Fear of the dead is, I suppose, a near-universal tendency across all cultures. And there is a thin line between fearing the dead and regarding them as wicked.

I’m interested in a slightly narrower idea – the idea that there is, in many cases, a causal connection, or other correlation, between returning from the dead and being evil.

This idea may in some way be influenced Jewish and/or Christian religion. First there is the Judeo-Christian belief, founded on the Torah, that necromancy is a forbidden practice. This further suggests that any deliberate attempt to seek out, or contact, or even raise, the spirits of the dead, can only have a bad or tragic result. This is perhaps reinforced by those passage of Christian scripture that suggest that the dead will sleep peacefully until Judgment Day, which may further suggest the thought that, for those dead that don’t sleep in peace, something has perhaps gone rather horribly wrong.

This sentiment may be rationalized in any number of ways. Perhaps the returned dead person is really a demon, disguised as the dead person and inhabiting his corpse. Or perhaps the departed soul, even if not necessarily damned, is temporarily in the grip of Satan, as was often believed to be the case in the case of vampires. Or perhaps the revenant is otherwise suffering under some curse or dire compulsion.

The topic overlaps with my thread on vampires. But is not identical.

A short list of literature exploring this theme in English:

TREATISE ON REVENANTS (1759), by Augustin Calmet, translating his 1746 French edition, discusses an episode where a woman is visited by the spirit of her grandfather, who is ultimately exposed as being the Devil in disguised, resulting in the woman herself becoming possessed. Also in the 2nd edition, translated 1850 under the title of THE PHANTOM WORLD.

THALABA THE DESTROYER (1801): Epic poem, containing an episode in which a man’s wife returns from the dead as a horrible corpse creature, to tempt him to evil and despair. But after the monster is transfixed through the heart, her spirit is set free, and she appears before them crowned in glory, offering hope of salvation.

THE GIAOUR (1813), epic poem by Lord Byron: Features the idea that a mortal who returns as a vampire is cursed by his nature to destroy his own family, including those he loves the most.

WAKE NOT THE DEAD (1823), by Anonymous. In which a man ignores the dire warning that he should not use necromancy to bring back his wife from the grave. The events that follow fully justify the titular moral.

A CHRISTMAS CAROL (1843), by Charles Dickens. In which the ghost of Marley tells Scrooge that his spirit is forced to wander the earth because of his wickedness in life. The implication, in this case, is that these souls of the dead are, if not actually damned, at least in a sort of purgatory.

THE OLD NURSE’S STORY (1852), short story by Elizabeth Gaskell. Featuring the ghost of an innocent child, who, as a ghost, is, at the very least, extremely dangerous to other children.

THE COLD EMBRACE (1860), by Mary E. Braddon. In which it is explained that only suicides and those not at peace with God can come back from the dead.

THE OPEN DOOR (1882), by Mrs. Oliphant. Another story, involving a ghost who is, if not damned, implied to be in a sort of purgatory, and who, if it were at peace with God, would not torment the living.

THE DEATH OF HALPIN FRAYSER (1891), by Ambrose Bierce. In which the mother who loved unconditionally in life assumes a more hateful and deadly aspect in death. Is preceded by the following quote by the apparently fictional author Hali: “For by death is wrought greater change than hath been shown. Whereas in general the spirit that removed cometh back upon occasion, and is sometimes seen of those in flesh (appearing in the form of the body it bore) yet it hath happened that the veritable body without the spirit hath walked. And it is attested of those encountering who have lived to speak thereon that a lich so raised up hath no natural affection, nor remembrance thereof, but only hate. Also, it is known that some spirits which in life were benign become by death evil altogether.”

CARMILLA (1872), novella by L. Sheridan Le Fanu. In which it is explained that vampire infestations are begun by the death of a suicide or other person more-or-less wicked; and has many passages suggesting that vampires act under compulsion, and are not entirely free-willed beings.

THRAWN JANET (1881) short story by R.L. Stevenson. It is hinted that Janet was somewhat wicked in life, but also that, perhaps as a result, in undeath, she has become possessed by the Devil himself.

DRACULA (1897) novel by Bran Stoker. In which Lucy, in particular, has a very different character as a vampire than she did as a living girl, and in which the heroes in destroying her claim to have set her spirit free. This tradition has been carried on in many (but not all) of subsequent vampire literature.

THE PRINCESS IN THE CHEST (1897), in Andrew Lang’s PINK FAIRY BOOK, in which a dead girl comes back as a horrendous crypt monster (before finally receiving a more-proper resurrection). A slightly more faithful translation can be found in DANISH FAIRY TALES (1912).

THE MONKEY’S PAW (1904), short story by W.W. Jacobs: In which a son is brought back from the grave. We never find out the dread consequences of this, and the core idea is that you don’t want to find out.

HERBERT WEST: REANIMATOR (1920), short story by H.P. Lovecraft. West’s failed experiments return as monsters, no matter how benevolent they were in life.

MRS. AMWORTH (1922) by E.F. Benson. In which vampirism is explained as a form of demonic possession, which can occur before death, but also allow the corpse to rise after death.

I AM LEGEND (1954), novel by Richard Matheson. In which Matheson sets out to decontruct the idea that the undead (here called “vampires”) are monsters. But he must acknowledge it before he deconstructs it. Despite this and other deconstructions (his vampires are not actually dead, and a host of pseudoscientific explanations are offered for their supernatural qualities), this is probably the original literary prototype for a host of zombie apocalypse movies, starting, perhaps, with Romero’s NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, in 1968.

THE LORD OF THE RINGS (1954), by J.R.R. Tolkien. In which “barrow wights” are said to be corpses inhabited by evil spirits.

‘SALEM’S LOT (1971), by Stephen King. Aggressively old-school take on vampires as inherently monstrous, even when superficially retaining aspects of the mind and memory of their living selves.

THE FAMILY OF THE VOURDALAK (1971) translating a short story by Leo Tolstoy (1838). In which the father, Gorcha, warns his family to take precautions against him should he return as a vourdalak. This clearly indicates, at least in Gorcha’s mind, that he and his vourdalak are in some sense different beings, at least to the extent of having separate goals and desires. Nonetheless, all the vourdalaks of this story seem to have access to aspects of the mind and memory of their living selves.

PET SEMATARY (1983), by Stephen King: A novel which, according to King, was inspired by The Monkey’s Paw. These zombies (if that’s the right word) have mind and memory of their living selves, but something is subtly and horribly wrong. The story has a slow build, where those brought back initially seem relatively benign.

A SONG OF ICE AND FIRE (1991 thru 2011), perpetually unfinished book series by George R.R. Martin. Romero-esque homicidal “ice wights”, who cannot speak, are introduced in the prologue. Later, in book 3, a pair of what we might call “fire wights” appear, the relatively-benign Lord Beric, raised by a priest of the Fire God; and then Catelyn Stark, raised by Lord Beric, who returns from her death at the Red Wedding as the vengeance-mad child-murdering Lady Stoneheart. These wights can talk, and display at least some aspects of their former mind and memory . Later Brienne of Tarth, last seen hanged by Lady Stoneheart, appears at midnight to Jaime, and lures himself off into the woods alone on an obviously false pretext. Jaime then goes missing. An unfinished story is of course a rorschach test on which the reader may project whatever he pleases, but my suspicion at this point is that Brienne and Jaime are now evil undead monsters, whose prior virtues and humanity, if any, are irrelevant to their future role in a developing horror thread of the plot. But in online discussions on certain forums, fans are not only hostile to such ideas – that Jaime and Brienne have become undead, but to the idea that undeath could fundamentally alter anyone’s personality. Even Lady Stoneheart, who is certainly undead, is widely regarded as an understandably-upset woman who just needs a good talking to. They cite Lord Beric as proof that fire wights are not so bad, but I at this point am only thinking of the slow build in PET SEMATARY. I have no idea which of us is right, and it increasingly seems as though future volumes will never tell. But I do wonder if this disagreement reflects the fact that a certain level of fear of the dead has drained out of an increasingly irreligious modern online culture.

--------------------------------------------------x

Any other suggestions books on the list? Note that I am not merely looking for stories about evil ghosts or revenants. For instance, the damned ghosts of Henry James’ THE TURN OF THE SCREW are apparently wicked in death because they were also wicked in life. But the story need not rule out the possibility of benevolent ghosts or revenants, as long as there be a some connection, correlation or causation between undeath and wickedness.

Also, I cannot at the moment think of any examples from the work of CAS. He has a fair number of examples of the wicked dead, but none who can be shown to be any signficantly less wicked in life. Some of his undead are merely puppet servants of sorcerers, rather like Bela Lugosi’s servants in the 1932 film WHITE ZOMBIE. One story that apparently would have met the criteria, judging by its synopsis, is THE YOUNGEST VAMPIRE, had CAS ever gotten around to writing it.

I really must re-read PET SEMATARY someday. Very able handling of the undead. I remember it as my favorite by Stephen King, next to THE STAND.

I want to re-read SALEM'S LOT too, which I for some reason cannot recall anything from. But Tobe Hooper's TV-series adaptation may well be my all-time favorite horror film.

One of the principal differences between Man and the rest of the the animal kingdom is a personal and sophisticated awareness of death, and all that it implies to one's own existence, and one's place in the world.

So when a person dies, regrettable as this is, the natural order, without exception, is that the body remains inanimate and unresponsive, and unless steps to preserve the body are taken, subject to dissolution.

Now, in the vast majority of cases, life is preferred to death, and this is driven by instinct. So the avoidance of death is both a deeply and strongly driven behavior. But ultimately the individual loses (dies), with no apparent exceptions--claims to the contrary as yet unproved--and the expectancy is that the dead stay dead. Again, there are no apparent exceptions, and any such occurrence would be profoundly unnatural and against all expectations.

Totally against nature, in other words.

A good part of humanity seeks ways to avoid the idea of permanent death--death of the individual ego. This is where religion comes in, I think.

So thru adherence to a religion--folk, formal, or otherwise--permanent ego death can be avoided. Alternatively, permanent rest can be achieved. But in both cases, one must follow the dictates of the religion, otherwise one cannot share in the benefits. This is why in many Christian interpretations, the individual must be "saved" in order to share in life everlasting. We can't very well have all those deceased who failed to toe the line also enjoying the benefits of life everlasting; it would certainly cut into tithe revenues.

Given this, any demonstration of life after death is profoundly contrary to the natural order, and hence wrong and perhaps evil.

I wonder if fundamentalist conservative Buddhist traditions, with the idea of nirvana being a timeless state of nothingness, has a less strong reanimation tradition than the western religions.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
> A good part of humanity seeks ways to avoid the
> idea of permanent death--death of the individual
> ego. This is where religion comes in, I think.
>
> So thru adherence to a religion--folk, formal, or
> otherwise--permanent ego death can be avoided.
> Alternatively, permanent rest can be achieved. But
> in both cases, one must follow the dictates of the
> religion, otherwise one cannot share in the
> benefits.

I would say that "religion" or some form is a near-universal human phenomenon, at least in the sense that, while individuals can perhaps avoid it, cultures cannot. That religions, broadly speaking, say something about life after death, is therefore less interesting to me than what they say about it and how (in this context) how that might affect their attitudes towards the spirits of the dead, or the animated corpses of the dead.

> This is why in many Christian
> interpretations, the individual must be "saved" in
> order to share in life everlasting. We can't very
> well have all those deceased who failed to toe the
> line also enjoying the benefits of life
> everlasting; it would certainly cut into tithe
> revenues.

I think you've gone a bit off base here. The idea that Christian doctrines are driven by a desire to limit access to salvation strike me as, at the very least, ahistorical. What was this ancient doctrine of universal salvation that the ancient Christians were rebelling against? Rather the Christians declared that salvation was available to all people, of all nations, and of all social classes, and assured, indeed, that the meek shall inherit. Maybe you have in mind specific Christian sects, some of which have indeed sought to limit the number of the "elect". But still other Christians have given serious consideration to the idea that salvation (eventually, at least) would be universal. One of the latter was George MacDonald, whose writings have had some influence in the history of weird fiction.

But yes, Christians had specific ideas about how salvation was to be obtained. Which of course affected their attitudes towards attempts to obtain salvation by methods that they regarded as inconsistent and improper. For instance, they would be likely to frown on distasteful practices involving mucking around (unnecessarily in their view) with dead bodies, such as the elaborate mummification rites and practices of the Egyptian elites.

And how does Christian doctrine compare to the modern fantasy of the vampire as an immortal sex god? Here it is not the meek who inherit, but the predator who inherits, at the expense of the vast bulk of humanity who (logically at least) must be reduced to the level of cattle.

> I wonder if fundamentalist conservative Buddhist
> traditions, with the idea of nirvana being a
> timeless state of nothingness, has a less strong
> reanimation tradition than the western religions.

Yes, the Buddhist approach to the undead would be one of the things I'm interested in. But it is also something that is beyond my expertise. I know some Buddhist traditions have a phenomenon known as "hungry ghosts". But I have little knowledge of stories in this tradition.

Responses below, interleaved...

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> > A good part of humanity seeks ways to avoid the
> > idea of permanent death--death of the
> individual
> > ego. This is where religion comes in, I think.
> >
> > So thru adherence to a religion--folk, formal,
> or
> > otherwise--permanent ego death can be avoided.
> > Alternatively, permanent rest can be achieved.
> But
> > in both cases, one must follow the dictates of
> the
> > religion, otherwise one cannot share in the
> > benefits.
>
> I would say that "religion" or some form is a
> near-universal human phenomenon, at least in the
> sense that, while individuals can perhaps avoid
> it, cultures cannot. That religions, broadly
> speaking, say something about life after death, is
> therefore less interesting to me than what they
> say about it and how (in this context) how that
> might affect their attitudes towards the spirits
> of the dead, or the animated corpses of the dead.
>
> > This is why in many Christian
> > interpretations, the individual must be "saved"
> in
> > order to share in life everlasting. We can't
> very
> > well have all those deceased who failed to toe
> the
> > line also enjoying the benefits of life
> > everlasting; it would certainly cut into tithe
> > revenues.
>
> I think you've gone a bit off base here.

A lot of this is simply the logical underpinnings for why I think that religions tend to view the re-animated dead as evil.


> The idea
> that Christian doctrines are driven by a desire to
> limit access to salvation strike me as, at the
> very least, ahistorical. What was this ancient
> doctrine of universal salvation that the ancient
> Christians were rebelling against? Rather the
> Christians declared that salvation was available
> to all people, of all nations, and of all social
> classes, and assured, indeed, that the meek shall
> inherit. Maybe you have in mind specific
> Christian sects, some of which have indeed sought
> to limit the number of the "elect".

No. By my statement I meant that those not included in the practice or worship as deemed correct by any Christian denomination or sect is excluded from some notion of life after death.

It's true that Christianity, unlike Judaism, is largely open to all--this is the basis and justification for evangelism, but unless and until you conform to one of the denominations or sects, the best you can hope for is a sort of non-existence. And *that* was my point.

Too, there's the idea of live everlasting in pleasant circumstances, and life everlasting in torment. In many of the doctrines it seems like it's a clear cut choice, with no middle ground, such as "well, you don't get to live in permanent bliss, but neither do you suffer perpetual torment."

Is the latter conception of salvation contained in any Christian doctrine you are aware of? Possible great reward but no active punishment?

> But still
> other Christians have given serious consideration
> to the idea that salvation (eventually, at least)
> would be universal. One of the latter was George
> MacDonald, whose writings have had some influence
> in the history of weird fiction.

Was this a personal view, or was/is it shared by any recognized denomination or sect?

>
> But yes, Christians had specific ideas about how
> salvation was to be obtained. Which of course
> affected their attitudes towards attempts to
> obtain salvation by methods that they regarded as
> inconsistent and improper. For instance, they
> would be likely to frown on distasteful practices
> involving mucking around (unnecessarily in their
> view) with dead bodies, such as the elaborate
> mummification rites and practices of the Egyptian
> elites.

Too costly, as well. May have been something of a status symbol for the survivors.

>
> And how does Christian doctrine compare to the
> modern fantasy of the vampire as an immortal sex
> god? Here it is not the meek who inherit, but the
> predator who inherits, at the expense of the vast
> bulk of humanity who (logically at least) must be
> reduced to the level of cattle.

Yes. It appeals to the elitist, doesn't it? Certainly not very democratic or egalitarian, where all the dead are equally miserable and corrupted.

>
> > I wonder if fundamentalist conservative
> Buddhist
> > traditions, with the idea of nirvana being a
> > timeless state of nothingness, has a less
> strong
> > reanimation tradition than the western
> religions.
>
> Yes, the Buddhist approach to the undead would be
> one of the things I'm interested in. But it is
> also something that is beyond my expertise. I
> know some Buddhist traditions have a phenomenon
> known as "hungry ghosts". But I have little
> knowledge of stories in this tradition.

Yes, me too.

Diverging a bit more, the popular fascination with the undead, filthy stinking zombies, all these TV shows, I don't actually "get" it. As late teens/early 20s person seeing the original Night of the Living Dead, the zombies as avatars of evil were secondary to the sense of enclosed entrapment in the beseiged house. It was, therefore similar to the Jurassic Park film, where the survivors had to hide out.

