A lot of things that are more like articles and things like that are in Musings. I do put some here but the bulk of them are under that category rather than over here. Guess they are boring, lol, since no one is hardly reading them. They are just topics many times with my comments or other written articles that are not fiction. I put them there unless they are purely occult in nature and that would depend really on my mood :)
I got this message that I was trying to put too many messages through the message center in too short a time and I was throttled. Is two reponces through the message center one too many? That is all I have put through and they weren't close together...geesh.
I don't think I will ever understand people here. I think I have said this many times. Why rate if you throw away the scores. Why should I or anyone else take the time to do coding and try to create anything beyond, name, gender and interests in default writing with no picture or avatar. These are people you are giving away 10s to and some of you have been here awhile and have very nice profiles. No, we don't want to be mean unnecessarily to Whelps but if they do nothing why should they get something for nothing here. I won't post an example here because I won't single anyone out. But get a grip people with this rating bizz. Please don't write in text shorthand. It is really annoying to see that. Check the spelling of your words. I wonder who you are when you say you are a writer and such and you can't spell although I know that is a notorious trait of writers. Sometimes it is so cryptic it is hard to understand and I know many are from foreign countries but the ones I see do this the most are from English speaking countries. I just have these days I get so frustrated trying to read profiles that basically say nothing, have nothing and are by people who expect 10s for doing nothing.
If people want to revenge rate me so be it but I simply will not give someone a 10 who does not deserve it. I don't count down for quizzes, poems or stories and sometimes not even if what they have written is blatant role playing. If they want to look silly fine. I will rate down if they are haughty and full of themselves and think they are know it alls about the vampyre community and the like. I only post in forums about that stuff. If your profile has a lot of profanity or if you make threats about rates or go on about how you don't care about them yada yada yada or go on about you don't need to put anything because people lie I will low rate you or not rate you at all EVER. It is a sign of laziness to me. Who cares if people lie about themselves...that isn't the point here. People lie period, everyone does or covers up for others when they do shitty things here and act stupid. People sometimes do but I think it is because they get tired of trying to make a profile people will like instead of people rating on the work put in and letting it be what the member likes instead which has to do with individuality.
Everyone has their own vision but I will not give a 10 for profiles that have no picture/avatar or that and default writing. If it is extensive and you threw in a few pics of yourself I might give a 9 but you will never get a 10 because you don't have a 10 profile. I keep saying this over and over. I wish this place worked similarly to when one downloads a new browser or version where you need to go through a read things and make choices because I think many don't even know we are essentially playing a game here and if you want to fully participate, the ratings are important and NOT just a number. If you believe this way that is fine but don't decide for others what they think is important. Why bother if you are not striving for something here. Friends are fine but now we have so many how do we find the time to talk to them all and then the mentorships and the covens or houses...too much to do now in my opinion but I am at least trying. I try hard to be sociable. Trying to figure out how to say Hello to all the friends I have amassed. Wish we could send mass messages to friends in here. I know its not very personal but at least it shows you acknowledge them.
I guess I take things too seriously here. I wonder why so many identify with music as what they are; ie, I am a juggalo, I am an emo, I am a crave, I am goth, I am this or that. Aren't you just a person first? It blows my mind many times seeing all of that. I am pretty familiar with the goth aesthetic but not so much the others because essentially I don't care how someone identifies personally with the music they listen to. When I was a teen we didn't identify this way and I wonder what started it all. We might be a Beatles fan or the Rolling Stones but we didn't call ourselves anything or put on a lifestyle because we liked some band's music. Actually out of the English bands I preferred the Stones and the Dave Clark Five. I was never a big Beatles fan. I liked them but eh I thought they were a bit over the top. That was just my opinion as a teen at the time. So I don't understand why people identify in such a drastic way with some band or musical style. Is that all there is to life? It just amazes me and I am not saying anything is wrong with it I just wonder why people dwell on it so much and lock themselves into such tiny boxes.
I have never smoked in my life. I had no desire to do so even though I had friends who did. I don't know why really and I hardly drank my whole life. Not because I thought it was a bad thing. I just never wanted to do that and people smell bad when they smoke and I am a little OCD and wouldn't like that really so I just never did. I guess, but I really think it is getting to the point of persecuting people who do and if they didn't want them addicted or be used they should of thought of that before they massed produced them for sale. Most everyone in my parent's generation smoked and both my parents lived into their 80s. Beyond that the quality of life isn't so good whether one smokes or not. Both my parents smoked but my Dad quit in his 30s. Neither I nor my brother took it up but why I don't know really. I tried it a couple of times but that was the extent of it. It didn't appeal to me. I realize it is not good for one's health but policing all these people and saying after so many years to quit is really not very cool even if it might be the right thing to do IMHO. I could write that this is the right thing to do and it is overall but it just seems to me that people in general are losing personal rights to choose things. Everyone who smokes at my house does it outside. It's so hard to know what is right when people are allowed to buy them freely. Look what large consumption of sugar or carbs does? Look what obesity does? In fact just breathing the air is not very healthy but we have no choice and here in the US they have hormones in our meat and milk and many additives that are NOT safe, but there are no horrific photos on meat packages. Makes you wonder why autism is so high in California with all the hormones in the milk. They didn't have that when I was a kid nor did they give babies innoculations for certain diseases. They were given free at Elementary school and I feel that is what they need to go back to doing. Here is the article on what they are planning:
Get Ready for Gruesome Cigarette Warnings
Graphic images of diseased body parts could become the norm on packaging.
By Jennifer Thomas, HealthDay Reporter
THURSDAY, Aug. 27 (HealthDay News) - Would a gruesome picture of a cancer-ravaged mouth with rotting teeth make you think twice about buying a pack of cigarettes?
That's the goal of new federal regulations expected to go into effect within three years. The rules will require tobacco companies to cover at least half of the front and back of packages with graphic—and possibly gruesome—images illustrating the dangers of smoking.
