June 2002 posts
AtS/BtVS withdrawal=????!!!!! (Finale
Spoilers) -- Doriander, 03:32:33 06/03/02 Mon
I'm not good at writing fic,
at all. I only have suggestions to those much more talented than I. So this came to me, via a dream.
Watched some S2 Angel before bed. Not a good idea (nightmares). Actually it depends, for it resulted to
this insane post, which may inspire or bore. It's morning, I'm delirious, I still have guts to post this, which
I may later regret. So, these are my indirect suggestions to fic writers/rant to ME. I'll call it, the
pitch (tm Showtime shorts):
(nervously sitting across Tim Minear)
Excellent
work on the show... (Tim nods)
I think you, Mr. Minear, Tim, can I call you Tim? (Tim
unclasps his hands, as if to say whatever) Very well. You Tim, shaped Angel the show's identity,
gave it status, more than that conceited Whedon or Greenwalt combined... (Tim gives a smile that teeters
between flattery and "F***, I'm dead")
I'm your biggest fan... (Tim regrets seeing "Misery"
the night previous)
And as such... (Tim edges his seat)
I'm your biggest critic...
(Tim nervously reaches under his desk for the security button)
Bear with me
here...
I'm not down with the baby arc on Angel. (Tim scrunches his forehead)
I
mean, what kind of message is that? "I'm Angel, and I've had it! I give up on people! If I could just end it
all--Ooh Darla! How perfect! Henceforth I'll have careless sex! I'll lose my soul and possibly end the
world! Because the pain, it's too much! I'll just kill all the poor bastards!-"
(gives Tim a
conspiring look)
Little inside joke there (Tim looks puzzled)
Get it? Like,
channeling Darth Willow? Add it to the many potential spectacular non-crossovers people are buzzing
about! (Tim looks puzzled)
Ermmmkay. Heh, he, he, he, hey! Hey, not done ranting here! So
Angel pretty much says, :"Screw redemption!" and the Powers' response is, "very well, we'll give you a
son?! Unprecedented miracle child of two vampires! This child will rid you at long last of that bitch sire
of yours!" Tsk, tsk, tsk, Tim...(Doriander wags finger). Thing is... (Doriander reaches across for Tim's
other hand that clutches a phone) I resent Darla's death, because I'm still holding out hope for crossovers
and a fanged four reunion... (Tim all the while gropes for security button with his other hand).
So here's a different revenge route for Holtz, if the baby were not in the picture. And Darla
never showed her face back in LA as a plot device. And Cordy hasn't been given her half-demon
status yet. Because frankly? Her character didn't generate as much interest from the fans since then. Check
the boards lately? (Tim considers)
This is a little fatalistic by the way... (Tim stills his
hand)
What if Holtz never made his presence known at all to Angel, until he has delivered
his revenge, via Cordy... (Tim retreats hand)
Cordy is still suffering from her visions, though it
remains her secret up to this point. Her relationship with Angel, however is going great. They're close,
unconsciously in love. So you'll get the sparks and fireworks you're gunning for. It really was more
interesting and cute when they both were clueless about it. It's when Angel started pining for Cordy that
the chemistry fizzled. So take it from me, save their realizations till late in the season. Anyway, this is
where you can incorporate the "let's meet at the cliff scenario" if you're insistent on that. But make it so
that Cordy had her epiphany in the morning, got up the nerve to call Angel, and they're to meet in the
evening. It'll be like their first official daaaate! (said in a manner similar to Clem's "PG
thirteeen")
(Tim lets out an exasperated sigh.)
So, our dear Holtz, with his cult,
managed to tap into the call, and found its timing all too perfect! Holtz is in cahoots with Lilah, whose
motive remains get Angel to go dark again. See cause Angel goes dark mainly when he loses all hope...
(Tim starts tapping on the desk as if to say "It's my show moron! You dare inform me of my lead's
motivations?")
Alright, alright! Yeesh. Moving on. It's night time, Angel shows up on that
cliff, finds Cordy there unconscious, her face streaked with tears. She's been crying. Imagine Asylum
Buffy, only worse (Tim gives a "Whu?" face)
You don't watch the other show, do you? (Tim
smiles sheepishly).
(Admonishing) Tiiiiim. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Aaaanyway, you'll get the scene
where Angel lifts her up carries her back to his convertible, which if you're also insistent on her flowing
white wardrobe, you can capitalize on the effect. It's eerie romantic, anything that reminds the girls of
Tristan carrying his dead wife in "Legends of the Fall" is plenty romantic and tragic (Doriander wistful
for a moment). Ahem. So Angel takes Cordy to the hotel, assembles the AI crew. Cordy murmurs in her
sleep, she's crying in pain, laughing intermittently. And oh, the words she's murmuring? (Doriander leans
over for drama, as Tim leans as far back as his aero chair can allow him)
"...snake in the
woodshed! Snake in the woodshed! Snake in the woodshed..."(Tim looks nervously at the nutty
fan)
Angel panics! He recognizes the words, see? Remember "Dear Boy"? (Tim gives a
ngyeeaaahhh look).
Good! Cause that will play into this! Suckers for continuity like moi will
chew on this! So then the crew tries to calm Cordy down, right? Cordy's eyes flutters open, she sees
Angel, she screams! She starts having seizures, she collapses! Fred to the rescue! Er, side note Tim, you
really should cut back on the things Fred can do. It's annoying some fans, the same way Sam Finn, oh
never mind. It's annoying. Moving on. Cordy's still breathing, still alive, but none the better. Phone rings.
It's Holtz! He'll start with something creepy, think "The Game" or the opening of "Scream". Like,
ahem
Holtz: "She's awake now I assume?"
Angel: "Who's this?!!!"
Holtz: "Turn
on your computer."
Fred's someone else is on it, they gather around, and on screen we
see Holtz a la Mayor Wilkins.
Holtz: "Hello Angelus."
(Doriander pauses for effect,
while Tim recovers from the traumatizing experience of being subjected to Doriander's appalling imitation
of Holtz's voice.)
Technology courtesy of W&H, in case you're wondering. And just to cover
loose ends, part of Lilah's agreement with Holtz would be that nothing should be traceable to W&H when
the plan comes through. Holtz will have to make it appear as though it's only him and his cult behind it
all. See this way you won't have to depend on fans to figure out plot holes for you (Tim looks
incredulous)
Oh don't even deny it! (Tim opens his mouth to protests but Doriander shushes
him)
I know, I know, nothing leaves this room, just between you, me and Mutant Enemy, and
thehundredsoffansthatowntheAngelseasonOneDVD. Happy? Phew! Anyway, Holtz starts his exposition
spiel. With help from Lilah's Fez-head buddy from that episode "That Vision Thing" (Tim nods), they
gave Cordy a vision, that of (Doriander anticipates, waits for Tim to come up with the answer. Tim
gives the psycho fan an eye rolling that would give SMG a run for her money)
.(excitedly)
Drusilla! You know? "Snake in the-" never mind. Anyway, it's a vision of 1860 Drusilla in the convent
being tormented by Angelus. So everything that's happened to Dru, is happening to Cordy, and her state
of mind, Cordy is experiencing that very moment. Only Fez-head tweaked it. Cordy won't just experience
the vision once, but repeatedly, ten times, possibly more (Tim's eyes bulges)
Scary, huh? So
Holtz warns that Cordy's sanity will be at risk at this point. She may or may not come out of it. And
worse! Every time she sees Angel, she'll freak, have a breakdown, whatever. And worse! Angel's presence
alone will exacerbate her condition. And worse! Every time Angel bears witness to this disintegration of
his ladylove, he will be tortured with guilt of his worst crime, Drusilla. Only ten times worse! Since Dru
was a mere obsession, whereas Cordy is someone he cares the world for. And you know what's worse?
(Tim, more eye rolling) The more he tries to comfort her, the more he hurts her, the more it's torture for
him. I imagine Angel will say something like, "but she doesn't deserve any of this " and Holtz retorts,
"neither did my wife, son, and daughter. But I imagine you never gave it a thought." (Tim grimaces from
another of Doriander's appalling Holtz imitation)
Holtz ends by saying it's too late if Angel
comes after him, Angel won't find him -insert your scenario of how Holtz disappears, via cult suicide,
something or other. This way we won't have to resort to giving Holtz a really bad make-up job. Of course,
this leaves a distraught Angel, helpless and frustrated, no one to direct his vengeful energies towards since
Holtz is gone! ::GASP!:: (Tim is taken despite himself)
Angel's last resort: approach the
Powers. He's willing to do anything to get Cordy back. The PtB's oblige. Perhaps they let him undergo
tests similar to "The Trial". And if you please, make the trials worthwhile? No cheesy action figures, off
screen fights or lurky green-eyed demons? You could go with the bugs though (Tim answers with
another "whu?")
Figures, never mind. It's a thing (Tim's forehead vein starts
throbbing from the stress of hearing the ubiquitous phrase.)
Angel succeeds as always. The
tormenting visions stop. Cordy's back to her sane self. But, a big but, here's the thing (more forehead
throbbing from Tim) the monstrosity of Angelus is too ingrained in her psyche now. Each time she looks
at Angel, she'll be traumatized with the face that ravaged her. Their relationship is irreparably strained
from here on in.
Her visions continue to stress her. Enter Skip and his quote-unquote
tests. Here's the tough choice, will she choose a memory wipe, erase the trauma, and give up on
the mission, in favor of her Hollywood dream. No catch right? Well what if instead of the scenario in
"Birthday" where she sees Angel going insane with the visions should she choose Hollywood, she sees
another girl in her place, suffering the same trauma she went through. In a sense, she's just passing on her
load, not very noble. This is a perfect time to use Fred. Make the girl Fred. Fans seem to favor her a little
nutty. And she does resemble Dru. So, also in "B-day", we see Skip show Cordy Angel negotiating with
the Powers. How about in this one, show Cordy the trials Angel endured, kinda like what you've done with
Darla, so that Cordy will have an inkling of what she meant to Angel, and will be reminded of how far
Angel has come from that monster to the current champion. Will she still accept her demon status with
this state of her relationship with Angel in the name of the mission? Remember, she experienced the worst
thing Angelus is capable of, and that's MAJOR.
What ya think? Cliffhanger material? I mean,
the next season, there's the possibility of different reality, if Cordy chooses to become a star instead.
Aaand, reference to alternate realities? More non-crossover-crossover prospects! (Doriander gives a hint,
hint, wink, wink look at a now bored Tim). And if Charisma really does intend to leave, this is a less
sucky way to go, don't you think? A little righteous, selfish, but justified, somewhat unfair, yet downright
human? It's all very layered! Very trademark "Angel"!
(Tim finds button, presses button,
security comes in seconds)
Tim: "Sorry to waste your time. Tim doesn't live here anymore. If
you have ideas for Firefly then try your luck next time, if they let you in."
(security hoists the
crazy chick out of ME's bastion of creativity.)
Tim calling out: "Try Greenwalt! Oh wait, you
CAN'T! Unless you have ideas for "Miracles"! MWAHAHAHA!!!!"
[> ROFL -- Ete, 04:51:18 06/03/02 Mon
humm and I even haven't seen Angel s3 yet :)
[> That was great! Keep the delirium-inspired posts coming! --
Exegy *living vicariously on these specs*, 11:59:15 06/03/02 Mon
Having failed to
impress Minear, you now approach the office of BtVS showrunner Marti Noxon....
*Exegy
salivates at the delectable possibilities*
[> [> Oh I wish! -- Doriander, 12:10:15 06/03/02
Mon
Can't. Tazer...pavement...restraining orders, it's a thing.
[> [> [> LOL! -- Exegy *extending thread's life*,
13:02:23 06/03/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> Re: LOL! -- Ronia, 22:30:51 06/03/02
Mon
If you can revise and find a place for the newcommer (connor/stephen) you've got
my vote. If you were devising the plot arc, the season would be more interesting because of it
Interesting JE quotes re: Willow & Tara (spoilers from
"Seeing Red" to the end of the season) -- Rob, 09:47:36 06/03/02 Mon
In the W/T thread about the kitten board reaction, etc, I mentioned a quote from a writer
that explained ME's position on why Tara's death/Willow's evilness wasn't perpetrating a "dead lesbian"
storyline cliche. Well, here it is...
It's from Jane Espenson's interview with The Succubus Club.