I guess it's a symbolic stand-in for any pervasive external threat, like the IRS.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
---------------------
> A lot of this is simply the logical underpinnings
> for why I think that religions tend to view the
> re-animated dead as evil.

Yes, but in the current context, what are we comparing "religions" to? Christianity is the cultural backdrop against which many 18th century, 19th century, and early 20th century ghost stories are written. If there are alternatives for us to consider, these would be other religions. I would imagine most rationalist materialists would be slightly prejudiced against considering the idea of ghosts at all, except, maybe, when they suspend disbelief for the sake of fiction. It seems to me that what we mainly have to compare, when it comes to ghost stories, is a 19th century Christian cultural backdrop, a 21st century post-modern backdrop, and the century in between.

> No. By my statement I meant that those not
> included in the practice or worship as deemed
> correct by any Christian denomination or sect is
> excluded from some notion of life after death.
>
> It's true that Christianity, unlike Judaism, is
> largely open to all--this is the basis and
> justification for evangelism, but unless and until
> you conform to one of the denominations or sects,
> the best you can hope for is a sort of
> non-existence. And *that* was my point.

Okay. But where is the culture or practice that preaches an even more universal afterlife than Christianity does? If you could identify one, maybe we could consider how it affects their ghost stories. Otherwise, I'm not sure where we are going with this.

> Too, there's the idea of live everlasting in
> pleasant circumstances, and life everlasting in
> torment. In many of the doctrines it seems like
> it's a clear cut choice, with no middle ground,
> such as "well, you don't get to live in permanent
> bliss, but neither do you suffer perpetual
> torment."
> Is the latter conception of salvation contained in
> any Christian doctrine you are aware of? Possible
> great reward but no active punishment?

Well, have you read THE GREAT DIVORCE, by C.S. Lewis? There was no "active punishment" in the vision of hell there portrayed.

> > But still
> > other Christians have given serious
> consideration
> > to the idea that salvation (eventually, at
> least)
> > would be universal. One of the latter was
> George
> > MacDonald, whose writings have had some
> influence
> > in the history of weird fiction.
>
> Was this a personal view, or was/is it shared by
> any recognized denomination or sect?

The doctrine, or hypothesis, is called "Christian universalism" or "universal reconciliation". And yes, there have been and still are denominations called "Universalist". Within certain other denominations, it is seen merely as a hypothesis, neither commanded nor forbidden, involving matters outside of revelation that are essentially God's business and beyond man's ken. Still others regard the idea as heretical.

I don't see how it helps us though. The only Christian universalist I know of who has contributed much to the realm of spooky fiction is George MacDonald, as I said.

> > And how does Christian doctrine compare to the
> > modern fantasy of the vampire as an immortal
> > sex god? Here it is not the meek who inherit,
> > but the predator who inherits, at the expense of the
> > vast bulk of humanity who (logically at least) must
> > be reduced to the level of cattle.
>
> Yes. It appeals to the elitist, doesn't it?
> Certainly not very democratic or egalitarian,
> where all the dead are equally miserable and
> corrupted.

It is no surprise, I suppose, that the "sexy" vampire is also an aristocrat, as often as not.

> Diverging a bit more, the popular fascination with
> the undead, filthy stinking zombies, all these TV
> shows, I don't actually "get" it. As late
> teens/early 20s person seeing the original Night
> of the Living Dead, the zombies as avatars of evil
> were secondary to the sense of enclosed entrapment
> in the beseiged house. It was, therefore similar
> to the Jurassic Park film, where the survivors had
> to hide out.

I may have a slightly greater fascination with the evil dead than you do, as you may have guessed from some of my threads here.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> ---------------------
> > A lot of this is simply the logical
> underpinnings
> > for why I think that religions tend to view the
> > re-animated dead as evil.
>
> Yes, but in the current context, what are we
> comparing "religions" to?

Materialism.

I'd say that's the dividing line, wouldn't you? Religion vs materialism? Essentially, a belief in the supernatural vs those who deny the supernatural? I say this because I'm aware of no significant religion outside of some forms of Satanism (I'd not consider this significant, either, but...) that think that reanimated corpses are a wholesome phenomenon.

> Christianity is the
> cultural backdrop against which many 18th century,
> 19th century, and early 20th century ghost stories
> are written. If there are alternatives for us to
> consider, these would be other religions.

Can we find any that think that the undead are somehow the natural and expected result of death?

This is not rhetorical. I'm aware of none.

> I would
> imagine most rationalist materialists would be
> slightly prejudiced against considering the idea
> of ghosts at all, except, maybe, when they suspend
> disbelief for the sake of fiction.

It's probably like going into the funhouse with your kids.

> It seems to me
> that what we mainly have to compare, when it comes
> to ghost stories, is a 19th century Christian
> cultural backdrop, a 21st century post-modern
> backdrop, and the century in between.

Again, I'd speculate that any significant religion denies the normality of reanimated dead. Are you aware f any? I'd like to read up on them.

>
> > No. By my statement I meant that those not
> > included in the practice or worship as deemed
> > correct by any Christian denomination or sect
> is
> > excluded from some notion of life after death.
> >
> > It's true that Christianity, unlike Judaism, is
> > largely open to all--this is the basis and
> > justification for evangelism, but unless and
> until
> > you conform to one of the denominations or
> sects,
> > the best you can hope for is a sort of
> > non-existence. And *that* was my point.
>
> Okay. But where is the culture or practice that
> preaches an even more universal afterlife than
> Christianity does? If you could identify one,
> maybe we could consider how it affects their ghost
> stories.

Why a more complete afterlife? My point is that the fear and loathing of the undead dead is universal, and that in the case of Christianity a part of this rejection is that those dead who come to some semblance of life, prior to the resurrection, demonstrate that the Christian conception of resurrection is incomplete, hence casting doubt on the entire theological underpinnings.

This is in addition to, over and above, the natural expectancy, born of uncontested human experience.

> Otherwise, I'm not sure where we are
> going with this.

I've never been sure what you wanted.

>
> > Too, there's the idea of live everlasting in
> > pleasant circumstances, and life everlasting in
> > torment. In many of the doctrines it seems like
> > it's a clear cut choice, with no middle ground,
> > such as "well, you don't get to live in
> permanent
> > bliss, but neither do you suffer perpetual
> > torment."
> > Is the latter conception of salvation contained
> in
> > any Christian doctrine you are aware of?
> Possible
> > great reward but no active punishment?
>
> Well, have you read THE GREAT DIVORCE, by C.S.
> Lewis? There was no "active punishment" in the
> vision of hell there portrayed.

So Lewis described a personal speculation, or described a coherent doctrine that had some level of exposure prior to his publication?

>
> > > But still
> > > other Christians have given serious
> > consideration
> > > to the idea that salvation (eventually, at
> > least)
> > > would be universal. One of the latter was
> > George
> > > MacDonald, whose writings have had some
> > influence
> > > in the history of weird fiction.
> >
> > Was this a personal view, or was/is it shared
> by
> > any recognized denomination or sect?
>
> The doctrine, or hypothesis, is called "Christian
> universalism" or "universal reconciliation". And
> yes, there have been and still are denominations
> called "Universalist". Within certain other
> denominations, it is seen merely as a hypothesis,
> neither commanded nor forbidden, involving matters
> outside of revelation that are essentially God's
> business and beyond man's ken. Still others
> regard the idea as heretical.
>
> I don't see how it helps us though. The only
> Christian universalist I know of who has
> contributed much to the realm of spooky fiction is
> George MacDonald, as I said.
>
> > > And how does Christian doctrine compare to
> the
> > > modern fantasy of the vampire as an immortal
> > > sex god? Here it is not the meek who inherit,
>
> > > but the predator who inherits, at the expense
> of the
> > > vast bulk of humanity who (logically at least)
> must
> > > be reduced to the level of cattle.
> >
> > Yes. It appeals to the elitist, doesn't it?
> > Certainly not very democratic or egalitarian,
> > where all the dead are equally miserable and
> > corrupted.
>
> It is no surprise, I suppose, that the "sexy"
> vampire is also an aristocrat, as often as not.
>
> > Diverging a bit more, the popular fascination
> with
> > the undead, filthy stinking zombies, all these
> TV
> > shows, I don't actually "get" it. As late
> > teens/early 20s person seeing the original
> Night
> > of the Living Dead, the zombies as avatars of
> evil
> > were secondary to the sense of enclosed
> entrapment
> > in the beseiged house. It was, therefore
> similar
> > to the Jurassic Park film, where the survivors
> had
> > to hide out.
>
> I may have a slightly greater fascination with the
> evil dead than you do, as you may have guessed
> from some of my threads here.

It wouldn't be hard.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
> > Yes, but in the current context, what are we
> > comparing "religions" to?
>
> Materialism.
>
> I'd say that's the dividing line, wouldn't you?
> Religion vs materialism? Essentially, a belief in
> the supernatural vs those who deny the
> supernatural?

How does one write a ghost story or life-after-death story from a materialist perspective? I'm not saying a materialist cannot write a ghost story -- Lovecraft did so -- but he must suspend disbelief in materialism long enough to convince us of the ghost. And we must suspend disbelief long enough to be convinced.

It's a dividing line of sorts sure. It may well be the dividing line between you and me. But it does not seem to be a dividing line that is relevant to the thread. Or have we just veered off topic because you have little interest in the topic of the thread, which is about ghosts, zombies, vampires and the evil dead in general?

> Can we find any that think that the undead are
> somehow the natural and expected result of death?
>
> This is not rhetorical. I'm aware of none.

Me neither.

> Again, I'd speculate that any significant religion
> denies the normality of reanimated dead. Are you
> aware f any? I'd like to read up on them.

The resurrection of the body is a core doctrine of Christianity. But the thought occurred to me that because Christianity preaches the right way to obtain this benefit, it may have a particular horror of attempts to obtain these results by improper means, a horror that might not be present, to the exact same extent or in the exact same flavor, in cultures not influenced by Christianity. That is the idea I was trying to express originally, no matter how off-topic we have drifted in my attempt to explain my meaning.

Augustin Calmet, a Christian monk, had no great difficulty discussing, from a Christian perspective, the possibility that ghosts and revenants might in some cases be real. I don't think that many people consider ghosts and revenants to be "normal".

> Why a more complete afterlife? My point is that
> the fear and loathing of the undead dead is
> universal, and that in the case of Christianity a
> part of this rejection is that those dead who come
> to some semblance of life, prior to the
> resurrection, demonstrate that the Christian
> conception of resurrection is incomplete, hence
> casting doubt on the entire theological
> underpinnings.

What? Calmet did not see it this way. Nor did Robert Southey. Nor did Sheridan Le Fanu. Nor did the author of THE PRINCESS IN THE CHEST. Nor did Charles Dickens. Nor did Mrs. Oliphant. And I don't see the logic either.

I agree only that a Christian, believing as he does in a perfect resurrection, might be less likely to settle for or be tempted by a substandard one, and might have a particular horror of such things. I just don't understand how you think an encounter with a zombie would somehow pull the theological rug out from under him.

> So Lewis described a personal speculation, or
> described a coherent doctrine that had some level
> of exposure prior to his publication?

Lewis never claimed to have had an actual vision of Hell, if that's what you are asking. It was a piece of weird fiction to illustrate an idea. But I am certain he was not the first person in the history of Christendom to ever have this idea. If you want me to back up that suspicion, I would have to do some research. In the text himself, he claims to have been influenced, to some extent, by George MacDonald.



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 24 Jan 22 | 10:45PM by Platypus.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> > > Yes, but in the current context, what are we
> > > comparing "religions" to?
> >
> > Materialism.
> >
> > I'd say that's the dividing line, wouldn't you?
> > Religion vs materialism? Essentially, a belief
> in
> > the supernatural vs those who deny the
> > supernatural?
>
> How does one write a ghost story or
> life-after-death story from a materialist
> perspective? I'm not saying a materialist cannot
> write a ghost story -- Lovecraft did so -- but he
> must suspend disbelief in materialism long enough
> to convince us of the ghost. And we must suspend
> disbelief long enough to be convinced.
>
> It's a dividing line of sorts sure. It may well
> be the dividing line between you and me. But it
> does not seem to be a dividing line that is
> relevant to the thread. Or have we just veered
> off topic because you have little interest in the
> topic of the thread, which is about ghosts,
> zombies, vampires and the evil dead in general?

Oh, I'll definitely own up to diverging sometimes, or broadening the discussion. And I wouldn't be the only one on ED to do this.

But let's see what your original topic was. In your original post you introduced two potential areas for EDers to respond to:

Quote:

Platypus

Fear of the dead is, I suppose, a near-universal tendency across all cultures. And there is a thin line between fearing the dead and regarding them as wicked.

This looks like your thesis, and this the the area that I'm responding to.

Then you narrowed the statement somewhat, focusing on Judeo-Christian views of the topic.

This in turn was followed by an admirably long list of stories you've read that concern the topic, in your judgement. These are very valuable because they point to some works that may be of interest.

Then after the list you ask for additions to the list, with special emphasis on CAS. Since I had nothing to contribute to the list, and the thesis was of interest, that's what I addressed and am still attempting to address.

I have no interest or intention to go elsewhere.

Again, the topic is yours:

Fear of the dead is, I suppose, a near-universal tendency across all cultures. And there is a thin line between fearing the dead and regarding them as wicked.

I'm agreeing with you that it's a "near universal tendency", speculating *why* this is across all religions and cultures, then adding an overlay that speculates doctrinal reasons that Christianity might use to reinforce this, and this is an attempt to monopolize the means to life after death. So that Christians would have at least two distinct rationales for supposing that the undead were certainly unnatural and possibly evil: the shared of experience of the rest of mankind that the dead do not walk the earth, and added implications that the existence of the undead are an attack on the certainty that Jesus Christ is the sole means of life after death.

Further, I state that materialists would not be swayed by these doctrinal arguments because they don't tend to believe in life after death--the implication being that while they may share the common revulsion of the undead (completely uncanny and against all experience..."unnatural"), they disregard the Christian overlay.

There. Does that help to refocus on your stated topic? There seems to be no need to inject comparative religions, or speculate about how a materialist author can write about the supernatural, does there?

>
> > Can we find any that think that the undead are
> > somehow the natural and expected result of
> death?
> >
> > This is not rhetorical. I'm aware of none.
>
> Me neither.
>
> > Again, I'd speculate that any significant
> religion
> > denies the normality of reanimated dead. Are
> you
> > aware f any? I'd like to read up on them.
>
> The resurrection of the body is a core doctrine of
> Christianity. But the thought occurred to me that
> because Christianity preaches the right way to
> obtain this benefit, it may have a particular
> horror of attempts to obtain these results by
> improper means, a horror that might not be
> present, to the exact same extent or in the exact
> same flavor, in cultures not influenced by
> Christianity.

That was exactly my point all along with the base case of all cultures/religions, then the overlay of the Christian doctrine of salvation. The overlay is the "particular horror" of which you speak.

> That is the idea I was trying to
> express originally, no matter how off-topic we
> have drifted in my attempt to explain my meaning.
>
> Augustin Calmet, a Christian monk, had no great
> difficulty discussing, from a Christian
> perspective, the possibility that ghosts and
> revenants might in some cases be real. I don't
> think that many people consider ghosts and
> revenants to be "normal".

How do "real" and "normal" relate in this context? E,g,, I see no logical problem with something that is both real and abnormal.

>
> > Why a more complete afterlife? My point is that
> > the fear and loathing of the undead dead is
> > universal, and that in the case of Christianity
> a
> > part of this rejection is that those dead who
> come
> > to some semblance of life, prior to the
> > resurrection, demonstrate that the Christian
> > conception of resurrection is incomplete, hence
> > casting doubt on the entire theological
> > underpinnings.
>
> What? Calmet did not see it this way. Nor did
> Robert Southey. Nor did Sheridan Le Fanu. Nor
> did the author of THE PRINCESS IN THE CHEST. Nor
> did Charles Dickens. Nor did Mrs. Oliphant. And
> I don't see the logic either.

If the "it" you refer to above relates to my preceding paragraph about:

"...that those dead who come to some semblance of life, prior to the resurrection, demonstrate that the Christian conception of resurrection is incomplete..."

what did you mean by this:

"...the thought occurred to me that Christianity preaches the right way to obtain this benefit, it may have a particular horror of attempts to obtain these results by improper means,..."

The main difference between my statement and yours is that mine speculates that Christianity views it as blasphemous, while you seem to think it's more from a sort of uncategorized horror of using improper means.

Sort of like using your tea spoon to eat your soup, rather than the proper soup spoon.

>
> I agree only that a Christian, believing as he
> does in a perfect resurrection, might be less
> likely to settle for or be tempted by a
> substandard one,

In anything approaching mainstream Christian doctrine, is there even a possibility of "a substandard" resurrection? Is this recognized as even a remote possibility? What is state of "substandard resurrection" called, so that I can study up on it, for my own enlightenment?

Again, I'm from an arreligious family--while nominally Eastern Orthodox, no actual practice or connection. Something like being given a letterman's jacket by an older cousin: never actually played the sport, myself, but...

I'm familiar with the overall concepts, but not with the intricate doctrinal aspects of Christianity.

> and might have a particular
> horror of such things. I just don't understand
> how you think an encounter with a zombie would
> somehow pull the theological rug out from under
> him.

