[Theory Thursday #1, part 2]

[sythyry]

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.)

Comments

[delight-in.livejournal.com]

I'm confused shouldn't a classification system be there to describe the way things work? Like the way complexity and power describe properties of spells.

Doesn't your current classification system fit your experience? If it doesn't where did it come from?

[sythyry.livejournal.com]

Yes to the first, but in a useful way. Classifications like "like Sythyry" and "like Delights-in", one for each person, is accurate but not very helpful.

My current one generally fits my experience; it comes from various philosophers in the traff community of a century or so ago.

[gavinfox.livejournal.com]

Well, if I were you, I'd first try to check out the current philosophical terms, leanings, and debates on the topic, see if the discussion has progressed any in a century or so, and maybe compare that to your current system?

[sythyry.livejournal.com]

The libraries in Eigrach have, I suspect, fairly little.

[gavinfox.livejournal.com]

Well, I guess you will probably have to find the surviving philosophers in person then! Too bad you aren't a wizard who specializes in teleporting and who has a skyship, and who is seen to be beneficial to the traff community! No, waitaminute... ;)

[(Anonymous)]

Mmm.

"Delight-in" and "Sythyry" aren't very useful categories. But "Orren" and "Zi Ri" are right?

Sooo .... bear with me a minute I'm thinking on parchment here:

Orren:
* can shapeshift between biped and waterforms
* go into Wild Rushes in stressful situations
* rarely stay focused on one thing for more than a few months

And those are all useful things for describing an Orren right?

Windigar, Blenny, and me are all Orren.

But Blenny can't shapeshift and Windigar has stayed interested in skypiloting for a really long time and I don't think he rushed even oncein the whole time that Vae was dragging them around and getting them killed. But they're still Orren and it doesn't mean that they're not Orren or that the traits assigned to Orren are *wrong*. It just means that the Orren archetype doesn't fit all Orren perfectly.

Maybe traff and cis and libertine are categories like Orren and Rassy and Khtsoyis and not everyone meets all of the criteria associated with those categories? So like MOST libertines can't love anyone and MOST libertines are attracted to all species equally but SOME libertines might be different from that archetype just the way some Orren are different from our archetype?

So it doesn't mean the category doesn't exist or is wrong just that there are exceptions to it?

[delight-in.livejournal.com]

Oops that was me I don't know why it didn't put my picture next to it that time.

Oh and maybe you should ask the other people at Castle Wrong how they feel about the category labels and if they fit them or not?

[kris-schnee.livejournal.com]

Are you suggesting Sythyry deserves an entirely new branch of thaumaturgy to describe zir doom? For instance a Complexity 10 (Lusts-after+Is-confused-by)(Zi Ri+Orren) form of doom?

[delight-in.livejournal.com]

Noooo I don't think that would help!

I'm glad I'm cis not that being otherwise is BAD but it does seem very very confusing

[alex-muridae.livejournal.com]

For a moment of Sleethyness, I am the cunning and teasing Orren! I tell you that being cissy may be just as confusing, vrai, and more complex then purple Orren or even blue Zi Ri think. Once I finish teasing, I then sprawl and watch the resulting headtilting with many grins. :3

[delight-in.livejournal.com]

It's been much simpler for me so far!

... but I haven't done very much dating myself.

[alex-muridae.livejournal.com]

Now with that, I can agree. Not dating is very much simpler, and in some ways, that simplicity is very good.