a static concept or is it a living philosophy that changes with each age?
2. Is the SCA the proper vehicle for chivalry and knighthood.
3. Is the SCA overall a Chivalrous organization or does it only give lip service to the idea and act against it.
4. Is reforming the SCA the goal or is reforming yourself the goal ?
5. Should I seek the Accolade from SCA or from my own heart ?
6. If I recieve the accolade from SCA is it of any worth if you dont hold those (The order of Chivalry in your kingdom) in esteem as worthys of the honor themselves. Is it my place or anyones place to question if Peers are worthy, if not who's place is it?
7. What are the reforms for? Who does Chivalry demand we serve ? Ourselves? the Chivalry? The people? the kingdom?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Vitus:
<B>What I want to know is this- what is at the bottom of your particular vision of Reform? Will the changes you envision serve you, your friends, your Kingdom, your "side" -or serve the people- better? What is at the bottom of your desire to change things, or to keep things as they are? Can you be truly honest- even if you reveal something unsavory about yourself?
Do you fear change because your "honor" is firmly entrenched in the old ways? Do you desire change because you have little hope of winning worship and honor with the way things are now? Do you resent those in power? Do you think that Knighthood is the ultimate goal? Do you know people who have quit because they know they can never win a Crown? Do you hate the SCA because your ego isn't stroked enough- because nobody recognizes you as the brilliant and superior person you are? Did you quit because it's unfair? Join because the real world is unfair? Why put your butt on the line? Why endure beatings and the humiliation of defeat? What the hell do you want? Why do you want it?
As a reformer, what do you have to gain from your efforts? To lose?
-Vitus</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I must ask myself what reforms I want. It bothers me that sport is more important than accuracy. It bothers me that Chivalry is lip serviced so often.
It bothers me that if you ask the question how can we make this hobby better the powers that be say the SCA is perfect as it is and there is no need to change. Thats why I make a big fuss it bothers me to the point of distraction that people believe what we currently have is the best possible world and I act against it.
Should one keep quiet and act only for the goals of the Order even if those goals are opposite of my moral compass?
Is self sacrifice the only way to the accolade and should it be?
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
Hi Vitus,
Part of what's at the bottom of my attempts to reform the SCA is selfishness: I *like* the middle ages, and I want to make the group to which I belong live up to its stated goals so that I can have a more rewarding experience. If it wasn't supposed to be a medieval reenactment organization I'd be wrong in doing so, but since our charter specifically calls for us to be one I think I'm doing the right thing.
A more important part of it, however, can best be understood by the quote: "All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing", or, as the old saying goes, "if you aren't part of the solution you're part of the problem". I feel we all have a responsibility to work to improve the SCA and to help it, as a whole, live up to its goals and potential. To argue that the current way of doing things is wrong and *not* act to change things is to be part of the problem.
Does that mean we should try to force others to change? No, for that never works. Instead, we should argue as persuasively as we can, based on solid historical evidence, and try, as best we can, to set the example for others to follow.
One of the reasons we created The Company of Saint Michael was to show people how much cooler and more interesting accurate medieval activities were. Of course we are still not doing as well as we could, and hopefully we'll continue to improve, but we're always doomed to fall short of our goals; after all, "a man's reach should exceed his grasp", right? But by showing people what things *can* be like, I think we've made a little bit of a difference already. I was really struck this year at the Pas d'Armes at Pennsic by how much things had changed from our first event! So many more people trying to fight in a medieval style with more accurate armor and all the appropariate accoutrements; it was an amazing change!
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field: Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
Part of what's at the bottom of my attempts to reform the SCA is selfishness: I *like* the middle ages, and I want to make the group to which I belong live up to its stated goals so that I can have a more rewarding experience. If it wasn't supposed to be a medieval reenactment organization I'd be wrong in doing so, but since our charter specifically calls for us to be one I think I'm doing the right thing.
A more important part of it, however, can best be understood by the quote: "All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing", or, as the old saying goes, "if you aren't part of the solution you're part of the problem". I feel we all have a responsibility to work to improve the SCA and to help it, as a whole, live up to its goals and potential. To argue that the current way of doing things is wrong and *not* act to change things is to be part of the problem.
Does that mean we should try to force others to change? No, for that never works. Instead, we should argue as persuasively as we can, based on solid historical evidence, and try, as best we can, to set the example for others to follow.