If it's accurate to say that a core concept of most/all mainstream Christian doctrine is that resurrection is thru the intercession of Jesus, exclusively, any resurrected example that did not rely on Jesus' intervention basically proves that there are other ways to resurrection: it is therefore not exclusive to Jesus or Christianity.

>
> > So Lewis described a personal speculation, or
> > described a coherent doctrine that had some
> level
> > of exposure prior to his publication?
>
> Lewis never claimed to have had an actual vision
> of Hell, if that's what you are asking. It was a
> piece of weird fiction to illustrate an idea. But
> I am certain he was not the first person in the
> history of Christendom to ever have this idea. If
> you want me to back up that suspicion, I would
> have to do some research. In the text himself, he
> claims to have been influenced, to some extent, by
> George MacDonald.

Sounds to me more like a personal speculation rather that a statement of doctrine. It would a lot like me trying to write about the direct and personal experience of childbirth in which I quote another male author as an authority: pure speculation.

Maybe the problem here is that I was an engineer, and I expect a certain testable logic when I examine concepts. Simply listing others who accept the untested conclusion in no way replaces the testing process.

Maybe I don't actually fit into this forum very well.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Perhaps it would be easier to follow the polarity of this debate, if we know your individual origins of perspective. Is Sawfish agnostic (possibly atheist), and Platypus practicing Christian and active churchgoer? Is that correct?

I would deviate, and propose that the connection between evil dead and religion, such as Judeo/Christian influence, is merely superficial. That religion interferes in it, and as wedged authorities of society confiscates the right of interpretation in each culture; but that the issue goes deeper than culturally and ethnically affected religion (I know, every religion thinks its own is the single pure path to Truth, because it is blind to the fact that it is a cultural expression). Back to the Big Bang. I see the evil dead as a symbol (that of making an inner experience graspable) of an issue all life manifested in matter struggles with: that of ego or dualism, versus unity; that of being isolated or cut off, inside of a body, staring out through its eyes at the environment and other individuals which is separated from itself, versus evolving and maturing into experiencing unity with everything else. That is the polarity all manifested life struggle with. The evil dead is a symbol of a person who has not transcended past its ego at all, has not attained empathy and spiritual unity with others in any way, but is locked up in, isolated within, stuck inside and only identifies with its own body and ego. Unable to leave it, ... even after death. And I think that condition results in what we call "evil".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 25 Jan 22 | 03:20PM by Knygatin.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps it would be easier to follow the polarity
> of this debate, if we know your individual origins
> of perspective. Is Sawfish agnostic (possibly
> atheist), and Platypus practicing Christian and
> active churchgoer? Is that correct?

Agnostic. I've as yet seen nothing I take as testably valid that unambiguously demonstrates the existence of the divine. Therefore, my working conclusion is that there is none, but since testing is incomplete I cannot categorically state that there is no divinity.

>
> I would deviate, and propose that the connection
> between evil dead and religion, such as
> Judeo/Christian influence, is merely superficial.
> That religion interferes in it, and as wedged
> authorities of society confiscates the right of
> interpretation in each culture; but that the issue
> goes deeper than culturally and ethnically
> affected religion (I know, every religion thinks
> its own is the single pure path to Truth, because
> it is blind to the fact that it is a cultural
> expression). Back to the Big Bang. I see the evil
> dead as a symbol (that of making an inner
> experience graspable) of an issue all life
> manifested in matter struggles with: that of ego
> or dualism, versus unity; that of being isolated
> or cut off, inside of a body, staring out through
> its eyes at the environment and other individuals
> which is separated from itself, versus evolving
> and maturing into experiencing unity with
> everything else. That is the polarity all
> manifested life struggle with.

Gulp!

You lost me there when you were mentioning the effect of the fox trot on sunspots--or maybe it was vice versa.

I think... ;^)

> The evil dead is a
> symbol of a person who has not transcended past
> its ego at all, has not attained empathy and
> spiritual unity with others in any way, but is
> locked up in, isolated within, stuck inside and
> only identifies with its own body and ego. Unable
> to leave it, ... even after death. And I think
> that condition results in what we call "evil".

Do you think good and evil are universal constants, K? I suspect that they are transient and relative, varying according to era and culture.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Gulp!
>
> You lost me there when you were mentioning the
> effect of the fox trot on sunspots--or maybe it
> was vice versa.
>
> I think... ;^)
>

Sorry, I meant that I think this issue goes back to the beginning of the Universe, and therefore is deeper than the fumbling cultural expressions of religions.

>
> Do you think good and evil are universal
> constants, K? I suspect that they are transient
> and relative, varying according to era and
> culture.


Yes I think so, but I would not call it "good" and "evil", because those are Judeo/Christian value interpretations.

Sawfish Wrote:
> Oh, I'll definitely own up to diverging sometimes,
> or broadening the discussion. And I wouldn't be
> the only one on ED to do this.

It's fine. You're the only one talking to me, so why not? I can still be a bit confused as to where you are coming from.

> But let's see what your original topic was. In
> your original post you introduced two potential
> areas for EDers to respond to:
>
> Fear of the dead is, I suppose, a near-universal
> tendency across all cultures. And there is a thin
> line between fearing the dead and regarding them
> as wicked.
>
> This looks like your thesis, and this the the area
> that I'm responding to.
>
> Then you narrowed the statement somewhat, focusing
> on Judeo-Christian views of the topic.

It seems to be more that latter idea that you are responding to. Which is okay of course.

> This in turn was followed by an admirably long
> list of stories you've read that concern the
> topic, in your judgement. These are very valuable
> because they point to some works that may be of
> interest.

Thank you muchly.

> Then after the list you ask for additions to the
> list, with special emphasis on CAS. Since I had
> nothing to contribute to the list, and the thesis
> was of interest, that's what I addressed and am
> still attempting to address.

All fine and good, so far. I'm not confused yet.

> I have no interest or intention to go elsewhere.
>
> Again, the topic is yours:
>
> Fear of the dead is, I suppose, a near-universal
> tendency across all cultures. And there is a thin
> line between fearing the dead and regarding them
> as wicked.
>
> I'm agreeing with you that it's a "near universal
> tendency", ....

I am certainly happy to agree on the things we agree about.


> ... speculating *why* this is across all
> religions and cultures, ....

This is I suppose where you begin to confuse me.

> ... then adding an overlay
> that speculates doctrinal reasons that
> Christianity might use to reinforce this, and this
> is an attempt to monopolize the means to life
> after death. So that Christians would have at
> least two distinct rationales for supposing that
> the undead were certainly unnatural and possibly
> evil: the shared of experience of the rest of
> mankind that the dead do not walk the earth, and
> added implications that the existence of the
> undead are an attack on the certainty that Jesus
> Christ is the sole means of life after death.

The question I was asking was: Is a Christian culture more likely to regard the undead (ghosts, vampires, etc.) as malevolent, and, if so why?

The question you seem to be asking is: Does a Christian culture hate tales of the undead as blasphemous, heretical and contrary to Christian Faith, and if so, why?

I am still not sure of the answer to my question, but I can answer yours easily. Christian culture is not, for the most part, opposed to tales of the undead. You are trying to solve a problem that does not exist. Sure, there may well be a few Christians here and there who regard ghost stories as blasphemous, and believers in ghost stories as heretics. But such persons are not particularly relevant to this thread for the obvious reason that they do not read or write ghost stories. Christian culture has produced a huge array of ghost stories and vampire stories.

> Further, I state that materialists would not be
> swayed by these doctrinal arguments because they
> don't tend to believe in life after death--the
> implication being that while they may share the
> common revulsion of the undead (completely uncanny
> and against all experience..."unnatural"), they
> disregard the Christian overlay.

Sure. Materialists are free to disregard whatever Christian overlays exist. But in this case the Christian overlay you refer to does not seem to exist, at least not in the mind of those Christians who have produced a huge array of English language ghost stories.

> There. Does that help to refocus on your stated
> topic? There seems to be no need to inject
> comparative religions, or speculate about how a
> materialist author can write about the
> supernatural, does there?

I certainly don't see the need. When a materialist writes a ghost story, he sets aside his materialism, and falls back on whatever Christian, Pagan, or other superstitions he wishes to use as inspiration. The question I was asking is whether the Christian-culture attitude towards spooks differs from other NON-MATERIALIST traditions. But it would seem hard to compare different traditions, since it is Western culture that has produced the vastest body of spooky literature.

> That was exactly my point all along with the base
> case of all cultures/religions, then the overlay
> of the Christian doctrine of salvation. The
> overlay is the "particular horror" of which you
> speak.

Right. But again, if my hypothesis is correct, the task is to explain why Christian-derived culture is more likely to regard the revenant as evil, and not why it should be regarded as non-existent.

> How do "real" and "normal" relate in this context?
> E,g,, I see no logical problem with something that
> is both real and abnormal.

Neither do I. I believe it was you who introduced the concept of "normality" into the discussion. I don't think it matters how rare vampires are.

> The main difference between my statement and yours
> is that mine speculates that Christianity views it
> as blasphemous, while you seem to think it's more
> from a sort of uncategorized horror of using
> improper means.

Seems like an important difference to me. I am merely trying to explain why a Christian or Christian-influenced writer might be more likely to portray the undead as evil. Assuming that is even true, and I don't have much evidence for it, beyond the vampire-as-sex-god produced the more nihilistic and post-modern culture of the late 20th century onwards.

You, on the other hand, seem to be trying to explain why Christians regard the undead are non-existent, and condemn ghost-story writers as heretics and blasphemers. And that, as far as I'm concerned, is just not a problem significant enough to be relevant. If it were a problem, perhaps your theory would be a plausible explanation.

> In anything approaching mainstream Christian
> doctrine, is there even a possibility of "a
> substandard" resurrection?

You mean, like a vampire? Vampires seem to be largely products of Christian culture. I'm not sure what you are even asking here. Scripture says nothing about Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster or the Abominable Snowman or the Unicorn either, nor even about the Giant Squid or the Rhinoceros, but it hardly follows that Christians are forbidden to suspect that such things might exist. Scripture never mentions Antarctica either, as far as I know.

> Is this recognized as
> even a remote possibility?

Recognized by who? Calmet, an 18th century Catholic monk, wrote a whole book-length treatise on the subject of vampires and other spooks. He was often quite skeptical, but he at least, thought the reality of vampires was a possibility, however remote. I already told you that, and you don't seem interested, so what are you asking me now? You can read the entire text on Project Gutenberg. I can give you a link, if you are interested, but I don't think you are. Maybe you want something from the Pope himself? I don't know.

> What is state of
> "substandard resurrection" called, so that I can
> study up on it, for my own enlightenment?

You never heard, for instance, the words "vampire" or "revenant"? Surely you have. I don't understand the question. Scripture does not mention vampires, to be sure, but neither does it mention Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. It does not mention CPR either.

> If it's accurate to say that a core concept of
> most/all mainstream Christian doctrine is that
> resurrection is thru the intercession of Jesus,
> exclusively, any resurrected example that did not
> rely on Jesus' intervention basically proves that
> there are other ways to resurrection: it is
> therefore not exclusive to Jesus or Christianity.

Your logic seems to be that, since Jesus promised his followers bodily resurrection through the power of God, and eternal life in the Kingdom of God, it necessarily follows that he ruled out any possibility of animation of a corpse by a sorcerer; or animation of a corpse by a demon. I don't see that logic.

Neither did Calmet. He was very pious and very learned, and rather skeptical of vampires. If he could have resolved the question of vampires with a quote from scripture, he would have been happy to do so, I am sure. But it seems he was unable to find such a quote from scripture. And I don't think you will be able to find one either.

In any event, a fair number of pious Christian authors have not hesitated to include the undead in their works of fiction. They may or may not have believed such things to be real (probably not in most cases), but they at least were not unduly concerned that such fictions would result in their being accused of promoting blasphemy and heresy.

Re: THE GREAT DIVORCE, by C.S. Lewis
> Sounds to me more like a personal speculation
> rather that a statement of doctrine. It would a
> lot like me trying to write about the direct and
> personal experience of childbirth in which I quote
> another male author as an authority: pure
> speculation.

I'm only trying to answer your question. I have no idea what you are looking for, or why.

> Maybe the problem here is that I was an engineer,
> and I expect a certain testable logic when I
> examine concepts. Simply listing others who accept
> the untested conclusion in no way replaces the
> testing process.

I get the impression you want to debate philosophy. However, I was only trying to spark a discussion about fantasy fiction entertainment.

> Maybe I don't actually fit into this forum very
> well.

No, I would not say that. Maybe I am the poor fit, and maybe so is the topic I wanted to discuss. But I do get the impression you are not really interested in the topic I proposed. But you are the only one responding at all at the moment, so you might as well say what you please.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Do you think good and evil are universal
> > constants, K? I suspect that they are transient
> > and relative, varying according to era and
> > culture.
>
>
> Yes I think so, but I would not call it "good" and
> "evil", because those are Judeo/Christian value
> interpretations.

The entrapment and isolation inside a body of matter (dualism) is ultimately pain. And unity with other life, the breaking of isolation, is relief from pain, and could be termed delight or pleasure. "Good" and "evil" are shallow, narrow, moralizing terms, intentionally designed to control the masses through fear of God, and do not describe the core of the existential issue.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps it would be easier to follow the polarity
> of this debate, if we know your individual origins
> of perspective. Is Sawfish agnostic (possibly
> atheist), and Platypus practicing Christian and
> active churchgoer? Is that correct?

I am a Christian, though I make no claim to be a good one. But I never intended my personal beliefs to be relevant to this discussion.

As far as personal beliefs are concerned, I have no particular belief in ghosts, vampires and other spooks. Nonetheless, I started this thread to spark a discussion primarily about works of fiction. Which I enjoy.

As far as I can tell, Sawfish's idea seems to be that he is not a Christian, but if he were one, he would think that the idea that vampires might exist is heretical, blasphemous and contrary to scripture. This seems to be our point of disagreement. I don't believe in vampires. But neither do I believe that such an idea would be blasphemous, heretical, or contrary to Christian scripture. Nor, apparently, do so many of the Christian authors that I listed at the start of this thread.

> I would deviate, and propose that the connection
> between evil dead and religion, such as
> Judeo/Christian influence, is merely superficial.

Possibly so. But there seems little for me to compare it to. Maybe it is time for me to finally read VIKRAM AND THE VAMPIRE, which is a story about a corpse creature from the Hindu tradition



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 25 Jan 22 | 08:13PM by Platypus.

It's always good to have someone explain everyone else what you just said, when it's right there in the thread for everyone to see, isn't it?

It's how straw men are made.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's always good to have someone explain everyone
> else what you just said, when it's right there in
> the thread for everyone to see, isn't it?
>
> It's how straw men are made.

I'm sorry if you feel I have misrepresented your position. But, as I have already said, I don't think I understand your position.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes I think so, but I would not call it "good" and
> "evil", because those are Judeo/Christian value
> interpretations.

"Good" and "evil" are English words, and are only as old as the English language, with origins traceable to similar words used by Germanic pagans. Greek and Latin, the tongues of ancient Christianity, are much older languages. And their words for "good" and "evil" were the same words used by the Greek and Roman pagans.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 25 Jan 22 | 10:29PM by Platypus.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yes I think so, but I would not call it "good"
> and
> > "evil", because those are Judeo/Christian value
> > interpretations.
>
> "Good" and "evil" are English words, and are only
> as old as the English language, with origins
> traceable to similar words used by Germanic
> pagans. Greek and Latin, the tongues of ancient
> Christianity, are much older languages. And their
> words for "good" and "evil" were the same words
> used by the Greek and Roman pagans.

It may well go far back, but I still don't see "good" and "evil" as fully correct terms, because it is easy, shallow, emotionally or socially based interpretations by the outside observer, not by the victim itself. What I call "pain", the isolation within a body of matter, often results in a lack of empathy for others, and therefore egoistic and possibly cruel behavior to gain imagined advantage for itself, that may cause suffering to others. Therefore others interpret it as "evil". Likewise, an individual who has broken his isolation and unites with other life, experiencing "delight", acts in harmony with others, not in conflict, and therefore the others sees it as "good". But "evil" and "good" are not core interpretations of the existential issue.

Knygatin Wrote:
> It may well go far back, but I still don't see
> "good" and "evil" as fully correct terms, because
> it is easy, shallow, emotionally or socially based
> interpretations by the outside observer, not by
> the victim itself. What I call "pain", the
> isolation within a body of matter, often results
> in a lack of empathy for others, and therefore
> egoistic and possibly cruel behavior to gain
> imagined advantage for itself, that may cause
> suffering to others. Therefore others interpret it
> as "evil". Likewise, an individual who has broken
> his isolation and unites with other life,
> experiencing "delight", acts in harmony with
> others, not in conflict, and therefore the others
> sees it as "good". But "evil" and "good" are not
> core interpretations of the existential issue.

Well, in the vampire lore that arose in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, I don't know how many people had any opinions on to what extent vampires experienced "pain" or "delight". And if anyone were to suggest that vampires were driven to break their isolation and unite with other life, that would at least seem highly plausible to many. In those pre-Anne-Rice days, vampires were not then known for giving long introspective monologues to interviewers.

