Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Authentic_SCA] "Need"

Expand Messages
  • Heather M
    ... Understood here, anyway. I need corrective lenses in order to function. I would wear contacts, but my allergies this year are ferocious, and it makes
    Message 1 of 25 , Aug 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Marc Carlson wrote:

      > I'm going back over my email for the weekend, and I think I need to
      > explain something more clearly. Last week, I put the word 'need' in
      > quotes, and I wanted to be clear and explicit what I meant by that.
      > That way those folks who want to be upset about it will be able to do
      > so with a clear conscience, and those who don't won't be :)
      >
      > When I was a child, I was taught to be very explicit with words, and
      > to try to convey the actual meaning of what I want to say. For those
      > who've seen me get into disagreements over the years, this is why I
      > get very frustrated when I am incapable of getting my meaning across.
      > One of the principle terms I was taught to be very careful about is
      > the word "need." Many people confuse the word "need" with words
      > like "want", "really think would be useful and convenient" and so on.
      > Others often base "need" on differing assumptions of how great that
      > need is.
      >
      > Since we were discussing eyeglasses, the assumption of what
      > constitutes "need" is going to vary. For example, I have poor vision
      > (better than some, worse than others). I can not see clearly across a
      > room without glasses, and get a little isolated and frustrated when I
      > can't see what's happening at a distance. Wearing my glasses doesn't
      > actually help me avoid holes when I'm walking, since I'm just as
      > likely to miss noticing them when I'm walking along with them as
      > without them. Therefore I –need- them to see across the room, but I
      > can choose to live without that luxury if it will help my accuracy
      > experience. After all, there were people in the middle ages whose
      > eyesight was as bad, or worse than mine, and they got along fairly
      > well. I –need- them to drive because I'll get pulled over without
      > them, and it does make seeing those pesky stoplights possible (and
      > since driving a car isn't a medieval activity, that's not a problem
      > with my accuracy experience).
      >
      > But for the most part, I "need" things like oxygen, water, occasional
      > feeding, and to a lesser degree safety, love, respect,
      > self-fulfillment, and so forth (although I can go for surprising
      > lengths of time without all of those except oxygen). Most everything
      > else are desires, not needs.
      >
      > When I see people use the word "need", it seems to me that they are
      > meaning that it is a requirement to maintain their quality of life at
      > a comfortable and convenient level, as opposed to they are required to
      > have whatever in order to make something specific possible, or because
      > without it they will die.
      >
      > I take medications that keep my stomach from giving me huge pain, and
      > others that keep my blood pressure down. Do I –need- those?
      > Technically no, I can go for days at a time without them, although
      > this does cause some discomfort. I take them regularly because I
      > prefer to not yack bloody hydrochloric acid, and having blood pressure
      > numbers higher than my IQ is cool occasionally, but it makes my Doctor
      > give me –that- look. Need, no.
      > Want to keep my life comfortable, yes.
      >
      > Now, I'm positive that some of you will disagree with this extreme of
      > definition, and that's fine. People are not actually –required- to
      > agree with me. I just wanted to be clear that when –I- use the term,
      > this is what I mean.
      >
      > I'm not disagreeing that your desires and wants are critical to you
      > and perfectly valid. I'm just being pedantic about your use of terms :)
      >
      > Marc/Diarmaid

      Understood here, anyway.

      I "need" corrective lenses in order to function. I would wear contacts,
      but my allergies this year are ferocious, and it makes wearing them very
      painful, so I needs must wear my wire rim glasses. I would harm myself
      and/or others if I didn't.

      This year, for the first time, I'm also finding that I need polarized
      sunglasses - again, the allergies thing. My eyes are more photosensitive
      then they ought to be, and in bright sunlight my eyes tear up so much
      that I can't see where I'm going, even when wearing a wide-brimmed hat.
      At that point, I'm a danger to at least myself. Yes, I'm starting to get
      care that should start minimizing the problem, but at present, well. I'm
      looking forward to wearing contacts again. It'll be lovely. I'm also
      looking forward to not needing the sunglasses to be able to use my eyes
      on a sunny day.

      Until something interferes with my doing basic functions, like walking
      and avoiding holes, people, and other obstacles, it's a want. I try to
      tell myself this in the wool section of the fabric store all the time,
      and sometimes I even listen.

