Pranic Vampires

[Joe Wordsworth]

Actually, as I see it, both acts are rituals that raise seritonin levels in the brain, cause a sense of comfort and renewed optimism in the individual. The specifics are moot to me, because they are rationalisations. The causes -- a need for comfort and/or control-- and effects -- a rise in happy chemicals, a renewed sense of purpose and moral energy-- are identical.

So, for you... there is no difference between something that one causes and something that one has another cause? We're talking about conceptual differences, here.

I could say the same of the Christians I've known-- there is a wide diversity of opinion on many topics. There is enough consensus, however to be able to make some broad generalisations on the subject of Christianity.-- likewise Wicca. In the same way that Christian belief has branched out into different sects, Wicca as originally codified, has become known as "Gardnerian wicca" and many other versions have sprung up.

Sure. I'm not sure I follow how this is relevant to my point, though. Or, rather, it may not be... in which case, I understand--knew that already.

Self-directed is a main difference, for sure. Christians make much of this, but as I say, I do not.

Pointing out the difference is not a "Christian"-trait. I don't identify it or make much of it as a Christian. I do so entirely independant of any religious beliefs I have. We should not minimalize that there is a difference in that way--at least, I think we should not.

 

[Trinique_Fire]

Pranic Vampire [Psychic vampirism]

A Pranic Vampire is someone who feeds off of the 'life energies' of a person rather then blood. Purportedly a real psy-vamp has an energy deficiency, which is compensated via 'feeding' from other sources. The other sources are typically other human life energies (Aura, emotional, or actual LIFE energies) though it is said that they can feed from animals, plants, and even the elements (storms, earth, rivers).

- Psy-vamp (laveyian) [Psychological vampirism]

The typical psy-vamp is not an energy feeder at all rather he/she is nothing more then an attention whore. According to the Satanic Bible these people are some of the lowest forms of life on the planet. They tend to be the people that say "If you love me you'll ___" or who surround themselves with weaker willed individuals inorder to control and manipulate their lackies with "charisma". Many Polititians seem to fall under this definition.

- Psy-leech [Psychic "leech"ism]

A Psy-leech is a normal person (one w/o an energy deficiency) that practices the techniques of a Pranic Vampire in order to 'get high' from the energies of a person, or to increase their own power at the expense of those around them. We are ALL Psy-leeches to one degree or another as with any magic there is a 'pulling of energies' while energy is 'universal' one must keep in mind that we are all part of the universe! A well practiced psy-leech can be dangerous as with some types of this magic (and/or psychic power) the draining of their targets shielding is common (leaving most novice magickians UNPROTECTED for further attacks).



Have you ever encountered any of these 'types' of people? I know that I have. It seems to me that in the disembodied world of the Internet, these 'types' are possibly more rampant than anywhere else.

They suck your energy and ideas, use them as their own, and then seek the next victim. Just a thought. I'd be interested in yours.

I've known some. Still do. I just end up pissed and ready to kill them.

 

[Stella_Omega]

So, for you... there is no difference between something that one causes and something that one has another cause? We're talking about conceptual differences, here.

I don't think that believing one has caused something, and believing that some divine has caused something, are that far apart.

Pointing out the difference is not a "Christian"-trait. I don't identify it or make much of it as a Christian. I do so entirely independant of any religious beliefs I have. We should not minimalize that there is a difference in that way--at least, I think we should not.

It's certainly a strong point for most Christians-- either they express gently, or in conceptual ways similar to yours, or they explain that Satan fell from Grace because he thought he could answer his own prayers. It's a good and Christian thing to leave it in God's hands. To take charge on your own is the Devil's work. In fact, I'd say that, even with all the schisms and heresies and ecumenical departures, the virtue of prayer and the evil of spell casting is a genuine Christian constant.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I don't think that believing one has caused something, and believing that some divine has caused something, are that far apart.

But, I'm not talking about believing X or Y, I'm talking directly about X and Y--regardless of belief about either. Like saying "Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are different"--belief in them has nothing to do with their being conceptually different. I think we're either not understanding my point here or intentionally dodging the question.

