Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Rethinking Teleportation

Everytime the question of what superpower I'd wanna have if I were a superhero comes up, I always pick the same thing: Teleportation. Frak flying. That's so 1972. Same goes for superstrength, because I can just see myself shaking someone's hand and accidentally snapping their arm in half. Anyways, teleportation (and time travel), has always been a favorite subject of mine. Everytime a new book comes out, explaining some new way of possibly going about the transference of photons from one destination to the next, I buy it. Everytime Scientific American or Discover magazine publishes an article on teleportation, I buy the entire issue. I wouldn't say I am obsessed, but I would say that I know there is some element missing in all the theorizing and it's driving me bat shit. For instance, why does teleportation have to work on the principle that an object emerging on the other side is a fascimile of the original? How come I can't teleport my original self from, say, here in Boston Massachusetts, to Honolulu in the exact molecular composition that is ME and not some copy? How come there isn't a theory to express the possibility that it could be the space in which a teleported object travels that may shift and have to reconstitute itself and not the object itself? I mean, rather than me dividing into a zillion pieces and then coming back together on some beach in honolulu, why can't the space between boston and honolulu shift and break apart and expand enough so that I can come through? I admit, I am NOT a scientist. And perhaps a science major or two will come across this post and go, "My god, this girl has no idea what the heck she's talking about." But what if I do have a point? I mean, I'm not stupid and I do love science. I did once fancy myself being a scientist. I think that I'm just as aware as the next enthusiast. So I say, there has to be another way. Someone's not looking into this with all eyes open. Teleportation can very be the simplest way to move through space, but people are so caught up trying to make it sound so scientific and perhaps, in some way, re-invent the wheel, that they don't want to entertain other possibilities.

Like I said, I don't know much about it all. I do enjoy reading about it. I do enjoy thinking about it. But damn it...can some genius get on the ball already so I can actually DO it?!

Thursday, February 05, 2009

Richard Freeman's global monster template

Richard Freeman's monster list reads like a who's who of cryptocreatures, and it's a dang good list too. But then he goes on to explain that many of these *things* could be thought forms or tulpas...and that's when I have to disagree.

First of, here's the list:

1. Dragons: The most ancient, powerful and widespread monster archetype. These giant reptiles, or analogues of them, occur in every culture on earth. They are reptilian, elongate and associated with the element of water.
2. Hairy giants: Yeti, Yowie, Yeren, Sasquatch, Di-Di, Troll, Almasty, the list goes on. Big, man-like, powerful and hair covered.
3. Little people: Goblins, Pixies, Bush Men, Junjudee, Ebu-Gogo the list is nigh on endless. Small, sometimes hairy often considered dangerous.
4. Monster cats: Out of place panthers, American ‘lions’, cigau, singa ect. Uncatchable felines.
5. Monster dogs: Werewolves, Black Dogs, Waheela, Mirrii dogs ect Usually huge, spectral hounds.
6. Monster Birds: Thunderbird, Roc, Tengu, Guruda, Owlman ect. Giant, often aggressive, birds.

*ahem* Mermaids and Unicorns are NOT on the list, however, people rarely see them
these days, so I'll just let it go for now.

But seriously, this Tulpa thing rankles my ass. Everytime someone mentions tulpa I can't help but think, "Yeah okay, maybe all of us together are strong enough to create a thoughtform, but seriously, are ALL OF US THINKING ABOUT THE EXACT SAME THING?" One man's YETI is not another man's SASQUATCH. Hence the variation in names. Some people see an upright monkey, other's see Harry Henderson. It's not all relative and so it annoys me that it can be so easily explained as such.

My theory is this: If people are invoking the same being, it's only because they've been conditioned to believe in or be aware of that particular kind of being. Whether it be a DRAGON, YETI or BIG CAT. And the only way people are conditioned is through folklore or oral tradition or hollywood or books or all of the above. And the only way that happens is when someone, somewhere back in time saw something and told someone else. Now, does that mean that only THAT one person's sighting happened to become everyone else's manifestation simply through the re-telling of the story? It could, if only some other person, 5000 miles away didn't start telling the SAME story about the SAME creature. And therein lies the dilemma. How is this a thought form from two independent sources so far removed from one another?

Tales of every creature on that list are world-wide and traditional. They've been told across the globe for ages. There is NO WAY that collectively, our ancestors got bugged out on peyote, ayahuasca or coke and started thinking, "Hey, a really huge, scaley lizard thingie that flies ate my whole village," if there's no one to corraborate...like the whole dang village.

Tulpas. No. I hate that explanation. I really wish people would stop using it. It leads nowhere. Seriously.

Can we for once consider that this world is not built just for humans? There could be all kinds of things living all around us that don't spend entire lifetimes questioning their existence. They just are. And we need to start excepting them as such, because trying to own them all up to a simple explanation like mass hysteria isn't going to make them go away.