      However - and I'm not saying I've seen you say this, Diarmaid, I'm just
      commenting in general - grumbling about someone's metal walker or even
      knee brace is IMO beyond the pale. Eyeglasses can be equivalent to
      either decorative canes or necessary motor scooters for vision, and
      commenting about it when one doesn't know which is more than rude, it's
      also tacky.

      Margaret Northwode, who is on occasion, tacky herself.
    • Maggie Forest
      ... Including playing SCA and wanting an authentic experience . The definition of need must by its very definition be modified by the purpose of the
      Message 2 of 25 , Aug 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        >In the case of items for SCA use, well, those are wants. Every single
        >one of them.

        Including 'playing SCA' and 'wanting an authentic experience'. The
        definition of "need" must by its very definition be modified by the
        purpose of the exercise. It is not at all wrong to say 'I need
        glasses' if you complete the sentence with '...to enjoy going to SCA
        events'. You could also say 'I need to not wear my glasses to enjoy
        going to SCA events''.

        Me, my focal point is literally 2 inches in front of my eyes. I cannot
        recognize people whose faces I could touch if I do not wear glasses.
        If I try to interact with them, i.e. maintain some semblance of eye
        contact while speaking to them at, for example, a demo, I get a
        migraine within ten minutes. Thus, I cannot feel productive at a demo
        without my glasses.

        I can however walk through a room in complete darkness without
        hurting myself, as long as I've been in there once before. Thus all
        these statements are correct:

        "I do not need glasses" (...to survive)
        "I do need glasses" (...to do SCA or demos and be able to function
        satisfactorily)
        "I do not need to do SCA or demos"
        "I do need glasses to achieve what I _want_ from SCA or demos"

        Other people wish to achieve other things than I do, and so their
        statements will vary accordingly.

        It would be really useful if people could qualify their needs, since
        that could perhaps stop us from exploding into meta discussions so
        often, but I'm not holding out much hope...

        /maggie
      • Adele de Maisieres
        ... Actually, when I say that I need my glasses at events, what I mean is that I can t really participate at a meaningful level without them. The period
        Message 3 of 25 , Aug 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Marc Carlson wrote:

          >When I see people use the word "need", it seems to me that they are
          >meaning that it is a requirement to maintain their quality of life at
          >a comfortable and convenient level, as opposed to they are required to
          >have whatever in order to make something specific possible, or because
          >without it they will die.
          >
          >

          Actually, when I say that I "need" my glasses at events, what I mean is
          that I can't really participate at a meaningful level without them. The
          period activities that I enjoy are impossible without my glasses. I
          can't read, sew or do any other hand work, cook, watch a tourney, go out
          at night without a very real risk of hurting myself, or help anyone with
          much of anything. It's not that I'll die without them-- it's that I
          might as well stay home and only see my SCA friends in mundane settings
          as go without them.

          --
          Adele de Maisieres

          -----------------------------
          Habeo metrum - musicamque,
          hominem meam. Expectat alium quid?
          -Georgeus Gershwinus
          -----------------------------
        • Sharon L. Krossa
          ... Note, however, that that need is only for a specific purpose -- you need them _to use your eyes_. Do you need to use your eyes? Well, I expect (like
          Message 4 of 25 , Aug 1, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            At 1:32 PM -0500 8/1/05, Heather M wrote:
            > > I'm not disagreeing that your desires and wants are critical to you
            > > and perfectly valid. I'm just being pedantic about your use of terms :)
            >
            >Understood here, anyway.
            >
            >I "need" corrective lenses in order to function. I would wear contacts,
            >but my allergies this year are ferocious, and it makes wearing them very
            >painful, so I needs must wear my wire rim glasses. I would harm myself
            >and/or others if I didn't.
            >
            >This year, for the first time, I'm also finding that I need polarized
            >sunglasses - again, the allergies thing. My eyes are more photosensitive
            >then they ought to be, and in bright sunlight my eyes tear up so much
            >that I can't see where I'm going, even when wearing a wide-brimmed hat.
            >At that point, I'm a danger to at least myself. Yes, I'm starting to get
            >care that should start minimizing the problem, but at present, well. I'm
            >looking forward to wearing contacts again. It'll be lovely. I'm also
            >looking forward to not needing the sunglasses to be able to use my eyes
            >on a sunny day.

