Category talk:Vampirism
Insitution? Disease? Curse? -- Gonzoron 19:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I recall Mangrum weighing in on lycanthropy, insisting that it was a curse, in addition to being a disease, on the basis, as I recall, of it being a possible Terror Track, in effect. Well, he put the matter much better. So I would say a curse at least. I guess diseases don't necessarily have to be cureable, so disease is a candidate at least, but I have my doubts. It is a relationship with negative energy rather than a virus/bacteria. It is not an institution, well not unless one sees it spawning a vampire culture. I will grant that it does give rise to a ruler-ruled relationship between vampire and their spawn. Still, I suspect it would be a bit excessive to put it under institution as well.Cure 00:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Curse it is, for now at least. What do you think about a top-level category of "Concept" or "Intangible" that could include Category:Institution and things like this which aren't culturally fundamental enough to be an Institution? -- Gonzoron 12:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, Category:Intangible, is well, a little intangible, not that that is necessarily a bad thing. My personal experience is the right category eventually occurs to me given a day or a week or a month. Category:Institution concerns, in technical terms, symbolic systems that constitutes the difference between nature and culture. It concerns advents wherein we dwell: law, language, history, education, etc. Vampirism is an advent, perhaps, but of a different sort, a mutation in nature as it were, that radically changes biological needs. Were it a dated event, even mythically, it is a Category:Mutation. Guardian (Protector) was another tough one. But I am see it as being under Category:Security. Now what does security go under? Category:Needs perhaps. Category:Intangible might be a good parking lot at the very least. Category:Concept is less appealing as that is actually much more tangible or at least specific.Cure 12:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