I got it from http://www.buffycritic.com. You can't link directly to a page of theirs, but go to their
"Villains" page from the season 6 episode list page to see where I got this
from...
Reviewer: Obviously, a lot of people are upset over Tara's
death.
Espenson: Yes as we intended. We're upset ourselves. There was... I didn't think
Joss was going to be able to do it. He really had to struggle with killing her and the fact that it was so
painful was what we knew would make it work. That's... we knew it would hurt. And that's what we
needed, otherwise we just can't take Willow where we needed to take her.
Reviewer: What
about, how do you guys feel about all the backlash?
Espenson: I hadn't been aware that
there was backlash. Although we did talk about it... um we knew... what we knew has been done with gay
characters is that you introduce one just to kill them. We knew that wasn't what we were doing. Tara had
been on the show a very long time, very long, not as long as Buffy but she clearly had not been brought in
as cannon fodder. Because when you do that, you bring them in and you kill them right away. And when
you do that it's a punishment. We felt that this was so clearly not a punishment for being gay, her being
gay... she wasn't gay bashed. She was shot accidentally. We did talk about it, we did talk about we're
doing that thing, we're killing the lesbian. But, we don't... it didn't feel that way to us because she wasn't
the lesbian character anymore. Willow and Tara are both lesbians, Willow didn't die. Willow was our
main character, if you gonna, wanted to make some horrible message about killing the lesbians, you'd kill
her.
Reviewer: No, but she went evil.
Espenson: She did go evil, but she
went evil out of deep loving grief. We knew we were gonna make her evil. We had to figure out how and
that seemed to be the best way how. And we really do think of them as one of our couples, ya know we've
got Buffy / Spike, Xander / Anya and and Tara / Willow... we really don't... when we think of a story for
them, a situation for them, we never go from what should happen to the lesbians, it's what should happen
to that couple. So we really stopped thinking of them as the gay couple and just thought of them as a
couple.
Reviewer: Then I guess I would ask, playing Devil's Advocate here, maybe you
should have thought of them as the lesbian couple because obviously a lot of people look up to them as
some kind of role models. What is your responsibility as writers to these fans.
Espenson:
Well I think we would be shirking the responsibility if Willow then goes out and get's herself a boy. Then
that seems to me that we have said something about lesbianess. What we have said instead, as we view our
characters as such real and three dimensional characters that good things can happen to them, bad things
can happen to them... they aren't templates anymore, these are people. We hope we've created people.
Rob
[> Re: Interesting JE quotes re: Willow & Tara (spoilers from
"Seeing Red" to the end of the season) -- Darby, 11:14:01 06/03/02 Mon
She didn't really address the more insidious cliche, the one of "have sex, then have something
bad happen to you," which is really the one the Kittens have been on about.
A question more
general - how much significance does a creator owe a symbol that winds up essentially "in their care"?
W&T were essentially a unique symbol on American TV, providing a social service above and beyond
their role in the show. I agree that you couldn't let that fact be the total determiner of what should and
shouldn't be done to the pair, but does it deserve no consideration at all? The quote indicates that ME is
claiming no consideration, which I'm okay with over the death and less okay with over the contextual
choices framing the death. (I just had a truly grotesque image of beating a dead Tara)
In a
related area, given the criticism directed at ME for their casting choices, should Gunn be more protected -
he is ME's only regular black character, like, ever - than the others at Angel Investigations? Maybe I'm
wrong - is that even a comparable situation?
[> [> Doesn't that PROMOTE labeling? -- Earl Allison, 12:42:15 06/03/02 Mon
The problem, as others far more eloquant than I have already said, seems to be either that to
do so hobbles the stories one can tell, or that it plays right INTO pigeonholing people, and labeling
them.
ME just couldn't win with this storyline -- people were going to be pissed off no matter
the direction it took, and I think, of the possible venues ME COULD have taken, this one was their best
option (assuming one still wants the Dark Willow storyline). I said as much below in a previous
thread.
If we DO assign "special status," where does it end? Spike is the only British-speaking
regular, and the only chipped vampire -- does he deserve a protected status? Does Buffy, being the only
active Slayer? Willow, as the resident geek of the Scoobies? Anya, as the only vengeance demon, or the
only avid capitalist? I'm deliberately being stupid here, but how far off would I be if there WERE
untouchables because of their perceived status?
Why can't the writers just tell a story without
incurring the wrath of viewers? Maybe, after a fashion, it's a GOOD thing, after all, people have invested
a lot of emotion into these characters, high praise for the writers and actors/actresses
indeed.
Maybe it's foolish, but someday, it'd be nice to simply tell the story, and not worry if
character X suffered predicament Y simply because they were part of group Z.
Maybe Willow
and Tara were the best example on US television, but does that mean ME was obligated to keep them
happy and untouchable? I answer with a firm NO, to do so violates the premise of the entire series, that
NO ONE is happy forever :) Seriously, to do otherwise would go aginst the grain, Willow and Tara were
PEOPLE first, lesbians second (as almost anyone is, a PERSON before they are black, white, gay, straight,
Catholic, Wiccan, etc).
Bad things happen, even to good people. If we can't tell stories like
that, why even bother?
Take it and run.
[> [> [> Yes and no. -- Sophist, 13:10:08 06/03/02
Mon
I see 2 problems with your argument, though the danger you point out is quite real.
First, ME voluntarily undertook to create an honest, caring lesbian relationship on TV (and
YAY to them for doing so). They also took the plaudits (and profits) of many for having done so. Having
accepted the responsibility of the relationship, ME had the responsibility to handle it in a way that didn't
play to stereotypes.
Second, I do think it important that W/T were not just the first realistic
lesbian couple on TV, they were the only such couple ever. That fact may create an obligation to handle
their case differently. For example, when the Dodgers brought up Jackie Robinson in 1947, they were
pretty sure he would be a star player. What if he hadn't been? Suppose he had been average or below
average. Should we say that the Dodgers were obligated to keep him on the team rather than send him
down to the minors? I think that, within limits, the answer is that yes they were. For one thing, lots of
white players stay in the majors despite being average or below; sending him down might well have
perpetuated the double standard he was promoted to eliminate. For another, in 1947, Jackie was unique. If
he had been sent down, and seen as a failure, it might have been years before anyone took the risk again.
That doesn't mean Jackie got to stay if he hit like me, but it does mean that he deserved more slack than
an ordinary player might.
I want to re-emphasize that this is a special case. I don't know the
exact point at which "helping" someone turns into condescension of a different sort. I do think the issue is
arguable, especially in this situation.
[> [> [> [> Re: Yes and no. -- Traveler, 20:08:03
06/03/02 Mon
"First, ME voluntarily undertook to create an honest, caring lesbian
relationship on TV (and YAY to them for doing so). They also took the plaudits (and profits) of many for
having done so. Having accepted the responsibility of the relationship, ME had the responsibility to
handle it in a way that didn't play to stereotypes."
ME also had lots of upset viewers who
thought that lesbian relationships were immoral, so they recieved both plaudits and criticism for this
decision. The same is true for the current storyline. ME is not a social welfare orginization; It is not their
responsibility to right all the wrongs of the world. Their sacred duty is to stay true to their artistic vision.
So long as I feel they are doing that, I really don't care if a small segment of their viewership got their
feelings bruised. Stereotypes are omnipresent and unavoidable. We have Giles, the stiff British librarian.
Then there's Xander, the class clown. Willow the nerd. Buffy the super hero. Dawn, the bratty teen. And
so on. The show constantly plays up to these stereotypes and makes fun of the characters using them. Yet,
nobody mentions this because there isn't a vocal minority group defending them. Of course, you can argue
that none of these characters is defined by their stereotype, that each has grown beyond it, and this is true.
But then, so have Willow and Tara. Personally, I don't think that Tara's death fit any type of
offensive stereotype at all, but if you are going to complain about stereotypes, I want to see you address all
of them.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes and no. -- Dochawk,
20:27:16 06/03/02 Mon
Traveler said: " Their sacred duty is to stay true to their
artistic vision"
Nope, not at all, Their sacred duty is to deliver the largest number of viewers in
the 18 - 34 demographic. They do it by doing a compelling story. But, they also have a social
responibilty because they claimed it. They used the evolution of W/T to help themselves and they did
crow about it. And no they don't have to be responsible to all the stereotyopes, because they didn't go out
on television interviews and say how great they were because they have a black character which they did
about W/T.
[> [> [> [> [> [> OK, I'll bite. -- Traveler,
13:21:14 06/04/02 Tue
"Their sacred duty is to deliver the largest number of
viewers in the 18 - 34 demographic."
This statement invalidates the rest of your
arguments, so I'll ignore it for now.
"They used the evolution of W/T to help themselves
and they did crow about it."
OK, I didn't know about this. Can you direct me to interviews
in which the writers have "crowed" about the W/T relationship?
[> [> [> Re: Doesn't that PROMOTE labeling? -- Darby,
13:18:21 06/03/02 Mon
Being human promotes labeling - it's part of what we
are.
And the assumption that no decisions are made based upon one label or another seems
naive (do you really think that ME would eliminate Spike, whose main label is "viewer magnet"?) - I don't
think this can even be discussed on a "do we or don't we" basis. It comes down to how much weight
certain aspects should be given, within a broader context that includes artistic "truth" but also social
responsibility and the chance to maybe produce real effects in attitudes - is there really an artist that
ignores that potential? And a writer can't help but take certain traits of their characters into account when
writing - you can resist them, try to work around them, but don't ignore them or you do wind up in some
bad places without knowing how you got there. For instance, I can't see Joss killing off his alter-ego
Xander.
And I'm continually amazed at how black-and-white this discussion has gotten - even
here, where "dead" and "happy and untouchable" are offered as the options. I guess because it has wound
up being the difference between being on the show and not, which is a 2-setting situation, but still...
[> [> [> [> I don't think there's NO influence, but ... --
Earl Allison, 13:57:59 06/03/02 Mon
Weigh it with the options, cartainly, but once label becomes the main driving force, you have
a problem.
I wish you hadn't used Spike as an example, because you're re-enforced my opinion
that the chip was constructed largely for that reason, as was a lot of what we saw with him ... do I think
ME will eliminate him -- no. Do I wish they would? Yes, because they've played fast and loose with the
canon (IMHO only, I admit here) just to accomodate a character, largely to keep viewers -- and THAT'S
where problems start.
Please, let's NOT (not directed at you, Darby, but at everyone) let this
get sidetracked into a Spike discussion ...
Anyway, getting off track.
Does label
have its place? Absolutely, but no way it should be the first or only thing we think of -- because once
Willow and/or Tara become "lesbians" first, and interesting characters and individuals second, there's no
point to telling a story, because you aren't telling it about Willow and Tara, you're telling it about a pair of
cardboard cutouts -- heck, don't bother with names -- I'll figure out who they are by what the writers do or
don't do with them.
If the characters are good, interesting, and well-rounded, I'll like them --
and I'd like to think a lot of other people would, too.
I'm just not sure about the social
responsibility angle -- how far should it go? Sure, there have been messages about sex (the Angel-
Angelus curse), but are they automatically the right ones? To further it, has anyone in the Buffyverse ever
mentioned condoms -- specifically in the Faith/Xander coupling, the Buffy/Parker pairing, or the repeated
Buffy/Riley one? And which message should be promoted, and should it be at the expense of the story?
In other words, should the story be second to the labels SOME give the characters? Sure, the Kitten
Board is one extreme, but aren't there any viewers who DON'T see this as an attack on lesbians -- enough
to make one question it, at least?
I don't know, maybe I'm coming off as more and more
ignorant as I speak, so I think I'll drop it here and let someone better suited go on.
Take it and
run.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: condoms -- Dead Soul,
14:47:32 06/03/02 Mon
I was watching the S4 DVD's this weekend and during
WtWTA while Buffy and Riley were fueling the house's manifest-infestations of sexual tension and
repression with their boink-a-thon, they showed Riley reaching into the bedside table drawer which was
full of condoms. This was cut from the FX reruns.
Dead (but still safe) Soul
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: condoms -- Q,
23:07:01 06/03/02 Mon
Anya had some condoms when she slept with Xander, some
of them were black.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: condoms (not cut from FX that
I saw) -- FriarTed, 08:15:29 06/05/02
Wed
I watched that FX rerun last week & I saw the condoms.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I don't think there's NO influence, but
... -- matching mole, 14:58:43 06/03/02 Mon
I agree with Darby that this
argument seems to keep getting dragged to absolutes. Tara and Willow are exempt from bad things vs.