One of the reasons we created The Company of Saint Michael was to show people how much cooler and more interesting accurate medieval activities were. Of course we are still not doing as well as we could, and hopefully we'll continue to improve, but we're always doomed to fall short of our goals; after all, "a man's reach should exceed his grasp", right? But by showing people what things *can* be like, I think we've made a little bit of a difference already. I was really struck this year at the Pas d'Armes at Pennsic by how much things had changed from our first event! So many more people trying to fight in a medieval style with more accurate armor and all the appropariate accoutrements; it was an amazing change!
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field: Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
Vitus von Atzinger
- Archive Member
- Posts: 14039
- Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Louisville, Ky. USA
Brennus asks-
>1. is Chivalry a static concept or is it a living philosophy that changes with each age?
It is fluid. It is a living philosophy, but has been continually debated. We don't know what it *IS* any more than William Marshall did. There has never been a concensus. From reading Kaeuper I gather that he favors these two concepts- the practice of prowess and the display of loyalty.
>2.Is the SCA the proper vehicle for chivalry and knighthood.
Yes. Without a competitive enviroment and large cultural base it cannot exist.
>3.Is the SCA overall a Chivalrous organization or does it only give lip service to the idea and act against it.
It is an organization that is OBSESSED with the debate. People have been accused of paying Chivalry "lip-service" for over 800 years. In that way, nothing has changed.
>4.Is reforming the SCA the goal or is reforming yourself the goal ?
Well, that is another idea that has been thrown around for centuries. I would say that deCharney advocates the first, and that Lull advocates the latter. Who is right?
>5.Should I seek the Accolade from SCA or from my own heart?
I am sorry, but Knights are made by other Knights. Now, whether they REMAIN knights is another matter. False Knighthood is a topic that constantly comes up in both literature and in reformist writings.
Often, SCA knights will tell a potential candidate that they should consider themselves a knight, and then await the embrace of the Order. This is a bit misguided. A non-knight should ACT and SERVE as a knight would act, but this isn't the same as considering yourself already a knight. Serve as a Knight would serve, but always know that only a Knight can make a Knight. Your heart may tell you to act in a certain way, and cause you to become disgusted by behavior that you find reprehensible, but your own heart cannot bestow the Order upon you. The Accolade is *bestowed* upon a person.
>6.If I recieve the accolade from SCA is it of any worth if I don't hold those (The order of Chivalry in your kingdom) in esteem as worthies of the honor themselves? Is it my place or anyone's place to question if Peers are worthy, if not who's place is it?
Well, this is another arguement that has come up over the centuries. (In a way, the BOD is the Catholic Church, no?)
I will let somebody else answer this.
>7. What are the reforms for? Who does Chivalry demand we serve? Ourselves? the Chivalry? The people? the Kingdom?
Historic Chivalry has always had a hard time being convinced that it is required to serve anybody! As for SCA chivalry, I cannot answer this question. The reform movements are countless- what do you think the TC movement is? I asked people to look at themselves when I wrote this thread, and I am amazed that you still seem more interested in the sins of others.
Without self-sacrifice you will find only frustration. Serve the Crown and his people and then all of the worries about gain and loss will melt away. Honor is bestowed upon us by others, but we win this gift through service. Service is the most fun because it will release you of great burdens! Isn't the desire to be historically accurate a great burden? Sure it is. But if you think of that Quest as quietly presenting an inspirational example for other's to follow, doesn't it turn a troublesome obsession into a Great Joy? Think of the impact and the pleasure you give others who see you on the field. Forget what you THINK you want and rejoice in what makes you feel HAPPY. Giving is the way!!
-Vitus
>1. is Chivalry a static concept or is it a living philosophy that changes with each age?
It is fluid. It is a living philosophy, but has been continually debated. We don't know what it *IS* any more than William Marshall did. There has never been a concensus. From reading Kaeuper I gather that he favors these two concepts- the practice of prowess and the display of loyalty.
>2.Is the SCA the proper vehicle for chivalry and knighthood.
Yes. Without a competitive enviroment and large cultural base it cannot exist.
>3.Is the SCA overall a Chivalrous organization or does it only give lip service to the idea and act against it.
It is an organization that is OBSESSED with the debate. People have been accused of paying Chivalry "lip-service" for over 800 years. In that way, nothing has changed.
>4.Is reforming the SCA the goal or is reforming yourself the goal ?
