{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "canonicalUrl": "https://serpentsquiggles.neocities.org//posts/black-nerve/apocrypha/mantis-typology",
  "path": "/posts/black-nerve/apocrypha/mantis-typology",
  "publishedAt": "2024-10-20T00:00:00.000Z",
  "site": "at://did:plc:ivoe7cntxuy6at7uzmxzs2ft/site.standard.publication/3mfk6cpprzt2t",
  "textContent": "::: related\n- [](duality-of-mantids.html)\n:::\n\nDiamantes don't have a concept of friendship.\n\nTo some, this is a ridiculous thing to assert --- mantes are a social\nspecies.  How could they function without this fundamental stitch in\nthe interpersonal fabric?  Indeed, at a coarse level, the skepticism\nis vindicated.  If a \"friend\" is simply some bug you like, whose\ncompany you seek out and enjoy, who helps and supports you, then of\ncourse mantes have friends.\n\nStill, no bug save the mantes have a true concept of spinegripping,\nas a verb, as a quality, as a state of being.  Sure, the notion of\nholding something so tightly you break it is universal, a trivial\ncorollary of physics.\n\nBut what other species has raptorial forelegs? an innate anatomy for\nstriking prey and holding it piercingly steady, adapted as all things\nat intelligence command are for tool use.  And this --- the question\nof whether something is fit to hold within the precise, careful grasp\nof tarsi or the sharp, crushing grip of raptorials --- that is\nsomething a mantes considers each and every time they pick something\nup.\n\nThus, to spinegrip a thing is a natural, primitive action.  Other\nbugs can take analogous and similar actions, but not innately.\n\nA chorus-roach without a choir of friends is grievously alone; to\nthem, companionship is as necessary as a sense of safety.  And a\ndiamantis has social needs, too, but viewed head-on, in terms of what\nthe mantis gets and gives, and \"friend\" is far from the best word for\nthe dynamic.\n\nMantid social bonds fall into three categories.  Besides the courtship\nof two bugs anxious for sex, a mantis seeks not friends, but rivals\nand admirers.\n\nEach mantis has a defining ravin; the prey they hunt, the game they\nplay, the pursuit they seek above all else.  This passion animates\nlife.  While it is not the only thing they care about, it's the first\nthing you'd ask for if you wanted to understand their identity.\nImagine it like gender: you are a hunter, a player, a crafter, a\ndancer.\n\nA mantis craves recognition; after they descend into the liminal focus\nof the hunt and emerge victorious, with pride overflowing they must\nsing and dance and be known.  And this is what the admirer gives\nthem.  It's not friendship --- it's not reciprocal.  And this is what\nmakes it meaningful.\n\nThe archetypal ideal of this relationship is that mantis simply seizes\ntheir prize and presents it to their admirer --- offering nothing\nexcept one's own glory, the admirer cannot help but be exulted.\n\nAnd yet, what glory is there in being second best?  Mantes do have\nreciprocal relationships --- the mutual antagonism of two who share a\nravin, and thus compete for the recognition of admirers.\n\nNow, mantes love to fight and quarrel, and many bugs half-understand\nthis, and presume mantes are all innately warlike and hostile.  \"To a\nmantis,\" some say, \"you either kneel in worshipful obedience, or you\nare their enemy.\"\n\nBut, like with tarsigrasp and spinegrip, this is a nuance mantid\nlanguage is far more equipped to portray.  Only the most eusocial\nkinds would struggle to recognize that rivalry is a spectrum, but a\nmantis views even snarling tempers with a fond crescent-curled palp.\n\nAfter all --- why would two fighters be enemies, if it's only\nthrough competition that they give their admirers something to witness\nat all?\n\n\"Mantes don't have friends\" is no entomological conclusion, it's a\nchest-thumping declaration, a proud distinction drawn against other\nkinds.  What good is a friend, when it takes a rival to truly\nencourage you to strive and excel?  When the summit of achievement is\nobviously what it means to be fulfilled and happy?\n\nEven if it's someone you can't stand being in the same room as without\nbreaking into an argument --- even then, that simply gives everyone\nelse something to watch at a safe distance with snacks.\n\nOf course, these two types of relationships are neither exhaustive nor\nexclusive.  You can admire a mantis who shares your ravin.  If they\nrecognize you in turn, what better word for them than mentor?  Or\nperhaps, seen at distance, they are more of an idol.\n\nBut if three or more mantes share a ravin, what comes into\nconsideration is strategy.\n\nAnother tricky-to-translate notion is ally.  To a mantes, this word\nhas a very particular connotation: every ally is, to some extent, an\nally of convenience.  \"The enemy of my enemy...\" is so intuitive it\nneeds no idiom.  Two rivals may work together against a shared\nopposition.  This may at times resemble friendship, but it only lasts\nas long as they both fail; and what familiarity is forged will when\nthe dust settles make the ensuing rivalry all the deeper.\n\nAdmiration (poetically: valor) is considered purest when it isn't\nreciprocal, but inevitable is the situation of two mantes being\ncomplements.  