OT: Vamps, Souls, Love and God

[C A Moore <cab_moore@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quick follow up, (to think that I was wondering if I
would get any response)
It?s a bit disjointed I?m afraid, but here goes

As regards the reliability of the Watcher?s Council:
how long did it take before humans realised (en masse)
that it wasn?t actually self evident that the sun goes
around the earth. Although it was suggested very
early, it was denied for a long time because the
incorrect theory was much more comfortable.

And the religious icons (probably the biggest
consistency hole in the Jossverse), and the whole
?God? thing: the implication in the Jossverse is that
demons and vampires are far older than any currently
practiced religious traditions - a fact that tends to
undermine theories that derive their main
attractiveness from fitting with these ?new?
religions. Does anybody know if makeshift crucifixes
work, or does it have to be formally blessed (almost
into spell territory). Perhaps our largely
non-religious heroes are freeloading off a passive
spell woven by the faith of millions worldwide. The
PTB appear to be quite distinct from any monotheist
viewpoint; perhaps they imbue these objects with power
as a sort of ?faith incentive? scheme to keep up human
morale.

I once read an interesting analysis of the Biblical
Cain/Abel story as a remnant of an ancestral nomadic
hunting herding culture: basically it was anti
agriculturalist propaganda (God accepts animal
sacrifice, rejects fruits of agricultural labour), its
original purpose long forgotten when it was
incorporated into the religious tradition of an
agricultural society. Whatever its accuracy it is
interesting as an example of how we really don?t know
the origins of many of the myths in our society - even
the transition to agriculture between 6 and 10
thousand years ago is completely lost in the mists of
history. The characteristics of the first slayer
indicate that the Slayer (and presumably vampires) may
date from much earlier - even as much as 50 to 100
thousand years: the dawn of modern humanity. When even
the oldest recorded history gets pretty dodgy at even
4000 years, reliable information about the exact
origins is pretty unlikely.

Getting back approximately on topic - I have seen very
little evidence in the Jossverse that would even
refute agnosticism: even Glory as a God (or at least a
god) is bound by a natural order of things. The power
of sunlight could be attributed to the spectrum, or
the some star-trekky physics (e.g. invent a new
particle) associated with the reality. If it is due to
an all-pervasive God then why didn?t sunlight affect
Angel in Pylea. And if a vampire?s ?impurity? is
attributable to soul loss why is angel susceptible to
all the normal weaknesses (he also sets off vampire
detectors). Looking this over it appears that at least
for sunlight the sensitivity is physical - associated
with the nature of their ?un-dead? bodies, and may
even be due to some enchantment covering only the
?primary? reality. Also many allegedly soulless demons
have no problem with invitation, sunlight etc:
vampires appear to be singled out for these weaknesses
(the fic line I?m writing traces this to a spell
binding the vampires? powers, weakening them; the gem
of Amarra partly shields them from this spell, in
Pylea Angel is out of range)

It appears there are at least two aspects to vampires
- the physical changes (strength, speed, healing plus
the sunlight, crosses, holy-water, stakes), and the
superego changes I identified previously that are
usually associated with soul loss in the Jossverse.
These appear to be detectable - I agree that ?smelling
a soul? seems to be common. It also appears that
_something_ was summoned by the orb of Thessula
(spelling eludes me) - but if we accept that guilt
would have physiological markers (hence detectable
?soul?), and that the orb could just as easily have
collected/organised energy to perform a counter spell
(reversing the demon?s suppression of the superego)
there is no direct evidence for vampires being
soulless. Remember, even a (purely physical) drug was
enough to make Angel temporally revert to Angelus
(also the darkening Angel sequence; ?I can?t seem to
care? blurred the Angel/Angelus distinction a lot)

Getting around to the psychology of love: I think that
a large amount of the difference between love and lust
is rational: we believe in love, and so it is, as long
as we can continue to believe. Besides there is
absolutely no indication that love is fundamentally
good (even assuming the existence of good): often it
is tempting to define true love as ?good? love, but we
know it?s not really that clear cut. Any long-term
love affair will have ups and downs - belief gives us
the strength to go on, and the reason to forgive. (id
meets ego,??.. I could be here all day)

CBMoore


http://briefcase.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Briefcase
- Manage your files online.