BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Otherkin

 
  

Page: 1 ... 56789(10)

 
 
EvskiG
14:17 / 05.02.08
For the most part it all sounds like normal human experience being processed through a very specific set of filters and pathologised.

Which is essentially my point.

Everything you've described above about your symptoms, recovery, etc. -- except for the way you choose to interpret and address them -- sounds normal to me.

But if you want to call yourself a vampire or "vampiric," please be my guest.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
15:25 / 05.02.08
NyteMuse: Thanks for talking a little about your experiences with other forms of "energy work" such as reiki, martial arts and yoga, and the results you have observed. Assuming that you are being totally honest about your commitment to these practices, that at least gets us somewhere. I don't think it is any way unfair to ask this sort of question of someone who is representing themselves as a vampire. How am I supposed to tell whether you are, as you claim, a super active martial arts gymnast guy puzzled at his constant lack of energy despite his healthy lifestyle, or an unhealthy sedentary character who spends all their time indoors at their computer playing vampire roleplaying games online. Unless you actually offer up this information to us about other lifestyle factors, it's difficult to take your supernatural explanation for low energy levels very seriously. Occam's razor makes me want to run through all of the other possibilities and rule them out, before I accept that vampires are real. I'm not going to accept something like that just because you say so, and I don't think my line of questioning here is at all out-of-order or unfair.

I'm still very sceptical about the validity of your condition as you represent it, and more pertinently, I'm hugely sceptical about the value and benefits of framing your symptoms in this way. The problem I have with your self-diagnosis is that vampirism appears to be a static narrative with no implied sense that you can positively transform or turn this situation around. Vampires generally stay as vampires. This is a troubling belief set for me, because if what is being described is actually just something fairly common such as low energy levels - and not that much in your account supports a view that it is something other than this - the strong belief in your vampiric nature presents a massive obstacle to ever resolving this condition. It seems really fatalistic to me to place yourself in this particular box because there is no clear way out of it, once you are in it. Can you address this for me, as that's the crux of my issue with your account?

You are making assumptions. I said how I prefer to live my life, but I recognize that is on the unhealthy side so I ignore my preferences

What is going on in that sentence? I'm not "making assumptions" about you - I'm just inferring what I can from what you have posted. If you make a statement about how you "prefer to live your life", I don't think you can then blame people for taking that at face value. How am I supposed to know that the preference you've just told us about isn't what you actually do, it's just some nebulous preference that you ignore in favour of doing something completely different from the picture you originally painted.

Apologies also for being ignorant of the conceptual gulf between the concepts of "NyteMuse" and "VampLover"...


Prana's a tricky concept. For a start, there's no literal English equivalent term, and it has been translated in a number of different ways

I'm in no sense an expert on Indian religion, as you know, but I think your own post bears out the complexity surrounding terms like prana and chi. I don't think its particularly useful for people to make statements about how energy vampires drain these energies (prana, chi, etc), as if we have all agreed upon one particular definition of "life energy", and without at least considering the complexity of these ideas as they exist in the cultures where they developed. Just because there is a long and illustrious history of people in the West doing that with these terms, doesn't mean it shouldn't be questioned when it comes up.

I don't know a great deal about prana, but I have a reasonable understanding of chi, and this idea of getting more chi by "sucking energy" out of other people seemed significantly at odds with my own understanding and experience of that concept. NyteMuse has clarified this for me a little by elaborating on his first statement and telling us that it's a specific form of "human Chi" that he is lacking, that Chi Kung breathing doesn't cut the mustard, and that what he needs has to be taken from people. I'd be interested to know how this is squared against his study of Chinese medicine, as I am not familiar with the idea that Chi in humans is somehow different to Chi elsewhere in the Universe. I'm familiar with the idea that forms of Chi can be classified in terms of the five chinese elements, but I've never come across the idea that there are certain types of Chi that you need to get from other people like they were juice boxes. This all seems a bit clumsy and made-up to me, and it doesn't really ring true with my own experience of Chi. In fact, I'm not even sure that "Chi" exists as an "energy" in this manner at all, and in my martial arts practice I tend to frame it more as a poetic metaphor for talking about the physiological and mental effects of the intake of breath. So I'm immediately running into problems with the idea that Chi is an energy can be sucked out of humans by people with some weird supernatural condition that has hitherto escaped medical science.
 
 
EmberLeo
18:25 / 05.02.08
I've seen and experienced things in the course of my magicoreligious practice which I can't easily dismiss as psychological tricks and glitches.

Yes, but if you described them to somebody who wasn't there, could they easily dismiss it as psychosomatic?

Because I'm in a similar boat, of having experienced things I cannot simply toss off as psychology and glitches, but I can't explain them to other people in ways that they can't just toss it off as psychology, and if a person is determined to do so, they generally do.

I guess, also, my perception is that NyteMuse came here to answer the question "what do people who consider themselves vampiric believe?" and after she got here the question was exchanged for "why should we believe you?" which is a different line of questioning entirely, and the bait-and-switch aspect has me twitching.

--Ember--
 
 
NyteMuse
18:47 / 05.02.08
I'm not seeing very much in what has been written above that even needs to be explained as psychosomatic, let alone given a magical, spiritual, or occult explanation. For the most part it all sounds like normal human experience being processed through a very specific set of filters and pathologised.

