The Language of Vampyr

a reply to: ATODASO

Interesting, I still kind of lean with Direne's op on the matter of inter-species communication and I keep animals and actually have a Coyote sitting next to me as I type this.

The Coyo... sort of really isn't a different species neither is that Panther, Species is a word we invented but what we are is "Higher Mammals" I don't think there's much of a difference in other words "Am I not an Ape?" "I am also a Mammal" kind of variants of the same species, way of doing things, living in an eco system and surviving. Not really a different. Calling things so close to us a different "species" is kind of Ego related, we needed a word to say we were "better" than the other Mammals

Do you think if anything arrived to check out us out and you were in a shelter with a fire and farming and a craft was taking samples and it was far advanced of even human society now and legitimately a different species when it grabbed "you and mabel" lol off the farm it would differentiate between you and an ape it had found and your dog and cat a bear nearby? Or would you all be dumped in the Mammal bin with maybe a Carnivore/Herbivore separation at best?

The separation in how we think of "species" would probably be far removed from how we look at it. I have a Fish Tank... in it I have Fish. I know damn well the Pleco is far smarter than the Barbs, it can rotate it's eyeball and everything, but it's a Fish.

The sort of thing in that vid is inner-species communication I think. Without doubt whatever is real and show, she calmed it down, she communicated... with her cousin.

originally posted by: Direne

Do we have a Turing-like test for orbs?

Exactly. Are we assuming these are species from deep space, or are we including intelligences that might be more, um...local?

a reply to: The GUT

Local, I'd say. Here, figure 11-b:

Producing a UFO

originally posted by: criticalhit
a reply to: ATODASO


The Coyo... sort of really isn't a different species neither is that Panther, Species is a word we invented but what we are is "Higher Mammals" I don't think there's much of a difference in other words "Am I not an Ape?" "I am also a Mammal" kind of variants of the same species, way of doing things, living in an eco system and surviving. Not really a different. Calling things so close to us a different "species" is kind of Ego related, we needed a word to say we were "better" than the other Mammals

if you need everything to be the same as you in order to relate to it, that's not egalitarianism. it's fascism. distinctions exist, and give rise to categories. the value judgements attached to those distinctions are the problem, not the distinctions themselves, which exist regardless of what we think of them.

Do you think if anything arrived to check out us out and you were in a shelter with a fire and farming and a craft was taking samples and it was far advanced of even human society now and legitimately a different species when it grabbed "you and mabel" lol off the farm it would differentiate between you and an ape it had found and your dog and cat a bear nearby? Or would you all be dumped in the Mammal bin with maybe a Carnivore/Herbivore separation at best?

i certainly expect that a species sufficiently advanced enough to master interstellar travel would also possess the rudimentary cognitive skills to recognize distinct species, yes. though they might chuck it all in the same rendering tank anyway. lol

interspecies friendships between critters who normally fall into a predator/prey schema happen. and they communicate. here's an interesting vid with a section about how sign language and verbal language run on precisely the same circuitry in humans, to the extent that some of our auditory wiring appears to be parsing for visual info. you might see parallel systems (some simpler, some just different) in other species.

skip up to 9:44.

a reply to: ATODASO

interspecies friendships between critters who normally fall into a predator/prey schema happen. and they communicate.

Yes, I agree with you. Yet, a prey is just a prey when there is a predator around, while predators are always predators, even if there is no prey around. On the other hand, communication is not enough. Telling the truth when you communicate is. You can always use communication to deceive your prey.

a reply to: Direne

i gotta be frank. i find your insistence on framing all relationships and modes of communication within this dyad disappointingly short-sighted and narrow in scope.

"communication is not enough."

enough for what? challenge yourself to write outside of the usual condescending guru style and answer that question in unambiguous and direct terms. given your rigidity in other areas, i'm not sure you're actually capable of switching modes and giving a straight answer.

prove me wrong. put me on my ass.

a reply to: The GUT

Perhaps.. Even within humanity itself, another 'species' has formed.

a reply to: Direne
Thanks for replying by describing the "conditions" exactly as I have begun to see them.

tetra50, acceptance of one's nature does not mean acceptance of one's condition.

Being human means a lot of complex things: feelings, dreams, vices, virtues, fears, curiosity that overcomes those fears, laughs and tears, and so on. Being human means that falling is allowed, but standing up is a must. Being human means the will to fly, and the fear of falling. Both things together. You need to accept your nature, a nature that comprises ups and downs.

I will reply to this "fiction."
Perhaps it is fiction, Direne, but it does seem accurate, your description, currently in my personal experience:

Being human means that falling is allowed, but standing up is a must.

Absolutely, it is. We seem to be challenged within this control loop system, if it exists, by our circumstances to be presented with situations which directly challenge our ethics, just as I described, in the situation above: Someone who is trapped in bad circumstances, recognizes the looping going on, but is being abused on the physical level, and the only way to get free seems to be to act against ethical considerations, in order to get free of what's causing the harm. Actually that isn't a fall. But standing up to this may mean paying an extremely high price, and acting totally against one's etihics. When it gets bad enough, though, you will do that. Anyone would. This has little to do with nature, as this is just as contrived as the system you live within….

