Book 3 - Page 81

“I dunno, maybe it’s only a thing in my world.”

Book 3 - Page 81
Comic - Book 3 - Page 81
Recent posts... (See full thread)
Yeah, it's weird for me because I can fantasize about my friends and not feel weird or uncomfortable next time I see them. That's why I often say I'm a pervert. But I would never cheat on someone or abuse a relationship. I'm a "perv not a fucking deviant". That's my motto. You know, except on DeviantArt, but that's different.
Thecommander236 wrote:
Yeah, it's weird for me because I can fantasize about my friends and not feel weird or uncomfortable next time I see them. That's why I often say I'm a pervert. But I would never cheat on someone or abuse a relationship. I'm a "perv not a fucking deviant". That's my motto. You know, except on DeviantArt, but that's different.


Hey now, "deviant" just means having different behavior than what is considered acceptable! It doesn't mean bad.

Hmm. Ironic that DeviantArt uses the term, eh?
It is interesting how this thread turned into people expressing some deep feelings. I knew Rob was a master class Rhymamancer. I didn't know he was a Dat-a-mancer as well.
coyotenose wrote:
Thecommander236 wrote:
Yeah, it's weird for me because I can fantasize about my friends and not feel weird or uncomfortable next time I see them. That's why I often say I'm a pervert. But I would never cheat on someone or abuse a relationship. I'm a "perv not a fucking deviant". That's my motto. You know, except on DeviantArt, but that's different.


Hey now, "deviant" just means having different behavior than what is considered acceptable! It doesn't mean bad.

Hmm. Ironic that DeviantArt uses the term, eh?


Heh, I just like saying deviant, because you can say it like a curse very easily. Replace deviant with douche wad (forget "bag" man, that's too easily, dawg). Incidentally, my other saying is "I'm an asshole, not a douche bag". Douche wads are slightly less douchey.

Sir Dr D wrote:
It is interesting how this thread turned into people expressing some deep feelings. I knew Rob was a master class Rhymamancer. I didn't know he was a Dat-a-mancer as well.


Ah, the irony...
Love isn't Titanic.

It's psychological, biological and chemical.
The conscious mind isn't all-powerful, but it's certainly strong enough to force an infatuation or fetish; sometimes from nothing.
Parson's odd moments of fleeting attraction? He's got more than enough to work with, if he really wants to 'lose' his free will.

Yes, I am a Magpie shipper. It's too adorkable not to work out. :)
You can't really force a fetish. A fetish is by a compulsion or an obsession. It takes a long time to develop a fetish and harder to get rid of one.

By what you say, love is a combination of Signamancy, Thinkamancy, Changemancy, and Healomancy, though.
Thecommander236 wrote:
You can't really force a fetish. A fetish is by a compulsion or an obsession. It takes a long time to develop a fetish and harder to get rid of one.

By what you say, love is a combination of Signamancy, Thinkamancy, Changemancy, and Healomancy, though.


Thanks for your reply. :)

I've done it to myself once or twice actually. Like with habit formations, take something you crave and mix it in your mind with what you want to like. Like slipping a yucky piece of organ meat in with the bologna you're used to or the salami that you crave.
I agree it's usually easier and better to let such matters transpire naturally, but it doesn't mean we have variable degrees of control.

I don't really understand healomancy (and signamancy to a degree), but I get what you mean with the two others.

I think life is essentially reducible. Doesn't mean dateamancy and hippiemancy aren't the more important elements (I think they are), but love in Stupidworld at least is ultimatelly reducible like everything else, even if there is something we feel is ineffable about it (and I think there is) there is no way for us to prove that some behavior that exists is somehow higher or different to other behavior simply because we feel like it is. Janis seems to be revealing that in Erfworld love is more of a spiritual than physical matter with hunky, burning love strings floating out from the Titanic mic (rather than being an emotional (biological fuzzy logic) descriptor for pair-bonding behavior in high-level social sentients); and the implication seems to be that love, especially eros, is unique in all of existence.

It might be. Personally I think the altruistic part of love is (though it's hard to prove anything to be truly altruistic rather than the mutual interests of life) in fact special. But there's no proof it isn't just applied and emergent functions of simple matter, other than our common/spiritual sense, like with free will. No way to even prove that 'free will' exists or not unlike 'love' which we can at least mostly and loosely define as a set of social and biological relationships, behaviors and processes.

Sorry the above is rather klutzy. Just my thoughts.
Woah, man, you get deep. I respect that. To be honest I'm not completely sure about what you are getting at, but I can explain my idea. Thinkamancy = conscious/emotion; Changemancy = chemical; Healomancy = biological; Signamancy = physical attraction; then I guess Date-a-mancy = social and mental attraction. There's a lot of "elements" to love, but I think that might be why love is "Titanic". It involves so many types of "magic" that no single caster and no combination of linked casters can generate love, though there is overlap with those disciplines. So much goes into it that it's impossible to artificially generate. Parson does have some of those elements going on with Maggie, but a fetish is one thing. Love is different. I have felt a type of love for many people, but there's been varies things that turns me off to them. To me, it feels like both parties need to be completely comfortable and trusting of each other. There has to be a special bond there. Parson could develop that bond like you say, but the point is that he doesn't have those feelings. He MAY develop them, but they aren't there. That's the problem.
Oh, I get it now!
Titanic magic isn't just a spiritual/philosophical concept, but also a scientific one like with the portals.

Thanks for explaining that. I had never considered the center of the mancy-wheel to be titanic.
My above post was just arguments against love not being essentially scientific, which then derailed into free will.

As for love, you're probably right. I just really hopes something works out for this fictional couple, or that it at least gets interesting.

Come to think of it I wonder how many turns she has existed, since she looks oldish.
Mellhurst wrote:
Oh, I get it now!
Titanic magic isn't just a spiritual/philosophical concept, but also a scientific one like with the portals.

Thanks for explaining that. I had never considered the center of the mancy-wheel to be titanic.
My above post was just arguments against love not being essentially scientific, which then derailed into free will.

As for love, you're probably right. I just really hopes something works out for this fictional couple, or that it at least gets interesting.

Come to think of it I wonder how many turns she has existed, since she looks oldish.


Mind you, that's my theory. My theory is that all magics COMBINED makes Titanic power, but there's no way for anyone but the Titans to utilize all of them at once. Some people will disagree with me. And I know for certain that their are posters here who think it's silly to apply our science to Erfworld's magic, but I can't help it. It just makes too much sense to me. Maggie is probably not as old as Wanda and maybe not as old as Stanley even. It depends I guess. Stanley may just have leveled and out-leveled Maggie in short order. The consensus is that Maggie looks old because of signamancy. That what ever hardships she's been through have changed her to look old. If you go through the books, it appears Maggie is getting more and more youthful looking as time goes on.