*sigh* Yes, that is a problem I'm really not sure how to work around...on the basis on what I've described, it does sound like the normal human experience. I just have a hard time describing the entire experience, as what I've been able to say is only about 30% of what's going on. No, I'm not trying to make it sound all mystical and secretive, but a lot of what comes immediately to mind makes ME question my own sanity, so to present that to an open forum where I only know 1 person on a personal level sounds like a recipe for disaster.

I've known any number of individuals who claimed to be vampires of one sort or another, and I've met maybe one or two who I'd consider believing it of. I'd need to be looking at a person with a long-term, broad and in-depth magicoreligious practice, including experience of a range of different techniques and perspectives.

That's precisely my point, TTS. Not just would you have to look at an individual's history, but I believe you would almost have to be in the same room with them to get any reasonable diagnosis. I have met more than one person online who runs around shouting "I'm a vampire, I'm a vampire" and it turned out zie just had a temporarily blocked chakra or energy center that an acupuncturist cleared up within a treatment or 2, or had some kind of parasite (astral or human) just messing with them, and once that drain was removed, they were fine.

Oh boy. That person must have to really wanted to call hirself a vampire if ze's getting hir energy from the sun. By that logic a bowl of petunias is a vampire.

Precisely my point...get a lot of eyerolls about that one in the community. But, by the same token, there are some who swear they draw "prana" or vitality from plants and thunderstorms. I'm still not sure about that one...I can definitely feel a buzz when the lightning starts crackling, but that's about it.

It seems really fatalistic to me to place yourself in this particular box because there is no clear way out of it, once you are in it. Can you address this for me, as that's the crux of my issue with your account?

Yes and no? I do see your point, and it is true that many people who identify as vampires really wed themselves to that identity and will not entertain suggestions of alternates or how to fix things. I am not one of them. There are cases of temporary vampirism. Some vamps believe their energy deficiency is caused by auric damage or alteration and that if that could be changed or fixed, they'd be cured. That's not my case. I did explore tai chi and chi gung partially to help find alternate means, and I did express willingness to explore other possibilities as the opportunities are presented to me that I have the resources for. I am not so wedded to this romantic notion that if one of those other practices could pan out, I'd still reject it w/o even trying. However, in the interim, I will still describe myself as vampiric because of what I do as a coping mechanism now.

I'd be interested to know how this is squared against his study of Chinese medicine, as I am not familiar with the idea that Chi in humans is somehow different to Chi elsewhere in the Universe.

In what I did study, we did have different types of Chi presented to us, relating to the organs. Liver Chi was different than kidney Chi, so why not human Chi as different than other Chi in the universe? I reiterate from before, you can't use reiki to power a laptop (don't I wish that was the case *chuckle*). You use/draw on different types of Chi in martial arts for different purposes.

So I'm immediately running into problems with the idea that Chi is an energy can be sucked out of humans by people with some weird supernatural condition that has hitherto escaped medical science.

I understand your issue, but is medical science really the end-all be-all authority? I know of more than a few medical practitioners who can't even accept or explain things that happen in acupuncture or kinesthesiology. Hell, even my kinesthesiologist can barely explain what's going on, but *shrug* it works. (I know that acupuncture and kinesthesiology have a long history of experimentation at this point at that early on, they were regarded as just as nutso as the vampirism is now...I'm not trying to say they're exactly the same thing, just pointing out that "science" is woefully behind in proving most things on a psychic or subtle level)
 
 
NyteMuse
18:50 / 05.02.08
I guess, also, my perception is that NyteMuse came here to answer the question "what do people who consider themselves vampiric believe?" and after she got here the question was exchanged for "why should we believe you?" which is a different line of questioning entirely, and the bait-and-switch aspect has me twitching.

Basically...if I had known before posting that this was going to be a "Prove vampirism exists" debate, I would never have started because I fully recognize that I can't. I haven't been around the communities long, but I have been studying the notion for several years and have gotten around a lot so I could make a huge list about the various beliefs, even if I don't espouse them myself.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
20:00 / 05.02.08
I don't think anyone is really telling you "prove vampirism exists!" I doubt any of us can claim to be able to prove our practices work purely by discussion. It's more like "these are the holes in your model as they appear to me. Can you supply further information?"

I think you've unfortunately kind of barked your shins on a cultural difference. The Temple tends to be a lot more hardnosed than most occult/magic/witchy-woo-woo fora out there. A lot of models, concepts and ideas which are common currency in mainstream magical discourse get picked to bits here. One of those concepts is the model of "life energy" which seems to be the framework within which the vampire model works. Personally I'm happy to see that concept interrogated; the more "energy work" I do, the more friction I encounter between my own experiences and the way this stuff is supposed to work according to recieved wisdom in modern Western occultism. I find that my experiences get disappeared in other spaces because they don't accord with the way this kind of thing is conceptualised.

The energy model seems to rest on a lot of assumptions that tend to go unquestioned. Challenging those assumptions can, in the long run, only increase understanding.
 
 
EvskiG
21:21 / 05.02.08
For example, your comments that:

I have met more than one person online who runs around shouting "I'm a vampire, I'm a vampire" and it turned out zie just had a temporarily blocked chakra or energy center that an acupuncturist cleared up within a treatment or 2

What makes you say that this person had a "temporarily blocked chakra or energy center"? What does that mean? What evidence supports that position? What acupuncture treatment was involved? What's the rationale for how the treatment worked? What constitutes a cure for a temporarily blocked chakra or energy center? What's the evidence that the acupuncture treatment provided the cure?

or had some kind of parasite (astral or human) just messing with them, and once that drain was removed, they were fine.

