Looks like you have rubbed some people the wrong way and personally I wouldn't want the community to break up. Yes there are posers and troublemakers what community DOESN"T has them.
Zeta here has some good points
You can as you desire contact her at
Zeta@lesvampires.org if you want to deal with her questions. Now she has made a LOOOOONG reply post
Sorry all there is no easy to way to do this! She for some reason can't make an account here to react so I posted it for her.
Really if anybody desires to talk to her about it talk to her. Don't shoot the messenger with a sawed off shotgun! And again sorry for the long post but the original post was rather big to!
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Zeta <
zeta.omega@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
http://www.atlantavampirealliance.com/forum/index.php?topic=2234.0> >
> > "A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire
> > Community<http://www.atlantavampirealliance.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=566e7b26f36a7408d5b32b2f44409c4e&topic=2234.msg17550#msg17550>
> > "
> > by CJ
> >
> > My intentions for writing this treatise are admittedly selfish. However,
> > they are selfish intentions that I believe many sanguinarians share: the
> > hope that in the future fresh and clean blood would be easily accessible or
> > that we will no longer feel the need to consume blood for our own
> > well-being. I intend this treatise to be the catalyst and blueprint to
> > achieve those ends.
> >
You've already stated selfishness as a main driving reason you've chosen to
write this treatise; it would be redundant to point out that your own
perspective cannot possibly be thought to comprise the whole of the
assembled sanguinarians. Still, being of a paranoid bent, I do believe
that's the underlying read-in you intended. More on that to come.
> > The importance of the “vampire” (I put the word vampire in quotes since
> > all of us, whether by design or by coincidence, are ersatz versions of the
> > archetype as seen in popular media) community was lost on me when I had a
> > donor. Other than the intermittent consumption of blood from my donor, being
> > a sanguinarian had no bearing on my everyday life. The only interest I had
> > in the “vampire” community was more based out of curiosity rather than
> > personal stake, wondering what the current zeitgeist was. I felt as if as
> > long as I treated this part of my life with discretion; that I need not
> > worry about what others within the community were doing. However, now that I
> > do not have a donor, while I endeavor to stay well despite this fact, I have
> > realized how my fate is tied in with the rest of the community.
This isn't entirely true, actually. One can easily point out that since you
had a donor previously, without any connection to the community, you can
find one again. You're not held by the community whatsoever now that you do
not have a donor. You got one without the influence of the community and you
can get another without the community's influence. You are choosing to
associate your "fate" with the rest of the community.
> > Thus when I feel that a major facet of the community is pathological to my
> > well-being, I have a duty to speak about it.
> >
Again, personal opinion without direct evidence supporting. Possibly an
improper use of the word "pathological" however.
> > By far the one way that the “vampire” community affects my life is in
> > the public perception of the community affixed to all who belong. Public
> > perception is the most important factor in determining whether or not I can
> > get a donor or whether or not if I were outed I would lose some sort of
> > standing in my life.
No, not really. Reputation of a group can easily be overruled by personal
conduct. The most important thing determining if you can get a donor, and if
being outed would lose you standing, is you.
> > The current status of public perception of our community is, to put it
> > mildly, quite embarrassing. The vast majority of the community, whether
> > through intracommunity internet message boards or appearances in the
> > mainstream media, professes an inalterable belief of themselves as vampires,
> > often accompanied by belief and practice in metaphysical concepts such as
> > psi, chi, prana, auras, and the like which in itself has no basis in natural
> > reality; a blind faith in matters that have to be believed to be seen. In
> > essence this is a religious conviction and by extension optional.
Ah, there we go! I was wondering when personal biases would begin to show up
in earnest. While I can go on for ages with evidence that mainstream science
is *ignoring* the evidence of psychic phenomena (even to the point of
denying nobel prize winners positions in scientific conventions once thier
beliefs in paranormal phenomena are exposed) that would be counter
productive. Simply put, there's ample evidence for the existence of such
metaphysical concepts as you've broadly dismissed. Tribal peoples have long
told of creatures which scientists dismissed... until they saw them
themselves decades later. And the Chinese have believed in "Chi" for the
better part of six thousand years. Just because "Western Science" refuses to
acknowledge something others acknowledge does not mean that Scientists are
right and the people experiencing are wrong, as you've just implied.