Rather, what people understood or supposed was that vampires, if not stopped, would murder their own children, wipe out their entire families, and then perhaps go on to wipe out an entire village, spreading death like a contagion.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 26 Jan 22 | 08:11AM by Platypus.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It's always good to have someone explain
> everyone
> > else what you just said, when it's right there
> in
> > the thread for everyone to see, isn't it?
> >
> > It's how straw men are made.
>
> I'm sorry if you feel I have misrepresented your
> position. But, as I have already said, I don't
> think I understand your position.

All the more reason not to rephrase it, do you agree?

It's never, ever, ever a good idea to paraphrase another's statements *if those statements as easily accessible and available to the discussion*. It smacks of a crude attempt at manipulation, and manipulation under those circumstances implies an unwillingness to engage in an honest and open discussion.

...and the reasons for *that* are often in defense of an otherwise indefensible position, to which one is irrationally attached.

This is why I took great, great pains to quote your statements, and ask for your clarification. I didn't presume to tell you what your ideas are. I did this repeatedly in our exchange, you'll note.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Vampires and evil dead panders to primitive fears and superstitions in Man. (I am no better than anyone else; I enjoy this superstition, it is both an aesthetic pleasure as well as tingling our primitive emotions with a fanciful fear.) Just as Christianity (and Judaism, Islam) panders to superstitious fear of a conscious God and of "evil" in the form of Satan existing as an independent real supernatural force.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 26 Jan 22 | 10:35AM by Knygatin.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Platypus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Knygatin Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Yes I think so, but I would not call it
> "good"
> > and
> > > "evil", because those are Judeo/Christian
> value
> > > interpretations.
> >
> > "Good" and "evil" are English words, and are
> only
> > as old as the English language, with origins
> > traceable to similar words used by Germanic
> > pagans. Greek and Latin, the tongues of
> ancient
> > Christianity, are much older languages. And
> their
> > words for "good" and "evil" were the same words
> > used by the Greek and Roman pagans.
>
> It may well go far back, but I still don't see
> "good" and "evil" as fully correct terms, because
> it is easy, shallow, emotionally or socially based
> interpretations by the outside observer, not by
> the victim itself. What I call "pain", the
> isolation within a body of matter, often results
> in a lack of empathy for others, and therefore
> egoistic and possibly cruel behavior to gain
> imagined advantage for itself, that may cause
> suffering to others. Therefore others interpret it
> as "evil".

Agreed. Another word they might use is "wrong" (as opposed to "right"). "Unethical" might come up, too.

Yet your close friend might see it at worst as a morally neutral, and you, yourself, may see it as entirely appropriate and justified. At precisely the same time that the sufferer--and *his* friends--have damned you as evil.

(BTW, if you feel *guilt* over these actions, it would seem to mean that you, yourself, recognize the actions that caused suffering as wrong or evil. But if you do not so recognize it, no amount of external social pressure will succeed in making you feel guilty--you can be forced to show repentance or culpability in some fashion, but with hidden resentment and a desire for revenge. At least that's the way I see it.

The whole area of good/bad, right/wrong, moral/immoral is tribal in nature. It is, above all, situational.

Now from this perspective it might sound like I'm suggesting that morals, being not much more than the accepted social conventions of your group or tribe, are objectively interchangeable--and maybe they are--but me, I'm a subjective being, at core, and I have never yet met a person who is not.

This means that I still have my own set of morals, and my ideas of good/bad, and I try hard to stick to them, but mainly for myself: it's an attempt to be true to myself. I am content to live in the knowledge that my own code is subjective and binding upon only myself and others who ascribe to it, as are the codes of all others, whether they see it this way or not.

And if it comes to a contest of whose code is correct, it's resolved by power or by deep affection.

What's more--and perhaps ironic--is that my set of moral/ethical standards is shared by many others--I'm pretty conventional, except for possibility seeing that my own morals have no currency outside of my own group or tribe. They are not absolute, as if given from above. Many, many others seem to think that a sort of divine authority gives their set of morals ascendancy over all others. They may be nice about it, but in actuality it's simply patronizing.

> Likewise, an individual who has broken
> his isolation and unites with other life,
> experiencing "delight", acts in harmony with
> others, not in conflict, and therefore the others
> sees it as "good". But "evil" and "good" are not
> core interpretations of the existential issue.

What do you see as at the core of existential issues, K? For me, it always gets back to survival/success. In fact, as I see it, "success" within this context simply means at what relative level do you survive, with bare subsistence at one end of this scale, and gross and gratuitous consumption at the other.

None of these observations do I espouse as right or correct. All I can say is that after a lifetime of observing, reading, and above all attempting to economically account for what I've seen/experienced/been made aware of. My working conclusions represent the identification of trends, not absolutes.

In short, it's not necessarily "right", but it is the way to bet... ;^)

Do you wish to branch off into "empathy", and what it seems to be, and how it works? For example, do you see empathy as unqualified, not requiring reciprocity, or at least recognition of one's empathy?

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vampires and evil dead panders to primitive fears
> and superstitions in Man. (I am no better than
> anyone else; I enjoy this superstition, it is both
> an aesthetic pleasure as well as tingling our
> primitive emotions with a fanciful fear.)

I'm superstitious as hell.

It sorta gets down to a fear of tempting fate; I don't tend to think I can induce good luck, but I might invite bad luck, so I do a bunch of really silly things--and laugh about it with my wife.

But I still do them.

> Just as
> Christianity (and Judaism, Islam) panders to
> superstitious fear of a conscious God and of
> "evil" in the form of Satan existing as an
> independent real supernatural force.

If the old truism about the victors writing history is true, and if there actually was a war in heaven, after which Satan and his supporters were cast from heaven, then that would explain the Bible, wouldn't it?

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
> All the more reason not to rephrase it, do you
> agree?
>
> It's never, ever, ever a good idea to paraphrase
> another's statements *if those statements as
> easily accessible and available to the
> discussion*. It smacks of a crude attempt at
> manipulation, and manipulation under those
> circumstances implies an unwillingness to engage
> in an honest and open discussion.
>
> ...and the reasons for *that* are often in defense
> of an otherwise indefensible position, to which
> one is irrationally attached.
>
> This is why I took great, great pains to quote
> your statements, and ask for your clarification. I
> didn't presume to tell you what your ideas are. I
> did this repeatedly in our exchange, you'll note.

No, I can't bring myself to agree that it is never, ever a good idea to attempt to express another person's ideas in your own words, to the extent that you can understand them.

Yes, it would be bad if I did so as part of a deliberate attempt to misrepresent your position. But I won't plead guilty to any such thing.

I merely made an attempt at a concise restatement of what it was I understood you to be saying, and why I objected to it. And if what I was objecting to was an illusion caused by my own misunderstanding, perhaps that is something that needs to be cleared up.

If you want to accuse me of being too ornery and argumentative, I might plead guilty to that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 26 Jan 22 | 12:02PM by Platypus.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vampires and evil dead panders to primitive fears
> and superstitions in Man. (I am no better than
> anyone else; I enjoy this superstition, it is both
> an aesthetic pleasure as well as tingling our
> primitive emotions with a fanciful fear.) Just as
> Christianity (and Judaism, Islam) panders to
> superstitious fear of a conscious God and of
> "evil" in the form of Satan existing as an
> independent real supernatural force.

When I started this thread, I was hoping for more talk about evil spooks, and less talk about how y'all are sophisticated adults, who of course do not take such seriously such primitive notions as spooks and moral concepts. Oh well.

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > Platypus Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > "Good" and "evil" are English words, and are only
> > > as old as the English language, with origins
> > > traceable to similar words used by Germanic
> > > pagans. Greek and Latin, the tongues of ancient
> > > Christianity, are much older languages. And their
> > > words for "good" and "evil" were the same words
> > > used by the Greek and Roman pagans.
> >
> > It may well go far back, but I still don't see
> > "good" and "evil" as fully correct terms, because
> > it is easy, shallow, emotionally or socially based
> > interpretations by the outside observer, not by
> > the victim itself. What I call "pain", the
> > isolation within a body of matter, often results
> > in a lack of empathy for others, and therefore
> > egoistic and possibly cruel behavior to gain
> > imagined advantage for itself, that may cause
> > suffering to others. Therefore others interpret it
> > as "evil".
>
>
> Agreed. Another word they might use is "wrong" (as
> opposed to "right"). "Unethical" might come up,
> too.
>

Exactly. And even if society has moved towards materialistic secularization, this still remains the Christian underpinning by which those in control are able to enforce political correctness onto people of Western society.

> What do you see as at the core of existential
> issues, K? For me, it always gets back to
> survival/success. In fact, as I see it, "success"
> within this context simply means at what relative
> level do you survive, with bare subsistence at one
> end of this scale, and gross and gratuitous
> consumption at the other.
>
>

Yes, I think it could be described from that perspective, if that also includes social success, not just material success.

I see the existential core as the struggle between the isolated pain of duality and the delight of unity. The striving for survival and success in life, may be more or less successful in attaining delight of unity. Working, inventing, and creating, may also be a delight in itself, as it makes you part of something bigger than yourself.

OK. I missed this response.

My apologies where they are due.

Below:

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> > Oh, I'll definitely own up to diverging
> sometimes,
> > or broadening the discussion. And I wouldn't be
> > the only one on ED to do this.
>
> It's fine. You're the only one talking to me, so
> why not? I can still be a bit confused as to
> where you are coming from.
>
> > But let's see what your original topic was. In
> > your original post you introduced two potential
> > areas for EDers to respond to:
> >
> > Fear of the dead is, I suppose, a
> near-universal
> > tendency across all cultures. And there is a
> thin
> > line between fearing the dead and regarding
> them
> > as wicked.
> >
> > This looks like your thesis, and this the the
> area
> > that I'm responding to.
> >
> > Then you narrowed the statement somewhat,
> focusing
> > on Judeo-Christian views of the topic.
>
> It seems to be more that latter idea that you are
> responding to. Which is okay of course.
>
> > This in turn was followed by an admirably long
> > list of stories you've read that concern the
> > topic, in your judgement. These are very
> valuable
> > because they point to some works that may be of
> > interest.
>
> Thank you muchly.
>
> > Then after the list you ask for additions to
> the
> > list, with special emphasis on CAS. Since I had
> > nothing to contribute to the list, and the
> thesis
> > was of interest, that's what I addressed and am
> > still attempting to address.
>
> All fine and good, so far. I'm not confused yet.
>
> > I have no interest or intention to go
> elsewhere.
> >
> > Again, the topic is yours:
> >
> > Fear of the dead is, I suppose, a
> near-universal
> > tendency across all cultures. And there is a
> thin
> > line between fearing the dead and regarding
> them
> > as wicked.
> >
> > I'm agreeing with you that it's a "near
> universal
> > tendency", ....
>
> I am certainly happy to agree on the things we
> agree about.
>
>
> > ... speculating *why* this is across all
> > religions and cultures, ....
>
> This is I suppose where you begin to confuse me.
>
> > ... then adding an overlay
> > that speculates doctrinal reasons that
> > Christianity might use to reinforce this, and
> this
> > is an attempt to monopolize the means to life
> > after death. So that Christians would have at
> > least two distinct rationales for supposing
> that
> > the undead were certainly unnatural and
> possibly
> > evil: the shared of experience of the rest of
> > mankind that the dead do not walk the earth,
> and
> > added implications that the existence of the
> > undead are an attack on the certainty that
> Jesus
> > Christ is the sole means of life after death.
>
> The question I was asking was: Is a Christian
> culture more likely to regard the undead (ghosts,
> vampires, etc.) as malevolent, and, if so why?
>
> The question you seem to be asking is: Does a
> Christian culture hate tales of the undead as
> blasphemous, heretical and contrary to Christian
> Faith, and if so, why?

Not exactly. I've never stated or implied a hate or revulsion of the tales as blasphemous--your version implies that the hatred is directed at the tales. I never mentioned tales in any context, so far as I recall. I'm dealing with the *concept* of the undead, as understood by Christians, just as it's understood by everyone else, but with an additional layer of revulsion as informed by docrine.


Honestly, I don't see where I ever made this into a hatred of published blasphemy. I'm postulating a fear (not necessarily hatred) of the undead on two levels:

1) That they are uncanny and outside of the realm of normal experience. Note that this is the same criterion shared by all other human groups that fear the undead.

2) The existence of the undead *looks* like a resurrection, and the only possibility of resurrection is thru the intercession of Jesus. Therefore, it presents a problem to the common Christian: if I see an instance of what appears to be a resurrected corpse, does this invalidate what I've been taught as a Christian--that there is NO possibility of any resurrection except by act of God (Jesus)?

If the existence of the undead casts doubt on conventional teachings (doctrine), it would seem heretical, blasphemous, to the devout Christian.

You'll also recall that I asked for any instances of mainstream Christian doctrine that recognized any other method of resurrection than by Jesus's salvation, or even the possibility that such a resurrected entity could exist.

I don't recall that you could recommend any, so for now there ae no such references; it helps me to refine my ideas on this.

And if we find any, that, too, will help me to fine my ideas, but along different lines.

You did supply a list of implied support, but while writers or even ecclesiastics can have an opinion on any of this, I don't consider this to be doctrine unless it's formally incorporated by a church. That was the line I was looking for: does it exist in doctrine?

>
> I am still not sure of the answer to my question,
> but I can answer yours easily. Christian culture
> is not, for the most part, opposed to tales of the
> undead.

I've never asked what Christians think about tales or discussion of the undead. I always thought we were talking about the response to the concept of the actual existence of the undead: what would this imply, from the perspective of Christian cosmology?

> You are trying to solve a problem that
> does not exist.

...and that I never asked about.

> Sure, there may well be a few
> Christians here and there who regard ghost stories
> as blasphemous, and believers in ghost stories as
> heretics. But such persons are not particularly
> relevant to this thread for the obvious reason
> that they do not read or write ghost stories.
> Christian culture has produced a huge array of
> ghost stories and vampire stories.


OK, but this was never under discussion, so far as I recall. The only injection of literature was your inclusion of a list of tales and authors.

>
> > Further, I state that materialists would not be
> > swayed by these doctrinal arguments because
> they
> > don't tend to believe in life after death--the
> > implication being that while they may share the
> > common revulsion of the undead (completely
> uncanny
> > and against all experience..."unnatural"), they
> > disregard the Christian overlay.
>
> Sure. Materialists are free to disregard whatever
> Christian overlays exist. But in this case the
> Christian overlay you refer to does not seem to
> exist, at least not in the mind of those
> Christians who have produced a huge array of
> English language ghost stories.

To remind you: the overlay is the intellectual response to the idea of hypothetical instances of the undead, as it interfaces with Christian doctrine.

The overlay is NOT a resistance to tales of the supernatural.

BTW, you're now using the term "ghost stories". Are we now broadening the discussion to include ghosts as well as the corporeal undead--tangible zombies, and the like?


>
> > There. Does that help to refocus on your stated
> > topic? There seems to be no need to inject
> > comparative religions, or speculate about how a
> > materialist author can write about the
> > supernatural, does there?
>
> I certainly don't see the need. When a
> materialist writes a ghost story, he sets aside
> his materialism, and falls back on whatever
> Christian, Pagan, or other superstitions he wishes
> to use as inspiration.

Agreed. To him it's a job, whereas to a spiritualist it may be much more than that.

> The question I was asking
> is whether the Christian-culture attitude towards
> spooks differs from other NON-MATERIALIST
> traditions.


Yes, and I addressed this with the two-layer model a couple of times, at least.


> But it would seem hard to compare
> different traditions, since it is Western culture
> that has produced the vastest body of spooky
> literature.

In detailed description, yes. Most other references are by traditional tales/beliefs, written or otherwise.

>
> > That was exactly my point all along with the
> base
> > case of all cultures/religions, then the
> overlay
> > of the Christian doctrine of salvation. The
> > overlay is the "particular horror" of which you
> > speak.
>
> Right. But again, if my hypothesis is correct,
> the task is to explain why Christian-derived
> culture is more likely to regard the revenant as
> evil, and not why it should be regarded as
> non-existent.

My point was that Christianity might regard the existence of the resurrected corpse as contrary to the will of God, as described in doctrine. This is because, if it's as I current suspect, no mainstream Christian doctrine recognizes the possibility of any form of resurrection other than that promised by Christian salvation. It's mere existence would then call the doctrine into question, and no church I'm aware of tolerates much of this sort of doubt.

>
> > How do "real" and "normal" relate in this
> context?
> > E,g,, I see no logical problem with something
> that
> > is both real and abnormal.
>
> Neither do I. I believe it was you who introduced
> the concept of "normality" into the discussion. I
> don't think it matters how rare vampires are.

Didn't you write (bold emphasis mine):

Quote:

Platypus
Augustin Calmet, a Christian monk, had no great difficulty discussing, from a Christian perspective, the possibility that ghosts and revenants might in some cases be real. I don't think that many people consider ghosts and revenants to be "normal".

and my direct answer was (bold emphasis mine):

Quote:

Sawfish
How do "real" and "normal" relate in this context? E,g,, I see no logical problem with something that is both real and abnormal.

I believed that I was explicitly asking for what they mean *in the context of your paragraph* about Calmet.