What is an astral parasite? What makes it (or a human) a parasite? Is this purely metaphorical or are you referring to some sort of living entity? What evidence supports this position? What was the drain? What evidence is there that there was a drain? How was the drain was removed? What evidence is there that the drain was removed?

And so forth.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
21:29 / 05.02.08
Yeah, that too, basically.

(I remember reading about a lot of this in Psychic Self-Defence. Out of interest, can anyone point to earlier sources that these models as the appear in that text were derived from?)
 
 
Unconditional Love
22:08 / 05.02.08
The Human Energy Field I have been following various searches from this article ofn the characters mentioned here, some of it very interesting some not so.

Once you get past the first couple of paragraphs it becomes interesting to look at all the representations of the idea.

One that seems to fit a vampirism model would be Gustave Naessens, having done a little further digging there appears to be no conclusive evidence to the nature of his claims, he currently offers a drug that aids in recovery from cancer, which the FDA is currently investigating, its based on his notion of energy in certain characteristics of blood.
 
 
NyteMuse
01:00 / 06.02.08
What makes you say that this person had a "temporarily blocked chakra or energy center"? What does that mean? What evidence supports that position? What acupuncture treatment was involved? What's the rationale for how the treatment worked? What constitutes a cure for a temporarily blocked chakra or energy center? What's the evidence that the acupuncture treatment provided the cure?

Person went to acupuncturist for diagnosis, acupuncturist said energy channel was blocked, after treatment person said zie no longer had to vampirically feed. Nothing else happened at the time, no other changes in person's life, so the most logical conclusion was that the acupuncture did something.

What is an astral parasite? What makes it (or a human) a parasite? Is this purely metaphorical or are you referring to some sort of living entity? What evidence supports this position? What was the drain? What evidence is there that there was a drain? How was the drain was removed? What evidence is there that the drain was removed?

Fine, in the case of the astral parasite, I was not present, so it could have been something psychosomatic. Person experienced loss of energy, an energetically sensitive/medium type said there was another being attached to person, witch did something to remove it, person no longer deficient. As for the human thing, I was referring to those people that are just a drain on your emotions and resources, like leeches, leading one to become very tired and drained and think they are vampiric, as they feed consciously on energy. Person goes out of their life, no longer vampiric.
 
 
EvskiG
03:31 / 06.02.08
Those aren't really answers to my questions.

Person went to acupuncturist for diagnosis, acupuncturist said energy channel was blocked, after treatment person said zie no longer had to vampirically feed

If Doctor Nick says Abe Simpson has bonus eruptus (and is going to give himself skin failure), zaps him with a car battery, and Abe feels better, that doesn't mean that Abe actually had bonus eruptus. It doesn't explain what bonus eruptus is, or was, or might be. It doesn't offer any meaningful evidence that bonus eruptus was the correct diagnosis. It doesn't prove that zapping someone with a car battery cures bonus eruptus. It doesn't explain how zapping someone with a car battery cures bonus eruptus.

the most logical conclusion was that the acupuncture did something.

No, that's one possible conclusion, but without further evidence it's not "the most logical conclusion." The acupuncture may have done something. The person may have gotten better on his/her own. There may have been a placebo effect. The person may not have been ill or diseased in the first place. Or there might be one or more other explanations. We really can't tell given the limited information you provided.

in the case of the astral parasite, I was not present, so it could have been something psychosomatic. Person experienced loss of energy, an energetically sensitive/medium type said there was another being attached to person, witch did something to remove it, person no longer deficient.

Again, the fact that "an energetically sensitive/medium type" (whatever that means) said "there was another being attached to person" doesn't really provide any meaningful support for the proposition that astral parasites exist, or that an astral parasite was responsible for this person's "loss of energy" (whatever that means). It's essentially a variation on "a guy said so."

And as for the treatment by the witch (whatever that means), see the discussion of Doctor Nick above.
 
 
Closed for Business Time
08:30 / 06.02.08
You know, people, as Temple threads go, this is really starting to resemble a CSICOP interrogation.

Like Gypsy invoking Occam's razor above. C'mon, if you wanna play that game, well darn doodlie-doo, let's have ourselves a Temple-razing! Gods, spirits, chi, magic? Ain't no evidence for that! It's all your faulty brains, dudes! Have some meds, get better, and call back when you've got the hang of good old materialism. Or common sense as we folks call it.
 
 
Evil Scientist
09:03 / 06.02.08
Not a terrbly helpful way to make a point Nolte.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
09:05 / 06.02.08
I don't know about anyone else but I apply Occam's Razor to my own practice all the time. I come to embrace teh darque occult interpretations only when they become the simplest, cleanest explanation for what I just saw/heard/did etc, and it's the mundane explanation that requires me to jump through mental hoops. I don't expect other people who haven't experienced those things to believe as I do, but I'm satisfied in my own mind that my current models are the most effective ones for dealing with my experiences. I'm also fully prepared to challenge and interrogate those models and beliefs and to chuck 'em out if they stop effectively describing what's happening around me. I suspect the same is true for all the posters who've taken a more confrontational stance in this topic.

As I stated above, we're also dealing with a body of theory and modelling that seems to me to have passed from Fortune's 1930 text Psychic Self-Defence largely or wholly unchallenged, copied faithfully from book to book to website without terribly many people going "hang on, has anyone checked this stuff out?" I don't think that taking it out of its box and having a good look at it is a bad thing.