> > In my opinion, the most telling outsider assessment of our community is the
> > all too accurate portrayal in the South Park episode “The Ungroundable,”
> > especially the part where the vampire clique was sitting on the gym
> > bleachers arbitrarily deciding what names they should adopt and what kind of
> > vampires they should be. We were most likely laughing in spite of ourselves
> > or busy deflecting the characterization upon the “poseur.”
> >
Yes, I have to agree with you there. There are a lot of people pretending in
the VC, and there are a lot of people who are confused about their own
identities, trying to find meaning in a suit that does not fit them. This,
again, is not a reason to class the entirety of a group as "posuers" or the
like. I laughed genuinely at the South Park episode, actually. You know your
group is being recognized when South Park has made fun of you. *shrugs*
> > Sanguinarians need not the burden of these outrageous metaphysical
> > claims and baseless new age beliefs as professed by the vast majority of the
> > community.
Opinion. And again, an opinion that, while toeing the scientific party line,
completely ignores personal experience, the work of the AVA and the fact
that psychic phenomena *is* a valid study that scientists *consciously
choose* to ignore.
> > Our claim, namely that the consumption blood is the most potent vessel in
> > treatment of a host of symptoms is a falsifiable claim as blood is a
> > tangible part of material reality. Unlike the metaphysical adherents who
> > consciously and often sincerely placate us with substitutes for knowledge,
> > we can find, no matter how hurtful it may be to our pride, true knowledge
> > about the nature of our condition, whether the genesis is physiological,
> > psychological, or both.
I'm going to sidestep the philosophical debate that tries to define "truth"
here in favor of pointing out, again, that this is your bias talking and not
a reflection of "reality".
> > Such knowledge can decrease the stigma associated with being a
> > sanguinarian, dispel the misconceptions the public may have upon us and that
> > we have upon ourselves, and also be quite instrumental in reaching the
> > aforementioned goal of having fresh, clean blood more accessible or finding
> > a way not to feel as consuming blood is a necessity.
> >
So you think. Unfortunately no one finds people with Renfield's syndrome any
less disturbing now that there's a medical name for it. No one finds the
sudden death of an infant any less traumatic now that we label it SIDS.
You're talking about an emotional reaction to the consumption of blood;
people won't be effected by it any differently knowing there's a "syndrome"
than they are now. The only thing that'll really change is your personal
feelings of validation. Which is, really, what this whole post is about;
your need to feel validated by modern medicine.
> > However, such knowledge cannot be found within the community, but must
> > come from outside the community. In order to garner respect from the
> > scientific community as a group worth doing clinical tests upon; we must
> > prove ourselves to be credible and of sound mind. The status quo makes us
> > very easy to dismiss.
Again, status quo is to ignore or outright dismiss evidence to the contrary.
They wouldn't TAKE someone like Michelle Belanger for study even if she
volunteered. Hell, the aforementioned woman regularly submits to tests of
her abilities for various documentaries and consistently generates abnormal
results. You've seen the Kirlian photography they did with her, right?
Kirlian Photography doesn't photograph the "aura" at all, but there's still
a consistent change that follows in line with exactly what Michelle
describes happening. I'm positive that there are people out there who
scientists could test on claims of "energy" vampirism. There's enough of a
bias against anything perceived as metaphysical that it just wouldn't
happen. As noted, bias does not conform to "truth"
> > A process of reforming the entire community to a more materialist and
> > scientific paradigm would be impossible as the beliefs of “vampires” of a
> > more metaphysical persuasion as their perspectives are inherently
> > unscientific.
Value judgement, see above for why it's untrue.
> > The path of least resistance would be simply for sanguinarians to leave the
> > “vampire” community and start their own community with no affiliation of the
> > old community whatsoever. It is imperative that if a sanguinarian truly
> > wants to be delivered from the bondage of societal stigma and the perceived
> > need to consume blood that any metaphysical preconception has to be let go
> > and disavowed.
Translation for anyone who wasn't following what was actually being said
here: "It is imperative for my feelings of validation that we be accepted by
modern medicine. Only then will the people who think I'm creepy or wierd
finally understand that it's not me, it's my disorder, I have to be
different from them!"
> > Thus partition from the “vampire” community is of the utmost importance to
> > the sanguinarian.
