| |
|
I just had to post this here...
-- taken from the Unknown Armies RPG site
ZOMBIES: THE UNSUNG REVOLUTIONARIES
The brain is a symbiotic parasite - but some (much maligned) individuals have found a way to break free of it's tyrannical influence!
Why is it that some creatures get along perfectly fine without brains and some don't? And also, why is it that the brain always has that oh-so-convenient protective shell of bone for every animal that has it? And why is it that the sensory organs are always mounted in such a way that the point of view is from the brain's perspective?
Well try this idea on for size: Maybe the brain is acutally a symbiotic parasite, possibly even extraterrestrial in origin!
There was a time when all the native lifeforms of earth were all without brains, then all of a sudden creatures with brains started popping up. Usually it was the creatures with the roboust bodies that got brains, so perhaps the reason this occured was because the brains had weak, probably invertebrate bodies and wanted to trade up.
As I mentioned, it was a symbiotic relationship, because brains have a superior ability to process sensory input and store useful information for later. At first it would have been fairly crude, with the brains making connections with the soft tissue and nervous systems of creatures they worked with.
Eventually, somwhere down the track, brains developed the ability to drastically alter the physiology of the creatures they worked with, so that they could ride in rather than on their partner ceatures.
This works with the extraterrestrial origin theory, as brains could in fact be aliens with biotechnology far superior to our own...so while we are busy building cars and helicopters and spaceships to ride about in, the brains just saw about adapting what nature had created for their own use.
Eventually it got to the point where many creatures were born with a brain inside them as a functioning vital organ, which was much more efficient than each brain attatching itself to a host. In fact, by now the symbiotic relationship is so strong that those creatures who are born with brains can no longer function without them, due to control of vital homeostasis processes. This was probably intentional, as the brains early on would have ensured 'loyalty' by threatening a host with extreme pain or even death through heart palpitations.
Of course, this isn't a hard and fast rule. Remember zombies?
They've got no brains, and what are they always trying to eat? That's right - Brains!
Zombies are arguably the best representation of humanity's natural state in modern times. Somehow or other they have managed to break the cycle of bondage to our brains that we are all born with, and they're pissed off and out for revenge!
So if you see a zombie, feel free to gladly let him or her eat your brains, because they're actually doing you a great favour.
--
I was thinking of the parasitic-city idea in the Invisibles, together with a little BodyMind philosophy (you know, the classic question of how, exactly, the "soul" and "body" are connected) and the "life originated from Mars"-theory. In creating a personal psycosm, it seems like a pretty groovy idea to speculate in the possibility of a parasitic creature being responsible for
a) separating humanity from it's true nature, which is, basicly, to be the natural "primitive", freed from the shackles of emotion and (too much) thinking
or,
b) that which is responsible for giving us the ability to use magic(k)
What good is this? I don't know really. It ties in a bit with the "Worlds within"-topic; how, if at all, does the subjective reality change the "objective" reality. To me, it seems like each person has the ability to change the percieved reality of others, simply imposing their own reality upon others. Theories of mass-hysteria aside, I've seen some down-to-earth examples of this in my sickly grandmother, who spent most of her life imposing her reality - her "sacrifices" to her family and their "betrayal" in not standing by her (none of which was - in retrospect - "true") - on her children, resulting in (at least) two people with half their lifes wrecked. And this from a person with no "awareness" of this ability.
Same thing with weirdo sects & cults, where seemingly clear-thinking individuals can become swept away with absolutley insane ideas (like... the Waco-incident. Although they were perhaps not too bright to begin with...). Anyway.
So, the factors involved are more based on the person trying to impose the subjective reality, than the subjective reality itself. Of course, the person to which this viral idea is to be inprinted (?) changes the effect, most likely due to a natural status quo (due to an extremly egocentrical reality [fundamentalist?], or due to ego-death [buddhists and - some - magicans?]), or, an awareness of the fact that an inprinting attempt is being made.
If this is true, then;
a) where all living in separate psychosms
b) we can all be affected by other psychosms
c) Joe is not (just) crazy or oblivious - he's just trying to impose his own reality on others (just as, theoretically, I am doing right now)
d) the effect of an Erisian psycho-smartie-handgrenade, "thrown" into a bunch of corporate lawyers could acctually have a positive effect!
Further speculation (while I'm ranting); if there is "extremes" of subjective reality in a group context (in which Joe's situation on this board seems to fit), there must be some form of consensus reality of percieved reality (as with psycholingustics), in which a majority of individuals in a group influence each-other to the extent that their reality becomes the "real" one on the basis of mass, not "truth". And if ideas have mass, it seems likely that all viral ideas are better utilised when carried in form of a symbol that is widely spread among the target group (as with advertising). That could explain why - IMHO - magical work seems to get a better effect when done using symbols that are present in the current situation (use Norse gods when visiting me, use celtic ones in Ireland and use urban legends when doing work in a major city).
I probably covered a lot of "old ground" here, not making myself especially clear, but I hope I'm at least on the right track (topicwise). Will return with other ideas.
- §eraphim. |
|
|