ME can do anything they want to their own creations. Neither option seems viable to me.
All
our actions are affected by our own desires and by the effects of those actions on society and society's
response to them. Just like freedom of action (we're not free to rob banks) freedom of expression and
freedom of speech can never be absolute. How close we should come is a matter of personal philosophy. I
would argue that in cases where an individual or a group has the ability to make a statement that has great
power they have the responsibility to consider carefully what they say. So I think that ME certainly had
the responsibility to very carefully consider the effect of killing Tara on their viewing public before taking
that step. I have no idea if they did so or not - probably they did. All I can do is state whether or not I
found the storyline compelling enough to justify the death (or to be more specific the timing and context
of the death). As I didn't find the Willow arc post Tabula Rasa very compelling I would have to say no. If
I had thought that end of season 6 was the greatest thing in the show's history then I might have said
yes.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Justify my death! -- Traveler,
20:32:36 06/03/02 Mon
"All I can do is state whether or not I found the storyline
compelling enough to justify the death (or to be more specific the timing and context of the death).
"
And this is where the problem is. It's like a trial where the defendant is presumed guilty;
the writers have to justify killing a minority character, otherwise we assume that they are all bigots
trying to send anti-minority messages. But if they just want to kill of some random white guy, hey no
problem. You may not being talking in extremes, but you are still suggesting (demanding?) that writers
categorically introduce biases in their writing to placate minority groups. And quite frankly, the writers
will never convince you that they had to kill your favorite character. After all, you can think of at
least 6 ways that he/she could have lived, right? Sorry, you may be a brilliant writer, but this isn't your
vision. The writers have different goals, desires, and methodology than you do. The writers decided that
they wanted to fully explore Willow's repressed evil and that the only way to do that was to kill Tara. That
was their decision to make, and I think it was well done. To their credit, they did consider the
social impact of what they were doing, but they discovered the hard way that people would still
take offense, despite their extreme care in handling the relationship. Furthermore, I doubt that it was even
possible for the writers to break up Willow and Tara's relationship in a way that would have satisfied the
Kittens. I'm sorry, but this is a group that is dedicated to the Willow/Tara ship. Of course they
were pissed off. They were just looking for excuses to blame ME for bad writing. Almost all the lesbians
I've read who have posted to this board, saying, "I am a lesbian; here is how I feel about it," were
not offended that Tara died.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> (Season 6 SPOILERS
above) -- Traveler, 20:36:56 06/03/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Justify my death! --
Sophist, 08:54:09 06/04/02 Tue
And this is where the problem is. It's like a trial
where the defendant is presumed guilty; the writers have to justify killing a minority character, otherwise
we assume that they are all bigots trying to send anti-minority messages. But if they just want to kill of
some random white guy, hey no problem.
I don't understand your reference here to
minority characters and "white guys". I thought we were talking about lesbians.
The writers
have to justify (artistically, at least) the killing of any character. If they make an artistic decision
that implicates a stereotype, surely we are justified in asking if the artistic effect justifies the use of the
stereotype. That's all mm did. You can disagree and I can agree, but it begs the question to say "it was
pure artistry".
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Justify my writing!
-- Traveler, 14:31:30 06/04/02 Tue
"I don't understand your reference here to
minority characters and "white guys". I thought we were talking about lesbians."
I was
speaking in general terms, including lesbians as a part of that description. If you prefer, I can restate the
same sentence to read, "It's like a trial where the defendant is presumed guilty; the writers have to justify
killing a lesbian character, otherwise we assume that they are all bigots trying to send anti-lesbian
messages."
"The writers have to justify (artistically, at least) the killing of any
character."
I totally agree with this statement. However, I don't remember this furor when
Joyce or Jenny were killed. Huh. I guess nobody had any artistic problems with the way the white, straight
women were killed.
"they make an artistic decision that implicates a stereotype, surely we
are justified in asking if the artistic effect justifies the use of the stereotype."
And what
does justify using a stereotype? Is there a rulebook somewhere that writers should use? Doesn't it
really boil down to whether you as a viewer thought the plotline/execution were good or not? Although
your opinions are as valid as anybody else's, they are still just opinions. There is really no way to "prove"
that a particular plot idea is good or bad, and even the excution of the idea is still open for some debate.
For these reasons, I think the idea of selectively forcing writers to justify their writing in terms of a
political/social agenda is ludicrous. As I have posted elsewhere, stereotypes run rampant in just about
every show you will ever watch. If I saw you crusading against all of these stereotypes, I would be
more sympathetic. Taking one pet cause and putting it before everything else does not interest me. Some
people are up in arms because ME had a plotline that vaguely kind of resembled a cliche stereotyping
lesbians. Yet, these same people ignore all the other stereotypes that exist on the show. Forcing writers to
pander to a vocal minority is ludicrous. I would rather see something downright offensive than some
pointless drivel that does nothing more than cater to the politically correct. Sometimes, lesbians do
die. Sometimes, lesbians are vengeful. If you want justification for why writers created this
storyline, here it is. It. Happens. In. Real. Life. I want art to reflect life; so if stereotypes exist in life, I
expect to see them in art as well.
Finally, if you can't accept any of what I have said so far, I
can use your own arguments against you. All of the re-occuring characters have either died or
gone evil at one point. Why shouldn't it happen to Tara and Willow too? Doing otherwise simply
creates the stereotype that lesbians never do anything wrong. Stereotypes are bad, ergo the writers
must make Willow evil. If Tara had lived, she would have had to go evil too at some point. This is
the kind of logic you use when you cater to an anti-stereotype mentality, and I don't buy it for a
second.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Justify my
writing! -- Sophist, 19:06:20 06/04/02 Tue
I don't remember this furor when
Joyce or Jenny were killed. Huh. I guess nobody had any artistic problems with the way the white, straight
women were killed.
I didn't frequent any boards when these events happened, so I can't say
if there was a furor or not. Even if there was no furor, it would not prove your point. It might merely prove
that most people were satisfied that the deaths were handled appropriately.
I think the idea
of selectively forcing writers to justify their writing in terms of a political/social agenda is
ludicrous.
The rest of your post is rather long, but I took this sentence as the crux of it. If
I'm wrong about this, let me know.
The reason, I think, for the disagreement here is that I see
art as inextricable from its social context. I interpret your arguments as an effort to say that art exists
somehow outside that context, that it only needs to be evaluated by "artistic" criteria which exist in
isolation from society. If that is your position, I can't agree.
In this particular case, I can't agree
for 2 reasons. One is that Doc is right in his post: ME deliberately used the W/T relationship to pat itself
on the back for marketing purposes. In such a case, they cannot isolate themselves from criticism for the
way the handle the relationship.
Even if ME had not done this, I still would not agree with
you. We always consider art in its social context. We evaluate the Sistine Chapel in light of Catholic
doctrine in the 16th Century and in light of the social and political role of the papacy. We evaluate the
Parthenon in the context of Pericles's use of public funds for a building project that paid out money to his
political supporters in the artisan class. We evaluate Milton's poetry in the context of the religious disputes
of the 17th Century.
If we do all this, then I can't see why BtVS would be
exempt.
All of the re-occuring characters have either died or gone evil at one point. Why
shouldn't it happen to Tara and Willow too?
I don't think anyone ever argued that they
shouldn't. Certainly I didn't. The question is how, given that ME wanted to take them in this direction, it
should be handled.
A factual nitpick: I don't believe Cordy ever went evil. Nor have Anya or
Oz. Giles's evil deeds were all in the past. For all my criticisms on this Board of Xander, I would never
describe him as evil, nor would I describe Dawn that way. Buffy and Riley have done some bad things, but
evil hardly seems the right word there either. What Willow did was EVIL, EVIL like Angelus. There is a
real difference here.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> who didn't
go evil? -- skeeve, 08:10:37 06/05/02 Wed
Giles was turned into a
demon.
Cordy and Anyanka were evil to start with, but they got better. The Scoobies were a good
influence on them. Anya tried to go evil again, but hasn't been very good at it.
Oz had his time of
the month.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
And... -- Rob, 13:08:27 06/05/02 Wed
Buffy was temporarily a vampire in
"Nightmares"...
And although it was in the alternate reality, we saw Xander evil as a vamp in
"The Wish"...
Cordelia...um...starting out on the show as an "evil bitch" counts, doesn't it?
;o)
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: And... (spoilers through season 6) -- Traveler, 13:25:11 06/05/02 Wed
Xander was possessed by a hyena, ate the princple, and tried to rape
Buffy.
Cordelia was a bitch, but not really evil, so maybe she is an exception.
Giles
became the ripper again in band candy.
Besides which, being evil in the past (before the series
starts) counts. Angel is currently trying to find redemption on his own show, atoning in part for wrongs
comitted before he ever appeared on BtVS.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Actually... -- Doriander, 13:37:10 06/05/02 Wed
Xander only ate Herbert
the pig, Buffy got him locked up when the rest of the pack ate Principal Flutie.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Ok, but still... -- Traveler, 13:42:25 06/05/02 Wed
I think he still
qualifies as "evil" in that episode. Also, he went evil when he became Dracula's buttmonkey, and I can
probably find other examples if I really tried. I still stand by my original point from several posts
ago.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Actually Xander did try to... -- Scroll, 15:58:18 06/05/02 Wed
Xander did try to rape Buffy in "The Pack". He didn't get very far, but close enough to what
Spike did that you couldn't discount it as just being a bully. But you're right that he didn't eat Principle
Flutie.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Actually Xander did try to... -- Scroll, 16:15:06 06/05/02 Wed
Yeah I agree. I also agree with Traveler that he was evil in that ep. I actually think he was
fortunate that Buffy incapacitated him, otherwise, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't hesitate joining the others in
eating Flutie. Were it not for Buffy, he would've been a killer.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Ugh! forgot... -- Doriander, 16:26:26 06/05/02 Wed
Not
stealing your name Scroll, sorry.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> It's okay! -- Scroll, 20:00:32 06/05/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Evil Xander -- purplegrrl, 09:26:26 06/06/02 Thu
Personally, I think the most evil thing Xander has ever done was to not tell Buffy that Willow
was trying to restore Angel's soul in Season 2. The other things Xander has done could be explained
away by "he was under the influence of something supernatural." In that episode he was only under the
influence of his own petty jealousy.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm not
quite that sillly. (spoilers finale) -- Traveler, 13:38:49 06/05/02 Wed
"I
interpret your arguments as an effort to say that art exists somehow outside that context, that it only needs
to be evaluated by "artistic" criteria which exist in isolation from society."
This is not what
I am saying at all. Rather, I'm am suggesting that "social context" is a very different thing from "lesbian
context." Lesbian desires/issues are an important, but small part of society. I object to the people who are
focusing on these issues without even trying to see the "bigger picture." To me, the bigger picture here is
that ME has been actively trying to show a positive lesbian relationship, and even when breaking it up,
they presented the relationship itself as being healthy and natural. They portrayed Tara's death as tragic,
and even Evil!Willow was a very sympathetic character. At least, my heart broke for her during
TTG and Grave. I get the impression that most of the people who really had a problem with Tara's death
have an axe to grind, and I don't want to see them grind it all over my favorite television show.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
I'm not quite that sillly. (spoilers finale) -- Sophist, 18:41:21 06/05/02 Wed
Lesbian desires/issues are an important, but small part of society. I object to the people
who are focusing on these issues without even trying to see the "bigger picture." To me, the bigger picture
here is that ME has been actively trying to show a positive lesbian relationship...
To me,
the big picture has to include the end of the relationship as well as the formation and the development of
it. I don't see how I can judge the handling of a relationship without taking that into account. Given that, I
think that the discussion about the ending is a fair topic that deserves consideration on its own merit.
I get the impression that most of the people who really had a problem with Tara's death
have an axe to grind, and I don't want to see them grind it all over my favorite television
show.
I haven't seen anyone on this board do this. While I wouldn't defend the more
emotional posts on the Kitten Board, I don't think it's fair to say they "have an axe to grind". They were
among the strongest defenders of the show until the conclusion to S6. They felt -- rightly or wrongly --
betrayed by the ending. That's not grinding an axe, it's an expression of disappointment.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
One last attempt. -- Traveler, 03:39:55 06/06/02 Thu
I'm really sick of this
subject (not your fault, just me), so I'll respond to this post, but afterwards we'll just have to agree to
disagree. Sorry if I seem a little bitter.