> >
> > *Partition*
> > Before I discuss what courses of action may be necessary for partition
> > to happen and the benefits of partition, I have to narrowly define what it
> > is and what it is not. What partition pertains to is sanguinarians as an
> > interest group separating ourselves from the rest of the “vampire” community
> > in an effort to disassociate from the claims and the beliefs of the
> > “vampire” community and assert our own protocols, In short, to establish
> > ourselves as something else entirely. This is not an attempt to assert any
> > sort of sanguinarian dominance
You just spent most of the above paragraphs stating there was no grounds for
the validity of any of the claims made by those who believe themselves to be
metaphysical vampires, but you're not saying that Sanguinarians, the only
ones with any "real, verifiable" basis are better? Am I the only one
catching this, or was this another intentional "under the radar" precision
strike?
Let's lay it out on the table now. I wasn't around for the first Sang/Psi
debate, but even an imbicile can feel the underlying tensions with enough
accuracy to realize that the old debate is simply waiting to rage anew. This
is largely for the reasons you've just listed, and it comes down to
accepting or denying the validity of metaphysics. There cannot be a
"verfiable" answer in a culture that regularly chooses to ignore the
evidence of experiences which exist outside of it's own (disgustingly
narrow) view of reality. Yet the debate is waiting because we are raised in
a culture that chooses to deny the spiritual and place the material on a
golden cloud. If you wish to be tested against modern medicine you feel
free. Do not attempt to break apart a support network because of your own
beliefs. Even skepticism and science are themselves matters of blind faith.
> > or to insist that sanguinarians and metaphysical practitioners of vampirism
> > must never associate on a personal level. In this instance, partition only
> > pertains to the communities as interest groups: people allied together with
> > a common aim for specific social change. I feel I have outlined the case on
> > why the current aims of the “vampire” community are detrimental to the
> > preferred aims of the sanguinarian community.
The current aims of the vampire community are to find, create and promote
acceptance in society, promote healthy and safe donor-vamp relationships and
treat/cure the vampiric hunger. There is no dissonance between the goals
you've stated and the aims of the modern community save that the modern
community chooses to pursue this path with the inclusion of a group who's
validity you do not support.
And, as I mentioned earlier, there is no "sanguinarian community" you are
speaking for. You are speaking for yourself only. While you may be trying to
rally people to your cause, you are not an appointed spokesman for all
sanguinarians. See the above about my paranoia.
I would like to present an example of being freed from the shackles of the
> > metaphysical bent can allow us to do.
Wow, you've got it bad here. Pray tell, step out of your own box for a
second and tell me what will happen if you don't find the "real" causes.
Suppose all this "metaphysical" stuff is what the "reality" is? No, on
second thought, don't. I really don't want to read more diatribe on anything
you don't consider "real."
> > In the 1980s, AIDS activists where often shut out of the conversation
> > among scientists in terms of how to study and treat the illness. The
> > activists’ motivations were mainly from emotion and desperation for
> > increased access to treatment. However, they did not have the scientific
> > knowledge and where withal to effectively steer the discourse. However, AIDS
> > activists read studies from the current field of knowledge and framed their
> > arguments from within that paradigm. This approach helped shaped National
> > Institute of Health studies closer to the ideals of the AIDS activists. For
> > more information on this subject refer to the book “Impure Science: AIDS,
> > Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge” by University of California at San
> > Diego professor Steven Epstein.
> >
AIDS was starting from a relatively different position. Vampires, psychic or
sanguine, have nothing more than a list of symptoms to describe without the
addition of the hated metaphysical flavoring. AIDS patients have this thing
inside their blood that's pretty easy to find: HIV. You're comparing unlike
things and telling the community that they can become alike if only we drop
a paradigm that actually works for a large majority. It doesn't work that
way, and you know it.
> > With the current baggage of vampirism as an inalterable identity and
> > continuation of professing untestable and unconfirmable metaphysical
> > beliefs, we are already shut out of the scientific discussion.
Hmm. Well, lets see. The symptoms are certainly testable. Sunlight
sensitivity, lethargy, stomach pains, craving for human blood, etc. And as
noted above, given that there are several rather vocal vampires who
regularly allow themselves to be tested according to thier own paradigms, I
hardly see how the beliefs matter.