            Note, however, that that "need" is only for a specific purpose -- you
            need them _to use your eyes_. Do you "need" to use your eyes? Well, I
            expect (like most people) you want to, you prefer to, find life
            easier and more enjoyable if you do, etc., but if push came to shove,
            no, actually, you don't. We know this because there are actually
            people who manage to not only live but function despite becoming
            completely blind (both modernly and in the Middle Ages).

            Does this mean you should go without your glasses in the SCA? No, not
            necessarily -- it depends entirely on what you, personally, yourself
            (and no one else) have as your priorities for your SCA experience.
            Some people might find re-creating functional blindness in the Middle
            Ages to be an interesting challenge. Others may not be the least bit
            interested. That's fine -- it is entirely up to each individual to
            choose what they want to re-create in the SCA.

            But even for those who would be functionally blind without them,
            wearing glasses remains a choice from among multiple options.

            >However - and I'm not saying I've seen you say this, Diarmaid, I'm just
            >commenting in general - grumbling about someone's metal walker or even
            >knee brace is IMO beyond the pale.

            So why then are you making this comment in general? No one in recent
            discussions (or, to the best of my knowledge, ever on this list) has
            grumbled about someone else's metal walker or knee brace or even
            glasses -- nor is anyone likely to in the future.

            Pointing out -- accurately and factually -- that using some modern
            thing (whatever it is) is a choice and there are more authentic
            options is not "grumbling" about someone's use of that modern thing
            (whatever it is). There is no value judgement implied in such a
            factual observation. And this is true whether that modern thing is a
            wheelchair or a wrist watch.

            It only becomes a value judgement, or "grumbling", if people say, in
            so many words "No one should use wheelchairs in the SCA" or "It is
            bad for anyone to use wheelchairs in the SCA" or the like. And,
            again, no one has made any such statement in this discussion group
            about wheelchairs, walkers, knee braces, glasses, etc., nor are they
            likely to.

            Affrick
            --
            Sharon L. Krossa, skrossa-ml@...
          • Marc Carlson
            ... Absolutely. ... And THOSE I take before I go on site :) Marc
            Message 5 of 25 , Aug 1, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, Laura Morgan <valkerie1000@y...>
              wrote:
              > Gotcha.
              > "need" = bee sting kit in pouch for a severely allergic person

              Absolutely.

              > "want" = asprin for dealing with crazy people
              > "nice to have because life is much more pleasant and I am a nicer
              > person when I have them"= claritin pills

              And THOSE I take before I go on site :)

              Marc
            • Marc Carlson
              ... Absolutely not. And if you ever see me stating that those are inappropriate for SCA events, -please- call me on it. Or for that matter, your glasses. ...
              Message 6 of 25 , Aug 1, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, Heather M
                <margaretnorthwode@f...> wrote:
                > ...However - and I'm not saying I've seen you say this, Diarmaid, I'm
                > just commenting in general - grumbling about someone's metal walker
                > or even knee brace is IMO beyond the pale...

                Absolutely not. And if you ever see me stating that those are
                inappropriate for SCA events, -please- call me on it. Or for that
                matter, your glasses.

                > Eyeglasses can be equivalent to either decorative canes or necessary
                > motor scooters for vision, and commenting about it when one doesn't
                > know which is more than rude, it's also tacky.
                > Margaret Northwode, who is on occasion, tacky herself.

                Yup.

                Marc/Diarmaid
              • Marc Carlson
                ... Going in a totally different direction with this (and in no way to suggest that anyone should do this); why would anyone -want- to do this? When I deal
                Message 7 of 25 , Aug 1, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, "Sharon L. Krossa"
                  <skrossa-ml@M...> wrote:
                  > Does this mean you should go without your glasses in the SCA? No,
                  > not necessarily -- it depends entirely on what you, personally,
                  > yourself (and no one else) have as your priorities for your SCA
                  > experience. Some people might find re-creating functional blindness
                  > in the Middle Ages to be an interesting challenge. Others may not be
                  > the least bit interested. That's fine -- it is entirely up to each
                  > individual to choose what they want to re-create in the SCA...

                  Going in a totally different direction with this (and in no way to
                  suggest that anyone "should" do this); why would anyone -want- to do this?

