09-22-2010, 12:00 AM
On a related note, I was watching a documentary of haunting and one of the testimonies was of a man who described a demonic presence in his house as a whirlwind influence in that it would suck attention into its vortex. The destabilizing of the integrity (and here I mean integrity in the functional sense, such as a building stands by the integrity of sound construction) being the result, as if one would be swept into the current of a whirlwind. He didn't elaborate on whirlwind as I have here, he merely mentioned it was much like coming into contact with a whirlwind. If such a current destabilizes, it can then establish a new anchorpoint.
To give an example, back to my friend after the movie. She was uncomfortable, not talking as we left the theater because she was still thinking about the movie, that feeling held her and she wanted to find conclusion (rest). Granted her discomfort was not extreme, keeping in perspective it was a movie, but the idea of being held by a thought that was like a current spinning and destabilizing and within all this was the implication to regain solid footing. So that alerts that her anchoring to begin with (before entering the theater) was not her own anchoring (integrity), but that of the inception of another, lets say. Obviously if it can be manipulated, then its not in her own and was put there by someone else.
And I realize I'm bringing up the notion of self here, but for the sake of the unfolding of the story, this is something clearly seen and I think relevant here. That, why would an anchorpoint that is supposed to offer self-stability actually do the opposite? That is, actually serve as a means, very direct means, for another to be able to destabilize someone?
And to present this in another way...the fact that we have essences should comfort us, yet how many people walk around in comfort? Most don't. For example, many attend church because they fear their essence will not have an afterlife. Yet if they have an essence, why the fear? Is not the assuption then that such essence isn't truly theirs and they must fight for it? So essence has been tampered with in a way to make it what its not. And this gioes beyond religious people, everyone has a fear that can be manipulated and so any idea of essence does not help them in any way.
To give an example, back to my friend after the movie. She was uncomfortable, not talking as we left the theater because she was still thinking about the movie, that feeling held her and she wanted to find conclusion (rest). Granted her discomfort was not extreme, keeping in perspective it was a movie, but the idea of being held by a thought that was like a current spinning and destabilizing and within all this was the implication to regain solid footing. So that alerts that her anchoring to begin with (before entering the theater) was not her own anchoring (integrity), but that of the inception of another, lets say. Obviously if it can be manipulated, then its not in her own and was put there by someone else.
And I realize I'm bringing up the notion of self here, but for the sake of the unfolding of the story, this is something clearly seen and I think relevant here. That, why would an anchorpoint that is supposed to offer self-stability actually do the opposite? That is, actually serve as a means, very direct means, for another to be able to destabilize someone?
And to present this in another way...the fact that we have essences should comfort us, yet how many people walk around in comfort? Most don't. For example, many attend church because they fear their essence will not have an afterlife. Yet if they have an essence, why the fear? Is not the assuption then that such essence isn't truly theirs and they must fight for it? So essence has been tampered with in a way to make it what its not. And this gioes beyond religious people, everyone has a fear that can be manipulated and so any idea of essence does not help them in any way.