> > However, if we drop these pretenses and associates, we can inquire about
> > the current body of knowledge there may be on the subject (what happens when
> > humans consume blood, if there actually is a study proving that a placebo is
> > just as effective as blood in treating sanguinarianism), or make a case to
> > build a body of knowledge in correlation with scientific authorities.
> >
There is a case to make a body of knowledge in correlation with scientific
authority, namely that so many people report the same symptoms, and the same
working treatment for the symptoms. Nice of you to ignore the body of
knowledge the AVA has been working on, though. As for the placebo study?
That'd work either way, and would actually be a point in favor of your
"metaphysics is a lie" position if it does work.
> > I can understand why many would be hesitant to leave what has been
> > already built. Sanguinarians for the most part are the ones who have built
> > the foundation of the “vampire” community and by the fact that we feel the
> > need to consume blood have more ownership of the term “vampire.” However, in
> > the context of the community, the term “vampire” has mutated to the point
> > where it no longer describes us. The great foundation currently supports up
> > a crumbling dilapidated building caulked with metaphysical nonsense. It is
> > time to move to a steadier edifice.
> >
You're welcome to do whatever you want, and I don't particularly care who
follows either. Perhaps you didn't realize when you stopped sounding like
someone interested in finding scientific backing to someone interested in
gathering up a cult and moving to Birmingham, but it started right about
here. I'm aware of who built the community. It's such a power play to feel
the need to address the roots of the community and ownership of the word
"vampire" that I almost had to laugh. You're trying to rekindle some of the
old anxiety sanguines felt when psychic vampires started pushing for
acceptance. Wonder if it's working...
> > *Science*
> > Science is not a belief system.
Carried to the extent you and many others take it, yes it is. You have your
set beliefs and if anything challenges them then it's "unscientific,"
"doesn't exist" or "nonsense." When scientists will dutifully ignore
evidence that does not correlate with preconceived notions about the nature
of something they are no longer practicing objective science but indulging
in blind dogmatic faith. Yes, Science is as much a Religion or a Belief to
you as anything spiritual or philosophical is to anyone else.
> > It is a method of determining what is and what is not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science*Science* (from the Latin <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin> *scientia*,
meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes
knowledge<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge>
in the form of testable
explanations<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory>
and predictions <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions> about the
world<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_(philosophy)>
.[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#cite_note-0>[2]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#cite_note-Popper-1>
[3] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#cite_note-2>[4]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#cite_note-3>
An older meaning still in use today is that of
Aristotle<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle>,
for whom scientific knowledge was a body of reliable knowledge that can be
logically and rationally <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason> explained (*
see "History and etymology"
section<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#History_and_etymology>
below*).[5] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#cite_note-4>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScienceScience is not a measure of what "is" and "is not," it is a system of making
predictions and organizing results, as well as comparing outcomes. What "is"
and "is not" is more correctly derived from philosophy than from science. To
believe that science has all the answers, or can even *provide* all the
answers, is a matter of pure, blind faith in a system. Welcome to Religion
101, please get a name tag and sit down next to Patty in the desk on the
left. Your course books can be picked up tomorrow.
Since the enlightenment it has been by far the superior method in obtaining
> > knowledge. The fact that there is an internet for us to have banded together
> > and create a wide-ranging community is a testament to the end results of
> > scientific inquiry among countless of other medical, technological, and
> > historical discoveries. With this track record, scientific inquiry upon our
> > sanguinarianism would give us the most accurate insight on what may really
> > be the source of our shared experiences.
> >
Again, opinion. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. If you want to try it,
you go right ahead.
> > I do want to touch upon some anticipated objections. First of all, some
> > detractors may say that since the answers and explanations in science are
> > subject to change, they are somehow less valid. There are two problems with
> > this objection. First, it presents a false dichotomy when the objection is
> > applied, usually by someone who has a pre-existing belief that they feel
> > must be justified: there is a flaw in this system, so mine must be correct.
Oh dear gods, have you looked in a mirror since third grade?
> > Even if the scientific explanation is incorrect, it could be the case that
> > a third alternative may be correct. Second, what some people may perceive as
> > a weakness is actually a strength. Given better evidence, a scientist would
> > rework the answer to fit the evidence rather than maintain the obsolete
> > answer. Often in this community, data is cherry picked in order to support
> > pre-conceived notions, which is really a backwards way of making
> > conclusions.