>
> > The main difference between my statement and
> yours
> > is that mine speculates that Christianity views
> it
> > as blasphemous, while you seem to think it's
> more
> > from a sort of uncategorized horror of using
> > improper means.
>
> Seems like an important difference to me. I am
> merely trying to explain why a Christian or
> Christian-influenced writer might be more likely
> to portray the undead as evil. Assuming that is
> even true, and I don't have much evidence for it,
> beyond the vampire-as-sex-god produced the more
> nihilistic and post-modern culture of the late
> 20th century onwards.
>
> You, on the other hand, seem to be trying to
> explain why Christians regard the undead are
> non-existent, and condemn ghost-story writers as
> heretics and blasphemers.

WHOA!!! WHOA!!!

This is all of your own projection. I've never brought any inkling of how anyone, Christian or otherwise, feels about literature and authors. When speaking about Christian response to the undead, I've always made it a point to maintain that if a Christian ever saw an instance of the undead in actuality, he'd have just hell of time accounting for this under any known mainstream Christian doctrine. It might appear to him that either Christianity ignored this possibility, completely, or that Christianity's insistence that resurrection was within the exclusive province of Jesus was in error.

If you really think that I ever stated or implied that Christians either regard the undead as non-existent, or that I ever stated or implied that they condemn any authors of any material as heretics and blasphemers, I would like it very much if you'd quote it and I will address it.

> And that, as far as I'm
> concerned, is just not a problem significant
> enough to be relevant. If it were a problem,
> perhaps your theory would be a plausible
> explanation.

Of course, since that's not even close to what I was stating, your response is irrelevant.

>
> > In anything approaching mainstream Christian
> > doctrine, is there even a possibility of "a
> > substandard" resurrection?
>
> You mean, like a vampire? Vampires seem to be
> largely products of Christian culture.

Doctrine, not folk tradition, even if it's channeled thru literature.

The reason for this is that here is no consistency in folk and literary speculation: they are highly personal and idiosyncratic. Any one can imagine anything at any time. They can write it down as a personal statement of belief, but it's not doctrine.

Doctrine is at least a attempt to state a consistent position, and so it's worth discussing the hypothetical situation of the undead in the context of mainstream Christian doctrine, since it is consistent, and it reflects the actual, and not assumed, theological position.

> I'm not
> sure what you are even asking here. Scripture
> says nothing about Bigfoot or the Loch Ness
> Monster or the Abominable Snowman or the Unicorn
> either, nor even about the Giant Squid or the
> Rhinoceros, but it hardly follows that Christians
> are forbidden to suspect that such things might
> exist. Scripture never mentions Antarctica
> either, as far as I know.

But the existence of any of these does not threaten the core idea that corporeal resurrection can come only thru Jesus. And that's the important and defining part.

>
> > Is this recognized as
> > even a remote possibility?
>
> Recognized by who?

You cut my query substantially. Here it is in a complete form (bold emphasis mine):

Quote:

Sawfish
In anything approaching mainstream Christian doctrine, is there even a possibility of "a substandard" resurrection? Is this recognized as even a remote possibility? What is state of "substandard resurrection" called, so that I can study up on it, for my own enlightenment?

Doctrine.

As I said before, a treatise is a speculation, and anyone can have one. It is not binding on anyone else.

> Calmet, an 18th century
> Catholic monk, wrote a whole book-length treatise
> on the subject of vampires and other spooks. He
> was often quite skeptical, but he at least,
> thought the reality of vampires was a possibility,
> however remote.

Great! Now we're getting somewhere!

What was the basis for his speculation? Was it from a study of doctrine, or was it simply because there is a lot of hearsay evidence over time?

> I already told you that, and you
> don't seem interested,

I requested a reference to doctrine, that you cut out.

> so what are you asking me
> now?

Official church position on the means of resurrection, just as I have from the beginning, but you seem to keep forgetting.


> You can read the entire text on Project
> Gutenberg. I can give you a link, if you are
> interested, but I don't think you are. Maybe you
> want something from the Pope himself? I don't
> know.

I found the link:

The Phantom World; or, The philosophy of spirits, apparitions, &c, &c. by Calmet

I can at least find out for myself how broadly this is accepted, and if it even *approaches* doctrine.

By doctrine, I mean something like a mainstream Christian church's stated official position on marriage, contraception, acts of salvation, etc. I'm looking for a stated stance on how the individual is resurrected.

>
> > What is state of
> > "substandard resurrection" called, so that I
> can
> > study up on it, for my own enlightenment?
>
> You never heard, for instance, the words "vampire"
> or "revenant"? Surely you have. I don't
> understand the question. Scripture does not
> mention vampires, to be sure, but neither does it
> mention Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. It does
> not mention CPR either.
>
> > If it's accurate to say that a core concept of
> > most/all mainstream Christian doctrine is that
> > resurrection is thru the intercession of Jesus,
> > exclusively, any resurrected example that did
> not
> > rely on Jesus' intervention basically proves
> that
> > there are other ways to resurrection: it is
> > therefore not exclusive to Jesus or
> Christianity.
>
> Your logic seems to be that, since Jesus promised
> his followers bodily resurrection through the
> power of God, and eternal life in the Kingdom of
> God, it necessarily follows that he ruled out any
> possibility of animation of a corpse by a
> sorcerer; or animation of a corpse by a demon. I
> don't see that logic.

OK. This is better.

It would then be possible for there to be resurrections that were not via Christ.

Let's see...now I can try to find any doctrine on necromancy. If necromancy is accepted as possible by a mainstream church, mere prohibitions against it would be an elliptical recognition of its possibility.

I could go from there.

>
> Neither did Calmet. He was very pious and very
> learned, and rather skeptical of vampires. If he
> could have resolved the question of vampires with
> a quote from scripture, he would have been happy
> to do so, I am sure. But it seems he was unable
> to find such a quote from scripture. And I don't
> think you will be able to find one either.

I can see your point here, and will be interested in Calmet's thesis.

>
> In any event, a fair number of pious Christian
> authors have not hesitated to include the undead
> in their works of fiction.

Since about the 18th C I would think that they'd be free to write about practices prohibited by doctrine without much fear of consequences. But since it's never been my point who wrote fiction or speculation and what the church or believers thought about their writings, it doesn't matter to me.

It's how the church officially views the possible actual existence of a resurrected corpse without the aid of Jesus that I'm after.

> They may or may not
> have believed such things to be real (probably not
> in most cases), but they at least were not unduly
> concerned that such fictions would result in their
> being accused of promoting blasphemy and heresy.

This has never been any part of my position.

>
> Re: THE GREAT DIVORCE, by C.S. Lewis
> > Sounds to me more like a personal speculation
> > rather that a statement of doctrine. It would a
> > lot like me trying to write about the direct
> and
> > personal experience of childbirth in which I
> quote
> > another male author as an authority: pure
> > speculation.
>
> I'm only trying to answer your question. I have
> no idea what you are looking for, or why.

Official church policy toward the undead, as we've been discussing them, and not an individual's personal speculation.

That should be clear by now.

>
> > Maybe the problem here is that I was an
> engineer,
> > and I expect a certain testable logic when I
> > examine concepts. Simply listing others who
> accept
> > the untested conclusion in no way replaces the
> > testing process.
>
> I get the impression you want to debate
> philosophy. However, I was only trying to spark a
> discussion about fantasy fiction entertainment.

You also seemed to invite discussion of this:

Quote:

Platypus
Fear of the dead is, I suppose, a near-universal tendency across all cultures. And there is a thin line between fearing the dead and regarding them as wicked.
I’m interested in a slightly narrower idea – the idea that there is, in many cases, a causal connection, or other correlation, between returning from the dead and being evil.

>
> > Maybe I don't actually fit into this forum very
> > well.
>
> No, I would not say that. Maybe I am the poor
> fit, and maybe so is the topic I wanted to
> discuss. But I do get the impression you are not
> really interested in the topic I proposed.

I'm interested in the thesis statement in your first post, as quoted above.

I explained this before.

> But
> you are the only one responding at all at the
> moment, so you might as well say what you please.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

@Sawfish. You are hinting at the germ of what might be a valid idea. But I cannot bring myself to agree with the way you are saying it.

First off, you are conflating two different ideas (1) that vampires are in rebellion against God; and (2) that the very existence of vampires is contrary to God's will to the extent that to write about one in a book would be heresy and to actually meet one would be to prove that Christian doctrine is false.

I'm fine with the former idea. There are all sorts of doctrinal and quasi-doctrinal reasons why a Christian might be inclined to suspect that a spook who haunts the living is probably not on the side of the angels. Rebellion against God, by wicked people, wicked kings, wicked fallen angels, and wicked demons, are an accepted part of the Christian worldview. And I see no particular reason why such ideas cannot be extended to wicked fairies and wicked leprechauns and wicked ghouls and wicked ghosts and wicked vampires and wicked Cthulhu monsters. Debate if you want the "problem of evil", but the question of why God allows wicked vampires to exist is not particularly more troublesome than the question of why he allows wicked human murderers to exist. And to state that a spook is in rebellion with God is just another way (in the Christian worldview) of saying that it is evil.

It is when you move to the second idea that you stop making sense. You say that Christians regard vampires are heretical blasphemy disproving Christian doctrine, and, when I assume this means Christians dislike or are hostile to spooky literature, you deny it. They like the ghost stories and the ghost story writers fine, you say, they are only mad at the ghost? Huh? That makes no sense at all. If they no longer believe in Christian doctrine, because the ghost supposedly disproved it simply by appearing, then it makes no sense whatsoever to be mad at the ghost. Why aren't they thanking the ghost by leading them to the Truth?

Also, you cannot argue doctrine from ignorance or silence, like you are doing. Doctrinal theology is a relatively small and manageable subject. It does not address, and makes no attempt to address, every topic under the sun. If you believe that some Christian doctrine proves vampires cannot exist, then it is up to you to produce that quote. Don't challenge me to produce a specific scriptural or doctrinal text explicitly saying that they DO exist. You will also find no specific doctrinal affirmation as to the reality of CPR, of helicopters, of hippopotami, or elephants, or Antarctica, or a zillion other things. God may be the font of all wisdom and all creation, but nobody ever said the same of Doctrinal Theology.

Now for a germ of a possibly valid idea. Suppose a Christian were inclined to suspect, on quasi doctrinal grounds based on the anti-superstition opinions of his particular preacher, that the blessed dead who die at peace with God do not return to visit the living. And let us suppose that then his grandpa, who he believes to have been a good and righteous man, dies at peace with God. Two weeks after grandpa’s death, grandpa appears before this hypothetical Christian. He might be inclined to suspect, in light of what his preacher told him, either that this is not really grandpa at all but a demon in disguise; or alternately, perhaps grandpa was not so righteous as he supposed and has been sent by the devil from the bad place.

This is at least imaginable. There have been some theologians who are so uncomfortable with the idea that the Witch of Endor would have been able to summon Samuel from the dead, that they argue that it was really a demon that she summoned. But that's their problem, as far as I'm concerned. Because if you take the Biblical text at face value, it really does seem that the Witch summoned Samuel, and that God, for whatever reason, allowed it. Which is rather inconvenient for those who like to argue that Christianity is hostile to the very concept of revenants.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 26 Jan 22 | 11:59PM by Platypus.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > Vampires and evil dead panders to primitive fears
> > and superstitions in Man. (I am no better than
> > anyone else; I enjoy this superstition, it is both
> > an aesthetic pleasure as well as tingling our
> > primitive emotions with a fanciful fear.) Just as
> > Christianity (and Judaism, Islam) panders to
> > superstitious fear of a conscious God and of
> > "evil" in the form of Satan existing as an
> > independent real supernatural force.
>
> When I started this thread, I was hoping for more
> talk about evil spooks, and less talk about how
> y'all are sophisticated adults, who of course do
> not take such seriously such primitive notions as
> spooks and moral concepts. Oh well.

That's alright. I am not really that much concerned to press my point further. I'll leave the discussion to you two gentlemen.

Knygatin Wrote:
> That's alright. I am not really that much
> concerned to press my point further. I'll leave
> the discussion to you two gentlemen.

I'm not trying to drive anyone away. There are not many of us here, so we might as well all say what we please. But it honestly does strike me as odd. Even a murderous and amoral peasant can understand the difference between a being who just wants to say hello and maybe offer some good advice (as some Roman pagans maybe expected of their ancestors and household gods); and a being who wants to leave him a lifeless and bloodless corpse by the side of the road. It's about survival in a dangerous world, if nothing else. One hardly need appeal to the highest ideals of the Judeo-Christian ethic to have some basic understanding of the concept of a malevolent spook, as distinct from a benevolent one. I am too old fashioned to have learned the lessons taught by postmodern academia, that I must erase the ancient and cross-cultural concept of "evil" from my mind and vocabulary, on pain of having to endure postmodern lectures. But the ivory tower academics teach doctrines that make sense only in the protected environment of the ivory tower. If they were to emerge from the safe environments of their ivory towers, and encounter real danger, they would have trouble dealing with the idea of an evil bandit -- never mind the evil spook. They would be forced to conceal such concepts behind polysyllabic substitutes, and the bandit would have slit their throats before they got to the fourth syllable.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 27 Jan 22 | 11:37AM by Platypus.

d oPlatypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @Sawfish. You are hinting at the germ of what
> might be a valid idea. But I cannot bring myself
> to agree with the way you are saying it.
>
> First off, you are conflating two different ideas
> (1) that vampires are in rebellion against God;
> and (2) that the very existence of vampires is
> contrary to God's will to the extent that to write
> about one in a book would be heresy and to
> actually meet one would be to prove that Christian
> doctrine is false.

Yes. Except that I'd refine the part about writing about vampires (and other unsaved undead) being an actual heresy, but it would be *describing* a heresy. I have not enough knowledge about Christian doctrine(s) to know if merely mentioning the existence of a heretical scenario, but not endorsing it, is itself a heresy.

Thanks for sticking with this. I truly appreciate this, although it may at times seem otherwise.

>
> I'm fine with the former idea. There are all
> sorts of doctrinal and quasi-doctrinal reasons why
> a Christian might be inclined to suspect that a
> spook who haunts the living is probably not on the
> side of the angels. Rebellion against God, by
> wicked people, wicked kings, wicked fallen angels,
> and wicked demons, are an accepted part of the
> Christian worldview. And I see no particular
> reason why such ideas cannot be extended to wicked
> fairies and wicked leprechauns and wicked ghouls
> and wicked ghosts and wicked vampires and wicked
> Cthulhu monsters.

Agreed. Birds of a feather flock together.

> Debate if you want the "problem
> of evil", but the question of why God allows
> wicked vampires to exist is not particularly more
> troublesome than the question of why he allows
> wicked human murderers to exist. And to state
> that a spook is in rebellion with God is just
> another way (in the Christian worldview) of saying
> that it is evil.

Sounds accurate enough for government work.

>
> It is when you move to the second idea that you
> stop making sense. You say that Christians regard
> vampires are heretical blasphemy disproving
> Christian doctrine, and, when I assume this means
> Christians dislike or are hostile to spooky
> literature, you deny it.

I see no more more problem with devout Christians reading about actual historical heresies than reading about vampires. To my current knowledge Christians can read about heresies; the line is drawn at practicing or perhaps approving of heresies.

So the way I see it, it's fine for a mainstream Christian to read about any heresy, so long as they neither practice it, or espouse it.

This may be incorrect: I don't know at this point yet.

> They like the ghost
> stories and the ghost story writers fine, you say,
> they are only mad at the ghost? Huh? That makes
> no sense at all.

Right here I'm having troubles with your logic, stated above. I'm seeing it as saying that in order to approve of the stories and the writers ("...like the ghost
> stories and the ghost story writers fine..."), the readers would also have to approve of the events and characters in the story ("...they are only mad at the ghost? Huh? That makes no sense at all.").

I've read many works of fiction that I found admirable in every way, but these works were written by authors for whom I have little personal regard (Mailer would be one). And these same fictional works can contain characters whom I profoundly dislike (..."mad at the ghosts...").

So the content stands apart from like/not like the characters and authors.

So yes, it nakes sense to me, and I'd be surprised if you only liked works that were written only be authors whom you admired, writing about characters you admired.


> If they no longer believe in
> Christian doctrine, because the ghost supposedly
> disproved it simply by appearing, then it makes no
> sense whatsoever to be mad at the ghost. Why
> aren't they thanking the ghost by leading them to
> the Truth?

Because reading about a fantastical scenario for pleasure is not the same as encountering the same scenario in actuality. The whole scenario is a "what if?"

It's why we here on ED like to read all these fantasies--what's the French term? Frisson? Frisson is not prohibited, is it? After all, a real, corporeal vampire would concretely demonstrate a heresy, but reading about an imaginary vampire is simply describing a situation that would, if it existed, constitute a heresy. It doesn't--but what if it *did*?

Just like in the film Cloverfield: the invasion would be an existential threat to humanity (frisson) *if it existed*. But it doesn't...so no existential threat in reality.

If simply mentioning a heresy in writing would in fact be heresy, it would be impossible for the church to make a list of heresies to caution the faithful against, the list, itself being a heresy.

