[Theoretical Thursday #1]

Mirrored from Sythyry.

[OOC: Sythyry is going to fuss around, privately, with the theory of transaffection. If you want to comment, zie will pay attention and it may have an influence on how zir theories evolve. (Not necessarily the influence you want, but that's true with any theoretical discussion.) I will post the fussing on Thursdays, and keep actual story on MWF, or that's the plan. -bb]

I am now very, very confused, and apprehensive, and upset, and worried, and confused, and distressed, and perplexed, and confused, and confused.

1. Am I cisaffectionate really? I must admit that I responded to Saza as eagerly as I did to Arfaen or Thenel … maybe less than Mynthë? Or maybe I am not remembering that perfectly? It is decades ago now, and I did not write the details down.
2. If I’m really cisaffectionate, what should I do vis-a-vis Castle Wrong? Can I have an estate like Castle Wrong if I’m not actually wrong?
3. Haven’t I just betrayed most of my closest friends?
4. And/or I betrayed Tarfnie. In 4363, Tarfnie broke up with his Herethroy coloverfriend, and got involved with another Rassimel. There was Considerable Drama around this change, and even some Doom. In the end it was decided that Tarfnie was not traff, and, in fact, not Wrong, and so should no longer live in Castle Wrong. We’re still not really on speaking terms with Tarfnie. (This sort of thing has happened, with variations and complications, a number of times. Tarfnie is the one that stings the most of recent: he and I were very good friends beforehand.) And I didn’t behave that differently from Tarfnie.
5. Maybe I’m not really traff. I have never been much interested in Khtsoyis, or Sleeth, or Gormoror. Not really. If I were actually traff, I’d be just as excited by them as by Orren … right?
6. And Mynthë sometimes did tease me by turning into a Zi Ri and making out with me. Which I enjoyed as much as everything else with Mynthë, even if it was a bit perplexing and embarrassing.
7. Maybe I’m not really cissy, just, well, horny, and Saza was available. I’d have gone for a Rassy or a Cani just as fast, and an Orren much faster.
8. Wouldn’t I? How can I be sure of that?
9. If I’m really cisaffectionate … that would explain why I’m always so reluctant to get involved by my own clients. Right? ’cause I don’t really want to get involved with them, not really. I really want other Zi Ri, even if I won’t (wouldn’t?) admit it to myself. It all sort of hangs together, doesn’t it?
10. I’ll have to … move somewhere else where I can find lovers, right? One of the Zi Ri cities, or at least a city with more than one other Zi Ri in it. Where I will be (a) exceedingly young, and (b) have a terrible reputation as a traff pervert, so it won’t even work very well.
11. And abandon Castle Wrong and betray everyone in it.
12. Even if I like people of other species — like the more than my own — I am obviously a total slut, willing and eager to fornicate with anyone who shows me the least bit of interest or attention or affection.

I suppose I really ought to make up my mind: cisaffectionate? or transaffectionate? After more than a century of being traff, I think I have persuaded myself that transaffection is nearly as much an expression of true honest-to-gods love and pleasure as cisaffection is supposed to be. (For the record: I think I understand cisaffection better as of today, and I think I was completely right in all regards about transaffection.) So I’m really not abandoning it just because I’ll rip off my ribbons for the first vaguely appealing Zi Ri I happen to meet in an alley somewhere.

Even though, well, I basically did, didn’t I?

So I’m basically like Inconnu. Except that Inconnu is an honest and clear traff slut, and I am just a plain dishonest … libertine, I suppose. I suppose I’ll be holding that kind of party any day now, with wenezza cookies all ’round, and honest-and-honorable Phaniet will be pretending she doesn’t know me.

I’m babbling, aren’t I?

For the moment I will pretend that I am still the Sythyry I am used to, that everyone in Castle Wrong is used to, and perhaps I will sort this terrible mess out.

The Theory

The last century and a half has taught me that there are three sorts of primes:

Cisaffectionate	Capable of lusting for and loving their own species.
Transaffectionate	Capable of lusting for and loving all seven other species.
Libertine	Lusts for all eight species; incapable of love.

I have been assuming that I was transaffectionate, and that I actually loved Mynthë. I suspect now that I am actually a libertine, and I merely pretended to everyone (including myself) that I loved her.

Honestly I’d rather be cissy than a libertine.

[Theoretical Thursday #1]

Mirrored from Sythyry.