I know that all this must look odd, even rather cruel, to someone who's not up to hir knees in this stuff. But from the standpoint of someone who believe that teh majiks and related gubbins are all real, it's different. The beliefs and models of reality we adopt inform our practices both in obvious and not so obvious ways, and if those beliefs are also tied up with the ways in which a person self-identifies, the potential for getting locked into a toxic personal narrative is huge. And that's a sad sad thing, because from my perspective magic can be such a wonderful, powerful transformative force in one's life. I don't like the idea of someone cramming hirself into a narrow little box and closing the lid when there's so much to explore.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
09:10 / 06.02.08
Yes, thanks. I want to play that game. I want to play the game where we take a skeptical, grounded and open-minded approach to exploration and experimentation with the various techniques and methodologies that our culture has consigned to the pejorative waste-paper basket called "magic". Methodologies which nonetheless do appear to produce interesting phenomena, and which a decade of committed personal research has convinced me contain much of value both for myself and for a culture that I feel has thrown a rather large and fascinating baby out with the bathwater in its wholesale and largely unexamined rejection of these matters.

I want to do this in a climate where we don't throw common sense out of the window and automatically take onboard the literal existence of everything from vampires to the Easter bunny, just because our research has suggested that other things consigned to the "magic box" might actually have some value and validity. I want to play the game where we question and interrogate the models that we have constructed for understanding the phenomena produced by experimenting in these area, where our formulated ideas about these matters are exposed to constructive peer criticism, and where people experimenting in these areas are not "enabled" if their beliefs and practices appear to be unhealthy or maladaptive from the perspective of other practitioners. Have you got a problem with that?
 
 
Closed for Business Time
09:20 / 06.02.08
Perhaps not. Apologies to anyone who takes offence at my post (I could and perhaps should have been more circumspect), but as NyteMuse made her appearance in this thread I was pretty amazed at the level of negativity and criticism her posts evoked. Speaking as an interested outsider to the occult and religious practices discussed in this forum, I've read many a fine thread here where nuanced critiques and interrogations of concepts, dogmas and phenomena have emerged from a blend of personal experiences and textual knowledge. In this case of Otherkin it seems to me that the prejudices of a lot posters I generally have the highest respect for have made said posters adopt a level of scepticism that seems at odds with their normal MO.

This barraging with demands for evidence, for example. How did NyteMuse know her acquaintance had a blocked chakra? Well, how do you prove the existence of chakras in the first place? If one falls back on the defence by metaphor (chakras* as metaphors for physiological, psychological or similar, materially founded processes) it IMO undercuts some of the fundamental principles that underpin the larger Temple discourse - that of cautious optimism in the existence of psi, angels or what have you. I could very well be wrong about this "principle of discourse", of course - it could well be the case that most everyone in the Temple have spoken about their beliefs and experiences in mostly or purely metaphorical terms. If that is the case, I retract the above, but until then, I'll let the it stand.

*Chakras here merely an exemplar for all kinds of materially unverified phenomena that regularly make appearances in this forum.
 
 
Closed for Business Time
09:23 / 06.02.08
And upon reading my initial post, I realise that I owe an extra apology to everyone for the "meds" part. That was totally uncalled for, and I wish to say I'm sorry, I hope no one gets hurt by it, and I really didn't mean to imply that you're all kerrrrazy.

[Edit]: Post before this in reply to Wristwatch Nuke.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
09:36 / 06.02.08
Thanks, Nolte. Can we all please watch the meds/crazy talk? I happen to be a nutter, am currently on meds for a seizure disorder, and rather resent the implication that this automatically invalidates my practice.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
09:40 / 06.02.08
This barraging with demands for evidence, for example. How did NyteMuse know her acquaintance had a blocked chakra? Well, how do you prove the existence of chakras in the first place? If one falls back on the defence by metaphor (chakras* as metaphors for physiological, psychological or similar, materially founded processes) it IMO undercuts some of the fundamental principles that underpin the larger Temple discourse - that of cautious optimism in the existence of psi, angels or what have you.

Well, were you to ask me what I meant by "my client has a blocked chakra" I could offer the following.

I can tell you that when I do work within the energy model, I experience physical sensations (sometimes accompanied by other sensory data) which, within that model, can be interpreted as patterns in the "flow" of this notional energy. Powerful feelings of heat, cold, pressure, tingling sensations etc. I find that when I place my hands over a client's body on the points where the chakras are supposed to be located, I get definate changes in these sensations. I may feel as if my hands are being tugged towards the chakra, pulled around in a circle, and other oddities. Clients have reported physical sensations during healing, including effects from my supposedly fiddling around with their chakras; they have also reported increased wellbeing following the manipulation of "energy" around chakra points. I cannot otherwise demonstrate the existence of chakras but I find that when I "act as if" and pretend that there are chakras, I get a better result healing-wise.

This is the kind of thing I would offer, and it is also the kind of thing I would accept from another poster. You see how this is different from "X had a blocked chakra and this was creating vampire syptoms"? No-one's asking for hard evidence here, just for considered unpacking.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
09:50 / 06.02.08
How did NyteMuse know her acquaintance had a blocked chakra? Well, how do you prove the existence of chakras in the first place?