If U.S. regulations are modeled after those already in place in Canada and other countries, the warnings will be shocking: blackened lungs, gangrenous feet, bleeding brains and people breathing through tracheotomies.
Though hard to look at, the more graphic the image, the more effective in discouraging smoking, said Stanton Glantz, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco and director of the university's Center for Tobacco Control, Research and Education.
"The graphic warnings really work," Glantz said. "They substantially increase the likelihood someone will quit smoking. They substantially decrease the chances a kid will smoke. And they really screw up the ability of the tobacco industry to use the packaging as a marketing tool."
Over the last decade, countries as varied as Canada, Australia, Chile, Brazil, Iran and Singapore, among others, have adopted graphic warnings on tobacco products. Some are downright disturbing: in Brazil, cigarette packages come with pictures of dead babies and a gangrened foot with blackened toes.
In the United States, the authority to force packaging changes was granted on June 22, when President Barack Obama, who has struggled with cigarette addiction since he was a teen, signed into law the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. The landmark legislation gives the U.S. Food and Drug Administration broad new authority to regulate the marketing of tobacco products.
Under the law, the FDA has two years to issue specifics about the new graphic warnings tobacco products will be required to carry. Tobacco companies then have 18 months to get them onto packages.
Currently, the United States has some of the weakest requirements for cigarette package warnings in the world, said David Hammond, an assistant professor in the department of health studies at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada. The text-only warnings on packages have changed little since 1984.
"Consumers in many Third World countries are getting more and better information about the risks of cigarettes off their packs," Hammond said.
With much at stake for tobacco companies, there will be much wrangling over the details, Glantz said.
Yet research shows the FDA shouldn't compromise, Glantz said. The more frightening the image, the greater the anti-smoking effect, he said.
Despite some research that has suggested images that are too stomach-turning may backfire because people eventually ignore them, new research is showing the most graphic images pack the most punch, said Jeremy Kees, an assistant professor of marketing at Villanova University.
In a yet-to-be published study, Kees had 541 adult smokers in the United States and Canada view a mild image of a smoker's mouth with yellowed teeth; a moderately graphic image of a diseased mouth; and a third photo of a grotesque, disfigured mouth.
The most disturbing photo evoked the most fear, prompting more smokers to say they intended to quit, Kees said.
While the new regulations may also include no-nonsense, text warnings such as "Smoking Makes You Impotent" and "Smoking Kills," the images will have the broadest reach, Hammond said.
Non-English speakers can understand the picture of a diseased mouth, as can people who are illiterate. Smokers tend to have lower literacy levels, Hammond noted.
And kids will get the message too, potentially stopping them from ever lighting up. "You have 4-year-olds and 5-year-olds who can understand that picture," Hammond said.
Elsewhere, graphic warnings seem to be helping to drive down smoking rates. In Canada, about 13 percent of the population smokes daily, a 5 percent drop since the graphic warnings were adopted in 2000, Hammond said.
About 21 percent of the U.S. population smokes daily, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
While powerful, the gruesome warnings won't get everyone to quit.
"Nicotine is highly addictive," Hammond said. "Health warnings are not a magic bullet, but they help move people closer to quitting and provide a constant reminder of why many people want to change."
The Tobacco Labelling Resource Centre has images of cigarette packages from around the world.
http://health.msn.com/health-topics/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100244066>1=31020
Joseph Laycock: Vampires Today
August 25th, 2009
For quite some time the vampire has been an important figure in popular culture. While the zombie has been a rival in recent decades as a monstrous icon, the vampire seems to be making a comeback as the increasing number of books, films, and television programs featuring this figure indicate.
I recently finished reading a new book that explores those who adhere to the vampire identity, Vampires Today: The Truth About Modern Vampirism (Praeger, 2009), by Joseph Laycock. Laycock is an independent scholar and doctoral candidate studying religion and society at Boston University. I spoke with him recently about his new book.
TheoFantastique: Joseph, thank you for your fine book on an interesting topic. It was a great read and a good piece of scholarship. I’d like to begin our discussion on a personal note. How did the subject of vampires become of interest to you as a research project with your religious studies background?
Joseph Laycock: Vampires are an interesting preoccupation. A personal interest in vampires tends to achieve a greater level of intensity than other types of interests. For instance, I consider myself a “coffee buff” because I own my own grinder. But prior to writing this research, I could not really have called myself a “vampire buff.” I had read a few Anne Rice novels, I enjoyed the occasional vampire movie, and I knew who Bela Lugosi was. But compared to a serious vampire enthusiast I was a poser at best. I had never even seen Buffy: The Vampire Slayer.
Like most people I began with a dim awareness that somewhere in the world there were people who considered themselves vampires. Then in 2006, I began listening to a podcast called Shadowdance. I am interested in popular religion, including esoterica and “new religious movements.” The podcast discusses these areas from the perspective of a practitioner and is really very thought provoking. After listening for a few months, one of the hosts (Michelle Belanger) did a show about her identity as a vampire. She also mentioned a research project that was currently being conducted by the Atlanta Vampire Alliance (AVA). I was living in Atlanta at the time and I decided to contact the AVA. They were friendly but cautious and I began to learn more about their work.
TheoFantastique: In the Preface of your book you define several important terms. These include ”real vampire,” “the vampire milieu” and “the vampire community.” Can you define these and talk a little about why they are important to understanding contemporary vampires?
Joseph Laycock: The terms “real vampire” and “vampire community” are commonly used by within vampire culture. When someone says that they are a “real vampire,” they do not mean that are actually undead or immortal. Rather, this term is used in contradistinction to “lifestyle vampires.” Lifestyle vampires or “lifestylers” are usually dedicated fans of vampire fiction and enjoy dressing as the undead. Real vampires believe that they are somehow biologically or metaphysically distinct from other people. The key difference is that lifestylers choose their identity while real vampires see their identity as a vampire as essential and unchangeable.