[OOC: Sythyry is going to fuss around, privately, with the theory of transaffection. If you want to comment, zie will pay attention and it may have an influence on how zir theories evolve. (Not necessarily the influence you want, but that's true with any theoretical discussion.) I will post the fussing on Thursdays, and keep actual story on MWF, or that's the plan. -bb]

I am now very, very confused, and apprehensive, and upset, and worried, and confused, and distressed, and perplexed, and confused, and confused.

1. Am I cisaffectionate really? I must admit that I responded to Saza as eagerly as I did to Arfaen or Thenel … maybe less than Mynthë? Or maybe I am not remembering that perfectly? It is decades ago now, and I did not write the details down.
2. If I’m really cisaffectionate, what should I do vis-a-vis Castle Wrong? Can I have an estate like Castle Wrong if I’m not actually wrong?
3. Haven’t I just betrayed most of my closest friends?
4. And/or I betrayed Tarfnie. In 4363, Tarfnie broke up with his Herethroy coloverfriend, and got involved with another Rassimel. There was Considerable Drama around this change, and even some Doom. In the end it was decided that Tarfnie was not traff, and, in fact, not Wrong, and so should no longer live in Castle Wrong. We’re still not really on speaking terms with Tarfnie. (This sort of thing has happened, with variations and complications, a number of times. Tarfnie is the one that stings the most of recent: he and I were very good friends beforehand.) And I didn’t behave that differently from Tarfnie.
5. Maybe I’m not really traff. I have never been much interested in Khtsoyis, or Sleeth, or Gormoror. Not really. If I were actually traff, I’d be just as excited by them as by Orren … right?
6. And Mynthë sometimes did tease me by turning into a Zi Ri and making out with me. Which I enjoyed as much as everything else with Mynthë, even if it was a bit perplexing and embarrassing.
7. Maybe I’m not really cissy, just, well, horny, and Saza was available. I’d have gone for a Rassy or a Cani just as fast, and an Orren much faster.
8. Wouldn’t I? How can I be sure of that?
9. If I’m really cisaffectionate … that would explain why I’m always so reluctant to get involved by my own clients. Right? ’cause I don’t really want to get involved with them, not really. I really want other Zi Ri, even if I won’t (wouldn’t?) admit it to myself. It all sort of hangs together, doesn’t it?
10. I’ll have to … move somewhere else where I can find lovers, right? One of the Zi Ri cities, or at least a city with more than one other Zi Ri in it. Where I will be (a) exceedingly young, and (b) have a terrible reputation as a traff pervert, so it won’t even work very well.
11. And abandon Castle Wrong and betray everyone in it.
12. Even if I like people of other species — like the more than my own — I am obviously a total slut, willing and eager to fornicate with anyone who shows me the least bit of interest or attention or affection.

I suppose I really ought to make up my mind: cisaffectionate? or transaffectionate? After more than a century of being traff, I think I have persuaded myself that transaffection is nearly as much an expression of true honest-to-gods love and pleasure as cisaffection is supposed to be. (For the record: I think I understand cisaffection better as of today, and I think I was completely right in all regards about transaffection.) So I’m really not abandoning it just because I’ll rip off my ribbons for the first vaguely appealing Zi Ri I happen to meet in an alley somewhere.

Even though, well, I basically did, didn’t I?

So I’m basically like Inconnu. Except that Inconnu is an honest and clear traff slut, and I am just a plain dishonest … libertine, I suppose. I suppose I’ll be holding that kind of party any day now, with wenezza cookies all ’round, and honest-and-honorable Phaniet will be pretending she doesn’t know me.

I’m babbling, aren’t I?

For the moment I will pretend that I am still the Sythyry I am used to, that everyone in Castle Wrong is used to, and perhaps I will sort this terrible mess out.

The Theory

The last century and a half has taught me that there are three sorts of primes:

Cisaffectionate	Capable of lusting for and loving their own species.
Transaffectionate	Capable of lusting for and loving all seven other species.
Libertine	Lusts for all eight species; incapable of love.

I have been assuming that I was transaffectionate, and that I actually loved Mynthë. I suspect now that I am actually a libertine, and I merely pretended to everyone (including myself) that I loved her.

Honestly I’d rather be cissy than a libertine.

[Theory Thursday #1, part 2]

Mirrored from Sythyry.

Thanks, truly, for everyone who answered my last post. I am trying to thrash this out, and I don’t have very many people around that I can safely talk to about it. I appreciate the discussion — I appreciate the direct challenge to some of my basic principles, even. I do not promise to agree with anything you say, but I will try to be an intellectually honest little lizard, and try to understand them at least.

