Messages

:::::::::: Ahhhh! The verbosity continues! :::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    I love you freakin' Canadians!  Shedt is absolutely right (from my perspective).  What he's talking about (I believe) is kind of where I was going originally though my eloquence was horribly lacking.  I think he is seeing/feeling/perceiving the same current I was working with, that being a major sense that you're reacting to some inaccurate (and probably manufactured) perceptions of this entity.

    Of course this being, who I will here after refer to as Spooks to avoid thinking up synonyms for "entity", is a parasite.  He feeds on others but does not damage them lethally for the purpose of being able to feed again.  Vampires and sovereigns are just as much parasites as ticks and leeches, just on a different scale with different appetites.  This does not necessarily mean that parasites are negative, nor does it necessarily mean that, "he must die."  

    Tomorrow is a Saturday.  I have to work tomorrow, on a Saturday.  This drains my energy and I only wish it would "sexually manipulate" me.  This does not make my employer an evildoer, it's just a part of the system by which I have agreed to live.  If I find that the negatives of my employment (like working on Saturday) outweigh the benefits (like money) it is my responsibility to change the system, in this case get a different job.

    I find it somewhat hypocritical to damn poor Spooks for feeding.  I just ate an apple (without the courtesy of sexually stimulating it first), does this make me the enemy of apple trees?  Of course not, this makes me an organism who's position upon the food chain dictates that I eat apples.  I don't dislike apples, I'm quite found of them actually, but if I did not eat (feed) I would die and all the other organisms I have consumed in order to live would have died in vain.  And that doesn't help anybody.  Life feeds on life, there's no avoiding it, we have only to cherish and be grateful to the countless life forms that must perish that we may live (and the one's who died for them to live, etc. etc.).

    That said, I am hardly attempting to preach a doctrine of submission.  (If you knew me you would get a chuckle from that.)  I am simply saying that I don't think you can take such "attacks" personally.  In fact, I would suspect that doing so does not help your cause.

    The whole point I was trying to make with the parasite topic is that Spooks' behavior is totally inconsistent with a predator.  If he were a predator we would have certainly eaten you up by now and would have now moved on to other prey.  Now if you accept the postulate that it is at least parasitic behavior we are dealing with, if not a parasitic organism, then it simply does not make sense for him to feed on a creature (namely you) as infinitely weaker that himself as you have described him.  (My impressions.  Your grim determination to fight on even though you secretly "know" you can never when if almost tangible.)  

    I have been approaching this thing from a perspective of seeing Spooks as purely negative with an extreme focus on the "feeding" part of what you have said.  (This is of course contrary to everything I have said, go figure.)  Perhaps looking at other reasons why he should have such an attachment to you will prove enlightening.  Would you mind throwing out a few possible theories for scenarios in which Spooks is more desperate child and less vampiric demon (hyperbole! J )?  Brainstorming is almost always productive.

Also I would like to apologize for the tardiness of my list of suggestions.  I know that this must all seem like mildly interesting chatter that isn't accomplishing a darn thing, though I believe in this situation a solid philosophical grasp would greatly strengthen your flanks.  I have been attempting to weave a conclusion from a few alike situations I have encountered and my intuitions upon them (remembering an intuition is always fun.)  Unfortunately most had just as little (often less) information to offer as you do and as such my intuitions are the bulk of my knowledge, hence the delay.

All I have been able to bring down to the articulatable level is that in all cases the women (it has always been women, hmm, I hadn't considered that) have shared a bizarre fascination/dependency/self-destructive " vibe" (I hate that word, vibe, eck!).  If you ever known someone with a sever cocaine addiction the feeling isn't terribly different.  I have come to believe that such is in some way a symptom of their unique interactions with people like Spooks.

That's all I have for now, I'll sit down tomorrow and really hash it out.  Maybe then I can give you something to of use.  Until then you can try questing with an elf and a dwarf but it sounds a bit exhausting.  All that rolling of 74-sided dice.

I hope I haven't offended anyone but as I have agreed to approach this with the weight of reality I felt certain things needed to be addressed.  I will add tomorrow and be warned, it will make my previous long-windedness seem trifling!

Ossian [8D]


Ps- EnderWiggin, I find certain of your insinuations preposterous but I REALLY like your quotes.

::::::ATTN: Long response to a long post:::::::::::::

    First off, to be perfectly honest, this sounds a bit odd to me.  I've never heard of anything that fits your description and the logic of such a creature being interested in a human is a bit soft.  However, as I have the hard way (repeatedly) that the statement "That's not possible!" is a gross generalization I will proceed under the assumption that you are being forthright to the best of your knowledge and ability.  I don't mean any offense by this pretext but it would be dishonest for me to proceed otherwise.