                  When I deal with the past, what I want to do is to understand the
                  lives that those people lived, both bad as well as the good. I am
                  nearsighted (aka short sighted, both terms go back at least to the
                  early 1600s), but this is correctable with glasses so that under
                  modern conditions, my vision is not significantly worse than anyone
                  else's.

                  -Diarmaid- however, is not that lucky. His visual world is determined
                  by what he can see, and at events that's further than some, but not
                  further than others, but beyond about 30 feet there's nothing but a
                  solid blurry mass. Watching a tourney is meaningless. *I* keep track
                  of what's going around me by watching at a distance, he can't do this
                  (and this is the most difficult problem I have going without my
                  glasses). This gives me a hint of how people like me handled the
                  world without glasses and respect them more and honor them more for
                  that. Moreover, I would like to think that it gives me a hint of how
                  people who don't have the option of putting the glasses back on have
                  to live.

                  Marc/Diarmaid
                • Heather M
                  ... Heh - I m a woman of strong opinions. Getting them across to anyone I ve every met isn t a problem, though I do tend to pick a good time. ... Margaret
                  Message 8 of 25 , Aug 2, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Marc Carlson wrote:

                    > --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, Heather M
                    > <margaretnorthwode@f...> wrote:
                    > > ...However - and I'm not saying I've seen you say this, Diarmaid, I'm
                    > > just commenting in general - grumbling about someone's metal walker
                    > > or even knee brace is IMO beyond the pale...
                    >
                    > Absolutely not. And if you ever see me stating that those are
                    > inappropriate for SCA events, -please- call me on it. Or for that
                    > matter, your glasses.

                    Heh - I'm a woman of strong opinions. Getting them across to anyone I've
                    every met isn't a problem, though I do tend to pick a good time.

                    > > Eyeglasses can be equivalent to either decorative canes or necessary
                    > > motor scooters for vision, and commenting about it when one doesn't
                    > > know which is more than rude, it's also tacky.
                    > > Margaret Northwode, who is on occasion, tacky herself.
                    >
                    > Yup.
                    >
                    > Marc/Diarmaid

                    ::insert beam-in-my-own eye reference with light chagrin::

                    Margaret Northwode
                  • Marc Carlson
                    ... wrote: ... Is there ever really a good time to tell someone that they are acting like a shmuck? Marc/Diarmaid
                    Message 9 of 25 , Aug 2, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, Heather M
                      <margaretnorthwode@f...> wrote:>
                      > Heh - I'm a woman of strong opinions. Getting them across to anyone
                      > I've every met isn't a problem, though I do tend to pick a good
                      > time.

                      Is there ever really a good time to tell someone that they are acting
                      like a shmuck?

                      Marc/Diarmaid
                    • Heather M
                      ... IME, only if you want them to actually pay attention to your words and not just get angry because you re dressing them down in public. It also depends on
                      Message 10 of 25 , Aug 2, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Marc Carlson wrote:

                        > --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, Heather M
                        > <margaretnorthwode@f...> wrote:>
                        > > Heh - I'm a woman of strong opinions. Getting them across to anyone
                        > > I've every met isn't a problem, though I do tend to pick a good
                        > > time.
                        >
                        > Is there ever really a good time to tell someone that they are acting
                        > like a shmuck?
                        >
                        > Marc/Diarmaid

                        IME, only if you want them to actually pay attention to your words and
                        not just get angry because you're dressing them down in public. It also
                        depends on the person, and how well I know them. Some I know respond
                        better to that sort of conversation/statement in private, others don't
                        care either way. Note that it's possible to do so in a low voice in
                        public, too.

                        Soooo, if I want to really try to point out to them that a change of
                        attitude might be needed, I try to do so as privately as possible.
                        Otherwise, it can come across as something that's not so much "Hey,
                        you're probably an okay person but that came across to portray you as a
                        jerk," but instead something that belongs in the first five minutes of
                        Jerry Springer - attack without any point other than attack.

                        Margaret Northwode
                      • Heather M
                        ... I m boggled by your attitude as relayed here. By your logic, prosthetic limbs are not a need, because one could live without them. After all, people in
                        Message 11 of 25 , Aug 2, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Sharon L. Krossa wrote:

                          > <snip>
                          > Note, however, that that "need" is only for a specific purpose -- you
                          > need them _to use your eyes_. Do you "need" to use your eyes? Well, I
                          > expect (like most people) you want to, you prefer to, find life
                          > easier and more enjoyable if you do, etc., but if push came to shove,
                          > no, actually, you don't. We know this because there are actually
                          > people who manage to not only live but function despite becoming
                          > completely blind (both modernly and in the Middle Ages).