The term “vampire community” (often just “VC” in Internet communications) is a broad label that generally includes anyone who identifies as a vampire. Many different and conflicting ideas of vampirism coexist with the vampire community. Although formal groups exist within the community, it is not an organization or institution. It functions more as an identity group that all vampires are ascribed to. Vampires typically speak about the vampire community in much the same way that gays speak about the gay community or African-Americans speak about the black community.
The term “vampire milieu” was coined for the book and was not commonly used by any vampires I met during my study. Our culture has an evolving pool of ideas about vampires and self-identified vampires reference this milieu to express their identities. To understand real vampires, you have to study the archetypes they are referencing. Confusion arises because popular culture has turned vampires from vile animated corpses to a sort of alluring super-hero. The vampire milieu also includes occult writings about vampires, and theories of holistic health. Vampires may draw on any of this material in forming and describing their ideas. One model of vampirism is often quite different from another, but there remains a sort of family resemblance arising from the vampire milieu.
It is also useful to note that the vampire milieu and the vampire community are distinct entities. For example, vampires that “sparkle in sunshine” are now entrenched within the vampire milieu. However, (as far as I know) the vampire community has had little to do with this trope. This distinction is also important to any discussion of vampires and crime. Occasionally, the criminally insane will develop an obsession with the vampire milieu. One individual believed that an Anne Rice character ordered him to murder a friend. However, it is very rare that these individuals participate in the vampire community: While they may call themselves a vampire, they are not in communication with other self-identified vampires. I have found only two cases where such a criminal did not act alone and may have had contact with the vampire community.
TheoFantastique: Most people might assume that all vampires consume blood due to the images we have picked up from folklore, cinema, and television. You discuss several different types of vampire experience. Can you briefly sketch these?
Joseph Laycock: The distinction between lifestylers and real vampires has already been discussed. Real vampires generally claim that they must “feed” in order to maintain their physical, mental, and spiritual health. Some real vampires, known as sanguinarians, feed on blood. This usually consists of small quantities taken from human donors. Psychic vampires do not drink blood but rather “feed” on the vital energy of those around them. Psychic vampirism has been part of occult literature at least since the 19th century. The idea that some people either borrow or take the energy of others is common throughout Asia and the Theosophical Society used this idea to re-imagine the Western idea of the vampire. There are also “hybrid” vampires who consume both blood and psychic energy.
Finally, I find it useful to make a distinction between the “awakened” and “initiatory” models of vampirism. The majority of real vampires believe that you cannot be “turned” or otherwise choose to become a vampire. Instead they believe that vampirism is an essential identity inherent from birth. The process of discovering one’s identity as a vampire is known in the community as “awakening.” However, there are several groups who view vampirism as a sort of apotheosis to be undertaken through ritual initiation. These groups tend to be associated with the Church of Satan and similar “left hand path” occult movements. There has been tension between the two models over what a “real vampire” actually is. However, some recent overtures have been made towards reconciliation.
TheoFantastique: What are some of the ways in which contemporary vampire identities have been explained?
Joseph Laycock: The modern vampire community has been attributed to porphyria and other diseases, fantasy-prone personality, narcissistic personality disorders, pica (a mental illness characterized by eating dirt, plaster and other inedible substances), and sexual fetishism. It has also been described as an organized and dangerous cult. In sociological terms, the vampire community is a “deviant” group: Literally, one that deviates from social norms. Historically, one of the most effective ways to exert social control over deviance has been to “medicalize” it, reducing a complex social phenomenon to a listing in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). Homosexuality appeared in the DSM until 1974.
The label “cult” is also tied to medicalization. Throughout the 1970s, various counter-cult groups tried to circumvent the first amendment by claiming that some religions practice brainwashing and therefore constitute an “information disease.” Polemical characterizations of the vampire community as a religion tend to present individual vampires as automatons whose identity has been absorbed into a larger movement. Descriptions of luring teenagers into vampire culture through the Internet echo the earlier label of “information disease.” I believe that an explanation of this community must look at the personal narratives of individual vampires as well as the larger social context.
TheoFantastique: How does the vampire identity help to re-enchant the world in late modernity and how does this fit in with other expressions of re-enchantment?
Joseph Laycock: Sociologists used to believe in what is now called the “myth of universal secularization.” That is, a prediction that the social influence of religion and belief in the supernatural will continue to decline until both become nonexistent. The process of secularization now appears to be cyclical in nature, either because secular movements have inspired a backlash of religiosity or because the decline of traditional churches has left individuals free to explore supernatural belief systems.
The connection between modern vampires and “re-enchantment” was first made by Christopher Partridge. In his theory of re-enchantment, Partridge points out that as traditional religion is declining, new belief systems are proliferating. Furthermore, the distinction between deviant and legitimate religion has begun to narrow. Re-enchantment then argues that religion is not fading away so much as changing. The metaphysics of vampirism, as well as emerging new religious movements and popular occultism are all evidence of this change.
It has been suggested that a purely rationalist-scientific worldview is actually very difficult to maintain and leaves the average person dissatisfied. The anthropologist Lucien Levy-Bruhl once claimed that “primitives” do not think in rational terms but rather experience the world through what he called “mystical participation.” In his posthumous work he reformulated his theory, suggesting that mystical participation occurs in all cultures and is simply easier to observe among primitives. Essentially, human beings are always balancing two different modes of thought. Wouter Hanegraaff has suggested that “disenchantment” can be thought of as the suppression of mystical participation in deference to a rational worldview. From this perspective, the vampire community can be seen as a restoration of this balance. I did not find the vampires to be unable to discern fantasy from reality. Rather they discussed their subjective experiences openly and sought ways to relate these experiences to a rational worldview without dismissing them.
