[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

[shurhaian.livejournal.com]

A difficulty: The concept of "canonicity" might well be somewhat at odds with accuracy. It might indeed be more typical for, say, someone to like all the mammalian primes and none of the others, and vice versa, than for someone to pick and choose across those borders - but it might happen. There might be specific attributes of very particular species that a given person finds attractive, which might not make clear sense on their own - not least because it might not be the same single thing that appeals for all of them. Liking Orren for their exuberance and, oh... Khtsoyis for their multiple limbs, say. You're not too likely to find a single common cause of affection there; only by allowing for several does it get neatly solved.

(And it probably wouldn't be so neat in reality; this is just as an example.)

As for the gods... Is any mode of the heart truly against the gods' will, ultimately? Even some of the priests will say that the way to follow the gods is by listening to your inner desires. They seem to be fond of variety to begin with. If something shows up in a significant portion of the population of a given species, maybe the god in question wanted it to be an option? (And this could be applied to transaffection as well - just because the first-created needed to reproduce to secure the species doesn't mean the gods mind when different species of prime are intimate with each other.)

[This was supposed to be a reply. Deleting the duplicate.]

[zeeth_kyrah]

I would note that the god who made the Herethroy inserted a recessive gene (or two, or however many) which causes both-females to appear when expressed. And obviously, that had to have been added with a purpose, but the intended purpose causes problems when the recessive gene(s) has enough copies to achieve dominance.

But what gets me is that, as a god, he could fix it... but he doesn't. So it seems to me that the purpose of the necessary genetics is so important that they can't be removed or changed without very bad things happening. Or maybe he just wanted someone to be a safe scapegoat for the folks who do all the hard work of farming and building and whatnot, even if he gets pissed off when one appears.

So World Tree gods do make mistakes, but they make mistakes so complex that they can't be easily fixed without entirely remaking something (or extinguishing something else that another god might want to fight for).