Well, that is another idea that has been thrown around for centuries. I would say that deCharney advocates the first, and that Lull advocates the latter. Who is right?
>5.Should I seek the Accolade from SCA or from my own heart?
I am sorry, but Knights are made by other Knights. Now, whether they REMAIN knights is another matter. False Knighthood is a topic that constantly comes up in both literature and in reformist writings.
Often, SCA knights will tell a potential candidate that they should consider themselves a knight, and then await the embrace of the Order. This is a bit misguided. A non-knight should ACT and SERVE as a knight would act, but this isn't the same as considering yourself already a knight. Serve as a Knight would serve, but always know that only a Knight can make a Knight. Your heart may tell you to act in a certain way, and cause you to become disgusted by behavior that you find reprehensible, but your own heart cannot bestow the Order upon you. The Accolade is *bestowed* upon a person.
>6.If I recieve the accolade from SCA is it of any worth if I don't hold those (The order of Chivalry in your kingdom) in esteem as worthies of the honor themselves? Is it my place or anyone's place to question if Peers are worthy, if not who's place is it?
Well, this is another arguement that has come up over the centuries. (In a way, the BOD is the Catholic Church, no?)
I will let somebody else answer this.
>7. What are the reforms for? Who does Chivalry demand we serve? Ourselves? the Chivalry? The people? the Kingdom?
Historic Chivalry has always had a hard time being convinced that it is required to serve anybody! As for SCA chivalry, I cannot answer this question. The reform movements are countless- what do you think the TC movement is? I asked people to look at themselves when I wrote this thread, and I am amazed that you still seem more interested in the sins of others.
Without self-sacrifice you will find only frustration. Serve the Crown and his people and then all of the worries about gain and loss will melt away. Honor is bestowed upon us by others, but we win this gift through service. Service is the most fun because it will release you of great burdens! Isn't the desire to be historically accurate a great burden? Sure it is. But if you think of that Quest as quietly presenting an inspirational example for other's to follow, doesn't it turn a troublesome obsession into a Great Joy? Think of the impact and the pleasure you give others who see you on the field. Forget what you THINK you want and rejoice in what makes you feel HAPPY. Giving is the way!!
-Vitus
-
Brennus
- Archive Member
- Posts: 2841
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Morganton, NC
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Vitus:
<B>Brennus asks-
>5.Should I seek the Accolade from SCA or from my own heart?
I am sorry, but Knights are made by other Knights. Now, whether they REMAIN knights is another matter. False Knighthood is a topic that constantly comes up in both literature and in reformist writings. [/qoute]
The problem with this is the fact that SCA Knight would seem to have no more right to the title than would any person who just named themself Knight. What real King or Knight knighted the first SCA Knight how is the title transferred Divine right bestowed by God or by mass approval of the title by the populace ?
[qoute]
Historic Chivalry has always had a hard time being convinced that it is required to serve anybody! As for SCA chivalry, I cannot answer this question. The reform movements are countless- what do you think the TC movement is? I asked people to look at themselves when I wrote this thread, and I am amazed that you still seem more interested in the sins of others.
[/qoute]
If I was just concerned with myself I would not be asking the question who has the right too and the need for my service. The reason for my questions are to find the proper place that Chilvary demands my service, as far as I can tell Chivarly demands I serve my liege first but also I should serve myself as well.
The sins of others come into play because why would I serve those whose sins are greater than my own, possibly thats a wrong attitude but how is honor served by serving the dishonorable. Chivalry demands I work against the dishonorable not in their retinue. this creates a new series of questions.
1. How do we decide who is honorable and dishonorable
2. Is honor situational, Can I be honorable in SCA but acted like a loot when I go home?
3. Am I right does Chivalry demand I defend the Right against those who would trample it?
[qoute]
Without self-sacrifice you will find only frustration. Serve the Crown and his people and then all of the worries about gain and loss will melt away. Honor is bestowed upon us by others, but we win this gift through service. Service is the most fun because it will release you of great burdens! Isn't the desire to be historically accurate a great burden? Sure it is. But if you think of that Quest as quietly presenting an inspirational example for other's to follow, doesn't it turn a troublesome obsession into a Great Joy? Think of the impact and the pleasure you give others who see you on the field. Forget what you THINK you want and rejoice in what makes you feel HAPPY. Giving is the way!!