It's certainly a strong point for most Christians-- either they express gently, or in conceptual ways similar to yours, or they explain that Satan fell from Grace because he thought he could answer his own prayers. It's a good and Christian thing to leave it in God's hands. To take charge on your own is the Devil's work. In fact, I'd say that, even with all the schisms and heresies and ecumenical departures, the virtue of prayer and the evil of spell casting is a genuine Christian constant.

That's fine, but that's not my point on the issue. This is what we'd call "issue drift". I wasn't talking about Christians having point of view X, I was talking about X not being necessarily Christian at all--and how X was not intended nor based on a Christian point of view, and not dependant on Christianity for its substance or accuracy or authority.

 

[Stella_Omega]

But, I'm not talking about believing X or Y, I'm talking directly about X and Y--regardless of belief about either. Like saying "Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are different"--belief in them has nothing to do with their being conceptually different. I think we're either not understanding my point here or intentionally dodging the question.

I get you. Then, I would say... that... I don't really see much difference in causing something, and having another cause the same thing. Not if your will or desire is the starting point for both causations-- your agent is still you, in a certain sense. Maybe I'm talking morals here.

But I can offer an example-- My darling and very Italian neighbour once said to me; "Stella, can't you make a spell and make my husband die?"

I said; "Sweety, that's murder, and I won't kill your husband for you. Why don't you divorce him?"

"Oh," she said, "Monsignor wouldn't like it..."

That's fine, but that's not my point on the issue. This is what we'd call "issue drift". I wasn't talking about Christians having point of view X, I was talking about X not being necessarily Christian at all--and how X was not intended nor based on a Christian point of view, and not dependant on Christianity for its substance or accuracy or authority.

Point taken. I do tend to drift in that manner.

 

[Lady Reiha]

An exorcism ritual!

I have encountered vamps of all stripes-- INCLUDING a blood vamp, who was also one of the most fabulous and purely good human beings I've ever known.

I dated a man who thought he was a vampire- like a vampire, vampire. He asked me if I would cut myself so he could have a vial of my (then) virgin blood.

I dumped him 3 days later. He was a little too intense for my liking. Sweet guy though.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I get you. Then, I would say... that... I don't really see much difference in causing something, and having another cause the same thing. Not if your will or desire is the starting point for both causations-- your agent is still you, in a certain sense. Maybe I'm talking morals here.

But I can offer an example-- My darling and very Italian neighbour once said to me; "Stella, can't you make a spell and make my husband die?"

I said; "Sweety, that's murder, and I won't kill your husband for you. Why don't you divorce him?"

"Oh," she said, "Monsignor wouldn't like it..."

I see my asking a carpenter to build a house as different than my building a house; and my asking for someone to start a fire at a campsite as different than my starting a fire; and I put asking my wife to cook as not giving me the qualification to say "I cooked last night".

I see a broad swath of difference between causing something to happen, and causing only the expressed desire for something to happen. Functionally, they're too different.

Point taken. I do tend to drift in that manner.

I don't. I tend to be very laser-focused on a specific thing.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I see my asking a carpenter to build a house as different than my building a house; and my asking for someone to start a fire at a campsite as different than my starting a fire; and I put asking my wife to cook as not giving me the qualification to say "I cooked last night".

I see a broad swath of difference between causing something to happen, and causing only the expressed desire for something to happen. Functionally, they're too different.

Fine, but I think we've drifted from the topic of metaphysical causation, don't you?

You are now talking about, I suppose, the physical differences. The carpenter labours; you do not. There are certainly some differences, one being that the carpenter might build a better house than you could-- and will sweat more-- but the outcome is still your house.

I don't. I tend to be very laser-focused on a specific thing.

I'm seeing a little different, actually.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Fine, but I think we've drifted from the topic of metaphysical causation, don't you?

I don't agree. Whether metaphysical or physical, causation is causation. Either a thing is caused by another thing (an idea, an event, a supernatural effect, a physical result... that's just window dressing to the concept) or it is not.

My asking someone to solve the math problem (an analytical thing) is not me solving the math problem. My asking a ghost to peek into the vault for me (a supernatural thing) is not me peeking into the vault.