Wasn't that what Ev was getting at though? I personally found NyteMuse's casual and matter-of-fact statement about the friend with the blocked chakra a bit jarring for the Temple, in the same way that I found some of his/her statements about Chi and Prana to be a little unexamined as well. There is an assumption here that we all share a literal belief that things such as Chi and Chakras are objectively real - in exactly the manner in which they are portrayed in a million new age paperbacks. I'm not really convinced that they are. I can accept that there is a tangible physical/mental/emotional phenomena taking place which the chakra model is attempting to describe, but I wince whenever someone starts talking to me about blocked chakras as if these things were literal "energy vortexes" in the body, and automatically assumes I share their belief/acceptance of these ideas by dint of my own interest in magic and related areas. If I just accept this sort of stuff - which does sadly rather make up about 90% of the occult field - without trying to question or challenge it, then I'm just contributing to the process of dumbing-down and obfuscation that makes sure the valuable aspects of these practices/processes with which I'm involved continue to be overlooked, ridiculed and occulted.
 
 
Evil Scientist
10:05 / 06.02.08
No worries Nolte. Whilst I have no problems with rigorous examination of these things I was also a little concerned that NyteMuse was being expected to provide more evidence than usual. However, what with my worldview being what it is, I thought I'd hang back and trust in the Temple regular's much larger experience in these things.

My only concern really is that NyteMuse, who is engaging in a reasonable and agreeable manner, doesn't feel it's too much to deal with. I'm getting quite a lot from this thread at the moment.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
10:41 / 06.02.08
I was also a little concerned that NyteMuse was being expected to provide more evidence than usual.

I'd agree that NyteMuse's reception here has been a little hard line, but I think this is because claims of vampirism are quite emotive for a lot of people here. I personally think that entering fully into the belief that one is suffering from some rare and incurable condition that forces you to feed off some nebulous vital substance extracted from others is a lot more problematic a framework of belief than, for instance, someone whose practice involves consulting the I Ching or speaking to their ancestors. I would personally require a lot more evidence to support the validity of energy vampirism, as I think it's quite an unhealthy and potentially dangerous lens through which to process one's "non-ordinary experiences" and live one's life. I think that practicing and writing about this stuff comes with a degree of responsibility for not inadvertently supporting and enabling people in their adoption of delusory and potentially destructive belief systems - of which there are quite a few to choose from on the murky edges of occultism.
 
 
trouser the trouserian
11:23 / 06.02.08
Gypsy

I don't think its particularly useful for people to make statements about how energy vampires drain these energies (prana, chi, etc), as if we have all agreed upon one particular definition of "life energy", and without at least considering the complexity of these ideas as they exist in the cultures where they developed. Just because there is a long and illustrious history of people in the West doing that with these terms, doesn't mean it shouldn't be questioned when it comes up.

In general I agree with you. However, what I was trying to say was that terms such as prana, chakra, etc., have passed into popular or common occult usage - in fact, I'd say that unless one is extremely selective in one's reading, one is going to encounter them in one form or another, and, unless one decides to make a special investigation of such terms in different contexts (cultural, historical etc.), one is probably going to accept what a particular author (or other source) says about them at face value - particularly if that source is taken as authoratitive, and if the explanation given "fits" with other facets of an individuals' beliefs. It's my general experience that, unless challenged by another person or by experiential circumstances, much of what passes loosely for "occult theorising" does not get questioned very much - particularly when it comes to our own beliefs. If an explanation seems to "confirm" what we already "know" to be the case, then it's less likely to be questioned. That you wish to question use of terms, beliefs etc., is highly laudable, but can easily come across as aggressive if someone isn't used to it. I only make this point because in the past, I've had some 'heated' (to say the least) discussions with other people (both off and online) about the ontological status of chakras.

Which leads me to something I wanted to address.

...I don't feel anyone can correct someone on a subjective perception.

It seems to me that experiences which are framed as "subjective" are treated as privileged in the sense that they are not open to being questioned, interrogated, or otherwise taken apart - and that this is a very widespread view amongst occult practitioners. It's as though "subjective experiences" are taken as direct, unmediated apprehensions of reality - albeit sometimes an apprehension of reality that is 'different' to "ordinary" reality, so that different 'rules' as to what constitutes 'valid' knowledge apply. There was some discussion of this in the Magical Spaces and Cultural Signifiers thread. The problem of taking subjective experience as foundational, and not open to critique (which isn't necessarily about "proving" it one way or another) is that it denies access to the discourses which constitute those subjectivities in the first place. As Mary Hawkesworth says, it becomes "authoritarian" - closing off further discussion, and implies a relativism, in which no individual can refute another's 'immediate' apprehension of reality. Which is (possibly) fine for occult online discussion boards, but wouldn't really work in court cases.

On to Gypsy's comment:

There is an assumption here that we all share a literal belief that things such as Chi and Chakras are objectively real - in exactly the manner in which they are portrayed in a million new age paperbacks. I'm not really convinced that they are.

Trying to relate the first part of my post with the second - yes, the notion that "the chakras" are literally real - or at the very least have a reality that can be experienced but not necessarily one subject to any kind of analysis is very common - and tends to be accepted as such. The idea that what we "know" to be "the chakras" is itself a product of particular historical and cultural discourses, shaped in turn by 'western' understandings of the relationships between body/mind, public/private, subjective & objective etc., is not largely something you'll find in occult books.

It's a difficult area, but one I think, worthy of further probing. Thoughts?
 
 
Haloquin
11:37 / 06.02.08
I would like to express my appreciation for Nytemuse's attempts to respond to questions reasonably. A large number of people would have taken this as a personal attack (which, given that no-one knows you, it can't be) and given up, so I admire your courage in presenting your experiences in response to questioning. "Vampirism" is something that lends itself to large amounts of questioning, which can seem hostile, but I think its useful... if nothing else, people with an outside perspective, or individuals who have unthinkingly accepted the vampiric model, can see an analysis of it. I can only see this being helpful.