-Vitus</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And you believe this? You seem more concerned than I do about having fun and having no worries it seems such a cop out. If one should give himself over to self sacrifice for those above his station, work for their goals, and forget your own goals this seems absurd if looked at from a Chivalry stand point when Chivalry demands that a good Knight stands out from the Crowd and often is demanded by honor and morality to stand against the status quo.
I'm certainly not saying there can not be self sacrifice for the greater good but unquestioning sacrifice of self seems to fly in the face of Chivalry itself. "An unexamined life is not worth living" one should not just fall into service without questioning why and if the service is of Worth.
Unquestioned self sacrifice seems to me to be the greatest sin of all, You have no moral choices to make becuase you no longer care for self but work for the goals of others regardless of the Worth and Rightness of their goals. I may not know what is Right or Moral at all times but I can tell what is not those things.
I think the quiet example of Worth is a good one but would not the silent example be wrong if you work towards a goal that you know is wrong. If asked to commit a dishonorable act by those you serve without thought of self do you do those acts because it is easy and you will have fun because you don't have to think just act. Or do you do those acts becuase you seek those people's accecptance and praise?
------------------
sic locus dignum, sic dignus placitum http://brennus.stormloader.com/interkin.html
<B>Brennus asks-
>5.Should I seek the Accolade from SCA or from my own heart?
I am sorry, but Knights are made by other Knights. Now, whether they REMAIN knights is another matter. False Knighthood is a topic that constantly comes up in both literature and in reformist writings. [/qoute]
The problem with this is the fact that SCA Knight would seem to have no more right to the title than would any person who just named themself Knight. What real King or Knight knighted the first SCA Knight how is the title transferred Divine right bestowed by God or by mass approval of the title by the populace ?
[qoute]
Historic Chivalry has always had a hard time being convinced that it is required to serve anybody! As for SCA chivalry, I cannot answer this question. The reform movements are countless- what do you think the TC movement is? I asked people to look at themselves when I wrote this thread, and I am amazed that you still seem more interested in the sins of others.
[/qoute]
If I was just concerned with myself I would not be asking the question who has the right too and the need for my service. The reason for my questions are to find the proper place that Chilvary demands my service, as far as I can tell Chivarly demands I serve my liege first but also I should serve myself as well.
The sins of others come into play because why would I serve those whose sins are greater than my own, possibly thats a wrong attitude but how is honor served by serving the dishonorable. Chivalry demands I work against the dishonorable not in their retinue. this creates a new series of questions.
1. How do we decide who is honorable and dishonorable
2. Is honor situational, Can I be honorable in SCA but acted like a loot when I go home?
3. Am I right does Chivalry demand I defend the Right against those who would trample it?
[qoute]
Without self-sacrifice you will find only frustration. Serve the Crown and his people and then all of the worries about gain and loss will melt away. Honor is bestowed upon us by others, but we win this gift through service. Service is the most fun because it will release you of great burdens! Isn't the desire to be historically accurate a great burden? Sure it is. But if you think of that Quest as quietly presenting an inspirational example for other's to follow, doesn't it turn a troublesome obsession into a Great Joy? Think of the impact and the pleasure you give others who see you on the field. Forget what you THINK you want and rejoice in what makes you feel HAPPY. Giving is the way!!
-Vitus</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And you believe this? You seem more concerned than I do about having fun and having no worries it seems such a cop out. If one should give himself over to self sacrifice for those above his station, work for their goals, and forget your own goals this seems absurd if looked at from a Chivalry stand point when Chivalry demands that a good Knight stands out from the Crowd and often is demanded by honor and morality to stand against the status quo.
I'm certainly not saying there can not be self sacrifice for the greater good but unquestioning sacrifice of self seems to fly in the face of Chivalry itself. "An unexamined life is not worth living" one should not just fall into service without questioning why and if the service is of Worth.
Unquestioned self sacrifice seems to me to be the greatest sin of all, You have no moral choices to make becuase you no longer care for self but work for the goals of others regardless of the Worth and Rightness of their goals. I may not know what is Right or Moral at all times but I can tell what is not those things.
I think the quiet example of Worth is a good one but would not the silent example be wrong if you work towards a goal that you know is wrong. If asked to commit a dishonorable act by those you serve without thought of self do you do those acts because it is easy and you will have fun because you don't have to think just act. Or do you do those acts becuase you seek those people's accecptance and praise?