If "causation" has meaning, and I think it does, then it has meaning. That we'd be talking about physical, analytical, ideological, actual, fictional, metaphysical, psychological, etc. things hasn't anything to do with it.

You are now talking about, I suppose, the physical differences. The carpenter labours; you do not. There are certainly some differences, one being that the carpenter might build a better house than you could-- but the outcome is still your house.

Whether its better or not is irrelevant to the idea of who built it (for the purposes of this thought experiment). I did not build the house. He did. I don't know how to. I had no plans or ability or materials or time or anything. I just wanted a house built. My /wanting/ it to happen is not the same thing as my making it happen.

A clear reason why is that it could not happen.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I don't agree. Whether metaphysical or physical, causation is causation. Either a thing is caused by another thing (an idea, an event, a supernatural effect, a physical result... that's just window dressing to the concept) or it is not.

My asking someone to solve the math problem (an analytical thing) is not me solving the math problem. My asking a ghost to peek into the vault for me (a supernatural thing) is not me peeking into the vault.

If "causation" has meaning, and I think it does, then it has meaning. That we'd be talking about physical, analytical, ideological, actual, fictional, metaphysical, psychological, etc. things hasn't anything to do with it.

Once again, though let me remind you-- we began this conversation because you didn't think my scepticism of your Christian belief system was in any way the same as your scepticism of some fool's belief in vampires. Now, since I think prayer is tom-foolery in a causal sense, and I think that spellwork is equally silly, and since I know that there are real and practical chemical changes that take place in the brain during rituals of these types-- and that both prayer and spell work cause the same changes-- then, in my point of view, there is only a difference in the terminology that each group believes applies.

In other words, your laser pointer is pointing at something entirely beside the point.

Whether its better or not is irrelevant to the idea of who built it (for the purposes of this thought experiment). I did not build the house. He did. I don't know how to. I had no plans or ability or materials or time or anything. I just wanted a house built. My /wanting/ it to happen is not the same thing as my making it happen.

A clear reason why is that it could not happen.

See, now you are adding a lot of details and extras-- and your meanings are much clearer to me. But once again, we were talking about, essentially, wanting things to happen. To me, praying to a god (that doesn't exist) is like wanting this house and never taking hammer to a nail-- nor actually asking anyone else to do so either.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Once again, though let me remind you-- we began this conversation because you didn't think my scepticism of your Christian belief system was in any way the same as your scepticism of some fool's belief in vampires.

No, I began this conversation because I was asked where I thought Christianity was irrational. Then, as other information was brought up, I addressed it. I didn't think your skepticism of Christianity was different than my skepticism of the vampire thing. I don't recall, also, where I've claimed otherwise.

Now, since I think prayer is tom-foolery in a causal sense, and I think that spellwork is equally silly, and since I know that there are real and practical chemical changes that take place in the brain during rituals of these types-- and that both prayer and spell work cause the same changes-- then, in my point of view, there is only a difference in the terminology that each group believes applies.

If you're going to base judgements about the relationships between the concepts on your belief that they're both make-believe (and all make-believe is relegated to a status where their internal conceptual relationships thus mean nothing), then it does no good to discuss it at all. You're saying, if I'm correct, that because you don't think either are real that makes them equal... I'm saying that independant of their reality, the relationships between their definitions and conceptual mechanics make them very much not the same thing. That one, by definition, does not work like the other, by definition, makes them then different concepts.

In other words, your laser pointer is pointing at something entirely beside the point.

Not at all, I've been very clear to answer precisely things I've been asked. If I need to go back and show you how we got here, I can. But, you'll find--I'm sure--I haven't strayed from anything at all.

See, now you are adding a lot of details and extras-- and your meanings are much clearer to me. But once again, we were talking about, essentially, wanting things to happen. To me, praying to a god (that doesn't exist) is like wanting this house and never taking hammer to a nail-- nor actually asking anyone else to do so either.