TheoFantastique: What types of elements have helped to create the vampire milieu?
Joseph Laycock: In my book I attempt to describe the evolution of the vampire milieu chronologically across four areas: Literature, film, and television; occult writing; metaphysical and holistic health; and vampirology. In reality, these areas all blend together. The vampire of Slavic folklore is largely left out because vampires do not actually think of themselves as undead. (For the same reason, Buffy the Vampire Slayer is of little importance to real vampires.) Occult groups such as the Theosophical Society and the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn re-imagined the vampire as a being that feeds on subtle energy rather than blood. This set the stage for the modern understanding of psychic vampires. The novel I Am Legend (1954) by Richard Mattheson re-imagined the vampire again as a biological entity. This too influenced the vampire community. It also appears to have influenced the medical community, which has periodically sought to explain vampire legends in terms of known diseases. Finally, with the series Dark Shadows in the 1960s, the vampire became a symbol of tragedy, romance, and alienation. As a deviant hero, Barnabus Collins caused many people to identify with the vampire. Dark Shadows foreshadowed the vampires of Anne Rice and even Edward Cullens.
Metaphysical ideas associated with holistic health have also influenced how vampires see their condition. Western concepts of subtle energy such as mesmerism and the Freudian notion of libido were linked tovampirism in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. There is now an interesting dialogue beginning to form between self-identified vampires and practitioners of qigong, reiki, and other health practices from Asia.
The last category, “vampirology” refers to a series of amateur studies on real vampires. This began with figures like Stephen Kaplan who opened a “vampire research center.” However, the most ambitious studies to date have been done by vampires themselves. The AVA has collected data from over 1450 individuals. While the academy can challenge their methodology, it is hard to imagine an outsider conducting a better quantitative analysis of this community. I believe that their findings will ultimately determine what it means to be a vampire. This indicates that the vampire community has begun to exert agency over the milieu.
TheoFantastique: In terms of community, are most vampires solitary or do they seek group interaction, and how has the Internet played a part in this process?
Joseph Laycock: The AVA’s survey indicates that the majority of vampires are not part of any formal organization. However, vampires have always sought group interaction. In the 1980s vampires met through fan conventions for Dark Shadows and horror movies. In the 1990s vampires began communicating through zines and other small print media. The community appears to have been on the Internet for as long as it has existed, first using listserves, then forums, and now peer-networking sites.
The Internet generally has a leveling effect on religions. The Internet has not been kind to hierarchical religious organizations such as the Catholic Church or Scientology. On the other hand, non-hierarchical religions such as Paganism have flourished online. Initiatory religious groups such as the Temple of the Vampire seem to have been hurt by the transition to the Internet. The Vampire Bible and other copyrighted texts have been disseminated to the uninitiated online. By contrast, the awakened model of vampirism has flourished as many individuals have begun to rethink their identity after encountering the vampire community online.
The Internet has also brought many young people to the vampire community. More experienced vampires have tried to help by posting articles or even creating “checklists” for individuals who suspect they might be a vampire. The latest innovation is a series of youtube clips where vampires answer questions e-mailed to them about vampirism.
TheoFantastique: Several new religions scholars have considered vampirism a new religious movement? Is vampirism a religion?
Joseph Laycock: The answer to this question depends on which model of vampirism is under consideration and what criteria of religion are being used. The vampire community runs a gamut from The Temple of the Vampire which claims to have legal recognition as a church to atheists who believe vampirism will one day be understood by medical science.
Certainly groups like the Temple of the Vampire are new religious movements. However, I have argued against categorizing the entire vampire community as a new religious movement. One reason being that a significant percentage of vampires describe themselves as Christian. Although vampirism is frequently explained in terms of metaphysical or supernatural beliefs, it appears that many vampires see their identity as a vampire as distinct from their religious affiliation.
TheoFantastique: What types of reception have vampires received as they have become more above ground?
Joseph Laycock: In the United States, this varies greatly from region to region. In the Bible Belt, vampires are very cautious about keeping their identity a secret. I heard a story of at least one vampire who was “outed” to his community and asked to leave his church. By contrast, identifying as a vampire may not seem all that unusual in Los Angeles.
As the media seeks to capitalize on the current fascination with vampires, the vampire community has received an unprecedented level of attention. The AVA is contacted by a new television show or documentary about every month. Community leaders have been very active in monitoring this attention and curbing sensationalism. For instance, the show Trading Spouses was unable to find a vampire who would appear on their show. I believe that there has been a gradual shift from very sensationalistic coverage of the community (usually around Halloween) to more nuanced portrayals of vampires. By the same token, Vampires Today is not intended as a definitive text on this community. Rather, I hope to encourage further research on vampires and other emerging identity groups and suggest further areas of inquiry.
TheoFantastique: Joseph, thanks again for your research in this area, and for your willingness to discuss your book. I wish you the best in your continued academic studies and work.
http://www.theofantastique.com/2009/08/25/joseph-laycock-vampires-today/
* I thought this was an interesting article.
The Oobleck Effect: Living Liquid
by Michael Arnzen
Last year, writer Jason Jack Miller shared with me a popular YouTube video: Uncanny monsters born by placing a layer of water and cornstarch on a subwoofer. I find myself returning to this video often, contemplating the animism made possible by the rhythm of sound and the chaos of vibration. This neat effect “animates” the preternatural spatzle dough (a.k.a. “Oobleck”) in a way that makes it seem like the liquid gives birth to monstrous blobs that have a will to dance all their own. It gets progressively creepier until the “mass” writhes with uncanny life.