------------------
sic locus dignum, sic dignus placitum http://brennus.stormloader.com/interkin.html
-
Vitus von Atzinger
- Archive Member
- Posts: 14039
- Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Louisville, Ky. USA
-
Brennus
- Archive Member
- Posts: 2841
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Morganton, NC
- Contact:
Trust me Vitus I agree and have decided to become the silent worthy soul who works to better himself and leave the rest to their own devices (thats your influence). I will however draw the line at working towards goals of others I think are morally wrong. I have examined my life and will work toward my goals but do it from the direction of trying to influence others by actions rather than words as words seem to alienate people needlessly.
However I still have those questions and possibly some can't be answered
However I still have those questions and possibly some can't be answered
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Vitus:
<B>Brennus asks-
>1. is Chivalry a static concept or is it a living philosophy that changes with each age?
It is fluid. It is a living philosophy, but has been continually debated. We don't know what it *IS* any more than William Marshall did. There has never been a concensus. From reading Kaeuper I gather that he favors these two concepts- the practice of prowess and the display of loyalty.
[...]
-Vitus</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Add to that another dimension. Our personal definitions of what chivalry is also changes as we mature, learn more about ourselves, and learn more about what chivalry was in the part of the middle ages that we have a personal interest in.
Prowess & loyalty
...franchaise, humility, largess...
-Parlan
<B>Brennus asks-
>1. is Chivalry a static concept or is it a living philosophy that changes with each age?
It is fluid. It is a living philosophy, but has been continually debated. We don't know what it *IS* any more than William Marshall did. There has never been a concensus. From reading Kaeuper I gather that he favors these two concepts- the practice of prowess and the display of loyalty.
[...]
-Vitus</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Add to that another dimension. Our personal definitions of what chivalry is also changes as we mature, learn more about ourselves, and learn more about what chivalry was in the part of the middle ages that we have a personal interest in.
Prowess & loyalty
...franchaise, humility, largess...
-Parlan
Originally posted by Brennus:
[/B] <B>
Vitus I can't help but think you touched on this in the discussion we had the other night. I read this and decided to hold off on replying for a day until I had time to think about what you said.
here are some questions I have that you have inspired.
1. is Chivalry a static concept or is it a living philosophy that changes with each age?
</B>
See previous post
<B>
2. Is the SCA the proper vehicle for chivalry and knighthood.
</B> Yes <B>
3. Is the SCA overall a Chivalrous organization or does it only give lip service to the idea and act against it.
</B> Overall, yes. But like our progenetors, it is always strived for but never reached.<B>
4. Is reforming the SCA the goal or is reforming yourself the goal ?
</B> Yourself. Lead by example.
<B>
5. Should I seek the Accolade from SCA or from my own heart ?
</B>From your heart and those you respect
<B>
6. If I recieve the accolade from SCA is it of any worth if you dont hold those (The order of Chivalry in your kingdom) in esteem as worthys of the honor themselves. Is it my place or anyones place to question if Peers are worthy, if not who's place is it?
</B>A Peer is as good as their renown. A true Peer has the humility to know that they are fallable and their actions can always be taken as examples of their Order.<B>
7. What are the reforms for? Who does Chivalry demand we serve ? Ourselves? the Chivalry? The people? the kingdom?
</B>Yes to all. <B>
I must ask myself what reforms I want. It bothers me that sport is more important than accuracy. It bothers me that Chivalry is lip serviced so often.
</B> Agreed. <B>
It bothers me that if you ask the question how can we make this hobby better the powers that be say the SCA is perfect as it is and there is no need to change. Thats why I make a big fuss it bothers me to the point of distraction that people believe what we currently have is the best possible world and I act against it.
</B> There are no Powers That Be. You ask 20 different Peers you will get 15 different answers. Forge your own path for betterment and you will be suprised how many followers you will get. <B>
Should one keep quiet and act only for the goals of the Order even if those goals are opposite of my moral compass?
</B> See above. Do it for yourself. Not for the accolade. If it happens, it happens.<B>
Is self sacrifice the only way to the accolade and should it be? </B>
[/B]Only on that you may have to make tough choices and priorities. Be pure of heart. [B]
Since I'm being sagely I'll give the formal signature...