    This really is a fascinating conundrum.  I'll offer a few suggestions below but first off you really need to rid yourself of three things.


    The first is that you need to really make a firm decision about whether you really want him gone.  Even if you think you have don't check this off the list just yet.  There are many undertones in your post that strongly suggest a lack of conviction.  Besides the obvious assumptions that can be drawn from a situation that feels good now and who's negatives are delayed in their manifestation.  


    When step one is complete the next thing to do is to take a few (hundred) steps back and attempt to view the situation objectively.  Another issue I see is a glorification of the assailant.  This is common in hostage situations (which you seem to be in) and results (theoretically) from the social hardwiring of the human brain.  In a situation where we feel helpless we immediately become emotionally dependant (and hence attached) to whomever we see as powerful.  (ex. parent-child relationship, beaten wife syndrome)

    You obviously feel a bit helpless and you certainly seem to see what's-his-face as powerful so it is easy to see how the contrast could exaggerate his power in your eyes.  Take a hard look at his strengths and weaknesses, everyone and everything has soft spots.  Also be aware that if he/she/it becomes erratic (acting without apparent cause) your headed in the right direction.  Desperation of the enemy is the surest sign of approaching victory.

    It may also be useful to note that parasites are highly specialized organisms and as such, are not terribly effective at preying on humans. We're far too mercurial.


    The third issue I see is your defeatism.  This goes back to step one but I believe that this is probably the most vital action you will take and as such I don't mind reiterating.  I know you're frustrated, I know you're tired, you have every right to be.  What's-his-name sounds like he's very good at what he does and is obviously working with a great deal more information than you but you have to realize that he is a parasite.

    Think about the animal kingdom for a moment.  If you consider every example of parasitic behavior (aka animals that do not immediately kill their prey) you will find that when successful these organisms have accomplished one of two things.  Either they have managed to fill a niche in which they benefit their host in some way (i.e. the bacteria in you digestive track) or they have managed to trick their host in to not resisting them (tapeworms, ticks, mosquitoes).  Not one example I can think of involves the parasite being stronger than the host.  In fact, most of the time it would be a simple thing for the host to kill the parasite, if they could only figure out how.


    Ahh, I'm horribly late.  I will have to finish this post later.  If you wouldn't mind answering a few quick questions...  Your age, what type of place you live in (rural, urban, suburban, etc.), how many people you live with and how busy your life is it would help me to present some viable options.  For example if you have 2 kids, a husband long periods of isolation and quiet (oh beloved silence) aren't terribly feasible.

    Also let me know if any of this resonates or if you have any questions.  Talk to you later.

Ossian
[]

I've never "heard" whispers in a literal sense but I understand what is meant my whispers, I would say "ambient presence".  Personally I experience such stimulus by feeling it, sometimes as tactile sensation (pressures, tightness in different places, ect.) But with most "whispers" I feel it in an internal way.

On a different note, from my recent investigations, I believe that we would call "whispers" or "ambient presence" is what is molded into a spell (sometimes referred to as a wraith) during one major form of ceremonial magic.

As for the drug reference, I have always had something of a revulsion from chemicals (I don't take aspirin so getting stoned seems a little ridiculous).  I have engaged in the ceromony 3 times in my life.  The first time I had no effect.  The second time I had no effect.  The third time (all about 1 year apart, the most recent 2 years ago) I had a definite result.

I felt like hell, something like a bad flu with extreme vertigo.  However, as the sensation lasted quite a while, I had time to examine my state (as I could do little else).  I found that beneath the major symptoms that made me want to dig out my brain with a spoon there were some major energetic sensitivites present.  Something like what happens with an extreme fever, you trance, in a primitive sense, and as such I wouldn't be surprised if when you are "stoned" your tendancies to ignore such input as "brainwaves" of others.  It may be signifigant to add that my first experiences with empathy occurred during "touch intensive" as well as emotionally intense situations.

I would like to add that every single individual I have ever had contact that attempted to use drugs (especially marijuana) to accelerate their quest for spiritual ability has eventually succumbed to the soul numbing apathy of the substance.  If we could have a few empaths register in on what a stoned individual "feels" like it might be educational.
 
It might also be productive to have people mention exactly how their abilities manifest.  Whispers, Voices, Feelings, Intuition, Smells, Visually, you name it.  Also, how do you think living an empathically has affected your life and your perspective on the world?

