[ExI] vampires

Mike Dougherty msd001 at gmail.com
Sat Jan 23 03:08:36 UTC 2010


On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 6:02 PM,  <jameschoate at austin.rr.com> wrote:
> There is a good point to be made here, that is seldom actually made.
>
> Existence trumps interpretation. Therefore if vampires did exist they by definition would be natural. The term/phrase 'natural' is a anthropocentricism and actually has no significance. If anything it's a clear indicator, though unintended, of our limited thought process.
>
> ---- spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
>> What's supernatural about vampires?

if the insignificant anthropocentricism is removed then the question
becomes: What's super about vampires?

I think that's a much different question.

I'm not sure how to even research it, but I have a feeling vampires
evolved out of a really good cover story for some lost-to-antiquity
infidelity.  A woman explains to her husband that the "bites" on her
neck were from some bloodlusting creature that entered through the
window and nearly consumed her essence till she was faint and nearly
killing her, then he flew off into the night.  Today we call those
bites a hicky.  The blood is vitality, the lusting obvious.  Surely he
entered.  She likely nears the literary little death each time he
visits.  With nothing but bats flapping in the moonlit sky, there is
no man to accept blame.  It's the (nearly) perfect crime.  Of course
this leads to an addiction and dependence, so the story continues to
grow more outlandish over time.

I think witches riding broomsticks in front of the full moon are a
similar cover story for common rated-R activity.

And that whole "only virgins can see unicorns" malarkey - please...



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list