                          I'm boggled by your attitude as relayed here. By your logic, prosthetic
                          limbs are not a "need," because one could live without them. After all,
                          people in the Middle Ages and modernly live without them, so therefore I
                          can, too? I know you're talking about glasses. They seem to you
                          something optional, but for me and many others, they are the direct
                          equivalent of prosthetic eyes.

                          > <snip>
                          > But even for those who would be functionally blind without them,
                          > wearing glasses remains a choice from among multiple options.

                          It's interesting that you seem to feel that way. For many, this is the
                          choice between looking period with migraines, loss of depth perception,
                          and bad vision (to just touch the tip of the iceberg), and wearing
                          glasses. And those effects? They don't go away and you don't "get used
                          to them" if you opt to use your lenses less often.

                          > >However - and I'm not saying I've seen you say this, Diarmaid, I'm just
                          > >commenting in general - grumbling about someone's metal walker or even
                          > >knee brace is IMO beyond the pale.
                          >
                          > So why then are you making this comment in general? No one in recent
                          > discussions (or, to the best of my knowledge, ever on this list) has
                          > grumbled about someone else's metal walker or knee brace or even
                          > glasses -- nor is anyone likely to in the future.

                          I have personally run across conversations where similar statements were
                          being made. I also make comparisons to my real-life experiences. I know
                          local folks with handicaps who use various devices to move around. You
                          would not believe the comments they've received that I've overheard, in
                          that oh-so-subtle stage mutter that they're not supposed to hear, but
                          really are. The only reason I didn't come up out of my chair was because
                          the insulted person requested that I not - they were used to hearing it,
                          and hadn't been able to change anyone's mind. I personally have not
                          gotten flak about glasses that I've heard, but have followed threads on
                          this list and others where folks were making nasty comments about modern
                          contraptions used at events that make life possible and richer for those
                          who require them. Yes. Even here. On glasses. To the point that I've
                          almost stopped following these threads unless someone is actually
                          talking about folks offering period glasses for sale.

                          > Pointing out -- accurately and factually -- that using some modern
                          > thing (whatever it is) is a choice and there are more authentic
                          > options is not "grumbling" about someone's use of that modern thing
                          > (whatever it is). There is no value judgement implied in such a
                          > factual observation. And this is true whether that modern thing is a
                          > wheelchair or a wrist watch.

                          Yes, there is. I can sit near someone in Renn wench garb, and talk
                          accurately and factually to you or anyone else about how her garb is in
                          need of improvement and different from what history has left us evidence
                          to see, and it's still a judgement and it's still tacky, for all that it
                          may be true and accurate. Unasked for offered improvements to someone's
                          SCA experience = snarking, Affrick, period. When you've already been
                          offered their reasons to stick with what they're doing, and you continue
                          to "suggest" that "there's a better way of doing it," your snarkiness
                          increases by orders of magnitude.

                          > It only becomes a value judgement, or "grumbling", if people say, in
                          > so many words "No one should use wheelchairs in the SCA" or "It is
                          > bad for anyone to use wheelchairs in the SCA" or the like. And,
                          > again, no one has made any such statement in this discussion group
                          > about wheelchairs, walkers, knee braces, glasses, etc., nor are they
                          > likely to.
                          >
                          > Affrick
                          > --
                          > Sharon L. Krossa, skrossa-ml@...

                          You just made the comment, obliquely, by suggesting that using my
                          prosthetic eyes is a choice somehow lesser than that of choosing to live
                          with the consequences to me and others of not wearing them. This is a
                          texy-only forum, though, and perhaps you didn't mean that - but it
                          definitely reads that way.

                          Margaret Northwode
                        • Marc Carlson
                          ... See, I find that all too often people will generally read (or hear) whatever words they want to read (or hear), disregarding what doesn t fit what they
                          Message 12 of 25 , Aug 2, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, Heather M
                            <margaretnorthwode@f...> wrote:
                            >> Is there ever really a good time to tell someone that they are
                            >> acting like a shmuck?
                            > IME, only if you want them to actually pay attention to your words
                            > and not just get angry because you're dressing them down in public.