>
> Also, you cannot argue doctrine from ignorance or
> silence, like you are doing. Doctrinal theology
> is a relatively small and manageable subject. It
> does not address, and makes no attempt to address,
> every topic under the sun. If you believe that
> some Christian doctrine proves vampires cannot
> exist, then it is up to you to produce that quote.
> Don't challenge me to produce a specific
> scriptural or doctrinal text explicitly saying
> that they DO exist. You will also find no
> specific doctrinal affirmation as to the reality
> of CPR, of helicopters, of hippopotami, or
> elephants, or Antarctica, or a zillion other
> things. God may be the font of all wisdom and all
> creation, but nobody ever said the same of
> Doctrinal Theology.

I spent some time last night looking at overviews of various Christian doctrines, and you are correct in saying that none mentions the undead specifically. There is a lot written about what resurrection means, specifically, and when (or if) corporeal bodies will be resurrected, and in some denominations the only chance for any kind of resurrection is by accepting that church's doctrine.

Interesgtingly, some denominations postulate that only the saved will be resuurected, with the others being apparently left permanently dead and souless, while yet other denominations think that everyone will be resurrected, all right, and it's not simply so that the saved can enjoy everlasting life and bliss, but so that the unsaved can get their just comeuppance. Kinda humorously vindictive, in a way.

So by implication any exceptions to this definition of resurrection would be blasphemous.

Again, I found no doctrinal denial of the possibility of the unsaved undead, but that by strong implication if one were to encounter the unsaved undead it would be evidence of a heresy.

This disproves, for me at least, that my contention that instances of the undead would tend to disprove Christian doctrine. It would not--it would simply be an example of heresy.

>
> Now for a germ of a possibly valid idea. Suppose
> a Christian were inclined to suspect, on quasi
> doctrinal grounds based on the anti-superstition
> opinions of his particular preacher, that the
> blessed dead who die at peace with God do not
> return to visit the living. And let us suppose
> that then his grandpa, who he believes to have
> been a good and righteous man, dies at peace with
> God. Two weeks after grandpa’s death, grandpa
> appears before this hypothetical Christian. He
> might be inclined to suspect, in light of what his
> preacher told him, either that this is not really
> grandpa at all but a demon in disguise;

Yes. From my reading last night, this would be how some denominations would view it.

> or
> alternately, perhaps grandpa was not so righteous
> as he supposed and has been sent by the devil from
> the bad place.

In short, a demonic possession or under demonic imperatives.

Many denominations would seem to view this as possible.

>
> This is at least imaginable. There have been some
> theologians who are so uncomfortable with the idea
> that the Witch of Endor would have been able to
> summon Samuel from the dead, that they argue that
> it was really a demon that she summoned. But
> that's their problem, as far as I'm concerned.
> Because if you take the Biblical text at face
> value, it really does seem that the Witch summoned
> Samuel, and that God, for whatever reason, allowed
> it. Which is rather inconvenient for those who
> like to argue that Christianity is hostile to the
> very concept of revenants.

Seems like a reasonable conclusion if you take the scriptures at face value, as representing a consistent reflection of reality.

I'm not going to pry into which sect or denomination you adhere to, but merely note that many sects/denominations would indeed conclude that that representation of Samuel was indeed a fallen angel or demon.

There are many paradoxes in Christianity, that's for sure, starting with the debates about the nature of the trinity.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
> > That's alright. I am not really that much
> > concerned to press my point further. I'll leave
> > the discussion to you two gentlemen.
>
> I'm not trying to drive anyone away. There are
> not many of us here, so we might as well all say
> what we please. But it honestly does strike me as
> odd. Even a murderous and amoral peasant can
> understand the difference between a being who just
> wants to say hello and maybe offer some good
> advice (as some Roman pagans maybe expected of
> their ancestors and household gods); and a being
> who wants to leave him a lifeless and bloodless
> corpse by the side of the road. It's about
> survival in a dangerous world, if nothing else.
> One hardly need appeal to the highest ideals of
> the Judeo-Christian ethic to have some basic
> understanding of the concept of a malevolent
> spook, as distinct from a benevolent one. I am
> too old fashioned to have learned the lessons
> taught by postmodern academia, that I must erase
> the ancient and cross-cultural concept of "evil"
> from my mind and vocabulary, on pain of having to
> endure postmodern lectures. But the ivory tower
> academics teach doctrines that make sense only in
> the protected environment of the ivory tower. If
> they were to emerge from the safe environments of
> their ivory towers, and encounter real danger,
> they would have trouble dealing with the idea of
> an evil bandit -- never mind the evil spook. They
> would be forced to conceal such concepts behind
> polysyllabic substitutes, and the bandit would
> have slit their throats before they got to the
> fourth syllable.

I can agree with this statement about the actual nature of mankind, that some are good and others are bad. It's probably actually an individual admixture, where the elements of both are in everyone, but which trait (good/bad) is generally ascendant is important.

I like to argue/discuss the finer points of ethics simply as an exercise in metaphysics: where do my own person ethics/morality (and these are probably very much like your own, in many ways) come from?

I'm convinced that they're from my parents, who got them from their parents, all the way back to my Balkan knuckle-dragging hillbilly forebears, and that these values and ethics were the successful behavioral traditions that permitted mutual, group survival.

My behaviors/values allowed my forebears to survive multiple generations within their environment. I'm less certain that if I practice these values in the current social environment, indiscriminately and without qualification, I'd survive and prosper. This is to say that a lot of what I value requires at least the possibility of reciprocal behavior by the others I interact with, and I've found that increasingly, maybe for the last 30 years or so and especially in the last 10, this is getting to be a very risky assumption.

So I practice my values among those who have demonstrated the possibility of reciprocity (a woefully small group!) and with everyone else it's ad hoc.

I'm not happy about this, but I'm determined to make it thru intact.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 27 Jan 22 | 12:39PM by Sawfish.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Well, in the vampire lore that arose in the late
> 17th and early 18th centuries, I don't know how
> many people had any opinions on to what extent
> vampires experienced "pain" or "delight". And if
> anyone were to suggest that vampires were driven
> to break their isolation and unite with other
> life, that would at least seem highly plausible to
> many. In those pre-Anne-Rice days, vampires were
> not then known for giving long introspective
> monologues to interviewers.
>
> Rather, what people understood or supposed was
> that vampires, if not stopped, would murder their
> own children, wipe out their entire families, and
> then perhaps go on to wipe out an entire village,
> spreading death like a contagion.


Shortly, I think the pain and suffering of the vampire is well documented in both literature and film. It is only by being destroyed that its soul finally finds peace.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Platypus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Well, in the vampire lore that arose in the
> late
> > 17th and early 18th centuries, I don't know how
> > many people had any opinions on to what extent
> > vampires experienced "pain" or "delight". And
> if
> > anyone were to suggest that vampires were
> driven
> > to break their isolation and unite with other
> > life, that would at least seem highly plausible
> to
> > many. In those pre-Anne-Rice days, vampires
> were
> > not then known for giving long introspective
> > monologues to interviewers.
> >
> > Rather, what people understood or supposed was
> > that vampires, if not stopped, would murder
> their
> > own children, wipe out their entire families,
> and
> > then perhaps go on to wipe out an entire
> village,
> > spreading death like a contagion.
>
>
> Shortly, I think the pain and suffering of the
> vampire is well documented in both literature and
> film. It is only by being destroyed that its soul
> finally finds peace.

Quick but significant divergence here...

Everyone knows--or thinks that they do--that unless killed by prescribed means, a vampire lives forever. But what about werewolves? II know that to *kill* one prematurely you have to use certain prescribed means, but if these are not employed, would a werewolf, too, live forever?

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The "evil" of the vampire lies in its inability to connect with others. Since it cannot receive and share with others, it knows no other way than to take. Deep down it is a tragic position.

After Ninety Years by Milovan Glišić.

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------
> I see no more more problem with devout Christians
> reading about actual historical heresies than
> reading about vampires. To my current knowledge
> Christians can read about heresies; the line is
> drawn at practicing or perhaps approving of
> heresies.

Sure. Well, let me put it this way. If an actual revenant were a heresy (which I don't really agree with, but some might), and if a story were to portray a demon pretending to be a revenant, that would be analogous to a story describing a heresy without actually endorsing the heresy (the demon is a heretic and the demon is lying). And, perhaps, if a story were to feature an apparition, without exploring the question of the nature of the apparition (demon or revenant) that might not be so bad either. And this could be a factor in the Western tradition of the evil spook.

Do you think that's close enough to a meeting of the minds that we can handwave the rest?


> I spent some time last night looking at overviews
> of various Christian doctrines, and you are
> correct in saying that none mentions the undead
> specifically. There is a lot written about what
> resurrection means, specifically, and when (or if)
> corporeal bodies will be resurrected, and in some
> denominations the only chance for any kind of
> resurrection is by accepting that church's
> doctrine.
>
> Interesgtingly, some denominations postulate that
> only the saved will be resuurected, with the
> others being apparently left permanently dead and
> souless, while yet other denominations think that
> everyone will be resurrected, all right, and it's
> not simply so that the saved can enjoy everlasting
> life and bliss, but so that the unsaved can get
> their just comeuppance. Kinda humorously
> vindictive, in a way.
>
> So by implication any exceptions to this
> definition of resurrection would be blasphemous.

This logic seems to ignore the idea that the Day of Judgment is still to come. What if ghosts and demons (and evil bandits) could roam the world before Judgment Day, but were confined to Hell afterwards? But I guess that's okay. Because many do indeed often forget that the Day of Judgment is supposed to be in the future, when they discuss such issues. So I won't deny any possibility that such logic could effect Western cultural thinking on spooks.

> I'm not going to pry into which sect or
> denomination you adhere to, but merely note that
> many sects/denominations would indeed conclude
> that that representation of Samuel was indeed a
> fallen angel or demon.

I am Roman Catholic, which is one of the more conservative denominations. Many Protestant demoninations seem to take pride in having attitides toward the supernatural that are more modern and up-to-date. Since you got me curious, I looked this up in the Catholic Encyclopedia on the New Advent website. The article on Witchcraft contains the following:

In the Holy Scripture references to witchcraft are frequent, and the strong condemnations of such practices which we read there do not seem to be based so much upon the supposition of fraud as upon the "abomination" of the magic in itself. (See Deuteronomy 18:11-12; Exodus 22:18, "wizards thou shalt not suffer to live" — A.V. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".) The whole narrative of Saul's visit to the witch of Endor (1 Samuel 28) implies the reality of the witch's evocation of the shade of Samuel; and from Leviticus 20:27: "A man or woman in whom there is a pythonical or divining spirit, dying let them die: they shall stone them: Their blood be upon them", we should naturally infer that the divining spirit was not a mere imposture. The prohibitions of sorcery in the New Testament leave the same impression (Galatians 5:20, compared with Apocalypse 21:8; 22:15; and Acts 8:9; 13:6). Supposing that the belief in witchcraft were an idle superstition, it would be strange that the suggestion should nowhere be made that the evil of these practices only lay in the pretending to the possession of powers which did not really exist.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 29 Jan 22 | 10:42AM by Platypus.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Platypus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > Well, in the vampire lore that arose in the
> > late 17th and early 18th centuries, I don't know how
> > many people had any opinions on to what extent
> > vampires experienced "pain" or "delight". And
> > if anyone were to suggest that vampires were
> > driven to break their isolation and unite with other
> > life, that would at least seem highly plausible
> > to many. In those pre-Anne-Rice days, vampires
> > were not then known for giving long introspective
> > monologues to interviewers.
> >
> > Rather, what people understood or supposed was
> > that vampires, if not stopped, would murder
> > their own children, wipe out their entire
> > families, and then perhaps go on to wipe out
> > an entire village, spreading death like a
> > contagion.
>
> Shortly, I think the pain and suffering of the
> vampire is well documented in both literature and
> film. It is only by being destroyed that its soul
> finally finds peace.

I would not say that that idea is particularly well documented. The goal of 18th-century vampire hunters was to stop vampires from murdering people, and not to do the vampires themselves any particular favors.

Moving into the 19th century, which is when most Vampire literature begins:

I know of only 2 references to vampires being set free by destruction: (1) Thalaba's wife in THALABA THE DESTROYER; and (2) Mina's speculations about Dracula in DRACULA. In Thalaba, the wife's soul is apparently set free by the slaying of her demon-possessed corpse. But what about the poor demon? For all I know, perhaps the poor fellow is having as much fun as he has had for the last 30,000 years, and is now being sent back to a place of torment and confinement. Mina's kind thoughts about Dracula are a bit atypical, since most of the other heroes understandably view him as simply a monster who must be destroyed; and her idea that his soul will be set free is rendered dubious by the many hints that he was (perhaps unlike Lucy) plenty wicked in life as well.

In CARMILLA, it is said (by the first Baron Vordenburg) that the vampire's soul will NOT be set free by destruction, but propelled to an even more horrible state of existence. The first time I read this, I assumed that Le Fanu was hinting at the flames of hell. But I now suspect that maybe Le Fanu had something more specific in mind, and that destroyed vampires might become moon-phantoms (such as the hag who attacked the sailor, or perhaps the various members of Carmilla's mysterious moonlit entourage). For the Blood is the Life, by F. Marion Crawford (early 20th century) also features a destroyed vampire who survives as an almost powerless moon-phantom.

Polidori's Lord Ruthven is never successfully destroyed. I have read only parts of Varney. I have heard said, that he is the original "sympathetic" vampire, in the sense of having opportunities to present his own point of view.

I don't recall 19th century texts, or early 20th century texts, focusing on the pain and suffering of the Undead. Carmilla is compared to an "epicure" -- that is, a person who derives pleasure from savoring her food. She is also, however, implied to be acting under a compulsion. As for pain, she seems to derive pain from Christian hymns. Which, I suppose, proves either that Carmilla is evil or that Christian hymns are evil, depending on your point of view. The rationale of the vampire-hunters for destroying her is clear -- they are avenging the death of loved ones and executing her for murder. The first Baron Vordenburg, who loved Carmilla and was unwilling to propel her into a more horrible state of existence, balked at doing what needed to be done, causing the deaths of many. But even he repented toward the end of his life, and left a memorandum that his descendant was able to follow

One 19th century text where ghosts are explicitly said to be in torment is THE TURN OF THE SCREW (1898), by Henry James. Quint and Jessell are explicitly said to be experiencing the torments of the damned and driven by a desire to drag others into the same misery (an idea that can certainly be extended into vampire lore). However, there is no prospect in this story of releasing or rescuing the damned souls of Quint and Jessell. Rather, it is the souls of the Children that the governess tries to save, with dubious success.

It is largely modern vampires (mid 20th century onwards) that focus on vampiric suffering, and this often coincides with a tendency to no longer regard them as evil. Not that the ideas are necessarily inconsistent. The old gothic horror serial DARK SHADOWS largely managed to balance the sympathy and wickedness of Barnabas Collins. But it seems an unfortunate fact of human nature, at least in modern times, that if you allow the monster to present his own point of view, half the viewers/readers/fans are going to side with the monster.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 29 Jan 22 | 01:38PM by Platypus.

The Sojourner of Worlds Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> After Ninety Years by Milovan Glišić.

Thank you for this. I had never heard of it, which is perhaps not surprising, as it was not translated from Serbian until 2015, though it was I understand written in 1880.

I managed to read a summary. It contains some elements I was familiar with. It seems in some ways to echo the story of the Vampire of Liebava, which Calmet reported in the second edition of his treatise, and which Le Fanu adapted into CARMILLA as the account of the Moravian traveler. The use of a black horse to detect vampires was also reported by Calmet, on the report of a French officer who observed such proceedings in Wallachia.

I'm not too familiar with the butterfly tradition. I was just discussing with Knygatin whether a vampire is necessarily released when it dies. This story seems to be another example of the vampires evil spirit not being destroyed, but rather being reduced to a less powerful state, rather like Sauron at the end of THE LORD OF THE RINGS.

-- AN EVENING'S ENTERTAINMENT (1925) by M.R. Jaimes, a pagan sorcerer is murdered by his assistant, who then commits suicide. They two are buried at a crossroads, as it is judged they cannot be buried in the churchyard. The grandma telling the story tells the children that it is perhaps not surprising that such dead should walk, given the way they lived their lives.

Sawfish Wrote:
> Quick but significant divergence here...
>
> Everyone knows--or thinks that they do--that
> unless killed by prescribed means, a vampire lives
> forever. But what about werewolves? II know that
> to *kill* one prematurely you have to use certain
> prescribed means, but if these are not employed,
> would a werewolf, too, live forever?

Unclear. A werewolf is a shapeshifter, whose other form is a wolf, as the word implies. There is not necessarily any other defining characteristic.

In French lore, a werewolf is likely to be a sorcerer, who has made a pact with the devil. I suspect, though, that the Hollywood idea of a werewolf as a disease transmissible by bite, is also not entirely devoid of basis in folklore, though I have not yet tried to trace this tradition. The real-world basis for such beliefs might be the effects of rabies (hydrophobia) on humans, which I understand is almost always fatal, but which can be preceded by madness and violence.

Sorcerers, like suicides, may return as vampires after their death. It would make sense if a werewolf-sorcerer would also return as a vampire. Would he retain his shapeshifting powers in undeath? Dracula is the earliest story that I know of a vampire who is also a werewolf, though of course CARMILLA, who was earlier, was a vampire who take the form of a back panther.

THE SHUNNED HOUSE, by HP Lovecraft, combines the many traditions. His vampire emanates from the corpse of a Frenchman who, in life, was reputed to be a sorcerer and a werewolf. Moreover, his victims often go mad, and acquire wolflike characteristics before death, which invokes the idea that a werewolf's bite is transmissible.