> >
Someone please, dear god, get this person a mirror. I'll even do it myself
if you tell me to ship it.
Everything you've just stated you are, yourself, doing. And furthermore,
scientists do it all the time. For decades, in some cases.
> > Many metaphysical practitioners of vampirism profess a belief that
> > psi/chi/prana/energy is something that science will eventually catch up to.
> > I often hear the analogy of alchemy becoming chemistry cited in support of
> > this viewpoint. However, the problem with this analogy is that alchemy did
> > not become chemistry, chemistry completely supplanted alchemy. It is also
> > very likely that chemistry would have emerged without the existence of
> > alchemy. Robert Boyle, one of the fathers of the field of chemistry, was
> > once labeled as an alchemist; he sincerely tried to transmute metals, but
> > found more interest in the physical properties of chemistry. Alchemy failed,
> > and the field of chemistry resulted. However in this instance, the sentiment
> > is that science will confirm it rather than refute it, as opposed to what
> > actually happened in their alchemy to chemistry analogy. A related argument
> > is the principle that “lack of evidence does not mean evidence of lack.”
> > This may be true; however it does not give one license to make up anything
> > without a basis in material reality.
Somehow several thousand years of experience, without hundreds of pages of
text, with various cultures around the world, are being easily written off
as "without a basis in reality." I'm not really sure how you're managing to
do that. You're completely ignoring all personal experience, either
individual or group, and assigning it as worthless for the purposes of
evidence. Not to mention various people around the world who can and
regularly do accomplish amazing things based on their thousands of years of
experience, by doing exactly what they're instructed to do, following this
"metaphysical nonesense" training they receive.
And I've already mentioned the blatant bias of Western Science. Do I need
to draw pictures or find examples? Let me know, I'm sure I can find half a
dozen with very little effot.
> > Sanguinarians do not have that burden, blood is tangible, and thus a
> > perceived need to consume blood can be tested under scientific conditions.
> >
Which still doesn't require sanguinarians to split from any paradigm they
choose to hold, does not require them to leave the community and really has
nothing to do with the metaphysical argument. Science can test the effect of
blood consumption on vampires all they like without ever having to touch the
validity of metaphysics.
> > I would now like to introduce not an objection, but a fear many
> > sanguinarians may have who would be hesitant to submit themselves to
> > clinical trials: the fear that we are really “crazy.” I would argue that in
> > the event that sanguinarianism is found to be some sort of delusion, that
> > being cognizant that your mind is giving you false information about your
> > physical needs (the human mind is imperfect in interpreting internal and
> > external stimuli) and admitting as such would give one far more credibility
> > than one who insists without any physical evidence some sort of paranormal
> > or metaphysical reasoning behind the need. I myself have framed this as a
> > speculation of a reason behind my own needs to some hardened skeptics. They
> > have found me unusual, but not insane or unreasonable.
> >
Ahhh, back to the "I need validation, I need acceptance" chant now. Hey,
whatever works honey. I'm certainly not saying that it's impossible that
sanguine vamprirism is physical or psychological in nature. I am however
making the point that you're invalidating a huge number of people with no
reason other than superiority issues, a love of western science, a
disturbing need to be accepted by "normal" society and, as usual for one of
a "scientific" bent a blatant disregard for anything that doesn't support
your own position that metaphysical reality is utter rubbish.
> > Such testimony may be useful in tracking societal sentiment about a
> > matter, but is not nearly sufficient into claims of what is and what is not
> > physical reality. Testimony is helpful in constructing history, but in
> > science it is merely anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is not an end,
> > but merely a beginning to setting up an experiment based on observable
> > phenomena. Metaphysical claims cannot make this step, but the claims of the
> > sanguinarian can.
> >
Yes, metaphysical claims can make that step. Scientists usually just ignore
the ones that do and publish the ones that fail. Oh, and the "the claims of
the sanguinarian" line you keep chanting? You're speaking for the group
again. You realize you're just a peon with an opinion, not the spokesperson
for the entire sanguine group, right?
> >
> > *Engaging Those Outside of the Community*
> > It is impractical for sanguinarianism to remain underground (and as
> > compared to the more accessible community of “energy vampirism,”
> > sanguinarianism is still very much underground).