                            See, I find that all too often people will generally read (or hear)
                            whatever words they want to read (or hear), disregarding what doesn't
                            fit what they wanted you to be saying, and inserting things that fit
                            their pre-conceived notions. Which means that if you are going to be
                            telling someone that you think they are behaving badly, they will
                            _virtually_ never hear what you are trying to say, but rather will
                            take it as an attack. Hence my question. If you're lucky, they'll
                            actually get the point eventually, but it's almost certain that there
                            will be embarrassment and/or hurt feelings first (unless, of course,
                            you implied, you have a particular relationship with the accused).

                            > Soooo, if I want to really try to point out to them that a change
                            > of attitude might be needed, I try to do so as privately as
                            > possible. Otherwise, it can come across as something that's not so
                            > much "Hey, you're probably an okay person but that came across to
                            > portray you as a jerk," but instead something that belongs in the
                            > first five minutes of Jerry Springer - attack without any point
                            > other than attack.

                            For me I find that "are you -sure- that's how you wanted to say that,
                            since it sounded to me like you were saying X" usually works fairly
                            well -- particularly in private...

                            Marc/Diarmaid
                          • ketamina06
                            ... you ... Well, I ... shove, ... prosthetic ... all, ... therefore I ... direct ... I ve been watching this conversation for the last few days and
                            Message 13 of 25 , Aug 2, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, Heather M
                              <margaretnorthwode@f...> wrote:
                              > Sharon L. Krossa wrote:
                              >
                              > > <snip>
                              > > Note, however, that that "need" is only for a specific purpose --
                              you
                              > > need them _to use your eyes_. Do you "need" to use your eyes?
                              Well, I
                              > > expect (like most people) you want to, you prefer to, find life
                              > > easier and more enjoyable if you do, etc., but if push came to
                              shove,
                              > > no, actually, you don't. We know this because there are actually
                              > > people who manage to not only live but function despite becoming
                              > > completely blind (both modernly and in the Middle Ages).
                              >
                              > I'm boggled by your attitude as relayed here. By your logic,
                              prosthetic
                              > limbs are not a "need," because one could live without them. After
                              all,
                              > people in the Middle Ages and modernly live without them, so
                              therefore I
                              > can, too? I know you're talking about glasses. They seem to you
                              > something optional, but for me and many others, they are the
                              direct
                              > equivalent of prosthetic eyes.

                              I've been watching this conversation for the last few days and
                              restraining from commenting until now. I agree with Margaret here,
                              in that this differentiation between need and want has gone off the
                              deep end.

                              Why do we do what we do in the SCA? Well, anyone that I've ever
                              asked has put 'fun' in there somewhere. The SCA and things
                              associated with it create some degree of happiness for us.

                              Now, why would I NOT wear my glasses during an event? Well, after
                              trying to NOT wear them once and getting a headache... and calling
                              myself stupid for it, the only reason I could come up with is
                              because I lost or misplaced them. I would find anyone looking down
                              upon my attempt at authenticity because I'm wearing glasses very
                              rude.

                              Back to happiness. In strict reality, humans need few things to
                              survive: air, food, water and protection from the elements. But to
                              truly /live/, humans need to have some degree of happiness which of
                              course can come from countless sources. In our case, the SCA is one
                              of those sources, and for most members, some amount of authenticity.

                              I realize that this is definitely a dead horse, but I must stress
                              that it would be best if we were to base our 'need' on happiness,
                              not just survival. If I didn't wear my glasses, I would be a small
                              degree closer to authentic, but a high degree farther away from
                              comfort and the need to SEE. Anyone wishing to compromise such needs
                              in the interest of comfort and happiness should have their heads
                              examined.

                              Are there really members of this discussion list who think such
                              compromises should be made? I don't really think so, and to see this
                              discussion go as far as it has is kind of scary.

                              L. Keterlyn, who actually based her last decision on what style of
                              eyeglass frames to get on authenticity.
                            • Greg Lindahl
                              ... Cariadoc doesn t wear glasses at events -- but he doesn t get headaches from doing so. Nor does he comment on anyone else s choices to wear or not wear
                              Message 14 of 25 , Aug 2, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 03:01:48AM -0000, ketamina06 wrote:

                                > Are there really members of this discussion list who think such
                                > compromises should be made? I don't really think so, and to see this
                                > discussion go as far as it has is kind of scary.