Praying to a god (their existence is entirely independant of the point) is like wanting a house and never taking a hammer to a nail, only asking someone to do it (and them not beholden to do anything). Doing magic (its existence is entirely indpendant of the point) is like wanting a house and one appearing (as a direct result of your wanting).

You seem to keep pressing the idea that something's definition is dependant on its actually existing. Like, if I were to say "unicorns are different than dragons"--that wouldn't mean anything to you because "they're both made-up". Even though we are talking about things that have definitions and characteristics and thus concepts.

Its convenient... but for that matter, no analogy can ever be different from any other analogy--because they're both made-up. And James Bond is no different a character than Captain Ahab. And hypotheticals are flatly the same...

...if its merely "from your point of view" that they're the same, then we can take it for granted that I don't agree with your point of view and have no interest in discussing something that's merely a point of view--when talking about whether something is possible, truly, or not or what the relationships between concepts are like.

 

[Guest]

my sister and my ex

they take everything outta me but they give fuck all back

 

[NoJo]

my sister and my ex

they take everything outta me but they give fuck all back

I think you're confusing pranic vampires with nudnick vampires

 

[Stella_Omega]

It's on the first page. It's possible that we got off on a misunderstanding because of your parsimony with words;

I don't merely "profess" to be a Christian, I am one. And regarding the topic, there's a vast, huge, functional difference between the two.

But that ignores the context, which compared the belief in vampires to the belief in Jesus Christ. And that's what I was talking about in my case. Context is pretty important, in conversation. If you want to laser in on one point and have other people understand that you've done that, you need to phrase your thoughts more clearly;
"there is a vast, functional difference between saying one is a vampire and saying one is a Christian."
Otherwise, you leave your friends to guess at what "two" you meant, and they get it wrong more often than not. This is where I have a hard time refraining from sarcasm. I mean-- this is what my sixteen-year-old does, when he wants to feel misunderstood and put-upon. I'm starting to have to delete sentences here. I beg you to be merciful, and allow someone else to have a say in the rules of the discussion.

Okay, I will grant you that there is a functional difference between doing it yourself, and having someone else do it. Within the inner logic of make-believe yes, that difference is still there. But so what? Why does a strict and rigorous dissection of this point make any difference to you? And my point is that there is, really, no moral difference. My sweet friend wanted to kill her husband. Asking me to do it was no different, in a moral sense, than hunting for a knife.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I think you're confusing pranic vampires with nudnick vampires

In that case, it's pronounced "Whomp years."

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

It's on the first page. It's possible that we got off on a misunderstanding because of your parsimony with words; But that ignores the context, which compared the belief in vampires to the belief in Jesus Christ. And that's what I was talking about in my case. Context is pretty important, in conversation. If you want to laser in on one point and have other people understand that you've done that, you need to phrase your thoughts more clearly;
"there is a vast, functional difference between saying one is a vampire and saying one is a Christian."
Otherwise, you leave your friends to guess at what "two" you meant, and they get it wrong more often than not. This is where I have a hard time refraining from sarcasm. I mean-- this is what my sixteen-year-old does, when he wants to feel misunderstood and put-upon. I'm starting to have to delete sentences here. I beg you to be merciful, and allow someone else to have a say in the rules of the discussion.

That was a response to cloudy... where you jumped into the conversation, and the question you asked (which I answered) and the points you made (to which I responded) was what you were getting responses about. That should be clear, I can point out post-numbers and precisely why I was talking about--with you--what I was talking about. Our conversation did not start, nor continue, about the difference between belief in vampires and Christianity. Surely that's evident.

Incidentally, here's how we got here... and its not because I've drifted from anything: You posted a question about Christianity's rationality in post 59; I responded to the question in post 62 and mentioned the falsifiability of prayer and magic in a series of examples about Biblical error and religious failings; you brought up that you see prayer and magic as the same mechanism of the mind in post 66; I responded that I see them as different, conceptually in post 68; you stated that you see no difference, repeatedly, after that by claiming that their existence is the only distinguishing characteristics (or at least promoting only that distinction); I continued to put forth, in a variety of examples, how concepts can be different and don't rely on existence to be either conceieved of or compared and contrasted.