"To me, the big picture has to include the end of the
relationship as well as the formation and the development of it."
The relationship ended
when Tara was accidentally shot by an evil man. This has absolutely nothing to do with lesbians or
lesbianism. Although I have seen people go through incredible mental contortions in an attempt to show
that it does, their arguments are filled with holes, and generally lack the "bigger picture" mentality that I
described before.
"I haven't seen anyone on this board do this. While I wouldn't defend the
more emotional posts on the Kitten Board, I don't think it's fair to say they "have an axe to
grind"."
I was mostly speaking about the Kitten's article that was posted earlier in the
thread. The fact that the Kittens supported BtVS when it portrayed Willow and Tara exactly as they
wanted them portrayed doesn't impress me very much. Also, just because the Kittens felt "betrayed"
doesn't mean that they don't have an axe to grind. I am refering to the axe of, "oh, poor me." The axe of,
"I am the oppressed, the victem of all society's woes." The assumption that everything is about them.
Every whisper in the dark is a vile slander against them. Every setback is a personal oppression. After
debating this topic endlessly, I am now glad that the Kitten's don't feel that ME represents them. Why
should ME represent the gay community any more than it represents the straight community? The
white community? The female community? The vampire community? I want a show, not a civil rights
movement.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Some things are more
important to do than to justify. -- skeeve, 08:13:34 06/05/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> Anya did -- Vickie, 15:04:08
06/03/02 Mon
Anya: "I have condoms. Some of them are black."
Xander:
"That's .... very thoughtful."
(This was their first sexual encounter, in the basement
pad.)
Also, when Joyce found out about Buffy and Angel, she specifically asks if they were
"careful." I don't think Buffy had the heart to tell her that preganancy wasn't really an issue (him being
dead and all). And now we find out that she was wrong (Connor).
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Anya did -- Ronia,
20:29:00 06/03/02 Mon
Did she find that out in S2 or S3? For some reason I'm
thinking it was season 3 when they established that he couldn't have children. Sometime near the ep
when Angel and Joyce decided that Buffy needed someone more mainstream? In a cemetary? Can't quite
remember. Although since he was stalking her with intent to kill (or possibly make her his next craft
project a la Drusilla) and also immortal, this pregnancy issue may have fallen into the backround
;0)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Angel's impotence... --
Q, 23:12:14 06/03/02 Mon
Was first suggested in "Bad Eggs", reinforced throughout
season 3, proved wrong in "Heartthrob"
[> [> [> [> [> [> Connor was a special
circumstance -- Masq, 11:02:39 06/04/02 Tue
Vampires cannot impregnante
humans or other vampires. Period, finito.
Unless a supernatural power intervenes. So unless
there are special magics lurking about, Angel is impotent. Again. As usual.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm probably just being
pedantic here but... -- O'Cailleagh, 11:15:50 06/04/02 Tue
Angel, as far as we
know, is not impotent. He is infertile. Impotence is the name that used to be given to Erectile Dysfunction.
As Angel is capable of having sex, I'd have to say that it probably isn't a problem for him...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You're right, i meant
infertile. That's what I get for posting and working at the same time -- Masq, 13:04:18 06/04/02
Tue
Obviously he has no trouble getting it up, or performing, for that matter. : )
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Same goes for me
and my little "lethal/legal" snafu...LOL -- Rob, 15:38:24 06/04/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> How was he special? --
skeeve, 07:56:45 06/05/02 Wed
For all we can tell, every male vampire with a human
soul is fertile and can even impregnate un-human-souled female vampires.
Can slayers get
pregnate? Does anyone in the Buffyverse know?
[> [> Re: Interesting JE quotes re: Willow & Tara (spoilers from
"Seeing Red" to the end of the season) -- TRM, 16:45:47 06/03/02 Mon
I don't think that an artist necessarily has a responsibility for his or her work beyond personal
motivation; on the other hand, I don't think that critics are culpable simply because they present
criticism.
ME has a right to do with its characters as it pleases. Yet, I find it difficult to
believe that ME is motivated simply by artistic drivers nor are they completely motivated by feelings of
social responsibility. ME certainly did show concern about the social impact their treatment of W/T
would have as evidenced by their extensive discussions of Tara's death that JE seemed to imply. Indeed,
ME has both artistic and social concerns in mind and neither one, do I feel, will definitively take priority
over the other. What it boils down to is what ME feels needs to be done.
We all have different
priorities. Many on this board seem to treat artistic integrity as if it should be paramount, and, as I noted
before, this is understandable since most of us have a strong literary bent. Yet honestly, artistic integrity
is not the only driving force in our world. The kittens clearly prioritize some degree of social
responsibility more than the level of artistic integrity that we choose. Thus, the kittens, in my view, are
justified in being indignant, and their opinions do not warrant the extent of derision and attack that we've
seen on this board. It's a matter of individual choice and neither artistic integrity nor social responsibility
are ever definitively the "right" route.
Speaking of the tendency to polarize, it is worth note
that artistic integrity and social responsibility are not necessarily polar opposites. Indeed, if we take the
W/T treatment as being that which would have happened to any other couple, then ME arguably
forwarded both artistic and social goals. They were able to move the plot along as they planned and
furthermore were able to present a lesbian couple in an example of full integration -- with the good and
the bad.
Yet, that is but one interpretation. This world is full of many. Furthermore, intent is
not the same as impact. I think few of us are qualified really to judge whether Tara's ending has a positive
or negative impact on the lesbian or questioning community at large. I'd think it likely has both effects
and not everyone is going to react similarly. Certainly the kittens and our board haven't.
But
once again, I am simply trying to say that the criticisms launched by the kittens are valid and justifiable,
even if I personally agreed with ME's ultimate decision.
With respect to the question on Gunn,
I've been balancing on a beam on whether to bring in the issue of affirmative action, and have been
reluctant since its not affirmative action itself that I wanted to see debated, but the arguments for its
existance. In a nutshell, while racial minorities have, by law, equal rights and opportunities in practice
this is not necessarily true. Movements such as affirmative action are meant to act as a balancing force
against residual forms of prejudice. While the arguments around affirmative action are many, it does tie
back into W/T and the debate we've since been having.
Is special treatment of lesbians
justified? Consider that discrimination based on sexual orientation is not by law prohibited. If
you check most statutes, you will read a list along the lines of discrimination being prohibited based on:
race, gender, religion, and social class and other arbitrary characteristics. Whether sexual orientation
falls under the blanket category of "other arbitrary" characteristics has not been legally defined and you
are more likely to find it in corporate codes of conduct than in US and certainly not international
law.
Ultimately, the argument is that social inequities are not resolved simply by considering
them non-existant as one might argue that racial discrimination is less of a modern issue because
minorities have equal status under law. On the same token, treatment of homosexuality has even less
protection and therefore may certainly warrant some degree of active action.
But, tying once
again to the beginning of my argument. What action is taken is up to ME to decide weighing against
their other motivations and up to the kittens to analyze and criticize.
As a final question, it
amuses me that the kittens are referred to on our board by this name and wonder (since I rarely go beyond
this board) whether anyone knows what people refer to the posters here.
[> [> Re: Interesting JE quotes re: Willow & Tara (spoilers from
"Seeing Red" to the end of the season) -- Malandanza, 17:11:36 06/05/02 Wed
"W&T were essentially a unique symbol on American TV, providing a social service
above and beyond their role in the show. I agree that you couldn't let that fact be the total determiner of
what should and shouldn't be done to the pair, but does it deserve no consideration at
all?"
I don't watch enough TV to know if all other lesbian relationships have been played
as abusive and unhealthy, but I find it hard to believe that Willow/Tara is the best role model for a lesbian
couple. To start with, W/T began under inauspicious circumstances, with Willow running to Tara to
escape her conscience -- to prove to herself that she loved Tara, so it justified what happened with Oz.
The same night he leaves Sunnydale, Willow begins her relationship with Tara. We've only seen the
couple fight three or four times, but in each case, Tara was the reasonable party and Willow was
domineering. For example, here's part of the conversation that began with Tara defending Buffy's
guardianship of Dawn:
WILLOW: No, I was snippy gal, it's just... I know I can't, on some
level... it's like my opinion isn't worth anything because I haven't been through... I didn't lose my mom, so
I don't know...
TARA: Well I'm not the expert, I mean, I only lost one... Do I act like I'm the
big Knowledge Woman?
WILLOW: No...
TARA: Is that "no" spelled Y-E-
S?
WILLOW: S-O-R-T of... it's just... I mean I just feel like the junior partner sometimes,
you've been doing everything longer than me, you've been out longer, and practicing witchcraft way
longer--
TARA: --Oh but you're way beyond me there. In just a few -- I mean it frightens me
how powerful you're getting.
Beat. That was definitely the wrong thing to
say.
WILLOW: That's a weird word.
TARA: (knows damn well)
"Getting"?
WILLOW: It frightens you? I frighten you?
TARA: That's so not what
I mean. I meant impresses, impressive...
WILLOW: Well I took Psyche 101 -- I mean, I took
it from an evil government scientist who was skewered by her Frankenstein-like creation right before the
final -- but I know what a Freudian slip is. (beat) Don't you trust me?
TARA: With my
life!
WILLOW: That's not what I mean.
TARA: Can't we just go the
fair?
WILLOW: I'm not feeling real multicultural right now. What is it about me that you
don't trust?
TARA: It's not that. I worry. Sometimes...You're changing so much, so fast, I
don't know... where you're heading...
WILLOW: Where I'm heading?
TARA: I'm
saying everything wrong.
WILLOW (vulnerable) I think you're being pretty clear. It isn't the
witch thing -- this is about the other changes in my life.
TARA: I trust you. I just... I don't
know where I'm gonna fit in. In your life, when --
WILLOW: When I'change back'? Yeah,
this is just a college thing, just a little experimentation before I get over the thrill and head back to boys'
town. You think that?
She is pretty confrontational here. Even Tara is surprised that she meets
it halfway:
TARA: Should I?
Beat. Bitter.
WILLOW: You know, I'm
really sorry I didn't establish my lesbo street cred before I got into this relationship. But you're the only
woman I've ever fallen in love with, so how on earth could you possibly take me
seriously?
And she's heading out.
TARA: Willow, please--
WILLOW:
Have fun at the fair.
She's gone. Tara is stricken.
Tough Love
Then
there are the fights that lead up to the amnesia spell, the fight after Tara reveals to Willow that she knows
about the mind games, Willow's deliberate lying and manipulation before she cast the second spell in
Tabula Rasa. The didn't seem to be a fight at the end of TR, just Tara leaving.
Looking at the most romantic moments between Tara and Willow, the romance seems to be
all on Tara's side. She makes the heartbreaking Jane Austen style speeches while Willow basks in the
glow of the attention. The first time I remember Willow saying how great Tara is for her is after Tara's
death -- and even then, there is an element of self absorption -- what Tara's death did to
Willow:
WILLOW (cont'd) Something, isn't it? One tiny piece of metal destroys
everything. It ripped her insides out... It took her light away. From me. From the world... And the person
who should be here is gone - and waste like you gets to live.
Villains
or this
speech from Two to Go
WILLOW (cont'd)- the only thing going for me - were those
moments - just moments - when Tara would look at me and I was wonderful. (beat) And that will never
happen again.
There are way too many first person pronouns in Willow's speeches
about Tara. Willow is upset less for Tara's sake and more for her own. Warren didn't do this to Tara, he
did it to Willow.
Anyway, to say that Willow/Tara was somehow an idealized lesbian
relationship that should have been allowed to continue to serve as a positive role model is something I find
as absurd as saying that Buffy/Spike was the perfect heterosexual relationship.
But as for
censoring Buffy, whether it is to perpetuate a positive role model or to eliminate a negative stereotype, I
suggest that anyone who has not read the coda to Ray Bradbury's
Fahrenheit 451, ought to do so. Here's an excerpt:
The point is obvious. There is
more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches. Every
minority, be it Baptist / Unitarian, Irish / Italian / Octogenarian / Zen Buddhist, Zionist/Seventh-day
Adventist, Women's Lib/Republican, Mattachine/FourSquareGospel feel it has the will, the right, the duty
to douse the kerosene, light the fuse. Every dimwit editor who sees himself as the source of all dreary
blanc-mange plain porridge unleavened literature, licks his guillotine and eyes the neck of any author who
dares to speak above a whisper or write above a nursery rhyme.