                                Cariadoc doesn't wear glasses at events -- but he doesn't get
                                headaches from doing so. Nor does he comment on anyone else's choices
                                to wear or not wear their glasses.

                                -- Gregory
                              • Marc Carlson
                                ... I certainly don t have a problem with headaches without my glasses, but what do I know, I obviously need to have my head examined since I m clearly willing
                                Message 15 of 25 , Aug 2, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, Greg Lindahl <lindahl@p...> wrote:
                                  > On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 03:01:48AM -0000, ketamina06 wrote:
                                  >> Are there really members of this discussion list who think such
                                  >> compromises should be made? I don't really think so, and to see this
                                  >> discussion go as far as it has is kind of scary.
                                  > Cariadoc doesn't wear glasses at events -- but he doesn't get
                                  > headaches from doing so. Nor does he comment on anyone else's choices
                                  > to wear or not wear their glasses.

                                  I certainly don't have a problem with headaches without my glasses,
                                  but what do I know, I obviously need to have my head examined since
                                  I'm clearly willing to occasionally set aside mere comfort for my own
                                  personal goals of honoring those who've gone before...

                                  Marc/Diarmaid
                                • Sharon L. Krossa
                                  ... What would be even more useful for avoiding exploding into meta discussions so often is if: 1) People would assume others are _not_ judging them (or anyone
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Aug 2, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    At 9:04 AM +1200 8/2/05, Maggie Forest wrote:
                                    >It would be really useful if people could qualify their needs, since
                                    >that could perhaps stop us from exploding into meta discussions so
                                    >often, but I'm not holding out much hope...

                                    What would be even more useful for avoiding exploding into meta
                                    discussions so often is if:

                                    1) People would assume others are _not_ judging them (or anyone
                                    else), instead of assuming they are.

                                    2) People would assume that if someone asks for suggestions on a
                                    mailing list called "Authentic_SCA", they are indeed asking for
                                    suggestions for what they could do to be more authentic, not asking
                                    for absolution or approval to just keep doing whatever less authentic
                                    thing they're already doing.

                                    Ewphrick
                                    --
                                    Sharon L. Krossa, skrossa-ml@...
                                  • ketamina06
                                    ... this ... choices ... own ... For you it is comfort you set aside, and by doing so it apparently brings you some measure of pleasure and happiness the same
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Aug 3, 2005
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, "Marc Carlson"
                                      <marccarlson20@h...> wrote:
                                      > --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, Greg Lindahl <lindahl@p...>
                                      wrote:
                                      > > On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 03:01:48AM -0000, ketamina06 wrote:
                                      > >> Are there really members of this discussion list who think such
                                      > >> compromises should be made? I don't really think so, and to see
                                      this
                                      > >> discussion go as far as it has is kind of scary.
                                      > > Cariadoc doesn't wear glasses at events -- but he doesn't get
                                      > > headaches from doing so. Nor does he comment on anyone else's
                                      choices
                                      > > to wear or not wear their glasses.
                                      >
                                      > I certainly don't have a problem with headaches without my glasses,
                                      > but what do I know, I obviously need to have my head examined since
                                      > I'm clearly willing to occasionally set aside mere comfort for my
                                      own
                                      > personal goals of honoring those who've gone before...
                                      >
                                      > Marc/Diarmaid

                                      For you it is comfort you set aside, and by doing so it apparently
                                      brings you some measure of pleasure and happiness the same way hand-
                                      sewing a garment does to someone who normally uses a machine to do
                                      the work.

                                      But even for those who don't get headaches, who might instead feel
                                      they are endangering themselves or others or simply feel that not
                                      seeing what's going on around them clearly enough, is it wrong for
                                      them to not sacrifice their glasses? Do YOU view them as wrong, or
                                      as 'not going the extra step'? It's not as if they are carrying a
                                      purse or not making any attempt at proper dress (by proper dress, I
                                      mean anything aside from mundane clothing).

                                      Most people I personally know in the SCA spend time deciding how far
                                      they are willing to go, and weigh the happiness aspect. Many decide
                                      to keep their glasses, etc, because without them it would be a much
                                      less pleasurable experience.

                                      Is that so bad? I don't think so, and it doesn't make them any less
                                      deserving of rewards of effort toward authenticity.

                                      L. Keterlyn
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.