I think the thing I’m trying to point to is importantly wizard power and not artificer power; it just happens to be an empirical fact about today’s world that artifice is the most-developed branch of wizardry.
For example:
Doctors (insofar as they’re competent) have lots of wizard power which is importantly not artificer power. Same with lawyers. And pilots. And special ops soldiers. And athletes (though their wizard powers tend to be even more narrow in scope).
Beyond lawyers, the post mentions a few other forms of social/bureaucratic wizardry, which are importantly wizard power and not artificer power.
mm. I feel some kind of dissatisfied with the naming situation but it’s (probably?) not actually important. I agree wizard feels righter-in-those-cases but wronger in some other ones.
Although, I think I’m now tracking a bit more subtlety here than I was before.
A distinction here is “ability to turn knowledge into stuff-happening-in-the-world”, and “ability to cause stuff happening in the world.” Does a very strong or dextrous person have more X-power than a weaker/clumsier person, all else equal? (I think your answer is “yes”, but for purposes of the-lacking-in-your-soul there’s an aesthetic that routes more through knowledge?)
Does a very strong or dextrous person have more X-power than a weaker/clumsier person, all else equal?
I think that’s a straightforward yes, for purposes of the thing the post was trying to point to. Strength/dexterity, like most wizard powers, are fairly narrow and special-purpose; I’m personally most interested in more flexible/general wizard powers. But for me, I don’t think it’s a-priori about turning knowledge into stuff-happening-in-the-world; it just turns out that knowledge is usually instrumental.
I think the thing I’m trying to point to is importantly wizard power and not artificer power; it just happens to be an empirical fact about today’s world that artifice is the most-developed branch of wizardry.
For example:
Doctors (insofar as they’re competent) have lots of wizard power which is importantly not artificer power. Same with lawyers. And pilots. And special ops soldiers. And athletes (though their wizard powers tend to be even more narrow in scope).
Beyond lawyers, the post mentions a few other forms of social/bureaucratic wizardry, which are importantly wizard power and not artificer power.
mm. I feel some kind of dissatisfied with the naming situation but it’s (probably?) not actually important. I agree wizard feels righter-in-those-cases but wronger in some other ones.
Although, I think I’m now tracking a bit more subtlety here than I was before.
A distinction here is “ability to turn knowledge into stuff-happening-in-the-world”, and “ability to cause stuff happening in the world.” Does a very strong or dextrous person have more X-power than a weaker/clumsier person, all else equal? (I think your answer is “yes”, but for purposes of the-lacking-in-your-soul there’s an aesthetic that routes more through knowledge?)
I think that’s a straightforward yes, for purposes of the thing the post was trying to point to. Strength/dexterity, like most wizard powers, are fairly narrow and special-purpose; I’m personally most interested in more flexible/general wizard powers. But for me, I don’t think it’s a-priori about turning knowledge into stuff-happening-in-the-world; it just turns out that knowledge is usually instrumental.