And we end up here.

Okay, I will grant you that there is a functional difference between doing it yourself, and having someone else do it. Within the inner logic of make-believe yes, that difference is still there. But so what? Why does a strict and rigorous dissection of this point make any difference to you? And my point is that there is, really, no moral difference. My sweet friend wanted to kill her husband. Asking me to do it was no different, in a moral sense, than hunting for a knife.

I don't have anything to say about there being a moral difference, I'm talking about a functional difference. There can well be a moral difference, it has nothing to do with my point at all. Whether there is a moral difference or not hasn't any bearing on there being a difference either mechanically or conceptually.

So, if we're agreed that there's a functional and conceptual difference--which I think we finally are and I've been suggesting from the get go, here, then we can explore what the behavior, mechanics, and outcomes are of each keeping in mind those difference. I maintain that prayer is a behavior that has no mechanic beyond communication, the outcome of which is not directly caused--and the behavior and mechanic of it can be performed successfully and the outcome still be other than what was desired (such is, I think its safe to say, the nature of prayer). In the case of magic, the behavior is much the same and the mechanic is a supernatural control of the natural world (the changing of reality, basically, though that's a very simplified way of putting it). It is such that, if the outcome does not happen, then the mechanics and behavior are in question. Where prayer is indefeasible (one of the difficult things about proving it works or not), magic lends itself to much more apparent scrutiny both scientifically and purely observationally.

Surely, that much is agreeable? Again, their actual existence isn't relevant to the point here.

 

[Stella_Omega]

That was a response to cloudy... where you jumped into the conversation, and the question you asked (which I answered) and the points you made (to which I responded) was what you were getting responses about. That should be clear, I can point out post-numbers and precisely why I was talking about--with you--what I was talking about. Our conversation did not start, nor continue, about the difference between belief in vampires and Christianity. Surely that's evident.

Well, actually, to me it is evident that our conversation was about that very thing. I've been working from that assumption from the very beginning.

And, by the way, I have to say that, re-reading your answer in 62, I was hoping for a more specific answer; "To me, the use of prayer is one of the good parts of Christianity, the insistance that the whole world must be converted is stupid."

Or some such.

ncidentally, here's how we got here... and its not because I've drifted from anything: You posted a question about Christianity's rationality in post 59; I responded to the question in post 62 and mentioned the falsifiability of prayer and magic in a series of examples about Biblical error and religious failings; you brought up that you see prayer and magic as the same mechanism of the mind in post 66; I responded that I see them as different, conceptually in post 68; you stated that you see no difference, repeatedly, after that by claiming that their existence is the only distinguishing characteristics (or at least promoting only that distinction); I continued to put forth, in a variety of examples, how concepts can be different and don't rely on existence to be either conceieved of or compared and contrasted.

I know that you like to examine the inner logic of, for instance, Christianity. In order to do that, one has to accept its premises, and go from there. Within the (make-believe) structure of a belief system, the most ridiculous functions can be perfectly logical. There are tomes written about the History of Middle Earth-- there are probably MORE tomes written about the world of Harry Potter.

I don't have anything to say about there being a moral difference, I'm talking about a functional difference. There can well be a moral difference, it has nothing to do with my point at all. Whether there is a moral difference or not hasn't any bearing on there being a difference either mechanically or conceptually.

Would you like to explore this? Because I think it's germane. Especially in this topic, since we are talking about moral systems.

So, if we're agreed that there's a functional and conceptual difference--which I think we finally are and I've been suggesting from the get go, here, then we can explore what the behavior, mechanics, and outcomes are of each keeping in mind those difference. I maintain that prayer is a behavior that has no mechanic beyond communication, the outcome of which is not directly caused--and the behavior and mechanic of it can be performed successfully and the outcome still be other than what was desired (such is, I think its safe to say, the nature of prayer). In the case of magic, the behavior is much the same and the mechanic is a supernatural control of the natural world (the changing of reality, basically, though that's a very simplified way of putting it). It is such that, if the outcome does not happen, then the mechanics and behavior are in question. Where prayer is indefeasible (one of the difficult things about proving it works or not), magic lends itself to much more apparent scrutiny both scientifically and purely observationally.