Ossian[]

Wow, so much to say.  First off, on the recent topic of the Gaelic languages, a bit of technical jargon.  The Celtic languages are descended   (in theory as this is going WAY back) of the Indo-European language spoken by the Aryan race during it's incursion into Western Europe.  Supposedly this occurred in 2-4 waves of migrations resulting in genetic/racial diversity but this isn't terribly relevant.
    Eventually the Celtic language split into two sections known as P-Celtic and C(?)-Celtic.  The division being made due to the C-Celtic bizarre abhorrence of the 'p' sound to the degree if it were not dropped entirely it was usually changed to a 'c' (k,g) sound.  C-Celtic is assumed to be the elder and is represented in modern day Irish, Scots Gaelic and some archaic tongues preserved in the mountains between Spain and France.
    P-Celtic is assumed to be the younger (possessing many more Latin elements) and is represented today by Welsh, Breton, and Cornish.  Continental Gaelic is generally assumed to have been comprised of P-Celtic dialects.  Manx is also considered a Celtic language but I'm not sure where it would fit.  (If you want to speak Manx don't move your tongue while speaking poor English, drink heavily, and spell phonetically.  [Sorry Gandalf.])
    Personally I think French is just as much Gaelic as it is Latin but that's a personal pet peeve.  Consider the nature of both French and Modern Irish to blur the boundaries between many tiny words in order to create mammoth sentence-words.  Interestingly you do not find this tendency in Welsh (to the same degree).  I no nothing of Cornish or Breton so if someone wants to add please speak up.  Also if someone is knowledgeable as to the native dialects of Galacia I would be thrilled to be informed.


    Alright, on to the Druids.  First I think it is necessary to relay a bit about the social climate at the time.  Obviously such things are mutable and such time and place are both important considerations.  I personally believe that evidence is strong enough to say that the "Celtic Empire" or perhaps more accurately, the "Celtic league of city-states" was fairly stable across Western and Central Europe for at least 300 years (and perhaps quite a bit longer) before Caesar and up to his incursion.   This was the time at which the Druids were at their peak of organization and, as such, I will use this period as example.
     However they arrived the Aryans seem to have eventually settled into 3 groups (look to the Irish invasion stories for some fascinating parallels.)
    The first, and apparently original, group were the builders and/or main utilizers of the dolmens and other standing stones.  Stone worship was prevalent and they tended to be at the lowest levels of society.  They may or may not have been Aryan but they certainly weren't Celts.  Think Fir-Bolgs and your on the right track as far as aesthetics.
    The second group was the Celts of the plains, a fairly passive group of "herdsmen, tillers and artificers" this group blended peacefully with the dolmen builders, setting up wherever they could find open space.  Though they do not appear to have developed sophisticated political institutions (only truly necessary in war) they did most likely contribute powerfully to the Druidic religion and Bardic poetry.
    The third group, and last to arrive, were the Mountain Celts, or the "True Celts".  Like their lowland cousins these people spoke a Celtic tongue and were of Aryan decent.  They were extremely warlike and set up military aristocracies wherever they went.  "Their women worked the fields and under their rule the common population was reduced to near servitude."  Ireland alone seems to have escaped this process and the sharp class (caste) lines drawn by it.  It is interesting to note that the Aryan conquers of India and the middle east see to have followed this pattern, the most extreme cases being under the Brahman system in India.
    This said I believe it is important to note that the Druids were, if not of then certainly for, the ruling class of Mountain Celts.  The center of Druidism (the religion) seems to have been in Britain (south-eastern England) but it's influence spread across Europe.  The Druidic faith seems to have been mainly comprised of a reverence for nature, a focus on memorization and semantics, as well as an Aryan mysticism not terribly dissimilar from the Vedic scripts.
    I believe the most important thing to remember when approaching the Druids is to remember that though they were the orchistrators of the state religion, they were also the lawyers, judges, historians, and advisers.  The sharp divisions between what is a priest and what is a "normal" person simply did not exist in a spiritual sense.
    I also believe it is important to remember that the Druids were only a portion of the 'religious community' if that it could be called.  Bards, Healers, and (depending on who you ask) Warriors also carried aspects of the divine.  This is an immense topic and far too complex for one posting but if anyone is interested I'll go into it further later on.

    The above is the official view and though it disagrees with my personal information in certain respects I agree with it in basic structure.  Below are my personal responses to certain inconsistencies I encounter in the post string.  The above is based on fairly scientific sources while the below enters into "pagan land" and draws on such resources as intuition, non-carbon based beings, and 'old' memories.