One of the reasons this neat trickery appeals to me is because it is also so familiar from fiction and film. This is but one of many examples of something we might call the “Oobleck Effect” in uncanny narratives: a representation of “living fluid” in the works of popular culture (especially film). Liquid, by its very nature, often seems animate since it is subject to gravity and other forms of push-and-pull in the natural environment. Ocean waves are scientifically explained, but one can’t help but wonder at the unseen forces that cause the phenomena — a ripple is a ghostly after-trace of an often unseen and unknown activity. Things stir underwater, and we see this after-effect — something is “there” but not quite there at all. Shark films like Open Water achieve much of their horror this way, by giving us a partial view — fin breaking through or not — as things move beneath the surface of the visible. But the Oobleck Effect is achieved with the surface itself takes on a life before our very eyes where we presumed there was no life whatsover. When liquid shapes are represented as “alive” in the arts, they become particularly uncanny objects. Perhaps because their monstrous bodies perform a sort of polymorphous perversity as much as they erase categorical distinctions based on physical boundaries and question the “natural” laws that we presume shape all organisms in any determined way. The liquid itself is as “alive”; we project sentience, if not outright ill intention, upon it.
Oobleck — a word that itself is derived from pop literature (Dr. Seuss) — is an effect apparent in the image of the T-1000 (or the “liquid metal” robot) from Terminator 2: Judgment Day who, by virtue of spectacular effects, seems as polymorphic as a postmodern shape-shifter, his metallic alloy bendable into any horrifying shape that will serve the purpose of disguise or murder. When he is melted in the lava-like smelt of the factory at the end of T2, his liquid body expresses numerous characters as he is returned to the mercurial hellfire — and this scene, as much as the one where he emerges from a puddle on a hospital room floor, is perhaps the best example of the Oobleck Effect at work in contemporary cinema.
With all this darkness around here guess I need to buy stock in candles to make sure I can always see the light :)
Oh, I hated the ending of this episode of True Blood. I am not going to say what it was for the sake of those who might have missed it and are planning to watch it on Demand.
I have to read the books for sure now to see if they are the same. If she wrote it like this I say BOOOOOOO. I really HATED and I mean HATED this ending. I cried. I am so into this show.
I missed a certain part and have to watch it on Demand myself. I basically saw it all but when the last showing came on I fell asleep and missed the parts I wanted to see since I had to go in and out of the room when it first came on. I really hope MaryAnn gets thwarted. I can see from the snippet for the next episode that Sam shapeshifts to get away from her. I don't see her character being on this show forever. She is too evil and somewhere along the line they will figure out how to stop her and she will be gone I would think. I like the actress but the character is a nasty one.
I am curious about Eric's fascination for Sookie. Perhaps he isn't fully aware of her background. He is doing the funniest things too. That feigning of dying from the silver was just hilarious and he gets what my Dad use to call "shit eatin grins" on his face that really made me laugh. Another part made me sad for him. It is terrible when a tv series gets such a grip.
Been watching Hung as well now and Entourage which I never use to watch at all. Of the two I think Hung is pretty funny.
I think I have misjudged a few people...sighs. It is so hard to get to know people and what they are really like if they keep making fun of people and judgments. I am afraid I am guilty of this too from time to time but geesh, as they say, actions speak louder than words at times.
People's feelings need to be taken into account. I find I can't help myself if people put idiotic things on their profiles and I don't mean that they are a vampire per se. You can tell when someone is actually in la la land. I wonder if anyone believes in anything else but Wicca, Christianity, Judaism or Satanism here. This is what I see and in a way they are just titles for something that has been broken up to very tiny parts. Makes one want to always say what kind. I was alive when LaVey was in his prime and I know his background and for some reason more identify with what he thought than anything else like the Chrisitian form of Satanism didn't exist until (Theistic) it reemerged in the 90s. Each generation gets a twist on what things were before and like all the others there are off-shoots that some don't even accept as being anything more than loony within all of these belief systems. I never know when someone says Satanist what they believe. More often than not it is LaVeyan which isn't very old. Wicca is older. New ideas and views form in each age and it doesn't make it less viable it just means its not that old. Most identify Satanism these days as a worship of self sort of and many think that is all it ever was. For some it never existed. It was just a superstition of the church. Satan was an angel and according to all the Jewish things I have read Never went against the Christian God. It is a purely Christian and may be Muslim idea as well but that is just a sort of copy of the other anyway with cultural rules added.
I am tolerant of any beliefs...its fine with me as long as you don't sacrifice or torture humans. I don't like animal sacrifice either but that has been done for centuries...we eat them.
The Skargard family really gets around. I just watched Mama Mia and Alexander Skargard's (Eric- True Blood) father was in it. He isn't a young man of course anymore like many of the actors. I looked at some younger pics of him and you can see the resemblance but Alexander is far and away better looking. Who knew, I mean his father has been acting for years in all sorts of things and still is making movies. He has a long, long list of parts. If you have seen Mama Mia he was one of the prospective fathers and the one with the blond hair that the woman goes after near the end. A really funny part.
I am watching this movie again and I find it so hilarious. I guess its primary audience was for children or teens but geesh Gerard Butler is so versatile in his roles. Jodie Foster is really funny in this movie. I really like it. Movies don't have to be R rated or full of blood and guts for me to like them. I like all kinds and only a few like this one but I like the fantasy stories and most of them are written more for teens and I guess I am a kid at heart...takes out her binky and washes it, lol.