If censorship ever does
reach the proportion of Bradbury's imagination, we'll all be watching the "Palour Walls" instead of
Buffy.
[> You are talking about the Succubus club interview with Jane
Espenson for the transcript go... -- Rufus, 00:12:25 06/04/02 Tue
here
For the
MP3 of the Jane Espenson interview go
The Succubus Club
The Metaphysics of The Realverse Vs. The Buffyverse
Part 1 (longish...may contain spoilage) -- O'Cailleagh, 09:52:34 06/03/02 Mon
THE METAPHYSICS OF THE REALVERSE Vs. THE BUFFYVERSE
Over the
past couple of weeks, there have been a number of threads pertaining to the many metaphysical aspects of
the Buffyverse. The following essays are my response. But first, allow me to explain my
perspective.
I have been a practising Witch for 12 years, just under half my life. For most of
that time, I have also studied Holistic and Complementary medicine and healing traditions (having been
qualified to practise some of them for the past 3-4 years). This gives me valuable experience in the nature
of energy, magick, and the different levels of reality.
I have also had a passion for folklore,
mythology, and'the supernatural' for as long as I can remember. Therefore, the following is purely my own
interpretation of the Buffyverse, filtered through my understanding of this
Universe.
OUR UNIVERSE
Levels of Reality
The
Universe, according to both Holistic theory and Physics, is composed of energy. This energy has various
frequencies, or vibrations, that make up the different levels of reality. There are several of these levels, or
planes, of reality, the exact number differing dependant on the authority, but most agree on a basic few,
some of which we shall discuss here. The lowest level, that which has the densest vibratory rate, is known
as
The Physical Plane
This is what we know as waking reality. It is
everything we can detect with the five senses. It is where our Physical Bodies reside (or, indeed, the
physical body, or mass, of everything else). The physical body is the lowest vibration of the Aura,
the'solid' part.
The Etheric Plane
This is the next plane of existence. The
etheric plane is'semi-physical', meaning some of its attributes are easily experienced through the physical
senses with little to no effort or attunement. The most well-known examples of etheric energy are:
magnetic; electrical; and Chi/Prana/Mana. To experience one aspect of etheric energy, run your hand past
your screen, not quite touching it, next time you switch your computer or TV on. The static that you feel is
the interference of the electro-magnetic field (EMF) around the device with your Etheric Body (which, of
course, resides on the Etheric Plane).
The etheric body is the first'band' of the Aura. It is the
most visible part and is usually seen as a blue or white haze closely surrounding the physical body. Try
looking at the top of a row of trees against a clear summer sky to see this level of the aura. The etheric
body is also known as the etheric blueprint. Upon conception (or later according to other beliefs) the Soul
enters the fertilised ovum, bringing with it its subtle bodies. Of these the etheric body acts as a blueprint
for the Soul's physical body, kind of like metaphysical DNA.
In appearance, the etheric plane,
or Parallel Earth Plane as it is sometimes called, is a more brightly coloured and'glowy' version of the
physical plane-it is the plane most commonly seen when using mild psychoactive substances such as
LSD.
The Mental/Emotional Planes
Although two planes, the Mental and
Emotional are so closely related, I have placed them together (most planes occur in complementary
pairings or groups). The names of these planes are self-explanatory. The mental plane is where we do our
thinking (via the Mental Body). It is logical, rational, literal, linear, active, masculine, Animus, positive,
Yang. The emotional plane is where we do our feeling (via the Emotional Body). It is creative,
spontaneous, symbolic, cyclic, passive, feminine, Anima, negative, Yin.
The
mental/emotional bodies are experienced as the mind. They extend from a few inches to about a foot from
the physical body.
The next relevant level is the Astral, or Psychic Plane. This is where we
find the Astral Body and psychic abilities such as Telepathy, Empathy, Psychokinesis, Astral Travel, and
Psychic Healing. (Although these abilities act within other planes, it is the psychic plane we are utilising)
The astral body may take many forms but will usually be an idealised form of the physical body. The astral
plane is also where we find other realms such as those inhabited by nature spirits (commonly known to
Pagans as Faeries, and to some other faiths as Demons/Angels), and is also where we go when we dream
(as well as other planes).
The Spiritual Plane
Is our next stop. This level is
home to many life-forms including Spirit Guides and Plant and Animal Devas/Group Souls (on the
higher spiritual plane), and contains the Afterlife realms (on the lower spiritual plane). It is through our
Spiritual Body that we may communicate with beings from this level and administer Spiritual Healing
(utilising the psychic body as well).It is rare for a person to directly experience this plane while
alive.
The Divine Plane
This is the highest level of existence and is inhabited
by various Gods and Goddesses on the Lower Divine Plane, and Deity/ the Source on the Higher Divine
Plane. This is also the original home of the Divine Body, or Soul, which forms a link to the Divine from
the physical body. However, the Soul does not return here upon death of the physical, it must first
reincarnate many times in order to experience all aspects of life before returning to its source. The Soul
may extend for several feet from the physical body dependant on its stage of evolution. The Soul is the
Divine spark that animates the physical body (although it is not the force that'powers' it. This life-force is
Chi/Prana/Mana and operates on the etheric level. It is derived from food and drink, air, bodily movement
and other sources.), the part of us which connects us to all of creation, and provides us with Divine
guidance, the conscience.
Interaction of the Planes of Existence
The
described planes, or levels, all lie on top of one another in layers (from a linear viewpoint at least)
overlapping where they'touch', and surrounded by The Void, or Chaos (the inner planes being regarded as
Order). In order to access one of the planes other than the physical, it is necessary to move or send your
consciousness into the desired plane. This is simpler than it sounds and is practised everyday with
everything that you do. For example, dreaming (especially flying dreams) is uncontrolled astral travel.
According to myth, this arrangement of the planes has not always been so. In ancient times,
beings from other realms could easily traverse the planes, as could people, because at that point the levels
were much more closely linked (from our modern standpoint, we would say that perception of other planes
was much easier as people lived more in tune with their natural environment). This continued until a
higher being (or more than one, depending on the myth) decided to separate the planes. This meant that
there could no longer be physical travel between the planes, something which has continued up until our
present time.
Magick and Witchcraft
Magick (the art of changing reality in
accordance with will) is accomplished by putting a thought, intensified with emotion/Chi/elemental
energy/Divine energy onto one of the higher planes (usually the Astral). This thought-form then filters
down onto the physical plane, taking physical form. This happens in an apparently natural way (e.g. there
is not usually a flash of light and the desired result instantly materialised).
Witchcraft, a form
of Paganism, is the name for a group of Nature religions (Indo-European in origin) that practise magick.
There are several traditions of Witchcraft, one of which is Wicca.
Wicca was founded in the
mid 20th century by Gerald Gardner, who based it on the teachings of the New Forest coven that had
initiated him, combined with Ceremonial Magick (a Judeo-Christian Magickal tradition), Stregheria
(Italian Witchcraft) and Celtic Paganism. With the help of Doreen Valiente, Gardner authored the Wiccan
Book of Shadows. Gardnerian Wicca has itself had many offshoots, most based on Gardner's
work.
There are also many other traditions of Witchcraft that are known as'something Wicca',
e.g. Celtic-Wicca, or Pecti-Wicca, these are traditions that have reclaimed the use of the word Wicca,
rather than basing their religious practises on the teachings of Gardner et al. There are also many
traditions of Witchcraft that do not use the word Wicca at all. These are usually the Traditional Witches,
most of whom apparently derive their religious beliefs from Anglo-Saxon times through hereditary
practises.
However, most today use the terms interchangeably, and should all be considered to
be Pagan as this is where the origins of the traditions are found. The three principles of the Pagan
Federation (which are usually upheld by Pagans, be they a member or not) are: 1) Love for and kinship
with nature. Reverence for the life-force and its ever renewing cycles of life and death; 2) A Positive
Morality, in which the individual is responsible for the discovery and development of their true nature in
harmony with the outer world and community. This is often expressed as'Do what thou will, as long as it
harms none'; 3) Recognition of the Divine, which transcends gender, acknowledging both the female and
the male aspects of Deity.
THE BUFFYVERSE
The Buffyverse, in
many ways, is exactly the same as our Universe, the Realverse. The main difference appears to be, given
the information above, that the levels of reality are more closely related, perhaps even still as one, thus the
apparent ease of travelling physically between dimensions, and the instantaneous nature of magick. Why
this should be so, when Buffyverse mythology tells us a tale similar to the one mentioned above (the
demons losing their purchase on this reality), is open to speculation. However, the fact remains that this is
clearly how the Buffyverse is arranged. The metaphysical laws are the same, the only difference being the
intermingling of the planes of existence.
This phenomenon appears to be responsible for many
of the differences between the two'Verses. It is for this reason that Demons and other Otherplane
inhabitants are able to exist corporeally on the physical plane, as well as the abundance of portals and
Hellmouths.
In our Universe, we have many areas that are considered sacred, or otherwise
special, because of the concentrations of energy at these points. These are usually caused by the meeting of
a number of leylines, or energy currents, creating a powerful energy nexus. Areas such as Stonehenge are
good examples of these occurrences (although here the energy is amplified by the arrangement of the
stones). In the Buffyverse however, these powerpoints become Hellmouths, or portals, through which
beings may physically pass into other realms or dimensions.
Magick within the Buffyverse is
usually has instant, dramatic effects, and is frequently accompanied by various lights and sounds. As the
planes are merged, this is understandable. The energy used to accomplish the magick is visible and
audible, and the result of the magick is instant, because it does not have to filter down through the planes.
This allows for much more powerful magick than is usually seen in our Universe (akin to the practise of
Wizardry).
We do not know much about the history, geography, or mythology of the
Buffyverse, therefore speculation is necessary, based upon our own Universe, compared with what we do
know of the Buffyverse. It appears that for the most part, the history and geography remain the same as
our Universe (with a few notable exceptions, e.g. the town of Sunnydale, this does not exist in our
Universe; only 103 elements have been discovered in the Buffyverse, we have at least 8 more), as does
most mythology, but as there are differences that we know about, it is reasonable to assume that there may
be others that we do not.
One apparently ongoing debate is concerned with the nature of
Wicca/Witchcraft within the Buffyverse as it appears to be quite unlike the Wicca/Witchcraft of our
own'Verse. I postulate that, aside from the differences between the speeds or intensity of the magick, there
is very little difference between the Wicca/Witchcraft of the two'Verses. After all, we have never met (and
got to know) a fully- (or even partially) trained Witch or Wiccan in either show. The only ones we have
met are: Catherine Madison (referred to as a Witch, although this is not substantiated by anything except
her use of magick, which was Dark/Evil and therefore not the product of Witchcraft/Wicca); Amy
Madison (again, no proof that she is actually a Witch, just a Magick-user); Willow (calls herself both
Witch and Wicca although doesn't appear to have any religious practise, still refers to herself as Jewish,
and to magick as the Dark Arts. Constantly uses magick in a selfish manner, uses it to obtain power. Not
the actions of a Witch or Wiccan); and Tara (the only Witch featured so far to have been grounded in a
Spirituality. Apparently taught by her mother, who died when Tara was 17, seemingly after a long illness,
Tara's Craft is the closest we have seen to a Realverse Witch or Wiccan. The minor discrepancies are
easily explained by the possibility that her mother was unable to impart everything she could have due to
the intolerance of the men of the family, coupled with her illness and early death).
The college
Wicca group where Willow and Tara first meet seem to be Goddess oriented Pagans, but not Wiccans
/Witches. This is because they do not appear to worship/acknowledge the God-aspect of Deity, and do not
seem to believe in using magick. Then, of course, we have Jenny Calendar, who claims to be a Techno-
Pagan, although she is later revealed to be a Romani Gypsy. Again, as with Tara, Jenny is a good
representation of a typical modern Pagan of the type found in our Universe. The coven that assisted
Giles/sent him to help, seem to be similar to Realverse Witches or Wiccans too. The other magick users
that we have met have not been referred to as Witches or Wiccans, and so are beyond my areas of
expertise!
So ends the first part of this essay. Stay tuned for'Part 2: Vampires and Demons and
Souls! Oh my!', and'Part 3: The Slayer and The Key'
[> Woa! Thanks! -- Vickie, 10:04:37 06/03/02 Mon
Please do continue, this is great stuff.