Don't know what circles you're running in, but it's not all that underground
to me.
> > We are too far small a minority to create our own in person society, and
> > such an experience would be far too limiting in comparison to all the
> > excitement the entire world possesses. In addition, the vast majority of our
> > donors come from outside the community, and it is our knowledge (although
> > anecdotal) that the blood of other sanguinarians is ineffective in treating
> > what ails us. We as an interest group have to duty to testify about our
> > experiences as sanguinarians, but with the trajectory that such revelations
> > would be beneficial toward the goal of clinical trials (academics who have
> > demonstrated they are approaching the subject with an open mind) or in the
> > short term, obtaining a donor. It is very important not to share your
> > sanguinarian status for the sake of revelation (mainstream/tabloid media,
> > those who engage us with a noticeable and unshakable pre-conceived belief).
> >
> > We cannot do clinical trials within the sanguinarian community either.
> > Our findings can very well be biased by as well as dismissed by those
> > outside of the community as confirmation bias. Even if we tried very hard to
> > remain objective in our studies about ourselves, the fact is that we have a
> > personal stake in the matter and subconsciously we can corrupt the resulting
> > data.
Finally a point I don't have an issue with.
> > In addition, it is rather smart to be skeptical about studies done by
> > organizations to support their religion, political ideology, interest group,
> > etc.
Or treatise's for that matter.
> > As an example, many people dismissed the reports coming from Vatican
> > researchers that small writing on the Shroud of Turin was proof of its
> > authenticity on the grounds that the Vatican had a great stake involved in
> > proving the authenticity of the shroud.
Again, point to you. The Shroud, if I remember correctly, has been disproved
via mircoscopic analysis of the "blood." It's turned out to be paint after
all.
> > What has to be done by the sanguinarian community is to share our
> > experiences, without pretense of pre-conceived belief (anonymously,
> > pseudonyms, real names, whichever preferred method) to a sizable volume of
> > testimony to which the scientific community must take notice.
> >
> > *The “Hybrid” Question*
> > The concept of the “sanguinarian-psi hybrid” is a disingenuous falsehood
> > that is sincerely believed and propagated by metaphysicist practitioners who
> > desired admittance into the early “vampire” community, feeling that they
> > owned part of the term themselves. I do not discount the idea that there can
> > be sanguinarians who are also practitioners of metaphysical vampirism,
Except in that you've already repeated ad nauseum that metaphysics
is nonsense. Again, this placation attempt is inherently flawed to the point
of almost being a veiled attack.
> > however to call this being a “hybrid” is analogous to saying someone who is
> > female and Christian is a mixture between a female and a Christian.
> >
> > I myself am an “ex-hybrid.” I found the world of energy vampirism very
> > early on in my realization that I was a sanguinarian (I called myself a
> > vampire back then, I no longer call myself a vampire anymore for semantic
> > and political reasons). I was quite freaked out at the bizarreness of the
> > realization and at the thought that for the rest of my life I would have to
> > consume blood if I no longer want to be consumed by the hunger, lethargy,
> > and sensual sensitivity that I have in the past taken for granted. I was
> > quite desperate for any substitute for that dire fate and was willing to
> > accept nearly anything that seemed reasonable. I was taught energy feeding
> > and eventually taught it to others, whether vampire identified or not, since
> > anyone can do it. The energy feeding was quite effective for me, and the
> > subjects I was teaching the energy feeding to could feel the energy course
> > through them. Two or three years later I disavowed any belief in the
> > existence of psi/chi/prana/etc.
> >
Generally when this happens it's because some type of personal revelation
took place that leaves the person somewhat bitter and antagonistic to
whatever they were formally in favor of.
> >
> > The mundane reasons for its effectiveness became quite apparent. Many of
> > the feeding techniques that I employed had a lot in common with meditation,
> > deep breathing, and other stress-relaxing techniques. Stress has been
> > scientifically proven to be related to health: less stress, better health
> > outcomes. It would be folly for someone who meditates to counteract
> > hypertension to claim that they are a “meditation-hypertension” hybrid.
Of course, you've got lots of vampires who also meditate, both psychic and
sanguine, who derive no benefit of satiation from meditation or like
practices. You're making a pretty broad judgement.
