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

Re: [Authentic_SCA] "Need"

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.