[> Re: The Metaphysics of The Realverse Vs. The Buffyverse Part 1
(longish...may contain spoilage) -- Darby, 10:11:21 06/03/02 Mon
Ummmm....
Interesting, really interesting. Some of the "plane"
assertions,especially etheric, I'd like to point out are very easily explained from a physical plane
standpoint, as just an alternative take. And I'm too much the reductionist (against my will, sometimes,
but so) to address the other planes except to say that there are certainly alternative explanations to those as
well.
Sorry, the science-guy in me is trying to bite a metaphoric lip, and I do like to read these
perspectives, but I had to say this much. And y'know, I'm sure from my experiences here that I probably
didn't really need to speak up for anyone's benefit but mine.
Done rambling now...shuffling
off...bye...
[> I liked this essay. Kudos! Waiting with excitement, but with one
? -- VampRiley, 10:28:18 06/03/02 Mon
How did you come up with the
Buffyverse only having 103 elements and not all of ours? Did I miss something?
Curious
in Philly
[> [> What if Buffyverse magick works different than Realverse
magick. -- VR, 13:24:10 06/03/02 Mon
What if the planes of existence are
separated like they are in the Realverse. What if Buffyverse magick actually alters probability fields to
produce the effects, rather than putting a thought with energy into another plane. That might explain how
the effects are rather immediate.
At this point, I'm thinking maybe the concetrations of energy,
like those used for portals, may just be used to enhanced certain spells and rituals or used to fuel magicks
when a certain amount is needed. The concentration gives the benefit of not having to wait around to
collect ambient magickal energy from the area. This might take a long time. Hence, these concentrations
lessen the time needed to perform such spells. Angel couldn't open a portal to Pylea because all of the
energy needed to perform the spell was used up and it was too soon before that particular area could
collect enough energy in the concentration it had before the spell was done so that that particular spell
could be used again. They were in a rush and it was at least a day before they left for to do the spell at
another "hot spot", I think.
Just a thought.
VR
[> [> [> Okay, I checked. It's psychic, not magickal energy for
the hot spot. -- VR, 14:51:33 06/03/02 Mon
But the concept is still pretty much
the same.
[> [> Re: I liked this essay. Kudos! Waiting with excitement, but
with one ? -- The Corruptor, 18:21:32 06/07/02 Fri
The guy that Willow is
tutoring in "Inca Mummy Girl" says that he has nearly memorised all 14 to which Willow replies "There
are 103"
[> [> [> Yes, Moloch...as I said... -- O'Cailleagh,
18:34:29 06/07/02 Fri
[> Can't wait for part 2 and 3! Gimme, gimme, gimme! ;o) --
Deeva, 12:14:19 06/03/02 Mon
[> Re: The Metaphysics of The Realverse Vs. The Buffyverse Part 1
(longish...may contain spoilage) -- redcat, 12:34:18 06/03/02 Mon
?Aloha e O'Cailleagh e kakou (other readers),
Thank you so much for the
great post. You've obviously put a lot of work into these ideas. It's exciting to see a young Witch
practicing the craft of analysis in ways that so creatively link pagan perceptions and understandings to a
contemporary cultural phenomenon like Buffy. I eagerly await your next two posts
Trying to
do this kind of comparison is an interesting intellectual exercise, although I'm not so sure that a much
simpler explanation wouldn't also work just as well, i.e., the Buffyverse and the RealVerse are different
because one is a cultural production on TV in which created characters act out pre-set scenarios during
which symbolic metaphors are embodied as if they were real, and therefore anything the writers want to
do and that their special effects team can pull off, can occur. It takes a certain wyrd mental twist of
imagination to do what you have done in your post here -- attempt a "logical" explanation of the rules of a
fictitious universe through a comparison to what many people will also consider "fictional," the
pagan/Holistic system of planes, because it disrupts their scientific world view (see Darby's post, above). I
hope you are prepared for a long discussion about the nature of reality in the coming days. And to any
who might be tempted to enter such a debate, and in the interests of supporting O'Cailleagh's "alternative"
version of things, I would like to forward an idea from physics that might be helpful in guiding such
discussions, to wit:
Light can be described as either waves or particles. Both descriptions are
accurate. However, it is difficult, if not impossible, to design a scientific experiment in which light is
originally described as waves but in which one's answers will be obtained in particles, or to design an
experiment in which light is described as particles that will produce an answer in waves. Just because
different descriptions of reality seem to be in conflict does not mean that one of them is wrong. I believe it
was the great physicist Neils Bohr who said something like (BAD paraphrase here, but I couldn't find the
exact quote - sorry) , "The universe is not only more complicated than we imagine, it is more complicated
than we are capable of imagining." (He was speaking of the outer limits of the human brain's capacity to
encompass information and, at our best, most of us use less than 20% of that.) Remembering the light
analogy allows us to be kind to each other rather than judgmental when we disagree about basic
epistemological approaches to "Reality."
However, dear O'Cailleagh, as a favor to an old
pagan - I've been practicing longer than you've been alive, although you started at a younger age than I
did, for which I respect you enormously - may I ask you to reconsider your use of language in the
RealVerse world in which real women and men have to live. I quote below your paragraph on the Mental
and Emotional Planes:
"The mental plane is where we do our thinking (via the Mental Body).
It is logical, rational, literal, linear, active, masculine, Animus, positive, Yang. The emotional plane is
where we do our feeling (via the Emotional Body). It is creative, spontaneous, symbolic, cyclic, passive,
feminine, Anima, negative, Yin."
You do here what so many continue to do, influenced
by the corruption of nearly four thousand years of patriarchal hegemony on this planet. The opposite of
active/masculine is not passive/feminine, but RECEPTIVE/feminine. The differences between the two
words, passive and receptive, are enormous. The consequences of those differences are lived out in the
scarred psyches and bodies of women AND MEN around the world and across time and history.
"Receptivity" is an creative function, it asserts conscious choice and willed participation in the creative
act. "Passivity" suggests the absence of choice and the presence of "necessary" domination - the definition
of the lives of most women and a large portion of non-economically-dominant men in most cultures in
most regions of the planet since about 2,000 BCE. This is also the difference between a woman willingly
being an active participant in the act of heterosexual sex, pulling her lover's penis into herself, thrusting
up with him and pulling him deeper into her, as opposed to what happens when a man rams his penis into
an unwilling and non-participating woman during the violence of rape. I'm sure we can all supply the
relevant comparisons to gay male and lesbian sex as well. This is extreme language, I know, but I feel
very strongly about the ways in which language reflects our understandings of "the way things are," which
in turn helps create things as that way.
The perceptual definition of the opposite of active as
passive, coded in language which links that definition to the bi-polar dynamic of male and female, has
historical origins - but it need not continue to have contemporary relevance, IF we refuse to allow it to.
My writing to you on this subject is part of my contribution to the contemporary reconstruction of gender
ideology. I hope you take it in that spirit. And so I plead with you, someone who is obviously on a path
toward personal spiritual development and intellectual clarity, to reconsider your diagrammatic use of
these bi-polar terms.
Besides, this way, you can cleverly resist the diacritic imperative and
patriarchal hegemony at the same time!! After all, that's one of the most fun things about being a pagan!
(Well, aside from the face-painting, that is .........)
IPLIPTBB,
redcat
[> [> Re: The Metaphysics of The Realverse Vs. The Buffyverse
Part 1 (longish...may contain spoilage) -- O'Cailleagh, 16:20:27 06/03/02 Mon
Thank you all for your kind words, I'm glad that you liked it. Parts 2 and 3 will be along over
the next couple of weeks...I'm still researching at the mo.
Some good points were raised, and
I'll try to address them now.
Darby, I agree, each of the'phenomena' associated with the
different planes do have a scientific basis, but this is not an alternative, merely a part of the bigger picture.
Metaphysics means exactly that-an extension of physical law, not a contradiction or denial of its existence.
Holism encompasses the'Whole' and that includes those pesky science bits!
Holistic theory can be
thought of as science viewed through the eyes of a'mystic', and science as magick through a scientist's
eyes. Both perceptions are right, Holism just adds more, has a wider'world-view'.
VR, the
elements question-in Inca Mummy Girl, Rodney tells Willow that he's almost memorised the fourteen
natural elements, Willow says that there are 103, and I, for one, am taking her word for it!
The energy spec...this was one of the avenues I explored in my research, but it didn't totally support the
fact that'Otherplaners' are able to exist corporeally on the physical plane...although I might just mull that
over for a while...
Redcat, first off, you are absolutely right,'passive' was the wrong word to
use, and I apologise to anyone I may have offended with that-ordinarily I would have used'receptive', I'm
not sure why I didn't here, except that I was a little concerned about using'positive/negative'. I am aware
that these can also be taken to have'alternative' connotations.
Secondly, thank you, for both the
physics info (I was trying to save space!) and the'wyrd mental twist of imagination' bit...thats if it *is* a
compliment!
And just to clarify...I do know that the differences are down to the'Hollywood
factor', I just like to obsess over these things! Plus it helps with the suspension of disbelief! Thought I
ought to mention that...just in case...
[> [> [> Yes, it was a compliment - if a bit on the
"wyrd" side... ;-) -- redcat, 16:41:49 06/03/02 Mon
I do like your
work here so much and am glad that you took my request for language clarity in the spirit in which it was
meant. These issues are often so hard to come to grips with -- positive/negative, black/white, good/bad,
male/female. We live in a world in which bifurcated or bi-polarized terms both accurately describe the
world and also act as co-creative agents in the continuation of social and cultural power structures. I
struggle with this issue in my work with students every day, and so am perhaps more sensitive to the
possible gender and race subtexts of the common oppositional pairs. But you did not "offend" me, and do
not owe me any apology! I'm just grateful that you understood my concern, are sympathetic to my point of
view and are being so civil about the whole thing.
I really look forward to your next posts, as
well as any discussions between you and the board's resident scientists that may arise because of them.
(...and I know you are just obsessing, dear. It's a great and very fun way to pass the time until S7 begins
in the fall.)
IPLIPT,BB
rc
[> [> [> The nature of knowledge -- matching mole,
15:08:25 06/04/02 Tue
Reading these posts reminds me of discussions I've had with
my mother. They are extremely interesting but also baffling because on certain levels our world-views are
so different.
I don't have time write a huge amount here so I'm going to phrase what I have to
say as a question. I don't intend that this question challenge anyone's world view but rather give me an
insight into how other people think.
O'Cailleagh presents a fairly detailed model of the
realverse with multiple planes. This is information. The Scoobies and A.I. are getting constantly getting
information about demons and whatnot out of books. Both types of information came from somewhere.
In the Buffyverse this information is put to the test frequently and it is accurate an astonishingly high
proportion of the time. But how do all of you decide whether information in the realverse is accurate or
not?
Darby offers alternative explanations to O'Cailleagh's model. The response is that the
model includes those things and more. My question (s) are how do you (anybody not just O'Cailleagh)
decide what the'more' is? And how does your decision making process relate to your belief (or lack
thereof) in some sort of objective reality?
I would be quite willing to believe in almost any kind
of metaphysical model if I had some reason to choose it over anything else. O'Cailleagh's model sounds
fine to me but I don't know why I should pick it over some other model that was slightly different (had an
extra plane in it) or completely different. Or the alternative that reality is completely subjective. Or that
there isn't anything else besides the physical plane? So I choose to believe in the physical universe
because it seems reasonably consistent and maintain a hopefully open-minded skepticism about everything
else. But that's just me and I don't really expect anyone else to think the way I do. But I am interested in
what other people, especially those who think really differently than I do, think.
[> [> [> [> The definition of metaphysics -- Etrangere,
15:33:04 06/04/02 Tue
is something that can't be proved either wrong either
right
in other worlds, the only reason you consider something of metaphysics true or not is
because you choose to consider it so.
That's the only legitimity you need for metaphysics
knowledge.
[> [> [> [> [> Hmm. -- Sophist, 18:23:10
06/04/02 Tue
What you say is true if and only if metaphysics makes no claim about the
universe. If metaphysics makes no claims about the universe, why should I care about it?
If it
does make such a claim, that claim is (usually) testable. If it's not testable, then it's hard to see it as
anything more than an opinion (I like chicken better than fish). If it is testable, then we can decide
whether you are reasonable to believe it. N'est pas?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hmm. -- redcat,
18:07:22 06/05/02 Wed
Well, yes and no. Depends on who the "we" is.