They do not share a ravin, and thus there is little\ntension between them.  Moreover, their pursuits actively complement\neach other --- like a fletcher and an archer.  They admire each other,\nand in working together, they yield something more admirable still.\n\nOf course, only in naive theory would not sharing a ravin lead to\nmantes getting along --- mantes will compete at the slightest\nopportunity.  A cross-rival is a competition on unlike terms, as if\nto prove which ravin is superior.  Because no matter how the disparate\nthe pursuits, popularity is a shared language.\n\nBut what of the admirers?  Mantes as a rule have ravins, so\nlogistically each mantis at different times must give and receive\nvalor.  It can be as simple as impressed looks and spoken\ncondemnation, but appreciation is its own art.  Why else would\ncomplements be so common?  A hunter brings down vigorous, elusive\ngame, and a dance-poet limns the hunt with entrancing song.\n\nGifts may not be so tightly interdependent.  A mantis discovers a new\nspecies of fish, and a flower-arranger gifts them a bouquet to\ncongratulate; a player wins a tournament of sworder draughts, and a\nmusician announces that night that their first song is played in honor\nof that.\n\nGender roles add a layer to these dynamics --- to seek valor is\nfeminine; to give it, masculine.  The most valorous acts are those\nwhich seem to emerge as if solely from the wellspring of one's own\nglory.  The more an act is contingent to or dependent on or directed\nat another, the more the valor comes with a certain sense of caveat or\ndismissal.\n\nGiving valor implies a certain vulnerability; to truly and earnestly\nadmire is to submit, adopt a position at least beneath or at extreme\nsubsumed by that which you adore.  Fitting for a tiercel, but a formel\nfinds a certain slight humiliation in it.\n\nGiven all of the relationship dynamics so far described, you may\nnotice an absence, an undescribed possibility --- what of two\nadmirers, witnessing and reveling in the fruits of the same ravin?\n\nThere's no nuance or twist to add to this.  If two mantes sit\ntogether, joined by nothing but a shared delight, can you really say\nthis isn't friendship?  But this is a marginal thing, mere boyish\nsilliness --- certainly nothing important, nothing fundamental.\n\n- - -\n\nToo easily, when describing mantid psychology, will you paint a\npicture that looks to be a race of vainglorious hotheads, forever\nwrestling for attention.\n\nAnd that oversimplication is not based on nothing.  But mantid\npersonalities are no less varied than any other races; they're just\nskewed differently.\n\nTo give a sketch of the diversity of mentalities possible, here's a\ncouple of axis on which most mantes are widely distributed.\n\nForemost is hunting style.  When faced with a threat, a mantis will\nfight, whether now or when they've retreated and found advantage.  The\nquestion is how?  Aggressively or reactively?  Head-on or from the\nshadows?  Tracking with keen-scenting antennae or waiting with\nstatuesque patience for the perfect time to strike?  In short, are\nthey a seeker, or a trapper?\n\nSeekers get restless and hungry.  The satisfaction of a pursuit's\nsuccess will only last them a short while before they're looking\nforward to their next with sharpened forelegs.  For the seeker, it\nalso matters that they be seen prowling, pursuing their ravin.  They\ncherish the freedom to pick their target.\n\nTrappers, though, endure and they resist.  They may reflect upon their\npast pursuits while they wait, perhaps keeping trophies, while they\nwonder what their next prize will be.  They hide, whether it's for\nstealth or safety, and pride themselves on their defenses, on their\ntactics.  It will pay off; success will come to them and when it does\nthey will pounce.\n\nBut there's a second axis to hunting style.  When faced with danger\nuncertain, how do they learn more and take on what threatens them?  Do\nthey plan or improvise?  Do they prepare until the pursuit is assured\nby the first step or will they recount a tale of thrills and suspense\nuntil the very end?\n\nPlanners watch from a safe distance; they learn the lay of the\nland, study the weakpoints, then train themselves until they're\nequipped to face whatever lay ahead.  They crave knowing what to\nexpect, and often can't cope with surprises.  Planning for a hunt\noften feels like a hunt in itself.\n\nGamblers throw themselves into the thick of things, and adapt.\nThey take risks, but it would be incorrect to think they are cavalier\nabout uncertainty.  They learn practically, in the moment ---\npreferably with an escape route.  They'll train too, and may even\nprepare and plot out a few strategies, but all of it only comes\ntogether improvisationally.\n\nThese two axes form a quadrant.  Plan-seekers set their eyes on a mark\nand devise schemes to overcome it; gamble-seekers will strike out at\nwhatever opportunity presents itself.  Seeker types are common and\nwell-regarded, though their prominence is more a matter of salience\nbias than statistics.\n\nPlan-trappers lay elaborate defenses against known threats.  They\nstudy their target until they can manipulate everything right where\nthey need it.  Plan-trappers ar",
  "title": "A Mantis Typology"
}