I rarely block anyone and when I do it is because someone thinks they can tell me what to do, say or how to act usually and have a superior attitude or I find totally nuts more or less, lol. It doesn't matter. You can usually tell those who are not too nice because they will block back. I don't usually leave my blocks unless the person has shown themselves to be very displeasing in manner. I really don't like the things I say to be picked up and taken to where they take on some alien life of their own nothing similar to what I was trying to say in the first place. It happens here I guess. People don't like to be told they are doing something less than ethical. I can watch that for so long and then I say something because quite frankly this is only a forum/game and people shouldn't be making fun of others or pointing them out as examples in my opinion. What's the point in all of that? It makes the person doing it look really shabby. Occasionally I insert foot in mouth and say something about it and every time it is a mistake because the person who has done such things is beyond the point of realizing they are doing something really nasty. Usually it has something to do with rating. I never say anything about rants...people are entitled to get frustrated. I just don't like someone singling out by name or things people have written privately etc posted in the journals...it is very low class in my opinion. There is no need for making it that personal in public. What's to be gained by it? I prefer to stay away from both parties in all actuality if it comes to blows. It's like being in High School from so long ago. I don't care if I get blocked. I won't really answer anyone who says anything derogatory to me especially when I am trying to tell someone something that is for their own good. I need to be less of a busy body I guess and let people take the bitter medicine they might find in the long run. No one is immune, the internet has proven that one.
Besides all of the rancor makes me get more pissy in mood so I have to move on past everything. Blocks don't bother me at all but it certainly shuts up some disagreeable person who should have left things alone in the first place or learned to read more carefully.
I don't tell people I have three ordinations so I am not speaking through my hat when I talk about religion, what for? I don't really care whether someone debating has any degrees really because when bringing up something connected to religion it is always about belief and with certain factions and belief systems it is all about interpretation and history that has been re-written many times and codexes that were not fully translated because some group decided they weren't really canon because they didn't match something else. I have the ordinations but I have chosen not to use them or profess any one thing but remain neutral in the learning stage. The legal stuff comes from my family. We are basically a legal and medical bunch of people and I have experienced many things and seen many legal rammifications that some think they are immune from and I laugh, hahahaha.
Now I wonder what Alan Ball will do about Sookie's heritage. I had a hunch she was a fairy or connected to fairies. Her grandfather in the books was a Fairy Prince and she has a Fairy Godmother. I would suspect Barry is a fairy as well. They might be changing their outward appearance in the series rather than them having pointy ears and being a little shiny. OR these two may be human and fairy mix. I haven't read the books but found out bits and pieces. This is why I guess they are telepathic. I am thinking Barry doesn't want to be spotted because I guess from what I read, is that fairies are coveted by Vampires like chocolate...they are a weakness and addicting. I guess we shall see how Alan Ball approaches that if at all in the series. I plan to read the books.
Now Godric really intrigues me and the actor, Allan Hyde who is Danish is very charismatic in this part. He is over 2000 years old. I guess those who understand Swedish noticed his Danish accent while speaking it. Heh I wouldn't have noticed that in a million years. He was born in 1989 so he isn't too old but I guess his heighth along with his age was something they wanted for the actor they chose because Godric is suppose to be young and have a childlike innocense about him which this actor has portrayed admirably. I really like this character.
Stephen Moyer and Anna Paquin are considered the hottest vampire couple according to OK! Magazine. Through the years many movies and television shows have been made with vampires and beautiful leading ladies falling under the spell to the raw, passionate energy that the vampires seem to possess. It is a common theme that has been played out many times, however out of all the vampire and human hook-ups which pairing seems to draw the most heat? According to OK! True Blood’s pairing of naive, telepathic waitress, Sookie Stackhouse (Anna Paquin) and charismatic 173-year-old vampire Bill Compton (Stephen Moyer) is so steamy and sensual that it places them at the number 1 spot for Hottest Vampire Couple. If you need to be swayed further into believing that they deserve the number 1 spot, watch the video that OK! thinks will have you convinced.
http://truebloodnet.com/stephen-moyer-anna-paquin-hottest-vampire-couple/
I thought I would put some thoughts and definitions in here on Karma. Most of what people state about karma these days came from Theosophy and then out of the New Age groups. I don't use New Age in a derogatory manner because it is just a coined word by the media to describe certain groups that have been an eclectic resurgence of things from various religious and philosophical movements. Some are old and some rather new but usually just a newer face to something older. Most view Karma in a sense of cause and effect and you could say essentially it is that but it is specific beliefs from specific religions. Some have picked it up and incorporated it into other beliefs that aren't religious in the west but it is not originally a western viewpoint at all.
Britannica Concise Encyclopedia
In Indian philosophy, the influence of an individual's past actions on his future lives or reincarnations. It is based on the conviction that the present life is only one in a chain of lives (see samsara). The accumulated moral energy of a person's life determines his or her character, class status, and disposition in the next life. The process is automatic, and no interference by the gods is possible. In the course of a chain of lives, people can perfect themselves and reach the level of Brahma, or they can degrade themselves to the extent that they return to life as animals. The concept of karma, basic to Hinduism, was also incorporated into Buddhism and Jainism.
The Religion Book: Karma
In both Hinduism and Buddhism, every action has consequences. When a pebble falls into a pool, it produces rings that spread throughout the whole pool. A butterfly fluttering its wings can produce a typhoon, under the right conditions.
In the same way, our actions cause cosmic vibrations that affect not only this life but our lives to come. What we do not learn in this life must be learned in the next. Harm we cause in this life will come back to us in the next. The universe is relentless. It will not let us get away with anything.
At the same time, good things we do affect future lives as well. It is said that when the Buddha had his great moment of insight, he saw how all his past lives had prepared him for that moment. He understood how they were connected. All at once, he understood the great force of karma at work, propelling him to come to understand the Middle Way of the Four Noble Truths (See Buddhism). With this realization, karma had done its work. He was now complete.
And that, according to the teachings, is what karma does. It makes us complete, driving us forever, if need be, until we come to understand what we are. And with that understanding, we also come to know who we are. In this grand scheme of things, it is not that we wrestle with God. It is that God wrestles with us and says, in reverse of the words of Genesis 32, "I will not let you go until I bless you!"