Testing a metaphysical claim is not necessarily the problem; deciding what type of test one
considers "effective" is. Traditional holistic practitioners are often the most empirically and
experientially-oriented knowledge-seekers in their individual cultures. This is certainly true of traditional
indigenous herbalists, but is also true of contemporary Witches, Yogis and others whose work links
holistic theory and praxis. Contemporary western scientists tend to particularly discount the knowledge
gained through the holistic practice of this second group far more than they do the knowledge of
indigenous herbalists, for example, because: 1) testing procedures normative to certain types of holistic
practice do not always give results in ways that make sense within the scientific paradigm; and 2) it
cannot always be demonstrated to scientists' satisfaction that the testing procedures and parameters are
rational, repeatable and discrete. How does one quantify, for example, spiritual awareness, or connection
to universal energies, or unconditional love? And yet Yogis and Witches argue endlessly among
themselves about exactly these issues - what practices DO work best? What discipline, behaviors, study or
enactment of principles will bring one closest to the state of true understanding of the universe in both its
physical and beyond-physical states? What makes rational sense to a Witch or a Yogi or someone else
interesting in working at the always-fluctuating intersection of matter and energy might not be the same
thing as what seems rational to either a scientist or (pardon the pun, PLEASE) a sophist.
Just a
thought - rc
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hmm. -- Sophist,
18:26:31 06/05/02 Wed
Since sophist has a double meaning, I'll take it as a
compliment.
I agree that the details of the test may be difficult to arrange. I also agree that
there may be controversy about such things as whether one is sufficiently "aware". At some point,
however, there must be a claim that (a) X is sufficiently spiritual, and (b) X can accomplish something in
the universe as a result. That claim is testable.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hmm. --
redcat, 19:43:47 06/05/02 Wed
"At some point, however, there must be a claim that
(a) X is sufficiently spiritual, and (b) X can accomplish something in the universe as a result."
This statement illustrates my point, IF by "accomplishing something in the universe" you
mean "produce some physical difference that can be quantified and measured with current scientific
technology." If this IS what you mean, then my argument remains valid, since such physical "proof" is a
tenet of science (and certainly herbology) but may not be a tenet of proof for some types of Yoga or
Witchcraft. If you mean something else by your statement, please clear up my confusion. Thanks!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That is what I
meant -- Sophist, 09:06:53 06/06/02 Thu
I wouldn't describe it as a tenet of
science, so much as one of epistemology. It brings back mm's orginal question: how does someone else
know if the claims of the yogi or witch are true?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: That is
what I meant -- O'Cailleagh, 09:26:18 06/06/02 Thu
I'm not sure that you're
asking the right question....one might aswell ask,'How does someone else know that the claims of the
scientist are true?'. By reading their research? Taking their word for it? In that case a person can easily
accept my (or another's) word. The only way you are ever going to know if something is real, or true, is to
experience it for yourself.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That's
the sticking point -- Sophist, 10:53:10 06/06/02 Thu
Epistemology is a difficult
issue, but I can't agree that self-experience is the only method of true knowledge. That's too
solipsistic.
It is not possible to experience personally, for example, whether Lincoln was shot
or travel at the speed of light. We nevertheless have ways of agreeing about these things. mm's question,
and now mine, is what way is there of agreeing about the concepts you discuss?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I
guess I would frame the issue differently from any of you -- matching mole, 14:41:40 06/06/02
Thu
It's not really the issue of believing or not believing someone's claims that concerns
me. It is deciding for yourself whether what you've experienced is the'truth'. In science the belief is that
the properties of the universe are essentially random with respect to our feelings and desires. Therefore
scientists often try to be very careful to avoid having their feelings influence their tests. Whether or not
they are successful is not really the issue the point is that they try. As redcat so eloquently points out
many types of spirituality take precisely the opposite approach. Knowledge is self-knowledge to a large
extent. Trying to divorce yourself from the process of enlightenment is futile. I basically understood all
that before hand.
What I was really intrigued with, and I realize that I didn't make this clear,
was the specificity and detail of the original model at the top of the thread. Maybe it's just my ignorance
never really having tried this particular way of knowing myself but I was interested in how the details got
resolved. I wasn't really expecting to resovle science vs. other ways of knowing. I was going to take the
other ways of knowing for granted for the purposes of my question. I can't think of a way to phrase this
that doesn't sound flip because I don't mean it that way at all. Maybe it's just my lack of knowledge but I
find it hard to get my head around someone undergoing a quest for knowledge of the sort redcat describes
and coming out with x planes of existence as opposed to x-1 or x+1. I really don't want to insult anyone's
beliefs so I hope you don't take it that way.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: I guess I would frame the issue differently from any of you -- redcat, 17:35:12 06/06/02
Thu
You don't sound flip at all, and I've always taken your questions seriously. I do not
think thatfolks as polite and curious as you and Sophist have been in this thread could possibly offend me.
Challenge me, yes. I cannot speak for O'Cailleagh, of course, but I appreciate your honest response and
hope the answer below helps.
You say you "find it hard to get my head around someone
undergoing a quest for knowledge of the sort redcat describes and coming out with x planes of existence
as opposed to x-1 or x+1." Well, they don't always. As O'Cailleagh notes, there is some differentiation
among systems and "authorities." Mystics argue among themselves as much as evolutionary biologists, it
seems. ;)
In this particular system (described in O'Cailleagh's original post) there are seven
planes from the physical to the divine. This is a classic system and is generally accepted in a broad range
of Holistic and pagan teachings, in part because it is quite useful and easy to understand, and in part
because it does accurately describe - at least from its own perspective - a wide range of human experiences
. Seven, moreover, is also the most common number used in metaphysical descriptive systems globally,
including the most famous and one of the oldest examples of a seven-tiered explanatory system, the seven
chakras of the human body as described in Vedic Yoga. Twelve and four are the next most common
numbers used in such descriptive systems. All but one of the major systems of astrology, for example,
uses twelve houses/signs (there is more variation on the # of planetary bodies); and while Western and
Chinese astrology do not use the same twelve signs/houses, nor break them at exactly the same place, the
systems are relatively comparable, although they developed in *almost* (not complete) isolation from
each other. Chinese metaphysics is relatively unique in its recognition of five elements. Western
paganism divides the world into four elementary categories, which are very similar to both Polynesian and
most Micronesian metaphysics that also code by fours; there are a numbed of West African cultural
groups that consider four and twelve to be sacred numbers; and there are specific correlations, of course,
between Jung's four personality types and the four suits of Tarot, etc. O'Cailleagh's system is a wonderful
device, rich, insightful, with powerful explanatory functions both as he uses it in his post and in other
real-world applications. Unlike other systems, this one does not work very well if one wants to build a
better computer or a better nuclear bomb. It works very well if one is trying to understand the broadest
range of possibilities of the connections between the physical and the divine.
As for
undergoing a quest for knowledge and coming out of it with a specific type of knowledge, it might be good
to think of the magick practitioner as being quite similar to others on such quests. The apprentice
magician or witch does not work in a vacuum. Although we see this dis-connected learning of magic
from books in the BuffyVerse, and its horrible consequences, in general Witches, witches and magicians
undergo a rigorous, complex and usually also somewhat eclectic training regime that requires the
commitment of many years, all of her/his intellectual, emotional, physical, spiritual and (usually)
financial energy, and the willingness to make changes in one's life as necessary. The longer you do it, the
better you get at it, and a predisposition -- a liking for the subject -- doesn't hurt either.
Now,
think about what it took for you to get your advanced certifications (BS. MS, PhD) in your field. You
were probably drawn to it relatively early, or at least before full adulthood. You then probably spent
countless hours being trained by others who had mastered the material before you. This is good, as you
did not have to reinvent either the wheel or Einstein's theories. You probably sacrificed a great deal,
including a significant portion of your youth (nights not spent drinking with your buddies listening to 70s
art rock bands) and a small fortune in tuition.
Perhaps you got a bad neck or developed bad
eyes from hunching over a microscope, or perhaps you lost the big-paying job with the giant corporation
because you discovered that you'd become quite oddly dedicated to your quest for knowledge for its own
sake. I imagine that as you got better at what you studied, you struggled to understand the meaning of the
texts written by the great masters, but retained enough scepticism to repeat their experiments for yourself
or to think through their theorems on your own. And finally, having mastered both the depth and breadth
of your discipline, you probably felt qualified to teach others.
At its best, the Craft requires
the same dedication, time and energy commitment, intellectual rigor and an skeptical, experiential
approach. Like in most of the sciences, a lot of the early wannabe practitioners don't go all the way (i.e.,
never make it past Freshman Chemistry), not because the magic isn't real, but because like everything that
is real, it takes hard work and a great deal of care and the help of a whole lot of other folks. It is not
surprising that given long training in a seven-tiered system, that one would then begin to think in seven-
tiered ways.
As for how it got to be that number instead of a different number, I think the
Chinese elemental system is instructive. The concept of the five elements - air, fire, water, wood and
metal - developed out of an earlier system of four - air, fire, water and earth. Discussions between
practitioners and seekers eventually led to the expansion of earth into wood and metal, probably because
the original four no longer was as useful *as a descriptive system* given the changes in Chinese culture,
society and technology. Who knows where the seven-tiered systems will end up. Most of them have been
pretty stable for several millennia, but the only constant in human culture is change.
Does any
of this help? Or am I just making it more confusing?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: I guess I would frame the issue differently from any of you -- O'Cailleagh, 00:10:05 06/07/02
Fri
Hi Mole. Sorry to have misunderstood your point (and no, I am not offended by your
questions!).
If I understand you correctly (this time!), you wish to know how these concepts
were arrived at...well, I have to confess that I don't know. I'm guessing that it was through working with
the energies, those experiences, filtered through their understanding of the world. I could be wrong. What
matters to me is that these systems work, and show themselves to be accurate (in that there are other
planes that interact with the physical). How exact they are is another question, as redcat notes, these'maps'
change from culture to culture, tradition to tradition, even practitioner to practitioner! All I can say to you,
if you do have an interest, is go out to your local library and get books on magick, Holism, physics,
anything that deals with energy. See what system you come up with yourself.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Thanks for your responses rc and O'C -- matching mole, 08:09:09 06/07/02 Fri
They were very helpful. I think that my impressions of mysticism have been heavily
influenced by my mother who basically'does her own thing'. She reads books and talks to other people but
she doesn't follow the practices of any particular group and definitely doesn't have a specific cosmology at
all.
Also, for some reason, I find it easy to conceive of a completely subjective universe where
everyone's reality is equally valid. Or a completely objective universe in which there is one true reality. I
have harder time thinking about a universe in which the fundmental properties are both objective (in the
sense that some things work and some things don't) and subjective (in that the consciousness of the
observer is involved in making them work) which is what I think you are getting at. I don't see any reason
to think that this possiblity is less likely than any other but for some reason it isn't the first (or even the
second) that jumps into my mind when I think about such things.
And, unfortunately, listening
to 70s art rock has generally been a solitary occupation for me. When I have played some of my more
avant garde faves in the hearing of others I was told at times that it made people nauseous and that it
sounded like nails being pulled out of a wall.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Thanks for your responses rc and O'C -- Rahael, 08:25:19 06/07/02 Fri
"Also, for some reason, I find it easy to conceive of a completely subjective universe where
everyone's reality is equally valid."
Well, you are a fan of Philip K Dick, after
all!!
LOL re the avant garde art rock.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Thanks for your responses rc and O'C -- redcat, 09:33:14 06/07/02 Fri
"a universe in which the fundmental properties are both objective (in the sense that some
things work and some things don't) and subjective (in that the consciousness of the observer is involved in
making them work)"
WOW! This is the clearest explanation of my worldview I've ever
read. Thanks!!
-- and don't feel bad about your taste in music. I once played some traditional
Hawaiian chants for my mainland students and they all just looked at me like I was a creature from outer
space. Then I played them some contemporary Hawaiian music and they just got bored.... oh, well, Israel
Kamakawiwo'ole ROCKS!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Whose
epistemology? -- redcat, 10:47:41 06/06/02 Thu
Your use of the singular form of
that word underscores my point that it is often difficult for "rationalists," especially those trained in
western-culture-based linear-thinking disciplines, to accept that there is more than one "way of knowing."