-Sir Parlan MacGillivray, Viscount
[/B] <B>
Vitus I can't help but think you touched on this in the discussion we had the other night. I read this and decided to hold off on replying for a day until I had time to think about what you said.
here are some questions I have that you have inspired.
1. is Chivalry a static concept or is it a living philosophy that changes with each age?
</B>
See previous post
<B>
2. Is the SCA the proper vehicle for chivalry and knighthood.
</B> Yes <B>
3. Is the SCA overall a Chivalrous organization or does it only give lip service to the idea and act against it.
</B> Overall, yes. But like our progenetors, it is always strived for but never reached.<B>
4. Is reforming the SCA the goal or is reforming yourself the goal ?
</B> Yourself. Lead by example.
<B>
5. Should I seek the Accolade from SCA or from my own heart ?
</B>From your heart and those you respect
<B>
6. If I recieve the accolade from SCA is it of any worth if you dont hold those (The order of Chivalry in your kingdom) in esteem as worthys of the honor themselves. Is it my place or anyones place to question if Peers are worthy, if not who's place is it?
</B>A Peer is as good as their renown. A true Peer has the humility to know that they are fallable and their actions can always be taken as examples of their Order.<B>
7. What are the reforms for? Who does Chivalry demand we serve ? Ourselves? the Chivalry? The people? the kingdom?
</B>Yes to all. <B>
I must ask myself what reforms I want. It bothers me that sport is more important than accuracy. It bothers me that Chivalry is lip serviced so often.
</B> Agreed. <B>
It bothers me that if you ask the question how can we make this hobby better the powers that be say the SCA is perfect as it is and there is no need to change. Thats why I make a big fuss it bothers me to the point of distraction that people believe what we currently have is the best possible world and I act against it.
</B> There are no Powers That Be. You ask 20 different Peers you will get 15 different answers. Forge your own path for betterment and you will be suprised how many followers you will get. <B>
Should one keep quiet and act only for the goals of the Order even if those goals are opposite of my moral compass?
</B> See above. Do it for yourself. Not for the accolade. If it happens, it happens.<B>
Is self sacrifice the only way to the accolade and should it be? </B>
[/B]Only on that you may have to make tough choices and priorities. Be pure of heart. [B]
Since I'm being sagely I'll give the formal signature...
-Sir Parlan MacGillivray, Viscount
-
Asbjorn Johansen
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1699
- Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Aldan PA
Since the creation of new Knights has come up. I recall that in his book Keen references several Knights who simply looked around, saw they had the armour and the social standing, and declared themselves to be Chivalry. I don't believe anyone debated them on the subject.
(spontaneous generation of Knights what a concept)
Asbjorn
(spontaneous generation of Knights what a concept)
Asbjorn
-
Brennus
- Archive Member
- Posts: 2841
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Morganton, NC
- Contact:
Parlan thank you for your answers. With each post i thinki we get closer to a meeting of the minds on Chivalry and why we strive for it. As to spontaneous generation of Knights that may be a dangerous concept for SCA to embrace.
I would like to discuss the origin of the SCA order of Knighthood and why we do things the way we do? Does anyone here Know other than the Backyard party story I've read that
------------------
sic locus dignum, sic dignus placitum http://brennus.stormloader.com/interkin.html
I would like to discuss the origin of the SCA order of Knighthood and why we do things the way we do? Does anyone here Know other than the Backyard party story I've read that
------------------
sic locus dignum, sic dignus placitum http://brennus.stormloader.com/interkin.html
If you want to read about the early history of theh SCA check the links from the West Kingdom history site. It's really cool!
http://history.westkingdom.org
http://history.westkingdom.org
-
Thaddeus
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1714
- Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: North side of the Lonely Mountain.
- Contact:
Vitus you ask a great question and pose a great challenge. I will admit that I want the accolade, it is what I seek. Sometimes it seems so far away, those who wear its acoutrement so above the ordinary. But other days they seem no more than I, just men, who have sweated and endured and struggled. I strive to be in my heart and actions as I envision a knight would be. I have been told by knights of this kingdom that I am pursuing the path in the wrong way. That I should lay aside my mail and my buckler and pick up the standard arms of my region. To do this would be contrary to MY vision of knighthood. If I am not deemed good enough to receive the accolade on my terms then I am not good enough to receive it, period. If I can by my presence on the field influence another fighter to improve their kit or brighten some spectators day, then accolade or no I have succeeded by a degree however small.