The price exacted? Emotional torment because of the loss of one's own ethical considerations. Being trapped for real possibly within a jail, a cage within a cage. Taking a life. Ending the life of one who is causing others emotional torment on another level. Nevertheless, it is ending a life, what I describe as what seems to be the only way to end a torturous situation.

It may seem a "wierd scenario," as you describe, but it also seems to some this is exactly what is happening:

that souls (consciousness) is a scarce and precious thing that some strange life forms - let's call them "controllers" - need for them to exist. Further, let's assume the only way to store consciousness is using other life forms. Let's assume all life forms here are just that: storage containers that controllers use to store consciousness.

Whether true or not, some of us seem to be experiencing just this. And while it doesn't sound so bad when you describe it, in theory, in practice it is quite cruel, for the "choices" presented to consciousness created just to feed on and trap and use to experience life is horrible, for on every level, it seems we only amount to prey: something that exists for another level of life to use in every way.

This equals:

When they need to take some consciousness, you die. If they need to store more consciousness, someone is born. Life goes on, them the controllers living their own life, you the controlled living the life of a consciousness container.

trapped prey, on even the consciousness level….
and this:

Sure, consciousness is also a rare thing in itself: it confers existence to the container. This poses a problem for the controllers. Let's assume they cope with this minor problem by tweaking consciousness such that the containers (you) either do believe there is a creator (God will do), or there is nothing to worry about. Your controlled loop system is therefore set up.

describes the conundrum in circumstance that is created by "controllers:" This lie, which is described as minor tweaking, here, presents the juxtapositioning of allowing such torturous circumstances I've described to be experienced physically, and consciously, which presents the ethical conundrum, which is defined, thusly:
The definition of conundrum is a situation where there is no clear right answer or no good solution.
Here, we are presented with what seem to meet the definition of evil, in that it describes a situation where another is harming another, and is stopping any possibility for the person to reach any state of safety or security or to live in a "healthy" situation. Another life form is harming another. But, after all, if we are trapped souls being used for our energy as a life form, and essentially "prey," anyway, it seems not to matter. to those with consciosness asserting themselves as higher life form, just via the ability to trap: the controllers.

And then at the end, you ask if I am the controller. Perhaps it is set up to appear that way, letting those really in control off the hook, so to speak.

We are presented here, always, with this choice, which is hardly much of a choice. It doesn't sound so bad worded this way, and in theoretical terms, but in practice what you have is pretty horrible for the prey. You find yourself being harmed and then told you created the situation. LOL
But really you are essentially prey, is what this scenario amounts to.
The assertion of a belief in God is horrible when you are caused pain repeatedly by another, and then told you created the situation. Ways to relieve pain here are essentially labeled as vice and considered "falling," and considered "unhealthy," and presented as another disease: addiction. True relief means stopping your own abuse. And that considered a fall, as well, and presents the conundrum.

Wow. If that's controlled and that's how some other life form gets its manifestation abilities, it's pretty awful in practice. Accepting my nature? My "nature," as you describe it, implies someone else knows it better . Once you describe the contrivances going on by controllers, it becomes rather shady as to whose nature is what, doesn't it. Don't tell me to accept my nature, when the system we've defined, here, in which I am a vessel, makes it necessarily impossible to identify what my nature exactly is. I am likely being defined by another's consciousness, after all. Maybe, then my "nature" is really that consciousness's nature. See the problem with that. And that life form is justifying my occupation as a vessel as necessary to healthy existence, when combining two things that don't belong together is ultimately destructive, as well as the physical, local situation I have described.

a reply to: ATODASO

Keep calm and calmly explain to me what's wrong with gurus. I thought they were wise old men transmitting a sensation of peace and harmony. It seems you get irritated by them, somehow. Your question is "enough for what?". My answer: enough to confer trust.

I was stating that communication is not enough, there must be a will to say the truth, or otherwise the communication game becomes the game of deceiving. Misinforming, disinforming. I tell you what is really what generates suspicion and distrust when you confront the unknown: movement.

You trust a tree, because it cannot move. No need to communicate with a tree, no danger perceived, for it cannot move. But when you confront anything that moves, especially if it moves faster than you, you distrust. Think about those UFOs. What gets you anxious about them? I tell you: that they move, faster than the fastest jet you scramble.

Were they to move slow, all of your fears would disappear. And all of their magic would disappear. Advanced technology means basically this: the control of speed. Faster than light, the speed of light. Speed is the main difference. Their moving faster than you is what tells you that should a confrontation breaks out, you are automatically defeated. Think about the Ebola virus: the terror is the speed at which a disease spreads.

Communication is also speed-bounded. The N400 is key:

The N400 is a component of time-locked EEG signals known as event-related potentials (ERP). It is a negative-going deflection that peaks around 400 milliseconds post-stimulus onset, although it can extend from 250-500 ms, and is typically maximal over centro-parietal electrode sites. The N400 is part of the normal brain response to words and other meaningful (or potentially meaningful) stimuli, including visual and auditory words, sign language signs, pictures, faces, environmental sounds, and smells

Also:

There is still much debate as to exactly what kind of neural and comprehension processes the N400 indexes. Some researchers believe that the underlying processes reflected in the N400 occur after a stimulus has been recognized.