I have the impression that the question is less; "why should we believe you?" (although there is a bit of that) but more; "why do you believe this when there are other possible alternatives... have you looked at them?"
 
 
trouser the trouserian
12:06 / 06.02.08
Out of interest, can anyone point to earlier sources that these models as the appear in that text were derived from?

Indeed. It might be worth you looking at the writings of Charles Webster Leadbeater, in particular, The Astral Plane (first published in 1894) and Thought-forms. Online versions of these two, and many other Theosophical texts, can be found here.

I'd also recommend Geoffrey Tillett's online biographical study of Leadbeater

Fortune's Psychic Self-Defence makes a clear distinction between "psychic parasitism" - which she says is very common, unconscious and involuntary. Vampirism, she asserts, is always a conscious and deliberate attack and relates to the projection of the etheric double. She discusses cases of vampirism during the Great War, which she explains in terms of Eastern European troops with the traditional knowledge of "Black Magic" avoiding "the Second Death" by vampirising the wounded (a story which appears, in rather more lurid form, in her collection of short stories "The Secrets of Dr. Taverner"). She asserts that this vampirism is contagious, and that victim becomes "a psychic vacuum, himself absorbing from anyone he comes across in order to refill his depleted resources of vitality."
 
 
Saturn's nod
12:21 / 06.02.08
The problem of taking subjective experience as foundational, and not open to critique (which isn't necessarily about "proving" it one way or another) is that it denies access to the discourses which constitute those subjectivities in the first place. As Mary Hawkesworth says, it becomes "authoritarian" - closing off further discussion, and implies a relativism, in which no individual can refute another's 'immediate' apprehension of reality.

Yes! This is something that really interests me and I'm delighted it's surfacing in the board's sea of discussion.

I'm aware that my own sensory experiences are heavily shaped by my thoughts and beliefs - when I was using the common new agey 'chakra' model from a thousand works of fiction, it seemed very real to me. I felt sensations of heat or cold and kinds of movement in those particular places, in my own body and by passing my hands close to the surface of another person's body. I was having the experience, but I can now see how much that experience was shaped by the map in my head at the time.

Since encountering grownup occultists with different models of 'energy', I recognise a shift in my perceptions. My observations of my own body are different, no longer conforming to the previous model of 'chakras', and my perceptions of others' bodies are different too.

I find myself committed to a questioning path, and one of the questions I find most useful so far is "what is this good for?"

I find myself sympathetic when practitioners I encounter can answer queries about their experiences and worldviews in the light of purpose. If there is a basis of intentional engagement in life, and the worldview, interpretations of reality and so on are flowering from that purposive interaction with the world, it's much easier for me to find means of communication and common purpose - and those are important aspects of my motivation for dialogue with other practitioners.
 
 
Saturn's nod
12:28 / 06.02.08
Apologies if that is slightly too tangential or off-topic - to tie it back to the topic of Otherkin, the question arises for me - what is this vampirism or otherkin interpretation good for?

What I've gathered from NyteMuse's writing so far is that the 'vampirism' explanation is perhaps the model that fits best for assisting that poster's function in the world. (Although I'm curious now about the larger frame - what's the larger intention, and how does the vampirism model fit in, if survival and function in the world might be regarded as 'solved problems'?)
 
 
EvskiG
12:55 / 06.02.08
By the way, I agree that NyteMuse has answered all of our questions with remarkable politeness and courtesy.

And in case it wasn't clear, I'm a long-time magical practitioner myself, and I ask myself these sorts of questions -- in a fairly brutal manner -- on a regular basis.

I've just about razed my practice to the ground as a result, but there are a few models and practices I still work with from time to time.
 
 
trouser the trouserian
13:44 / 06.02.08
I was having the experience, but I can now see how much that experience was shaped by the map in my head at the time.

Thank you, afj, that's more or less the point I was trying to get across - and that these "maps" that we experience as real, are themselves cultural artefacts - although the discourses that produce them are often invisible, until we begin to poke at them. One way we can begin to uncover these discourses is to take schemas such as "the chakras" not as eternal, revealed truths, (or indeed as things to "prove" or disprove") but as discourses which have emerged over time and been shaped by wider cultural processes than the immediate occult contexts in which we find them.

So for example, taking up Nolte's point about "the chakras" as metaphors for "physiological, psychological or similar, materially-founded processes" I think it's fair to say that these identifications did not pop up out of nowhere, and that they largely emerged out of the Imperial encounter with Indian philosophy - specifically, in 19th century attempts to re-represent aspects of Indian religious thought as "rational" and "scientific" either by western orientalist scholars (i.e. Sir John Woodroffe) orientalist romantics (such as the Theosophical Society) and Indian intellectual reformist groups such as the Brahmo Samaj. At least, that's where the identification between one particular chakra schema* and nerve plexuses, etc., begins. The attempts to use the chakras in the service of emerging psychologies was largely down to Jung, who did a bit of revisioning in order to make them conform to his model of Individuation, and of course, a lot of other connections were made later on and continue to be so. If you look at the pre-imperial Indian textual sources which mention chakras, you won't find any of this - primarily because pre-Industrial India did not (generally speaking) have either a medical model, a hard mind-body divide such as developed in post-Enlightenment Europe, or even a subjective-objective distinction in the way we tend to think of it.