Insofar as I can tell, the tradition about silver bullets is not necessarily specific to werewolves, but applies to witches and sorcerers generally. In THE BOOK OF WEREWOLVES by Sabine Baring-Gould, he recounts an incident where a man loads his firearm with a silver button and fires it at two cats who he evidently suspects are witches. THE WOLF-LEADER by Alexandre Dumas references the use of silver bullets against a wolf believed to be demonic, and is the earliest reference I know of silver bullets specifically in relation to werewolves.

Then there is the demonic ghoul, who is immortal by virtue of the fact that it was never human to begin with. In Middle Eastern folklore, its animal shape is likely to be that of the striped hyena, whose vocalizations and maned head can seem eerily human in the right circumstances, and who shares the ghoul's habit of digging up dead bodies. The ghoulish werewolf in THE PHANTOM SHIP is possibly a monster of this type, but, since it is a habitant of Europe rather than the Mid East, it is only natural that it's alternate form would be a wolf.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 29 Jan 22 | 06:31PM by Platypus.

Quote:

I'm not too familiar with the butterfly tradition. I was just discussing with Knygatin whether a vampire is necessarily released when it dies. This story seems to be another example of the vampires evil spirit not being destroyed, but rather being reduced to a less powerful state, rather like Sauron at the end of THE LORD OF THE RINGS.

It's hard to make sense of this stuff because traditions tend to erode with time and you end up with a bunch of seemingly random and unrelated practices.

For instance, in my village when a person dies their coffin is placed on top of a table somewhere inside their house where it's supposed to spend the night before the funeral. Sounds random, right? Well, not really, because later you hear that in some other parts of Serbia they add a bucket of water underneath the table so that the spirit can move into it. Afterwards, you're supposed to empty the bucket into running water. Better yet, an obviously related ritual follows even when cutting down certain trees, probably oaks or something, except this time it's the spirit of the tree that moves to the bucket before being sent back to brooks and rivers. This also provides some clues as to why certain traditions forbid vampires from crossing running water.

It could all just be a Slavic thing, of course, but I like to believe that it goes back even further, back to when our Indo-European ancestors were still just fishermen from Volga and Dnieper and before the horse, the wheel and the wagon turned them into conquerors. Back then, rivers were the source of food and therefore life for them while seas were distant legends, if not the very domain of the dead.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> -------------------
> > I see no more more problem with devout
> Christians
> > reading about actual historical heresies than
> > reading about vampires. To my current knowledge
> > Christians can read about heresies; the line is
> > drawn at practicing or perhaps approving of
> > heresies.
>
> Sure. Well, let me put it this way. If an actual
> revenant were a heresy (which I don't really agree
> with, but some might), and if a story were to
> portray a demon pretending to be a revenant, that
> would be analogous to a story describing a heresy
> without actually endorsing the heresy (the demon
> is a heretic and the demon is lying). And,
> perhaps, if a story were to feature an apparition,
> without exploring the question of the nature of
> the apparition (demon or revenant) that might not
> be so bad either. And this could be a factor in
> the Western tradition of the evil spook.
>
> Do you think that's close enough to a meeting of
> the minds that we can handwave the rest?

Yes, close enough.

Where we may be philosophically out of sync is that I sense that you may think it possible to passively commit heresy simply by observing it. Perhaps there's a duty to intervene--I don't know.

But for me, it's hard to think of an instance where one can be a passive heretic; I see the key as actively and knowingly committing a heresy.

This is why I see both the author and the reader of not only tales of the undead (if in fact the undead are a heresy) but actual heresies, like an examination of Arianism, as OK, permitted.

But practice or sincere espousal of Arianism would be a heresy in fact.

>
>
> > I spent some time last night looking at
> overviews
> > of various Christian doctrines, and you are
> > correct in saying that none mentions the undead
> > specifically. There is a lot written about what
> > resurrection means, specifically, and when (or
> if)
> > corporeal bodies will be resurrected, and in
> some
> > denominations the only chance for any kind of
> > resurrection is by accepting that church's
> > doctrine.
> >
> > Interesgtingly, some denominations postulate
> that
> > only the saved will be resuurected, with the
> > others being apparently left permanently dead
> and
> > souless, while yet other denominations think
> that
> > everyone will be resurrected, all right, and
> it's
> > not simply so that the saved can enjoy
> everlasting
> > life and bliss, but so that the unsaved can get
> > their just comeuppance. Kinda humorously
> > vindictive, in a way.
> >
> > So by implication any exceptions to this
> > definition of resurrection would be
> blasphemous.
>
> This logic seems to ignore the idea that the Day
> of Judgment is still to come. What if ghosts and
> demons (and evil bandits) could roam the world
> before Judgment Day, but were confined to Hell
> afterwards? But I guess that's okay.

I'd expect that the actual appearance of the undead prior to Judgement Day to be an overt signal of heresy.

Alternately, it could be the first signal that today, right now, *is* Judgement Day...gulp!

> Because
> many do indeed often forget that the Day of
> Judgment is supposed to be in the future, when
> they discuss such issues. So I won't deny any
> possibility that such logic could effect Western
> cultural thinking on spooks.

Sounds fine.

In skimming over the ideas of resurrection I saw where at least one sect thinks there'll be *two* (count 'em...two) Judgement Days.

>
> > I'm not going to pry into which sect or
> > denomination you adhere to, but merely note
> that
> > many sects/denominations would indeed conclude
> > that that representation of Samuel was indeed a
> > fallen angel or demon.
>
> I am Roman Catholic, which is one of the more
> conservative denominations.

My understanding of Eastern Orthodoxy is that it's quite conservative; I believe that this cultural influence permeated my paternal and maternal lineages, and it's probably why I find so many current social beliefs and practices extremely repellent right from the get-go.

Homosexual marriage?

Not really "marriage" as I understand it...

Gender self-identification?

What won't they think of next?

I think these attitudes I have are damned near hard-wired.

> Many Protestant
> demoninations seem to take pride in having
> attitides toward the supernatural that are more
> modern and up-to-date. Since you got me curious,
> I looked this up in the Catholic Encyclopedia on
> the New Advent website. The article on Witchcraft
> contains the following:
>
> In the Holy Scripture references to witchcraft are
> frequent, and the strong condemnations of such
> practices which we read there do not seem to be
> based so much upon the supposition of fraud as
> upon the "abomination" of the magic in itself.

That's what I labeled as "heresy"--perhaps inaccurately.


> (See Deuteronomy 18:11-12; Exodus 22:18, "wizards
> thou shalt not suffer to live" — A.V. "Thou
> shalt not suffer a witch to live".) The whole
> narrative of Saul's visit to the witch of Endor (1
> Samuel 28) implies the reality of the witch's
> evocation of the shade of Samuel; and from
> Leviticus 20:27: "A man or woman in whom there is
> a pythonical or divining spirit, dying let them
> die: they shall stone them: Their blood be upon
> them", we should naturally infer that the divining
> spirit was not a mere imposture. The prohibitions
> of sorcery in the New Testament leave the same
> impression (Galatians 5:20, compared with
> Apocalypse 21:8; 22:15; and Acts 8:9; 13:6).
> Supposing that the belief in witchcraft were an
> idle superstition, it would be strange that the
> suggestion should nowhere be made that the evil of
> these practices only lay in the pretending to the
> possession of powers which did not really exist.

Yes, I've come to see it that way, also, in that while there may be no direct prohibition, mere mention of undead in a negative light implies their existence. If they did not exist and hence were not a problem, why mention them, at all?

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I looked this up in the Catholic Encyclopedia on
> the New Advent website. The article on Witchcraft
> contains the following:
>
> ...
> Supposing that the belief in witchcraft were an
> idle superstition, it would be strange that the
> suggestion should nowhere be made that the evil of
> these practices only lay in the pretending to the
> possession of powers which did not really exist.

Not really. Christianity uses fear and guilt associations to manipulate and control people.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Platypus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I looked this up in the Catholic Encyclopedia
> on
> > the New Advent website. The article on
> Witchcraft
> > contains the following:
> >
> > ...
> > Supposing that the belief in witchcraft were an
> > idle superstition, it would be strange that the
> > suggestion should nowhere be made that the evil
> of
> > these practices only lay in the pretending to
> the
> > possession of powers which did not really
> exist.
>
> Not really. Christianity uses fear and guilt
> associations to manipulate and control people.

Umm. Okay.

But the discussion was about texts written by the ancient Hebrews, before Christianity.

What you are taking issue with is not even what I quoted the Encyclopedia for. It is merely stuff I left in, because I was reluctant to remove any context that might be relevant. And your response seems a bit of a non-sequitur.

But I agree with the Encyclopedia writer that the ancient Hebrews probably did believe in witchcraft.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Platypus Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I looked this up in the Catholic Encyclopedia on
> > > the New Advent website. The article on Witchcraft
> > > contains the following:
> > >
> > > ...
> > > Supposing that the belief in witchcraft were an
> > > idle superstition, it would be strange that the
> > > suggestion should nowhere be made that the evil of
> > > these practices only lay in the pretending to the
> > > possession of powers which did not really exist.
> >
> > Not really. Christianity uses fear and guilt
> > associations to manipulate and control people.
>
> Umm. Okay.
>
> But the discussion was about texts written by the
> ancient Hebrews, before Christianity.
>
> What you are taking issue with is not even what I
> quoted the Encyclopedia for. It is merely stuff I
> left in, because I was reluctant to remove any
> context that might be relevant. And your response
> seems a bit of a non-sequitur.
>
> But I agree with the Encyclopedia writer that the
> ancient Hebrews probably did believe in
> witchcraft.

I commented on the final part in your quote, about the objection to whether the belief in evil only be pretended instead of real. I thought that was topically sufficiently within your and Sawfish' extended discussion to make my comment acceptable. But I may have misinterpreted.

Christianity is a historical extension of the Hebrew. And is ultimately still controlled by Hebrews. It uses subconscious superstition of evil, and the fear of God, by which to manipulate and control people. This is how the people of Europe and USA are controlled today, through the more modern "secularized" extension of political correctness. The extension of Christianity has done enormous damage to European culture and thinking.

I am allergic to when Westerners, white Europeans, promote Christianity.

Thank you for the exchange.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> Christianity is a historical extension of the Hebrew.
>

It is an extension of the Hebrew mindset. Christianity is their "gift" to Europe, a devious Trojan horse, a weapon to conquer Europe and destroy the European people. A war that has been intensified over the past few centuries. To make us meek, deny our identity, and welcome our own extinction. Christianity is anti white. To follow it is suicidal. They have almost succeeded in the mass destruction of Europe and its people, through two Wars (yes, the hebrew money-mongers, Rothschild, instigated them), and now through organized mass import of aliens from Africa and Middle East, and systematic anti white propaganda, and a third War in the plans. It is a crime against humanity. What needs to be exterminated is not what Christianity teaches us is "evil". It is instead Christianity itself that must be removed from Europe. Along with the other two Semitic religions, Judaism and Islam. They don't belong there. They are enemies.

If you only could see past your Christian upbringing indoctrination, you would understand why I am so upset. Our Civilization and people are at stake.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 31 Jan 22 | 05:40AM by Knygatin.

I've seen this sentiment before, regarding the purging of Christianity from western society because Jews are using it to control us. I never understood what made this sentiment any less of an indoctrination than Christianity, but perhaps that's just my mixed blood and general disdain toward dogmatic ideologies.

Regarding the original subject of this thread, the fear of the wicked dead is older and more widespread than Judaism. Many ancient religions, like those of the Egyptians and Mesopotamians, believed that the dead would harm the living if the living failed to acknowledge them with offerings, though in these cases the dead were "wicked" because their afterlife would be unbearable without such offerings. Meanwhile, Buddhism integrated many folk cultures throughout Asia, allowing all the vengeful ghosts, angry ancestors, and animated corpses from native shamanistic cultures to continue haunting the living, despite the belief in reincarnation and Nirvana. I'm not sure how that works, but I know that the Buddhist hungry ghost is a miserable state you are reborn in as punishment for an impulsive and immoral life. This tells me that the wicked dead from a Buddhist perspective are people unwilling to let go of their worldly attachments, demonstrating how such attachments are blind and foolish (though such ghosts can also end up as tools for karma against living people who deserved it, as demonstrated in some Japanese folk tales).

Japan is filled with ghosts (yūrei) who exist for the sake of satisfying their vengeance, which will never truly be satisfied, and so they will continue harming or killing the living even after having their vengeance on their original victim.

Also, Norse culture believed in something very similar to Tolkien's barrow-wights. I don't know the spiritual ideas behind it, and I'm sure the Norse themselves didn't have any strict beliefs about it, but their ghosts were often corpses that animated themselves through wrath, vengeance, or obsessiveness, and they either dwelled eternally in their barrows to guard their treasures, or wandered the land where they died to harm every single human they find. Icelandic sagas implied that the dead were very similar to ogres in that they were huge human-shaped creatures with superhuman strength and violent tempers, and they also had sorcerous powers with which to conjure flames, turn invisible, or transform themselves. I don't know how Norse sages dealt with them in their folk religions, but in the written sagas such ghosts are often subdued or even killed through a good old-fashioned fight.

I don't know how much I can contribute to this thread because I know very little about Christianity, but I thought it might be a little helpful or useful to include these non-Christian ideas of of wicked dead.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 31 Jan 22 | 11:52AM by Hespire.

Hespire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Regarding the original subject of this thread, the
> fear of the wicked dead is older and more
> widespread than Judaism. Many ancient religions,
> like those of the Egyptians and Mesopotamians,
> believed that the dead would harm the living if
> the living failed to acknowledge them with
> offerings, though in these cases the dead were
> "wicked" because their afterlife would be
> unbearable without such offerings. Meanwhile,
> Buddhism integrated many folk cultures throughout
> Asia, allowing all the vengeful ghosts, angry
> ancestors, and animated corpses from native
> shamanistic cultures to continue haunting the
> living, despite the belief in reincarnation and
> Nirvana. I'm not sure how that works, but I know
> that the Buddhist hungry ghost is a miserable
> state you are reborn in as punishment for an
> impulsive and immoral life. This tells me that the
> wicked dead from a Buddhist perspective are people
> unwilling to let go of their worldly attachments,
> demonstrating how such attachments are blind and
> foolish (though such ghosts can also end up as
> tools for karma against living people who deserved
> it, as demonstrated in some Japanese folk tales).
>
> Japan is filled with ghosts (yūrei) who exist for
> the sake of satisfying their vengeance, which will
> never truly be satisfied, and so they will
> continue harming or killing the living even after
> having their vengeance on their original victim.
>
> Also, Norse culture believed in something very
> similar to Tolkien's barrow-wights. I don't know
> the spiritual ideas behind it, and I'm sure the
> Norse themselves didn't have any strict beliefs
> about it, but their ghosts were often corpses that
> animated themselves through wrath, vengeance, or
> obsessiveness, and they either dwelled eternally
> in their barrows to guard their treasures, or
> wandered the land where they died to harm every
> single human they find. Icelandic sagas implied
> that the dead were very similar to ogres in that
> they were huge human-shaped creatures with
> superhuman strength and violent tempers, and they
> also had sorcerous powers with which to conjure
> flames, turn invisible, or transform themselves. I
> don't know how Norse sages dealt with them in
> their folk religions, but in the written sagas
> such ghosts are often subdued or even killed
> through a good old-fashioned fight.
>
> I don't know how much I can contribute to this
> thread because I know very little about
> Christianity, but I thought it might be a little
> helpful or useful to include these non-Christian
> ideas of of wicked dead.

This thread was not supposed to be just about a discussion of Christianity. So thank you for the above thoughts. My only objection is that you have not illustrated any of the generalizations you make with examples of actual stories. They don't have to be literary monstrosities like THE TURN OF THE SCREW, but it would be nice if they had enough touches of the storyteller's art that they can be read and appreciated AS stories.

The closest you come is to reference the sagas. I have read GLAMR (1863) by Sabine Baring-Gould, which is adapted from the Icelandic Sagas, but this version at least, has Christian influences. I shall have to double check if they are original to the saga, but Glamr comes back from the dead in part because he is a wicked man who never goes to church. (Edit: I just checked William Morris' translation of the story of Grettir the Strong, and it also references Glam never going to church and loathing church-song).

Without specific examples, it is hard to talk about comparing the Western ghost story from the non-Western ghost story, or the Christian ghost story from the Pagan ghost story.

Your reference to cultures that make offerings to the dead, whom they fear, suggests to me a different thought -- not so much that the dead are regarded as wicked, but that they are regarded as analogous to gods that should be worshipped. As I said, there may be a thin line between regarding the dead as wicked and being afraid of them, but your example here seems to underscore the idea that these are not necessarily the same thing. A Christian, of course, would be forbidden by his religion from adopting a posture of worship towards his dead.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 31 Jan 22 | 06:09PM by Platypus.

In that case, allow me to refresh my memory with some scannings of old books and assorted files, that way I can share specific stories recorded by specific authors. The Japanese ghost stories are too numerous, and collected in various books by different authors. Off the top of my head, the Japanese myth of the first man and woman, Izanagi and Izanami respectively, as recorded in the ancient manuscript called the Kojiki, might feature elements related to the wicked dead, though it is not purely a wicked dead story. I own a copy of the English translation by Donald Philippi (I hardly know Japanese!!!), which offers some thoughts on the ideas behind it.