The N400 is an enigma. It also tells us that in order to communicate with those life forms, we need to find a way to push the N400 limit further. Communication is also the art to adapt neural structures to the message.

Ask a guru. They teach orally. A gift for you:

N400 predicts recovery from disorders of consciousness

originally posted by: Kantzveldt
Hey Kantz:

So when it comes down to it then the more that one cares then the more that must die...

Yes. Absolutely. And it is quite cruel in practice.

Some here are putting the experience of living into scientific terminology which actually lessens the impact of what is happening to people, I think.
You can describe our situational and circumstantial living in physics terms such as local. That word sanitizes the description of experience. It also is a way of lessening the impact of physical existence, the circumstances of which, for some, appear to be truly horrific, with the only choice to act in ways against ethics and to appear really unhealthy within the rules that govern this paradigm. And I am attempting to describe real situations for real people and show how this is then put in sanitized language to express and describe it, and then a scientific paradigmic quantification and expression to applied, which further does the same.

tetra
=

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: ATODASO

well, that went just about as i expected, if not as i hoped.

Keep calm and calmly explain to me what's wrong with gurus. I thought they were wise old men transmitting a sensation of peace and harmony.

You trust a tree, because it cannot move. No need to communicate with a tree, no danger perceived, for it cannot move.

my first thought was to take your reply apart sentence by sentence and see if any meaning could be assembled out of the parts. but then i realized that that is what participating members have been doing here ever since you deigned to engage us. it's like you're generating your replies through a software program that kicks out a string of tautological nonsense onto which the reader can project their own meaning.

to me, it looks like a textual thematic apperception test. it gives the reader no useful information while providing you with a full profile of their thought processes on the subject at hand, as well as why they might think that way. it's an extraction device, not a conversation.

jmho.

a reply to: ATODASO

it's an extraction device, not a conversation.

It's a conversation with a vampyr...

a reply to: ATODASO

your replies through a software program that kicks out a string of tautological nonsense onto which the reader can project their own meaning.

Obviously, if that's true, then you are projecting nonsense onto my words. I would blame the reader, not the writer.

a reply to: Direne

jesus, you can even pull it off in a one-liner.

if true> nonsense

if false> still nonsense

it's true if it's not true, so it's a lie either way.

i could illustrate this further by pulling your replies and offering all possible interpretations, attempt to falsify them one by one. there would be no substance left, because there never was anything substantial in the first place. but that is time-consuming (i don't have the luxury of software augmentation), and anyway, now that i've pointed out the pattern, i bet other readers will be doing this on their own.

a reply to: tetra50

tetra50, life is an irony. Venetians and their carnival. I however think you are a strong person. I still ignore what makes you think you are controlled. Do you refer to the oppression of living in a post capitalist society? The constant over excitation of senses with empty images that aims at you ceasing to feel in any genuine way? The unrealism of the real society? Do you refer to the nausea of living in a society in which what you buy, what you wear, and what you consume defines you?

Someone wrote these wise words: To the extent that necessity is socially dreamed, the dream becomes necessary. The spectacle is the nightmare of imprisoned modern society which ultimately expresses nothing more than its desire to sleep.

I think you can still open your window, watch the sun, walk on the moon, swim in the sea, and be you. I think you can do all of that, and change your "self". All of it, while you sleep. So, imagine how strong you can get when awake!

Someone wants you asleep, constantly sedated, over stimulated. Yet, you do have an inner garden. You are the controller, tetra50, the controller of your life. That's what I meant.

a reply to: ATODASO

I forgive you, ATODASO. Will you forgive you, too?

Now, what is your view about UFOs and aliens? Could they be a projection of nonsense, too? As a matter of fact, those aliens seem to match your description: they give the witness no useful information while providing them with a full profile of their thought processes on the subject at hand, as well as why they might think that way.

Your paradigm is quite... Obergian... (a ride on my UFO if you get the meaning of this last sentence).

From fascinating beginnings, a weird website, some unintelligible languages, much sleuthing and speculation.

To direct intervention, a strange guest, some unintelligible/highly subjective language, much introspection and soul searching.

We arrive at, what is in essence, a 1950's contactee case (a la George Adamski) for the modern day!

We are all George, sometimes.

a reply to: Direne

lol, if i am right, why would i give you my thoughts on ufo's and aliens so they be crunched down and sold on to whoever's buying?

you can keep the ride, i already feel probed enough. obergian?



at least it doesn't if you're applying it to my views on ufos. and that's all you get outta this stooge, bud.

a reply to: Jonjonj

That fallen angel statue is stranger than me. The addicts in Retiro Park talk to it, by night. Granted that George saw what he wanted to see and tried to convince others that there were saucers there where there were only blue skies. However, on behalf of George, I would say there are a lot of Georges out there like, for instance, those who erect statues of fallen angels. Did you ever see an angel, too?

a reply to: Direne

I saw THAT particular angel, right where you know it to be, in el Parque del Buen Retiro.