Truth
- Why am I aligned with this? I expected Spite.
- What is truth? Let's maybe not start by trying to solve one of the oldest philosophical questions in the world.
- What about this missing Prime thing? Am I going to be stuck with crappy magic forever?
- Well, at least I did actually get an Affinity, so the experts are wrong on some things. Maybe there's something they overlooked. Does this place have a decent library?
What We Supposedly Know
- Only cis girls can practice magic.
- Truth magic has contradictory effects. It's inconsistent and twisty and actually bloody annoying. And nobody knows what the Prime is.
- There's still a continuing academic dogfight over what Truth-the-Affinity is, with two major camps. One says that Archetypal Truth is what matters - that the result of the magic feels real, even if it's propped up by bullshit. The other says that Physical Truth is what matters - that the magic doesn't do or produce anything that's actually physically impossible, even if the results seem extremely implausible. Both sides have got some decent arguments but both sides also have major holes. Need to come back to this.
- Truth doesn't make things truthful any more than Art makes things artistic or Duty makes things dutiful. The causation runs the other direction: Truths fuel truth magic.
- Secondary Archetypes like Librarian or Secretary are beneath notice and not worth investigating.
- The records on who has found some fragment of Truth Prime and what it was are practically nonexistent. I smell Asterium infighting.
- Only Licensed Mages can cast off-campus.
Conjectures:
- Only girls, full stop, can practice magic? If I knew more GQ people I'd do the obvious experiment, but oh well.
- The Veil might not actually suppress my magic, given my weird circumstances. It'd be a nice perk if this ended up being true, but frankly I doubt it.
- I probably hit some fragment of Truth Prime by accident if it managed to override my Spite affinity, which is probably my strongest natural affinity for obvious reasons. Trying to reconstruct Truth Prime seems like a fool's errand, though.
- Secondary Archetypes have probably not gotten anywhere near the study they really deserve, and I ought to look into adopting one to boost my strength a bit. Or maybe a few. Is there any reason not to adopt as many Archetypes as you can? (Ninja Pirate Zombie Robot problem?)
Re: THE NATURE OF TRUTH (dun dun dunnn)
Okay, so to summarize the arguments...
The academic catfight is over whether it's more important to be realistic or sincere. ... No, that's not right. It's more complex.
On one side you have the idea of truth as something straightforward and obvious and easy-to-understand. Truth isn't necessarily easy, but it's clear and emotionally resonant. This is the side of the debate that argues in favor of known-to-be-flawed models - the planetary model of the atom, for instance, or Newtonian gravity. "The only map that's perfectly accurate is the actual landscape, but that doesn't mean that all other maps are lies." They're willing to sacrifice precision to improve communicability.
On the other side, you have the idea of Truth as complexly entangled, non-intuitive, and rarely apparent to casual inspection. This is the side of the debate that points out that physical Laws are remarkable because they're rare, that the world is astonishingly complex, and that humans are both bad at statistics and extremely prone to bias. They tend to argue in favor of jargon and technical expertise, sacrificing communicability for precision.
I feel like both sides have good arguments, and I can't really refute either of them, so I've decided to store both of them in my brain and let them keep bouncing off each other. I've labelled the "truth-is-simple" position Amaranth and the "truth-is-complex" position Labyrinth, for... Reasons. I dunno, they just have pretty strong aesthetic associations for me?
- Let's break that down, since I've just accidentally given myself a great example to work with. Labyrinth says "The fact that something has a strong aesthetic association for you does not mean that you should name it according to that aesthetic association: that's imposing your own biases on the world." Amaranth says... "The fact that something has a strong aesthetic association for you provides a convenient label for you to use in order to hang that concept on, rather than risk distorting the idea in your head by using a word that implies something different to you. It also provides an avenue of exploration for you: why is this concept associated with those other ideas for you?"
... Well, that ended up being more interesting than I expected. Uh. - Amaranth argues for jargon, Labyrinth argues against it. That seems kind of backwards at first glance, but maybe it's that Amaranth values internal-beliefs more? Whatever's going on there is definitely worth investigating. Also, sorry Labyrinth, Amaranth has a point and you're stuck with the name now.
Anyway, I was going to write down some of these aesthetic associations before I lost them:
Amaranth: the color gold, flowers, brilliance, sunlight, simplicity, elegance, beauty, legends, myths, faerie tales, glory, honor, sincerity, immortality, fragility, purity, desire, simplicity, trust.
Labyrinth: the color purple, stone, mazes, shadows, complexity, intricacy, ugliness esp. in the sense of being overcomplex or entangled, surprise, dirt, getting lost, mysteries, forgotten things, eternity, vastness, outer space.
... It's interesting observing the ways these interlock. They... are both Truth, but in very different ways. I think Amaranth says that 'telling the truth' means being understood, and Labyrinth says that 'telling the truth' means reporting honestly?
... I kind of prefer Labyrinth, if only because it puts the burden of interpretation on the listener, not the speaker. If I say X, it's not my fault if you hear Y: it's your job to make sure that your conception of X is correct. That seems more optimistic about the general capabilities of humans to me.
Then again, maybe that's the best argument against it. <.<