Page 1 of 1
2006 ICOC Register?
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:45 am
Greetings! I'm pretty sure that the 2006 (for 2005) ICOC Register is now out (as I thought it was released just before the Congress), but I can't find it anywhere on-line. Can anyone send me in the right direction -- maybe it's only in Italian?
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:22 am
Well, it's almost March of 2007 -- does anyone know if the 2006 ICOC Register is out now (in English, preferably)?
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:07 am
I have no idea Guye, perhaps some of the opther forum members may know!
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 8:18 pm
It will not matter to me when the ICOC publishes its next opinion as I remain rather fond of the opinion given by M. Velde way back in 1998 in reply to the question "Is it better to have a flawed ICOC made up of individuals having personal 'stakes,' or is it better to have no such body at all?"
It seems clear to me that the latter is preferable. At best, a flawed ICOC is useless; but it also makes harder, and discredits, future attempts at establishing better ones.
Besides, I think the Web will render obsolete the very concept. What is the concept of an ICOC? A body of experts, or supposed experts, is gathered somehow, toils in the dark for years, and announces to a grateful public of dimwits a List. I have not seen the ICOC's latest opus (or any other), but at 24 pages, it can't be much more than just that, a list. No motivations, justifications, explanations, documents. The reader cannot form an opinion, he is expected to trust the "experts" and take their pronouncements at face value. That's the whole point of having a commission of experts, after all.
I can well imagine that it would be prohibitively expensive for the ICOC or any such body to publish all the relevant material, and I'm not faulting them for not doing so. But the Web provides an obvious alternative. All materials can be published at little cost and made available to any reader in New Zealand or Armenia at any time. Competition (in which I trust, being an economist) will ensure that every competing order will publish its stuff, making available dispersed or rare documents. Other parties or rival organizations will publish counter-claims, refutations, or analyses. In the end, a lot of material will be made available, and the interested public can make up its own mind, or browse around the Web sites of various self-appointed experts (no worse than experts appointed by the dignitaries of a dubious order) and compare arguments. The ICOC, or any other similar self-constituted body, can also have its Web site. The public even has a venue to bring up the topics for discussion (for better or for worse, rec.heraldry is it, until someone creates rec.chivalry).
As long as nobody tries to silence diverse opinions with libel suits or nonsense of the kind, this system (which is bound to emerge anyway) is preferable.
When it comes to deciding what is an acceptable Order of Chivalry and what is not, we'll stick to the tried and tested and we'll use the latest Burke's publication for guidance .... but then we would wouldn't we