* That's the 7-odd chakras strung along the spinal column so familiar from those "million-and-one" new age books.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
16:24 / 06.02.08

I'm aware that my own sensory experiences are heavily shaped by my thoughts and beliefs - when I was using the common new agey 'chakra' model from a thousand works of fiction, it seemed very real to me. I felt sensations of heat or cold and kinds of movement in those particular places, in my own body and by passing my hands close to the surface of another person's body. I was having the experience, but I can now see how much that experience was shaped by the map in my head at the time.


Yeah, that's pretty much how I parse my own experiences. By the time I started to do any serious work with energy healing, I'd been exposed to the ROY G. BIV chakra model repeatedly and for many, many years; when I got Reiki training a few years ago, that was the model used by my teacher. It is no surprise, then, that the experiences I had co-incided with what I'd been taught. (Although incidentally, during my 133t kh40t3 years I did challenge this model, attempting to "create" chakras in places where I knew there weren't any. I succeeded in making chakras in my hands and feet and was jolly pleased with myself for having thusly stuck it to the stupid hippies who believed in that New Age crap--only to discover, further down the line, that lesser chakras in one's hands and feet are a bona fide feature of some systems. I guess the books I was reading at the time didn't want anything that didn't fit nicely into a shiny rainbow.)
 
 
Unconditional Love
18:38 / 06.02.08
Theosophia Practica, this book that Leadbeater refers too, is something that i was considering this morning for my own planetary magick practice, i have just been comparing where i was placing the planets as i woke up to where Johann Georg Gichtel places them in his diagram, there was some correspondence but not complete, i was sure i had seen the idea somewhere before. Things seem to be leading me round to the figure of Jakob Böhme, a name that keeps coming to my attention from beginning to work with angels and enochian ideas.

Anyway back on topic, I have been looking through this resource (Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine)and have pulled outthis article which i think deserves due attention in relationship to Ki, and makes very interesting reading.

I keep coming across reference to infared radiation in relationship to ki.

The article above raises some interesting points about the cultural reception of ideas like Ki in the west, philosophical history's that effect current thinking and modern ideas of how to relate or interpret information.
 
 
NyteMuse
19:45 / 06.02.08
First off, I would like to say thank you to everyone for the comments regarding my comportment and attitude on the subject...the fact is, I have been getting progressively more and more nervous about checking this forum because I don't like getting backed into a corner, which a lot of these posts seemed (to me) to be doing. I have come across as a bitch in text-based mediums before, so I know how insults can be interpreted when not meant and try to think the best of anything open to interpretation.

I think that, with all due respect, I'm going to back out of this conversation, or at least the direction it's going. Not because I'm all hurt and emo and angsty and pouting, but because I don't stick to the same high level of academic/intellectual standards of many of the other regular readers of the Temple. I am not a fluff-bunny, and I occasionally enjoy a good magically academic debate/discussion, but I am also in large part an intuitive, or "feeler". If something feels right for me, I stick to it and generally don't poke at it too much. I fully recognize the potential problems with this perspective, which is why I try desperately never to label my perceptions as TRUTH and to be open to possible alternate interpretations, but in the end, I stick with my comfort zone, until that comfort zone becomes not comfortable. I'm perfectly fine not understanding the minutiae of the condition. Why don't I look to other "cures"? Well, I do, when something comes up that sparks my interest or that I have the resources to pursue, but I really honestly have neither the time or the mental capacity freed up to devote the efforts needed for a full study of all possibilities. I have many interests and I can only really focus on 1 or 2 fields of study at a time I don't need to prove it to myself to that extent. Maybe in ten or fifteen years, when I'm less occupied with other things, I will look into it more deeply, but for right now, I'm content.

(And no, it's not because I'm enamored of the archetype/identity *chuckle* I am a goth, but I very rarely dress the part. I don't model myself after Lestat or Belle Morte. I'm not going to say I despise lifestylers, but I think I've only dragged out the fangs once or twice a year, and usually when I was actively dressing up AS a vampire for some costume event)

So yes, please do continue and I may check in to read the fascinating points, but I just wanted to let folks know why I might not answer questions posed at me after this. If you have something specific to ask that I did not address before, feel free to PM me, (with the understanding that some things I maintain because they "feel right to/for me" and I don't want to prove).
 
 
EvskiG
20:05 / 06.02.08
Thanks for providing us with the perspective of an intelligent, articulate person who identifies as vampiric.

You added a lot to this discussion, and I hope you stick around.
 
 
Mako is a hungry fish
13:39 / 16.02.08
I've worked with various energetic models on a regular basis for about 15 years, and have also explored Vampirism both in terms of Psychic aspects as well as Psychological for about 5 and 3 respectively. There are about two dozen points that have been made since I last posted in this thread and whilst I'd like to address them all, that would be a rather large expenditure of energy - a phrase, concept, and activity which I don't approach lightly, and as such I will touch on the main ones and hope they also speak for the minor.

Acupuncture as a psychosomatic cure for vampirism

Earlier, Nytemuse suggested that some evidence which supported the concept of blocked chakras could be found within an anecdote of a person who went to an acupuncturist, who received several treatments that resulted in the patient no longer needing to vampiricaly feed. To me, this could be interpreted as evidence of a blocked chakra (or in this case, a blocked meridian/channel) however it could also be interpreted as evidence of accepting an aspect of one energetic model -traditional Chinese medicine- to support ones own model -vampirism caused by energy blockages- which led to the resolution of the patients problem via psychosomatic means. Put simply, the patient may have no longer had to feed as they were told by the acupuncturist that their blockage was cleared.