> > As for about my subjects feeling the energy when I taught energy feeding
> > techniques, this can not only be attributed to its similarities to stress
> > relaxers, but also it is a tacit, unspoken agreement that this metaphysical
> > energy exists and that teacher and student alike are conditioned to find
> > energy to keep the agreement. It is analogous to people using a Ouija board;
> > those using it have a tacit, subconscious agreement to spell out words.
> > However, when blindfolded and the Ouija board reoriented, nothing but
> > nonsense results.
> >
Again, my milage, and the mileage of various other people, differs from
yours on this account. Both the Ouija board and the energy one, by the way.
> > Those who are sanguinarians and practitioners of metaphysical vampirism are
> > welcome to be part of the sanguinarian community.
Oh, now you're not just the spokesperson of the entire sanguine community
but also the rule maker? Interesting. I think I'm going to go over your post
with Bonewits Cult Evaluation when I'm done posting, just for laughs.
> > However, it is necessary not to equate the two, which would defeat the
> > purpose of partition and greatly hinder the effort to reach our common goal
> > of decreasing stigma, increasing understanding of ourselves, and possibly be
> > delivered from the burden of having to find a donor to sustain yourself.
> >
> > *An Advised Code of Conduct*
> > When discussing one’s sanguinarianism, it is of the utmost importance to
> > preface your testimony as reflective of your personal experiences rather
> > than a claim of truth.
Such as you're doing here by claiming that the truth is completely physical
and the metaphysics are nonsense.
> > Be honest about not knowing the reasons behind why the way you are. Also I
> > would advise that in describing your sanguinarianism, focus on what changes
> > when blood is consumed. These are the things that will be measured and
> > quantified in clinical trials. Fixed states such as skin complexion, having
> > “fangs”, eye iris colors, and the like are most likely irrelevant and
> > probably far too varied among us.
Completely aside from my other points, that's another thing I've noticed
differs. Most of the changes you've just listed do happen with the
consumption of blood and the "metaphysical nonsense", but have never
happened with outright relaxation techniques, meditation, skin contact or
the like. Your Mileage May Vary, of course.
> > If a sanguinarian does have an interest or engages in the occult or the
> > metaphysical, it is also advisable to maintain discretion with that facet of
> > life as the sanguinarian community has little margin of error in the quest
> > to obtain credibility in order to engage in clinical trials.
> >
> > *In Conclusion*
> > I do realize that my words are strong and may be quite offensive. To a
> > degree I intend to offend and shock.
Well, at least you're honest. You haven't shocked many, but you have
offended many.
> > I hope to shock sanguinarians and “hybrids” who are currently satisfied
> > with the status quo to realize that their needs are not being met.
Personal value judgement based on your own preconceived notions and
experiences.
> > I hope to shock metaphysical vampiric practitioners into doubting their
> > own assumptions.
Because it's "obviously" rubbish. Right?
> > Unlike the “sanguinarian v. psi” wars of the 1990s, which was about
> > ownership of the term “vampire,” this is my favored course of action on a
> > different question that only sanguinarians can answer: “Should we sacrifice
> > community unity for the sake of finding out more about ourselves?” My answer
> > is a resounding yes. A second “sang/psi war” would merely be an unfortunate
> > side effect in the greater goal of delivering ourselves from the stigma
> > associated with sanguinarianism and/or the perceived need to consume blood.
See my above about emotional reactions.
> > There is nothing gained or lost by leaving a community in which has been
> > redefined to the point that it no longer pertains to us.
See ya, and don't let the door hit you on your way out.
> > The term “vampire” now belongs to the metaphysicists. They can have it and
> > its Halloweenish connotations. If there is any benefit to the media
> > appearances the “vampire” community had, it is that it added the term
> > “sanguinarian” to mainstream lexicon. Sanguinarians do not need the term
> > “vampire” nor the community which claims the term. The domain of the
> > sanguinarian should be and must be reality
Couldn't resist that last dig there, could you?
> > -Zeta
> > ---
> > AIM: Damnedsoulno7
> > Yahoo: zeta_the_devil
> > ~One life held fast to another
> > Love lives... And I will defend her~
> >
> >
-- -Zeta --- AIM: Damnedsoulno7 Yahoo: zeta_the_devil ~One life held fast to another Love lives... And I will defend her~
Author