I am not sure quite how to go about this, though.

There are at least two sensible approaches.

First, I might have mis-classified myself in my current (and correct) classification system. I had somewhat assumed that in my previous post, but many of you have challenged me on it, so I am willing to consider the possibility that this is the wrong question altogether.

Or Second, my current classification system might be incorrect, in a lesser or greater degree. (Example ‘lesser’: modify the definition of ‘traff’ to allow some same-species interest. Example ‘greater’: toss the whole thing out, and simply rank a person’s possible interest in each of the eight prime species on a scale from 1-12.)

But I can’t see all the way to picking a new classification system right now. Before that, I should at least try to think of what makes a good classification system. Here are a few thoughts from a distinctly dazed dragonet:

1. Conciseness: it has as few categories as possible.
2. Simplicity: Each category is well-described by a simple phrase.
3. Accuracy: it describes people well; in particular, nobody is in two categories.
4. Ethnocentricity: it makes sense in terms of prime people and culture
5. Canonicality: it is, in a sense that I cannot currently define, defined sensibly. (E.g., a system with “likes mammals” and “likes non-mammals” is more canonical than “likes Cani and Rassimel” and “likes the other six species”.)
6. Usefulness: it is useful, e.g., for telling who I should admit to Castle Wrong on the basis of romantic preferences.

Bearing in mind that my current system scores well on all of these save, perhaps, accuracy. [Bard adds 'and canonicality' for reasons of its own. -bb]

Addendum: Tarfnie

(Tarfnie’s situation was rather more complicated than it might have seemed from my brief description. The Considerable Drama part of it include a number of regrettable incidents from nearly everyone involved, and I might have expelled Tarfnie — or Yowdon — on the basis of violence. The observation that Tarfnie was not traff and Yowdon was did help my decision. One or both of them had to go, though. I grant that several aspects of the situation continue to trouble me, and that I did not behave particularly well myself: but it was not so simple or wicked as discovering that Tarfnie was cissy and immediately tossing him out.)

[Theory Thursday #1, part 2]

Mirrored from Sythyry.

Thanks, truly, for everyone who answered my last post. I am trying to thrash this out, and I don’t have very many people around that I can safely talk to about it. I appreciate the discussion — I appreciate the direct challenge to some of my basic principles, even. I do not promise to agree with anything you say, but I will try to be an intellectually honest little lizard, and try to understand them at least.

I am not sure quite how to go about this, though.

There are at least two sensible approaches.

First, I might have mis-classified myself in my current (and correct) classification system. I had somewhat assumed that in my previous post, but many of you have challenged me on it, so I am willing to consider the possibility that this is the wrong question altogether.

Or Second, my current classification system might be incorrect, in a lesser or greater degree. (Example ‘lesser’: modify the definition of ‘traff’ to allow some same-species interest. Example ‘greater’: toss the whole thing out, and simply rank a person’s possible interest in each of the eight prime species on a scale from 1-12.)

But I can’t see all the way to picking a new classification system right now. Before that, I should at least try to think of what makes a good classification system. Here are a few thoughts from a distinctly dazed dragonet:

1. Conciseness: it has as few categories as possible.
2. Simplicity: Each category is well-described by a simple phrase.
3. Accuracy: it describes people well; in particular, nobody is in two categories.
4. Ethnocentricity: it makes sense in terms of prime people and culture
5. Canonicality: it is, in a sense that I cannot currently define, defined sensibly. (E.g., a system with “likes mammals” and “likes non-mammals” is more canonical than “likes Cani and Rassimel” and “likes the other six species”.)
6. Usefulness: it is useful, e.g., for telling who I should admit to Castle Wrong on the basis of romantic preferences.

Bearing in mind that my current system scores well on all of these save, perhaps, accuracy. [Bard adds 'and canonicality' for reasons of its own. -bb]

Addendum: Tarfnie

(Tarfnie’s situation was rather more complicated than it might have seemed from my brief description. The Considerable Drama part of it include a number of regrettable incidents from nearly everyone involved, and I might have expelled Tarfnie — or Yowdon — on the basis of violence. The observation that Tarfnie was not traff and Yowdon was did help my decision. One or both of them had to go, though. I grant that several aspects of the situation continue to trouble me, and that I did not behave particularly well myself: but it was not so simple or wicked as discovering that Tarfnie was cissy and immediately tossing him out.)