Even when used only in its singular form, epistemology as a concept (rather than as a'named' branch of
western philosophy) means "the investigation of the origin, nature, methods and limits of human
knowledge." That on its face, it seems to me, requires the inclusion of all the different human world
views and epistemic approaches to understanding the universe. That would therefore also require the
broadest possible definitions of "knowing" as well as "ways of knowing." You are fixed on the notion
that visible or measurable change over time at the physical level is the only verifiable test of truth claims,
because such physically-measurable changes over time are easily recognized by linear-based, physically-
oriented science as we know it today.
So let me ask you a question. Prior to the moment when
gravity or the magnetic force (either weak or strong) were "proved" to exist, or that we had the current
descriptions of light as both waves and particles, did these things - gravity, magnetic force or light - not
exist and act in exactly the same ways they do now? I'll answer my own question - of course they did,
even though the developing fields of science, and all the well-intentioned men and women working in
those fields, could not explain them prior to the time that they *could* explain them. The problems were
not light, magnetic force or gravity. The problems were the limitations of scientific thinking and our
abilities to understand -- with the ways of knowing that we were then using -- what was around us.
More recently, the allopathic medical profession has begun investigating bio-feedback
techniques. Some of these are quite similar to the meditative techniques of some advanced Yogis and
Witches. I was personally trained in what is now called bio-feedback by a Witch who was passing on to
me techniques of mind-body integration and conscious control -- "Magicks" -- that she had learned from
her Witch mentor 30 years before and that he had learned from ..... well, you get the idea. This was
about 15 years before I'd ever heard any "scientific" explanation for how I was thus able to deal with a
specific and very real (not imagined) physical ailment that I had suffered from since early puberty and that
several M.D.s had told me and my parents was untreatable without surgery. Western allopathic medical
science is just now beginning to investigate traditional medical knowledge and techniques found not only
in highly "civilized" places like China, but among certain non-literate cultures such as traditional Hawai'i
and certain Native peoples in the Amazon rainforest, etc. What we *don't* know about the ways the
universe works is far greater than what we do know -- YET!
And that "yet" is an important
modifier. I would argue that O'Cailleagh's exploration of the links between physics and metaphysics is
both valid and necessary, even if it doesn't make sense within a very narrowly-defined set of parameters
for "proving" either "Truth" or "truth." To close off any avenue of exploration, of human investigation of
the universe, simply because you don't "believe" it can be fruitful, or worse yet because it doesn't present
its findings in ways that exactly match the style of other types of investigation's findings, seems both
downright silly to me and perhaps extremely damaging to our (humankind's) future. Who knows what
kind of knowledge we will need in the next millennia. Science has given us the power to destroy the
planet. Perhaps the disciplines of magick and other alternative ways of knowing, with their emphasis on
balance and responsibility, will finally be able to teach us how to use that power without destroying
ourselves and our quite lovely planet in the process.
Soph - this is a debate that, like
O'Cailleagh's says above, is not going to be won or lost with words. I, like him, have directly
*experienced* transformation through a particular kind of disciplined practice and way of thinking,
including healing a specific physical problem in my own body. This is enormously satisfying, You
obviously find linear, rational science similarly satisfying. Good on'ya!! As a matter of fact, I do, too,
although perhaps with less suspension of scepticism than you seem to employ. Being a professional
historian with a strong background in anthropology tends to make me quite skeptical about all sorts of
single- epistemology-based truth claims, and perhaps more open to accepting at least the possibility that
other ways of being and knowing also "work." O'Cailleagh is talking about light as waves of energy and
you keep wanting him to give you answers in particles that you can weigh in your hand. But I see the
light shining from your eyes, shining quite brightly through your obvious intelligence. I have always
enjoyed reading your posts because you are so articulate, curious, opinionated and civil. I hope that we
can agree to disagree about the nature of knowledge and still respect each other as intellectuals and
colleagues in the morning.
Malama pono, redcat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Whose epistemology? -- Sophist, 13:08:23 06/06/02 Thu
I hope I didn't leave the
impression of being as closed- minded as that. I completely agree that there are many ways of knowing. I
completely agree with your broad definition of epistemology. That's why I shifted the terminology from
the narrow ground of "science" to the broader ground of epistemology. I'm asking the question: what is the
method by which two or more reasonable and fair-minded people (you and I) could agree that the concepts
under discussion are factual?
The examples you gave -- gravity, light, magnetism -- seem
different to me. In each case, no one doubted that such forces existed (doubters of gravity didn't stick
around very long). What was missing, and what science supplied, was an explanation for how these
worked.
By no means do I believe that science can, today, explain the entirety of the universe.
A healthy skepticism about all claims of knowledge -- very much including science itself -- is essential. It
is very important to give a fair opportunity to non-traditionally Western wisdom. I'm not limiting the ways
of knowing, I'm just curious. To me, that's the beginning of knowledge.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I also suffer from the lawyer's disease of cross-examining. Don't feel obligated to respond. -- Sophist,
13:20:58 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
It's an excellent question and deseves a response -- redcat, 13:37:43 06/06/02 Thu
Actually, Sophist, I don't think of you as closed-minded at all, but as someone who is
extremely intelligent (I'm still amazed by your review of Gould!), very curious and intellectiually honest,
but who has had limited personal experience in "alternative" ways of being/knowing that O'Cailleagh and
I (and perhaps others on the board) have had.
Because I respect you so much, I am almost
intrigued enough with this conversation to engage in the quest you suggest, of trying to figure out, "what
is the method by which two or more reasonable and fair-minded people (you and I) could agree that the
concepts under discussion are factual?"
But first, please answer the following questions. Do
you believe that two "facts" can absolutely contradict each other? If so, why or how? If not, why not or
how not?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> A very good question yourself -- Sophist, 14:37:56 06/06/02 Thu
The
short answer is yes, I believe two facts can contradict each other.
My explanation for why this
is true is complicated. Are you familiar with Godel's Theorem? If you are, that's my explanation. If not,
I'll explain in more detail.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: A very good question yourself -- redcat, 18:49:37 06/06/02 Thu
Sophist,
I've written you an answer, but feel bad about further hi-jacking O'Cailleagh's
thread and posting any more on the board that isn't really about Buffy. If you'll send your email address to
me via mine below, I'll send you my response. If you're still interested, that is.
rdupuis@hawaii.rr.com
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: A very good question yourself -- O'Cailleagh, 19:49:43 06/06/02
Thu
Redcat, please don't feel bad about hijacking the thread. Your answers have been far
more eloquent and articulate than mine could have been, so you are doing me a favour!
BB
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> And some of us have been enjoying the discussion. -- LittleBit,
20:00:14 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Please keep the discussion going, it's fascinating ! -- Ete, 05:40:33
06/07/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> OK, here'tis -- redcat, 10:13:18 06/07/02 Fri
Dear Sophist (and LittleBit, Rahael, Ete and whomever else chooses to read
this),
Just to recap where we are:
I employed the historical scientific discovery of
the properties of gravity, magnetism and light to argue that scientific descriptions of the properties of
other types of energies, such as those described in metaphysical systems like the one O'Cailleagh uses,
might also be possible, even if they have not yet occurred.
While you concurred that science
has a bright future, but an incomplete present understanding of the universe, you argued that, "The
examples [I] gave -- gravity, light, magnetism -- seem different to [you.] In each case, no one doubted
that such forces existed (doubters of gravity didn't stick around very long). What was missing, and what
science supplied, was an explanation for how these worked." Then you asked if we might find, "a method
by which two or more reasonable and fair-minded people (you and I) could agree that the concepts under
discussion are factual?"
To which I replied that I found your questions interesting, but wanted
to know whether or not "you believe that two "facts" can absolutely contradict each other?'
You answered, "A very good question yourself. The short answer is yes, I believe two facts can
contradict each other. My explanation for why this is true is complicated. Are you familiar with Godel's
Theorem? If you are, that's my explanation. If not, I'll explain in more detail."
To which
I now respond: Good question but a tricky answer! Maybe you're a postmodernist after all...
:)
I'm certainly no mathematician, but as I understand it, Goodel's Incompleteness Theorem
originally was pretty specifically limited to the idea that closed axiomatic mathematical systems will
always contain some true assertions that cannot be proved within that system only. At the numbers level,
I don't pretend to understand **any** of it. But I've also seen the theorem referred to in non-
mathematical debates to suggest that any description of a closed and self- referential system (such as the
human mind) that is derived from that system will ultimately be incomplete and that no such description
supplied by the system itself can adequately contain everything available within the system. The question
I remember from an old discussion was something like, "how can you prove to yourself that you are not
insane, since the mind with which you construct the proof may well be insane?" You can't, but that
doesn't prove that you *are* insane, either. Thus the axiomatic system within which the question is asked
is incomplete, i.e., not able to give either an absolute positive or absolute negative answer to its own
question.
Am I making sense of Godel or mangling him? More importantly, is this the sense
in which you're using the Theorem to answer my question about contradictory facts? Because if you want
to talk math, you'll have to do it with matching mole or someone else a WHOLE lot smarter than me. If,
however, you're referring to the philosophical ambiguities and conundrums abstracted from Godel like
the one above, then, cool, let's talk and I'll try to keep up.
If that is the sense in which you use
Godel (dear goddess, this post is beginning to sound like a math theorem!!), I think I may have an
example for you that may help us think about a type of "method", to re-quote your earlier post, "by which
two or more reasonable and fair-minded people... could agree that the concepts under discussion are
factual." I'm still not sure that we agree on the meaning of "factual," but your reference to Godel gives me
hope that what I've written below will make sense to you.
I think what you're looking for is
some sort of rational, systemic, repeatable verification of the effects on the physical plane of living and
thinking within a Holistic system. As I understand it, in most (all?) scientific fields, if an experiment is
repeatable and always gives the same results as long as the conditions of the experiment are constant, then
the findings of the experiment are said to be "true." Metaphysics works somewhat differently, in part
because the "laboratory" in which the "experiment" occurs is a human, and since no two humans are
exactly alike, that portion of the experiment cannot be constant. However, humans are generally alike and
so variations due to the inconstant human component can be (even if only roughly) accounted for.
Also, metaphysics does not generally demand that the results will *always* be exactly the same. In fact, it
urges one to suspect that they might be different and to pay attention to what conditions seem to cause
those differences. One's intention, one's background and level of development, and the moment in history
in which the "experiment" is done are all different with each new practitioner and each new "experiment."
However, the notion that processes or practices need to be successfully repeatable by different humans
across time, and that such processes or practices will generally give the same or very similar results, is
pretty much standard in Holistic/pagan practice. This seems quite close to the foundational aspect of
western science described above, or at least close enough to allow me to continue the discussion.
Concur?
Most Holistic practitioners would claim that an important part of their practice entails
being able to repeatably achieve relatively standardized results on the physical plane - healing an ailment,
for example, or achieving control over the satisfying of one's physical desires -- given the disciplined
application of a specific set of holistic processes or practices. Designing that set of practices for the
desired end result, from the Holistic or pagan perspective that O'Cailleagh describes, entails taking into
account all seven energy planes at both the diagnostic and prescriptive levels. This is a rational and
experientially-driven process. It would be hard to imagine either indigenous medicine or magic systems,
or their practitioners, surviving very long among the imminently practical peoples that most of our
ancestors (and most contemporary Native and indigenous peoples) had to have been in order for those
peoples to have survived long enough that we, their descendants, could be here today, IF such systems
were not relatively successful. Further, such practices are, not surprisingly (and quite unlike allopathic
practices), thus intended to achieve results on a number of planes *in* the practitioner or patient
simultaneously.
Using the example I briefly referred to in my earlier post, then, I would
contend that when I began the long process of learning how to heal, without surgery, my own particular
physical ailment, I was, in fact, repeating a set of practices and processes that others had utilized before
me. I was very lucky in that I found a specific mentor who was willing to help me find out what I needed
to learn and then helped me learn it. I had to master specific skills, such as active and sustained
meditation, dynamic visualization, control of my blood pressure, heart rate and breathing, and control of
my circulating life-energy or chi [sorry, I don't have a western scientific word for this one]. I also had to
make specific changes in my diet and my approach to and type of exercise, and to my sleep cycle (this was
the hardest thing for me). Most importantly, I spent about a year and a half learning to bring my psyche
into balance with a specific set of bodily functions. Not only did this entail tracking specific pressure,
temperature and pulse rates (in some cases with easily available medical western equipment like
thermometers -and I never did get v