Asian Mythology: Karman
For Hindus (see Hinduism) and Jains (see Jainism), karman (karma is the nominative Sanskrit form) originally referred to proper ritual actions, but the term has come to denote past actions that will affect what happens to a person in various hells or paradises after death and in the individual's particular rebirth or reincarnation. Literally, what one is now is the result of what one did in the past and what one is now contains seeds for the future. According to the Law of Karman, life is a series of deaths and rebirths determined by one's past actions. To achieve true liberation from the cycle of life (see Saṃsāra), one must theoretically achieve total nonaction, total negation of karman.
Buddhists (see Buddhism) also consider that a person's situation is determined by his or her karman, and that good karman can in some ways eliminate the results of bad karman.
Columbia Encyclopedia: karma
karma or karman (kär'mə, kär'mən) , [Skt.,=action, work, or ritual], basic concept common to Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. The doctrine of karma states that one's state in this life is a result of actions (both physical and mental) in past incarnations, and action in this life can determine one's destiny in future incarnations. Karma is a natural, impersonal law of moral cause and effect and has no connection with the idea of a supreme power that decrees punishment or forgiveness of sins. Karmic law is universally applicable, and only those who have attained liberation from rebirth, called mukti (or moksha) or nirvana, can transcend it. Karma yoga (see yoga), the spiritual discipline of detachment from the results of action, is a famous teaching of the Bhagavad-Gita.
Occultism & Parapsychology Encyclopedia: Karma
A doctrine common to Hinduism, Buddhism, and Theosophy, although not wholly adopted by Theosophists as taught in the other two religions. The word karma itself means "action," but implies both action and reaction. All actions have consequences, some immediate, some delayed, others in future incarnations, according to Eastern beliefs. Thus individuals bear responsibility for all their actions and cannot escape the consequences, although bad actions can be expiated by good ones.
Action is not homogeneous, but on the contrary contains three elements: the thought, which conceives the action; the will, which finds the means of accomplishment; and the union of thought and will, which brings the action to fruition. It is plain, therefore, that thought has potential for good or evil, for as the thought is, so will the action be. The miser, thinking of avarice, is avaricious; the libertine, thinking of vice, is vicious; and, conversely, one thinking of virtuous thoughts shows virtue in his or her actions.
There is also a viewpoint which believes that karma comes not from the action itself, but the beliefs and feelings which motivate or allow the action. "The law of karma is not a justice and retribution system, so anyone who has had much suffering in this life is not a victim of 'bad karma,' but simply finds themselves in predicaments that are simply the result of their own beliefs about themselves."
Arising from such teaching is the attention devoted to thought power. Using the analogy of the physical body, which can be developed by regimen and training based on natural scientific laws, Theosophists teach that character, in a similar way, can be scientifically built up by exercising the mind.
Every vice is considered evidence of lack of a corresponding virtue—avarice, for instance, shows the absence of generosity. Instead of accepting that an individual is naturally avaricious, Theosophists teach that constant thought focused on generosity will in time change the individual's nature in that respect. The length of time necessary for change depends on at least two factors: the strength of thought and the strength of the vice; the vice may be the sum of the indulgence of many ages and therefore difficult to eradicate.
The doctrine of karma, therefore, must be considered not in relation to one life only, but with an understanding of reincarnation. In traditional Hinduism individuals were seen as immersed in a world of illusion, called maya. In this world, distracted from the real world of spirit, one performs acts, and those actions create karma—consequences. In traditional teaching the goal of life was to escape karma. There was little difference between good and bad karma. Karma kept one trapped in the world of illusion.
During the nineteenth century, Western notions of evolution of life and the moral order were influenced by Indian teachings. Some began to place significance upon good karma as a means of overcoming bad karma. The goal gradually became the gaining of good karma, rather than escape. Such an approach to reincarnation and karma became popular in Theosophy and Spiritism, a form of Spiritualism.
Western scholars have often mistakenly viewed karma and fate as the same concept. Fate, however, is the belief that the path of one's life is established by agencies outside oneself. Karma is the opposite, implying the ability to alter one's path of life—in a future life if not the present—by altering one's feelings and beliefs, and by engaging in positive practices. "It is the coward and the fool who says this is fate," goes the Sanskrit proverb. "But it is the strong man who stands up and says, "I will make my fate."
According to this view, reincarnation is carried on under the laws of karma and evolution. The newborn baby bears within it the seeds of former lives. His or her character is the same as it was in past existences, and so it will continue unless the individual changes it, which he or she has the power to do. Each succeeding existence finds that character stronger in one direction or another. If it is evil the effort to change it becomes increasingly difficult; indeed a complete change may not be possible until many lifetimes of effort have passed. In cases such as these, temptation may be too strong to resist, yet the individual who has knowledge of the workings of karma will yield to evil only after a desperate struggle; thus, instead of increasing the power of the evil, he helps to destroy its potency. Only in the most rare cases can an individual free himself with a single effort.
The karmic goal in reincarnation, however, is said not necessarily to raise the soul to a higher plain of existence, but entreat enlightenment to reign at whichever level of existence the soul happens to find itself. "Many…see the process of enlightenment as "ascension"; it is in fact more true to say that it is a process of descension, that is bringing the light down to all levels."
http://www.answers.com/topic/karma
3 fold is not karma but a modern view about 60 years old or so stemming from Wicca and applies ONLY to that religion.
There is also a view of 10 fold which relates to prosperity laws and stems from spiritualists. Neither of these are connected to the Eastern concept of karma. I don't know who thought them up specifically.
Here is some background on the Rule of Three:
Many new Wiccans and Pagans are initiated with the cautionary words from their elders, “Ever mind the Rule of Three!” This warning is explained to mean that no matter what you do magically, there’s a giant Cosmic Force that will make sure your deeds are revisited upon you threefold. It’s universally guaranteed, some Pagans claim, which is why you better not EVER perform any harmful magic… or at least, that‘s what they tell you.
However, this is one of the most highly contested theories in modern Paganism. Is the Rule of Three real, or is it just something made up by experienced Wiccans to scare the "newbies" into submission?