In that story, the primordial woman Izanami is the first human to die, and therefore the first person to reside in the underworld, Yomi. Her husband Izanagi misses her dearly, and enters a cavern to Yomi. There he discovers that she had decayed into a walking corpse, the sight of which terrifies him so much that he flees. Angered by this, she and an army of monstrous guards and hideous hags pursue him, wishing to keep him trapped in Yomi forever. He closes the cavern to Yomi, and his furious wife exclaims that out of vengeance she will kill hundreds of humans every day, and he answers that humans will birth hundreds more every day to even it out. This is obviously not a proper story of the wicked dead, but Philippi quotes Japanese scholars who believe the story represents the division between the purity of life and the impurity of death (both physical and spiritual), and why the two can never co-exist. I'm sorry this isn't close to the topic at hand, but the Kojiki definitely creates a tense relationship between the dead and the living, and Izanami is like a prototype of yurei stories in which ghosts become unreasonably violent because of a sudden obsession with negative emotions. I will find specific Yurei stories.

You make a good point regarding the difference between the dead being wicked and the dead being feared and respected. If we are looking purely for the dead as malign entities, I'll have to keep a closer eye on such details in my scannings.

Thanks for reminding me of the story of Glamr. I had forgotten he was a man renowned for his evil even in life! And the rest of the sagas being largely Christianized accounts of pagan matters definitely muddles things. Much of what we know comes from Christian accounts!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 31 Jan 22 | 07:14PM by Hespire.

Hespire, WRT to Buddhism & Japan, in particular, my wife told me a funny old saying she heard from the old people:

"You live as a Buddhist, but die as Shintoist." Or something like...

To the degree that Buddhism avoids treating the Buddha as a prophet, but more as a philosopher, I think it makes a hell of a lot of sense to me.

In that flavor, it is less theological, and more like enlightened practical avoid for how to live your present life.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'd have to speculate that Izanagi and Izanami did not have a completely happy marriage.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hespire, WRT to Buddhism & Japan, in particular,
> my wife told me a funny old saying she heard from
> the old people:
>
> "You live as a Buddhist, but die as Shintoist." Or
> something like...
>
> To the degree that Buddhism avoids treating the
> Buddha as a prophet, but more as a philosopher, I
> think it makes a hell of a lot of sense to me.
>
> In that flavor, it is less theological, and more
> like enlightened practical avoid for how to live
> your present life.


I learned that from my mother long ago! Although it really went "You live as a Shintoist, and die as a Buddhist." Having never truly grown up with either religion (though finding both fascinating), I could never truly appreciate its meaning, but it seems to be about the life-embracing qualities of Shintoism; its eagerness for festivity and nature, which in some ways could be at odds with the highly detached and afterlife-concerned Buddhism. Sort of the best of both worlds, ensuring you get the most out of this world while being prepared for the next.

I agree it makes sense though, and I prefer approaching the Buddha as a human philosopher who shares interesting thoughts and suggestions more than a lordly divinity.

Hespire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've seen this sentiment before, regarding the
> purging of Christianity from western society
> because Jews are using it to control us. I never
> understood what made this sentiment any less of an
> indoctrination than Christianity, but perhaps
> that's just my mixed blood and general disdain
> toward dogmatic ideologies.
>
>

Off-topic comment:

It is not so much about ideology, as about observing reality, and making a stand for the survival of my own people and culture.

Hespire, you have been very open about your parentage. And for understandable reasons, that I need not repeat here, you seem to have emotionally sidled towards your mother. You really embrace Japanese culture, and nearly always emphasize this interest in your posts. We are all closest to ourselves, and identify most strongly with our own heredity. It is only natural.

But you don't seem aware that the leftwing liberal ideology of "anything goes", is totalitarian and dogmatic in itself. It is another devious way of absolute political control. It is not really freedom, as it purports itself to be. It is the intentional weakening and breakup of independent nations and cultures.

rnHespire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hespire, WRT to Buddhism & Japan, in
> particular,
> > my wife told me a funny old saying she heard
> from
> > the old people:
> >
> > "You live as a Buddhist, but die as Shintoist."
> Or
> > something like...
> >
> > To the degree that Buddhism avoids treating the
> > Buddha as a prophet, but more as a philosopher,
> I
> > think it makes a hell of a lot of sense to me.
> >
> > In that flavor, it is less theological, and
> more
> > like enlightened practical avoid for how to
> live
> > your present life.
>
>
> I learned that from my mother long ago! Although
> it really went "You live as a Shintoist, and die
> as a Buddhist."

Hah!

I probably got it backwards, and my thought process, such as it was, probably was "Well, I'm not Japanese, so I may never get it ...".

>Having never truly grown up with
> either religion (though finding both fascinating),
> I could never truly appreciate its meaning, but it
> seems to be about the life-embracing qualities of
> Shintoism; its eagerness for festivity and nature,
> which in some ways could be at odds with the
> highly detached and afterlife-concerned Buddhism.

Shintoism to me looks a lot like many other fairly primitive animist religions that are uniquely evolved to a specific group--and insular as Japan has been--and still is, to a degree--the Japanese are a dinstinctly identifiable group.

Added to thde animist backbone seems to be a hyper-reverence for ancestors, making the religion a sort of self-worship, in a way.


> Sort of the best of both worlds, ensuring you get
> the most out of this world while being prepared
> for the next.
>
> I agree it makes sense though, and I prefer
> approaching the Buddha as a human philosopher who
> shares interesting thoughts and suggestions more
> than a lordly divinity.

To me, much of the advice about how to seek contentment rather than ecstasy is of great value. So far as passivity and a sort of stoicism, I think that to navigate the modern world, hypertense and neurotic as it seems to be, you need to be able to turn the stoicism/passivity on and off at will.

In the world in which I live, if one is too stoic and passive, you will be ground down into a nubbin.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Knygatin Wrote:
> Off-topic comment:
>
> It is not so much about ideology, as about
> observing reality, and making a stand for the
> survival of my own people and culture.
>
> Hespire, you have been very open about your
> parentage. And for understandable reasons, that I
> need not repeat here, you seem to have emotionally
> sidled towards your mother. You really embrace
> Japanese culture, and nearly always emphasize this
> interest in your posts. We are all closest to
> ourselves, and identify most strongly with our own
> heredity. It is only natural.
>
> But you don't seem aware that the leftwing liberal
> ideology of "anything goes", is totalitarian and
> dogmatic in itself. It is another devious way of
> absolute political control. It is not really
> freedom, as it purports itself to be. It is the
> intentional weakening and breakup of independent
> nations and cultures.

It's nice that you are willing to question and challenge the morally nihilistic, arbitrary, and oppressive ideology of the current year. It is less nice that you have nothing to fall back on except the morally nihilistic, arbitrary, and oppressive ideology of the first half of the 20th century. What exactly is this culture you are defending? Because I am pretty sure you do not remember the pristine paganism of pre-Dark-Age Europe. Whatever it is you value, it is hardly safe if those who you would place in charge can arbitrarily smear any aspect of it they please as guilty-by-association with some weird amorphous transcendent concept of "Jewishness" via an elaborate game of 666 degrees of Kevin Bacon. Which also reminds me of the smear tactics used by certain current ascendant ideologies. Only the details differ. Anyhow, I was trying to discuss ghost stories here, and if you can ever bring yourself to stop worrying about their Jewish influences, you are more than welcome to join in.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 1 Feb 22 | 06:29PM by Platypus.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... Anyhow, I was trying to discuss
> ghost stories here, and if you can ever bring
> yourself to stop worrying about their Jewish
> influences, you are more than welcome to join in.
>

Heh, I knew it would come to something like this! The ultimate core of political correctness. The roof of the discussion and forum has been reached. And the gag has been applied.

If you want to know who is in control, look at who you are not allowed to criticize or even discuss. Several US states have today even outlawed any public criticism against Israel's politics or actions.

But I see it is useless. Your PC perspective will remain. I can not reach past your solid mind blocks, not even with a tentative exploration of the influence.

I promise you, I will not press it further. I admit it is delicate, and conceivably even dangerous for the individual who utters anything related.

We all bow out with bent backs.

Knygatin Wrote:
--------------------------
> Heh, I knew it would come to something like this!
> The ultimate core of political correctness. The
> roof of the discussion and forum has been reached.
> And the gag has been applied.
>
> If you want to know who is in control, look at who
> you are not allowed to criticize or even discuss.
> Several US states have today even outlawed any
> public criticism against Israel's politics or
> actions.
>
> But I see it is useless. Your PC perspective will
> remain. I can not reach past your solid mind
> blocks, not even with a tentative exploration of
> the influence.
>
> I promise you, I will not press it further. I
> admit it is delicate, and conceivably even
> dangerous for the individual who utters anything
> related.
>
> We all bow out with bent backs.

I never said you were not allowed to criticize the Jews. It is only a bee in your own bonnet that is excluding you from the ghost story discussion, and that was all I was referring to. But by all meant, come up with an example of a Jewish ghost story, and we can all criticize it or not as we please. Alternatively, come up with an example of a ghost story of which you approve, that is in your mind completely free of some fourth-degree attenuated taint of Jewishness. I am genuinely interested in all ghost stories.

Problem is, you want to eradicate Jewishness, and your ideas of Jewishness are so broad that no aspect of traditional Western culture is necessarily safe from your desire to eradicate it. This is the mirror image of current authoritarian doctrines, where the definition of Anti-Jewishness can be expanded and contracted at will, to designate anything one is NOT allowed to criticize. Your thinking is so broad that you see no difference between a 1st century Galiliean fisherman preaching against the evils of wealth, and a 20th century mega-rich banker, merely because it is possible to describe both as Jews. Both are part and parcel of the same breathtakingly vast conspiracy, the fear of which has paralyzed your ability to think.

Want to prove me wrong? Just start talking about ghost stories for a change.

Since I just mentioned Jewish ghost stories, and to get somewhat back on topic, the only sort-of "Jewish" tale of the "wicked dead" that I am able to think of is the opening "dybbuk" episode of A SERIOUS MAN (2009) a film by Joel and Ethan Coen.

The entire scene is under 7 minutes long, and is a stand-alone mini-film in its own right, whose relationship to the rest of the movie is debatable at best. As I write, it can be found on youtube, via the following link:

[www.youtube.com]

Personally, I very much enjoyed it. It's creepy. The actors are great, especially the wife. But, like much of the Coen brothers' work, it is frustratingly ambiguous. Am curious what others think of it (you too, Knygatin).

As I understand it, a "dybbuk" is a possessing spirit from Jewish mythology, which, unlike the possessing demon of Christian tradition, is generally regarded as a spirit of the dead, and which is capable of something analogous to demonic possession, usually of living persons. But though the idea is old, I know of no dybbuk STORIES (as such) that are earlier than Ansky's play from the 1920s (which, from the summaries I have read, does not seem to have much to do with the idea of the wicked dead).

In this case, the wife's theory seems to be that the spirit of a dead man has been seized by the Devil, and now wanders the earth as a dybbuk, his appearance reflecting the moment when the Devil seized his spirit -- a moment that occurred between the time the left and right cheek of his corpse was shaved.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2 Feb 22 | 12:05PM by Platypus.

a Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since I just mentioned Jewish ghost stories, and
> to get somewhat back on topic, the only sort-of
> "Jewish" tale of the "wicked dead" that I am able
> to think of is the opening "dybbuk" episode of A
> SERIOUS MAN (2009) a film by Joel and Ethan Coen.
>
> The entire scene is under 7 minutes long, and is a
> stand-alone mini-film in its own right, whose
> relationship to the rest of the movie is debatable
> at best. As I write, it can be found on youtube,
> via the following link:
>
> [www.youtube.com]
>
> Personally, I very much enjoyed it. It's creepy.
> The actors are great, especially the wife. But,
> like much of the Coen brothers' work, it is
> frustratingly ambiguous. Am curious what others
> think of it (you too, Knygatin).
>
> As I understand it, a "dybbuk" is a possessing
> spirit from Jewish mythology, which, unlike the
> possessing demon of Christian tradition, is
> generally regarded as a spirit of the dead, and
> which is capable of something analogous to demonic
> possession, usually of living persons. But though
> the idea is old, I know of no dybbuk STORIES (as
> such) that are earlier than Ansky's play from the
> 1920s (which, from the summaries I have read, does
> not seem to have much to do with the idea of the
> wicked dead).
>
> In this case, the wife's theory seems to be that
> the spirit of a dead man has been seized by the
> Devil, and now wanders the earth as a dybbuk, his
> appearance reflecting the moment when the Devil
> seized his spirit -- a moment that occurred
> between the time the left and right cheek of his
> corpse was shaved.


Is this the same Coen film in which a rabbi relates an experience in which he was approached by a dentist in his congregation for advice about the meaning of the Hebrew writing he found on the inside surface of a goy patient's lower teeth?

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
> Is this the same Coen film in which a rabbi
> relates an experience in which he was approached
> by a dentist in his congregation for advice about
> the meaning of the Hebrew writing he found on the
> inside surface of a goy patient's lower teeth?

Yes, same film. A rather useless rabbi, IMHO, but, as always, it is hard to nail down the Coen brothers' opinion on the matter.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2 Feb 22 | 01:21PM by Platypus.

In the Islamic world, ghosts (evil or otherwise) seem to have no particular prevalence. At least, I can think of no examples. I recall none from the ARABIAN NIGHTS. I have heard that the vrykolakas was known to Christian and Muslim populations in Turkey, but I don't know if these were necessarily the undead variety.

The Islamic tomb or graveyard is instead thought of as haunted by the ghoul, who is never, as far as I know regarded as the spirit of a dead person. At least, that idea is alot more common.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the Islamic world, ghosts (evil or otherwise)
> seem to have no particular prevalence. At least,
> I can think of no examples. I recall none from
> the ARABIAN NIGHTS. I have heard that the
> vrykolakas was known to Christian and Muslim
> populations in Turkey, but I don't know if these
> were necessarily the undead variety.
>
> The Islamic tomb or graveyard is instead thought
> of as haunted by the ghoul, who is never, as far
> as I know regarded as the spirit of a dead person.
> At least, that idea is alot more common.


I suppose it has to do with their theological beliefs. In Islam, once the soul is gone it never returns to this world. I don't know if pre-Islamic cultures had their own ghost stories which were later changed into jinn stories, but I would be interested in finding out.

Regarding yurei, it turns out that most of my books don't have much information on them, especially not from a scholarly approach. Even Hearn has little to say about them, though he revels in Japanese stories of weirdness. Most of the ghost stories he recorded are less about yurei (vengeful souls driven to harm all living things) and more about nature-spirits, shape-shifting animals, and ghosts that might be scary but not innately wicked or violent. Still, I dug up a book I purchased long ago but haven't read much of, which could be useful for this thread, titled Yurei The Japanese Ghost. It has several chapters devoted to the history and evolution of the archetype, and some samples of folk stories. I'll be sure to report my findings here!

I don't wish to derail this thread, so I'll make a quick declaration that I am not so close to my heritage. I know some things due to my family of course, and I enjoy learning things about the old country, but I find that my personality is a bit closer to the American side. I think I would be a freak in Japan, due to my strict individualistic beliefs and stronger American emotions, timid as I am for an American. I bring up Japanese folklore from time to time because I feel they would fit well with a website devoted to CAS, who admired Japanese culture and Lafcadio Hearn's literature, and supposedly owned a Japanese scroll depicting a fox-spirit, or kitsune. My own yearnings lie in the far northern cultures, from the Inuit to the Norse, which matches my melancholy mood and appreciation for rugged nature and culture.

I am also more interested in the ghost stories of Norse folk, for their ghosts sound a lot more monstrous and weird compared to either American or Japanese ghosts. I'd like to learn how much of their ghostly culture is derived from paganism or Christianity. Supposedly the early Norse believed in multiple souls, almost like the Egyptians, and one of these souls remained on earth to become the monstrous and violent draugr I described earlier, but so far I have little luck on finding further info.

Hespire, my wife tells me about "obaki stories". Is that something you heard about?

Bear in mind my wife is from Hawaii, 2nd gen born there, and Hawaii imposes a sort of eclecticism on modern inhabitants. Too, all of her family had no pretensions to any kind of status--many of those who went to Hawaii were essentially the least valued--peasants, for sure, from small villages.

She said that she had heard from some of the old people--those who actually came over--that when some of them went they were given a sort of send-off in honor of self-sacrifice. That by leaving the village, there would be more resources to go around.

Sounds grim, but my wife is one of the most jolly, good-natured people you'll ever meet. She reminds me of the working women in Princess Monooke, if I have the spelling right--very earthy and funny!

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hespire Wrote:Even
> Hearn has little to say about them, though he
> revels in Japanese stories of weirdness. Most of
> the ghost stories he recorded are less about yurei
> (vengeful souls driven to harm all living things)
> and more about nature-spirits, shape-shifting
> animals, and ghosts that might be scary but not
> innately wicked or violent.

I've read only a little of Hearn. But was impressed by MUJINA. Not necessarily a spirit of the dead, nor even necessarily wicked. But scary.