Ogham:
    The ogham (Ohm) system of communication was more concerned with a formalized system of speaking in cipher rather than specific tree-to-letter correlation.  The trees themselves could be used as a symbolic means of communication but this was more in the way of hieroglyphics or pictographs than phonetics languages.  It is theorized that the Druids held the Oak as sacred because the word for oak (druir) is quite similar to the word 'Druid'.  I have heard that the word 'druid' can be literally translated as "Oak Walker" or "Door Walker" but I know very little about this.
     The Druids were, in their approach to the universe if not on specific dogma, quite like the Quabalists and their presence from an empathic/energetic perspective is nearly identical.  Both parties have a strong affection for correspondences and a visually conceivable cosmology.  The legends of the Welsh, owing in theory to their proximity to the Druidic center, carry a much greater flavor of the Druidic perspective while the Irish myth cycles are far more literal and more flavored by the Bardic perspective.

    I personally find the concept of an all female religious order in the Celtic world under any name to be rather inconceivable.  Such lines drawn purely on anatomy simply weren't culturally relevant in pre-Christian Europe and you won't find them in Germanic or Nordic cultures either.
    Men tended to be the specifically employed sex for the terribly practical reason tat they don't get pregnant.  Therefore all groups of specialized labor (warriors, druids, bards, rulers, farmers, craftsmen, ect.) will be primarily men simply because men are biologically excluded from the crucial and time consuming occupation of baby making.  One must remember that out of shear necessity women spent a huge portion of their lives pregnant, just having been pregnant, or trying to be pregnant.  As the value placed on motherhood was not in the deplorable state that it is today, being a mother was your job just as much as being a priest was a Druids job.
    This is not to say that there weren't female Druids, just as there were female warriors, healers, poets and sovereigns.  I simply mean to point out that the fact that theses were a minority was a result of biology, not inequality.  I believe there is something to be learned in this that both women and children were valued enough that woman did not have to do the work of both sexes to be valued as an equal to a man doing the work of one.

    Finally I would like to say a little bit about Wicca.  Mainly that Wicca is not Druidism, nor is Wicca representative of the pre-Christian religions in any way, shape, form, or construct.  Personally I don't think modern Druids are terribly representative of ancient practices but they're a hell of a lot closer than Wiccans.  Let me be clear here that I have no quarrel with Wiccans nor Druids.  I have known and loved many of both varieties in my life and find them delightful company but there are simply fundamental differences that run far too deep to make any comparison.  A closer parallel could be drawn between Catholics and Druids than Wiccans and Druids.
    Wicca is a religion created by Gardner and Alexander in England in the early 1950s.  It is a pseudo polytheistic religion (2 does not equal many/poly in my book) and in many of it's views is quite monotheistic (such as calling all deities manifestations of 'THE Lady' or 'THE Lord'.)  Wicca contains many modified Celtic practices but it also contains elements from hundreds of different cultures across the globe.  It has an established dogma and morality and even (to a certain extent) a hierarchy.
     Druidism is also a religion, having been orchestrated my it's priests known as Druids.  Druidism has it's roots in ancient Aryan mysticism as well as the beliefs and practices of the Dolmen-Builders with a strong influences from Bardic practices.  It was distinctly a product of Pre-Roman Celtic society and was based in modern day England, which is perhaps its only link to Wicca outside of the incredibly vague title of Earth-worshiping religions.

    Phew.  Good to be finished.  I realize this is rather longwinded and therefore I'm certain I've made hundreds of errors so if anyone happens to find them just let me know and I'll clear things up.    
[]

A few points.  

      First, as far as being damaged my heat and cold one must remember that heat and cold are degrees of energy density and, as sentient beings, we can decide, at least in theory, to what degree we interact with the ambient "energetic enviorment", for lack of a better term.  In fact such an ability to either edure great cold (as in the Alaskan ice baths of the Inuit) or great heat (fire dances, walking a bed of hot coals, ect.) is one of the oldest and most documented demonstrations of shamanic ability on the planet.                                                                  
      The 'mind over matter' principle is, generally speaking, referenced by the individual practitioners and I offer the energetic explanation based on my personal expierence only to theorize on the actual process involved.                                                              
                                                                         
      Secondly, in my experience the tactal sensations are much more productive than any visualization but this may be a nuance of myself.   I will have to try this water freezing technique, if nothing else it sounds like a great parlour trick.  Never underestimate the powere of parlour tricks.  
      I would be very interested to read a detailed telling of a successful attempt if anyone has one to offer.  A brief explanation of your path/background would be useful as well.

Salainte,
Ossian