There are several different schools of thought on the Rule of Three. Some Wiccans and Pagans will tell you in no uncertain terms that it’s bunk, and that the Threefold Law is not a law at all, but just a guideline used to keep people on the straight and narrow. Other groups swear by it.
Background and Origins of the Threefold Law
The Rule of Three, also called the Law of Threefold Return, is a caveat given to newly initiated witches in some magical traditions. The purpose is a cautionary one. It keeps people who have just discovered Wicca from thinking they have Magical Super Powers. It also, if heeded, keeps folks from performing negative magic without putting some serious thought into the consequences.
An early incarnation of the Rule of Three appeared in Gerald Gardner’s novel, High Magic’s Aid, in the form of “Mark well, when thou receivest good, so equally art bound to return good threefold.” It later appeared as a poem published in a magazine back in 1975. Later this evolved into the notion among new witches that there is a spiritual law in effect that everything you do comes back to you. In theory, it’s not a bad concept -- after all, if you surround yourself with good things, good things should come back to you. Filling your life with negativity will often bring similar unpleasantness into your life. However, does this really mean there’s a karmic law in effect? And why the number three -- why not ten or five or 42?
http://paganwiccan.about.com/od/wiccaandpaganismbasics/a/Rule_of_Three.htm
Note: There is no karmic law because Wicca is a western belief and karma is eastern and only became incorporated in certain new ideas because of the New Age movement.
I have never heard of 9 fold but looks like similar to 10 fold which I heard spiritualists talk about. My belief is neutral about any of them:
What Is The Law Of Accountability?
A belief that any energy put out into the divine universe will return to the sender three times. Ancient beliefs state the senders mind, body and spirit, (thus the threefold concept) is accountable for all actions. In actuality, this isn't really a law of return as much as it is a law of accountability. You are responsible for all your actions not just the results of those actions. So theoretically you are accountable at the time the action is created.
The 9-Fold law (also called the 3x3x3 law | where x=by) concept is the same, however, the return is a little different. In these traditions, the essence of the mind holds within itself the energy of mind, body and spirit. The essence of the body holds within itself the energy of it's own mind body and spirit. And so for the essence of the spirit.
To better understand this, equating the essences with your "parts" might help. When an action occurs, the accountability resides in the:
Mind's
Mind - the emotions
Body - the physical brains
Spirit - the subconscious or higher consciousness
Body's
Mind - the life lines, your nervous system/blood system
Body - the physical body
Spirit - the chakra centers
Spirit's
Mind - the seat of spiritual consciousness/memories
Body - the physical energy body
Spirit - the soul
The 10fold law is exactly the same as 9fold; you just add one for the Divine. The 10fold theory suggests not only are you responsible based within your own mind, body and spirit, but also to the Divine, or your place within it.
I moved out of the master to give a larger space to my daughter and her hubby who also live here. I didn't need the bigger room except maybe to store a lot of junk although it was my Mother's room so a few things of hers were still there. It upsets me to move and move their things over and over again and have to get rid of things of theirs like clothes. They died within a couple of years of each other, my Father in February. Anyway the point of me mentioning it is the room I am now occupying does not have a cable or satelite connection as yet. They got the extension and hooked it to the box so I could watch until they fully move into the room.
Soooo I got to watch Trueblood on Sunday and it will be coming on again tonight. For some reason they haven't put it on the Demand yet. She could hear me across the hall while I was watching because my door was open. *Spoilers* If you haven't seen this episode don't read further, lol
She could hear my outbursts of Oh No and OMG repeatedly. I thought I was going to puke when I saw Tara and her b/f eating that souffle. I knew whose heart it was. I hope someone gets that MaryAnn. None of those so called Greek Gods and demi gods were truly immortal. There were things that could kill them or hurt them. Wonder why she is after Sam so much. I know Daphne said she didn't like she couldn't control him but it almost seems like thwarted love. I find Goderick (not sure of spelling) intriguing and wonder if his best efforts for peace between the vampires and the humans will even work. That one man is so fanatical and the ending was crazy. Should have known that guy would decide to martyr himself and for what? I just wonder if Goderick is so fast he could disarm him and somewhat at his age be immune to silver. Now I have to wait a whole week, lol. Going to scour the net for leaks, hahaha. I did before and figured out Goderick as probably Eric's maker and about Bill's maker/wife going to show up. They didn't exactly say it but it was obvious. I wonder if the faeries will show up soon.
Staying out of the politics here, lol. BUT personally I don't believe in publically calling people any kind of derogatory name or singling anyone out for ridicule. Guess I am old fashioned. Doesn't seem to be the trend anymore these days and why there are so many litigations...sighs...oh well.
Instead resting my worst sore arm and watching movies. I watched one that surprised me, Sex in the City. I never watched the series really. Think I saw bits and pieces but not many. Wasn't my type of show but the movie I thought was really funny. I have never thought the main character very attractive because I remember when she was a kid actress but she pulls it off pretty well. The one when I see her I think of the movie Mannnequin and the other one Urban Legend (even though I don't think she was in it. She just looks a lot like the girl that was), lol. I believe this one was in Melrose Place for awhile. The red headed lady I have never seen before or she didn't make a lasting impression and some of the men I don't recognize, just the one they call Big. Still in all it was pretty good. I tried to watch Mirrors but I fell asleep so...eh. I might try again soon. It was all right from what I could tell but much of it didn't make much sense to me. Now I am watching "Ghosts of Mississippi."
I'm sharing this because I am a True Blood addict. Things are getting hot and heavy. I am beginning to think that the vampires let the humans think they were doing some sort of God projected mission when they were being set up to start a war so the vampires wouldn't be blamed when all along they were maneuvered into their position so the vampires could come in and kill them all. Here is a video someone gave me I thought I should share with everyone else.
COMMENTS
-