Now, Nytemuse made mention that Doctors have used placebos to cure patients, and questioned that if it works and doesn't harm anyone, than so what; this was in response to EmberLeo's statement that if a symptom is psychosomatic along with its cure, than whatever works as a cure is fine - something being psychosomatic in such an instance is not a problem. To me the problem with this sort of mentality is in definitions of harm - I find it harmful to be bullshitted to, especially if such bullshit leads to the acceptance of a life-model which is false and ultimately self defeating, even if it has some redeeming qualities. The reason I see this as a problem is that should I pursue such a model than by means of opportunity foregone, I cannot pursue one that is (relatively) true and of greater quality.

This isn't to say that my position on Vampirism is that it is a false model and a self defeating one, though I do have reservations about how it is often presented both by those who practice it and those who critique it. Nor is it to say that my qualms with such a point of view are restricted to my search for truth alone. If a vampire feeds on others than isn't there an ethical consideration as to how this energy is utilized, especially if it is gained through means that would (presumably) leave the vampires donor/prey/target in a state that is less beneficial? Isn't there a responsibility to use this acquired energy to pursue a model that isn't a waste of energy, especially if its proponents consider it to arise from inefficiencies and deficiencies in energy production? Whether or not a vampire truly feeds on another or not, if they believe they do than shouldn’t they pursue a path which respects this feeding?

Acupuncture as a physical cure for vampirism

Perhaps the acupuncture was responsible for the patient no longer needing to vampirically feed. Perhaps it's too simple an explanation to say that it was a psychosomatic response. I've had experience with acupuncture to alleviate issues caused by body-building and poor posture, such as muscles that have been strained or set in constant firing patterns (knots, tenseness, calcium build-ups, etc) and impinged nerves. I've found such ailments to be draining and the treatments to be relieving -pain and cure is like that- and perhaps this is similar to what occurred to the patient mentioned by Nytemuse. Perhaps it was a physical ailment as opposed to a blocked channel, though this in itself doesn't explain why this person needed to vampirically feed off others.

Talks to Strangers spoke of hir experience with working within the energy model, and the physical sensations that arise from this -heat, cold, pressure, tingling- which I believe is what Nytemuse was referring to when zhe spoke of how psychics etc. are sensitive to energy and its flow, or some of the ways they are sensitive to it. Such sensations can be reproduced without a third party (see NEW by Robert Bruce) and whilst such sensations are not proof of some sort of Reiki-like energy, they are proof of these sensations in and of themselves - they may or may not occur in the areas they are felt in (i.e. hands) or be hallucinations and/or delusions, however they do occur.

I think that some of the vampiric feeding process, if not most of it, can be attributed to such sensations. I'm not so sure if this process indicates the transfer of energy between two parties, if this is a movement of energy within oneself alone, or if this energy (speaking in new-age terms, not physics) isn't simply electrical impulses within the nerves in a form of body control akin to that undertaken in everyday muscle movements. If it is the latter explanation, than perhaps the person which underwent acupuncture and no longer needed to vampirically feed, had to vampirically feed in the first place as this alleviated their physical problems in a manner similar to a good massage or heat pack. Once the physical issue was resolved through acupuncture, such as via correcting a misfiring muscle group, the need for such self healing (interpreted as vampiric feeding) vanished.

The energy of vampirism

One of the most common arguments I've seen against the concept of vampirism, from those that accept the energy model concept at least, is that energy is everywhere and within just about everything - why would someone need to feed on humans to gain such energy, when they could reach up to the sun or the moon or the stars and feed from them instead? Surely these are better sources of energy, both in terms of quality, amounts, and ethics, to take from. It seems like a logical argument though only on the basis that all energy is the same, just as the argument that a person could eat grass instead of cows is logical if we perceive all matter to be the same, at least in terms of human consumption. A vampire is someone who can't (or perhaps won't) feed on energies that aren’t human, at least not in a manner that is fully sustainable to them.

One of the most common arguments I've seen for the concept of vampirism is that it isn't energy as we in the west would normally conceive of it, but rather Chi or Prana in eastern concepts - the conversation then tends to end there, rather than explore whether or not this is true in part or in full. I've got more knowledge of Chi than Prana (though think they're pretty similar) so I will speak of it alone, with the first thing being that "Vampires feed on Chi" is a misnomer just as "Vampires feed on energy" is. Chi, like energy, doesn't refer to a specific 'thing' in itself but rather is a category or capacity. For instance, electrical energy is also known as dian chi, however to say that a vampire feeds on this would be misleading, unless you wanted to pursue my earlier thoughts regarding stimulation of the nervous system.

Whilst Chi can be subdivided into such individual categories just as energy can, such as heat (Re), it can also refer to states than energy is in such as being alive or dead. Further, it can also refer to the three major powers within the Universe -heaven (stars/planets) earth (mountains/rivers) and man (plants/animals)- and in each case, as with electricity, Chi doesn't refer to a specific thing; Heaven Chi for instance is known as Tian Chi. The reason why Chi is so often used to refer to humans is because, quite simply, most aspects of Chinese culture which deal with it do so in relation to humans, such as in QiGong or Chinese medicine. Whilst the vampiric concept of energy may at heart be similar, i.e. energy is used as a term because it refers to human energy most often, it rarely seems to me to be because of this reason and rather because such practices of Qigong are quite similar to those in vampirism. As far as the actual energy that vampires feed on is concerned, Xie Chi is perhaps closest to the term that is being sought, if one wishes to bastardize one system to incorporate it into another - I can't help but note that this is something which the vampiric community is prone to doing.
 
  

Page: 1 ... 56789(10)

 
  
Add Your Reply