The bolded is a beautifully put observation.

... I bet it could have come at oooh, about six o'clock last night...

Surely, that much is agreeable? Again, their actual existence isn't relevant to the point here.

Let's get back to MY point, which is that their actual existence is the point.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Well, actually, to me it is evident that our conversation was about that very thing. I've been working from that assumption from the very beginning.

But that's not when I started with you at all. I can repost the post-citation more clearly. We started when you asked the rationality question. Before then I was adamant about not wanting to start this conversation with you for certain reasons.

And, by the way, I have to say that, re-reading your answer in 62, I was hoping for a more specific answer; "To me, the use of prayer is one of the good parts of Christianity, the insistance that the whole world must be converted is stupid."

Or some such.

What, more specifically, are you asking for? Neither of those have anything to do with "rationality", they're more or less just matters of personal preference.

I know that you like to examine the inner logic of, for instance, Christianity. In order to do that, one has to accept its premises, and go from there. Within the (make-believe) structure of a belief system, the most ridiculous functions can be perfectly logical. There are tomes written about the History of Middle Earth-- there are probably MORE tomes written about the world of Harry Potter.

Its not that I like to examine the inner logic of anything, its just that propositions have meanings and a science to their interaction with other propositions. There can be tomes written about things... I don't see how this is relevant.

Would you like to explore this? Because I think it's germane. Especially in this topic, since we are talking about moral systems.

I haven't much to say about it. There's a chain of moral agency in causation, depending how far one is willing to take it there might well be an infinite regress of moral responsibility. I'm not sure what more there is to it.

The bolded is a beautifully put observation.

... I bet it could have come at oooh, about six o'clock last night...

Let's get back to MY point, which is that their actual existence is the point.

Alright... in which case, it is merely possible that both or either are real (and similarly, that both or either are not-real). Given that we have nothing analytically conclusive, experientially conclusive, or revelatedly conclusive (and those are the only three ways knowledge is had), at best their existence is doubtful or hopeful. Given that, they are as similar or different--using existence as the only comparable trait--as they are existent.

I think that about sums that up, doesn't it? Is there more?

 

[Stella_Omega]

But that's not when I started with you at all. I can repost the post-citation more clearly. We started when you asked the rationality question. Before then I was adamant about not wanting to start this conversation with you for certain reasons.

It's most certainly when I started with you, though. And i was curious enough, that I've been willing to be very careful in my wording.

What, more specifically, are you asking for? Neither of those have anything to do with "rationality", they're more or less just matters of personal preference.

Personal preference was what i was looking for. I am trying to get a handle on you. My conclusion is that "rationality" is about as far as you are willing to go, in terms of personal preference.

Its not that I like to examine the inner logic of anything, its just that propositions have meanings and a science to their interaction with other propositions. There can be tomes written about things... I don't see how this is relevant.

I can tell that you don't.

I haven't much to say about it. There's a chain of moral agency in causation, depending how far one is willing to take it there might well be an infinite regress of moral responsibility. I'm not sure what more there is to it.

And, equally, I don't have much to say about the functional side. I don't think it's important in this topic.

Alright... in which case, it is merely possible that both or either are real (and similarly, that both or either are not-real). Given that we have nothing analytically conclusive, experientially conclusive, or revelatedly conclusive (and those are the only three ways knowledge is had), at best their existence is doubtful or hopeful. Given that, they are as similar or different--using existence as the only comparable trait--as they are existent.

I think that about sums that up, doesn't it? Is there more?

No, there is no more.... I'm done.

Thanks, Joe

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

It's most certainly when I started with you, though. And i was curious enough, that I've been willing to be very careful in my wording.
Personal preference was what i was looking for. I am trying to get a handle on you. My conclusion is that "rationality" is about as far as you are willing to go, in terms of personal preference.


I can tell that you don't.

And, equally, I don't have much to say about the functional side. I don't think it's important in this topic.


No, there is no more.... I'm done.

Thanks, Joe

...m'k.