Musing of the week
Jaue Lang
I have been thinking of what it means to be a were. And whether were is the
word to use. Whether it would makes us stronger to use a term that has been
held up to ridicule, or whether it is time to move to a new term, such as those
proposed by Pinky, animality, or therianthropes. Or to try to develop a new
word, based on a process in which we participate.
Assuming that a rose by any other name would smell as sweat, what does it mean
to be a were. Are we truly infused with the spirit of an animal. Or more than
one animal?
How do I explain this image of have of a wolf inside of me. Are these feelings
the musings of a mentally needy human, looking for something to give meaning in
a world gone mad.
Are these images from a person that is striving for the trees as we lunge
forward towards an uncertain future. If the moral majority can pretend the
fifties were some sort of iconoclastic haven, why can't I go back even further,
when some of my ancestors lived so much closer to the land.
Is there some sort of virual infection which causes our brains to think
differently? Are there bacteria that denote tribes and types in different
species? Where we influenced by something as such a young age that it feels
innate?
I did not like anything canine when I was young. Twenties years ago, if I would
have thought about it and made a choice, I would have chosen feline. It would
have been a chose based on what I would have thought would be nice back then.
But I didn't choose. The wolf came to me over and over again. Impressed itself
upon me, infused me with strength. And I didn't even ask for it.
But why wolves? I had a dream about a wolf last night.
In my dream, I am taken by demons to an underground room, carved out of rock,
and the only thing in the room is a bed, sticking up from the rock floor, as if
this platform had not been hewned down with the rest of the floor. The bed was
covered in sheepskins, and as I go to the bed, the wolf approaches out of the
shadows. I am at first terrified, until I see that the wolf has no intention of
attacking me. The wolf is hesitant, not wanting to disturb my intention to
rest. It approaches boldly, in an unhostile fashion, until it is curled up
beside me on the sheepskins. But it is hestitant to rest its body against mine.
My hand reaches out to it, and tugs at the fur around its neck. Its head eases
up until it is resting between my arms, until our noses touched.
I woke up at that point. I was not frightened, more angry that I could not have
continued the dream.
It was a grey wolf, with blacktip fur, more white than grey underneath, with
more black on the face, but not too much.
It smelled of the outdoors, of musty air, of the dirt in which it had rolled.
Its eyes were a soft yellow, not brown. The eyes were wildly intelligent. It
was choosing to come to me, to lie beside on the stone bed, curling up beside me
not to denote submission, but to denote love.
I fall back asleep thinking about the dream.
A man approachs me. His face frightens me. He has the same yellow eyes as the
wolf, who remains at my side, calm about this intrusion, as if expecting it.
The eyes aree baneful, intelligent, alive with the spirit of life. He approachs
the end of the stone bed, with his long yellow mane, his yellow eyes, his soft
beige skin. His lips parts and speak, but I hear the words in my head:
There is nothing to fear!
My skin crawls, I try to sit, the wolf at my side undisturbed. The man holds
out his hand, with his long nails that curled around the ends of his fingers,
and touchs my foot. Immediately, the fear vanished. There is truly nothing to
fear.
Infused with my animal spirit at my side, I meet the one who walks the spirit
world, calmly those who might not otherwise understand.
He explains much, but without words. His mind rests in mind, telling me of
lives before and those that will come later. He tells me not to fear life, for
all else revolves around it. He tells me that I was chosen because wolf wanted
me, and I have no choice.
It is with the greatest sense of peace and contentment that I awake,
disappointed it was only a dream.
___________________________________________________
A journey from fear does not build real strength.
Threats are not tools for instruction.
Preaching lacks confidence.
Modesty permits privacy.
Acceptance allows fulfillment.
Fairplay is freedom, rules are necessary.
/\---/\
< ^..^ > jaue <c> 1999
\~~/
nu...@mailbr.com.br
escreveu:
>Musings of the week.
Musings of the weak-minded, you mean.
>I have been thinking of what it means to be a were. And whether were is the
>word to use. Whether it would makes us stronger to use a term that has been
>held up to ridicule, or whether it is time to move to a new term, such as those
>proposed by Pinky, animality, or therianthropes. Or to try to develop a new
>word, based on a process in which we participate.
I don't think it matters what you call it - it's fucked all the same.
>Assuming that a rose by any other name would smell as sweat,
That's it. This is going in my sig.
>what does it mean
>to be a were. Are we truly infused with the spirit of an animal. Or more than
>one animal?
No and no.
>How do I explain this image of have of a wolf inside of me. Are these feelings
>the musings of a mentally needy human, looking for something to give meaning in
>a world gone mad.
Most probably.
>Are these images from a person that is striving for the trees as we lunge
>forward towards an uncertain future. If the moral majority can pretend the
>fifties were some sort of iconoclastic haven, why can't I go back even further,
>when some of my ancestors lived so much closer to the land.
You can. Sell up - buy yourself a small patch of dirt somewhere in the
middle of nowhere and live as close to the land as you like. Of
course, you'll never do this because you want to have your cake and
eat it too. You want the luxuries of modern technology at the same
time as you rant and rail against it.
>Is there some sort of virual infection which causes our brains to think
>differently?
I doubt it, but it's certainly more plausible than animal spirits.
>Are there bacteria that denote tribes and types in different
>species?
I think you should study some biology.
>Where we influenced by something as such a young age that it feels
>innate?
Possible, I guess.
>I did not like anything canine when I was young. Twenties years ago, if I would
>have thought about it and made a choice, I would have chosen feline. It would
>have been a chose based on what I would have thought would be nice back then.
>
>But I didn't choose. The wolf came to me over and over again. Impressed itself
>upon me, infused me with strength. And I didn't even ask for it.
So you claim that you did not choose which animal spirit to "follow".
>But why wolves? I had a dream about a wolf last night.
Indeed. Why not sea-cucumbers or pangolins?
>In my dream, I am taken by demons to an underground room, carved out of rock,
>and the only thing in the room is a bed, sticking up from the rock floor, as if
>this platform had not been hewned down with the rest of the floor. The bed was
>covered in sheepskins, and as I go to the bed, the wolf approaches out of the
>shadows. I am at first terrified, until I see that the wolf has no intention of
>attacking me. The wolf is hesitant, not wanting to disturb my intention to
>rest. It approaches boldly, in an unhostile fashion, until it is curled up
>beside me on the sheepskins. But it is hestitant to rest its body against mine.
>My hand reaches out to it, and tugs at the fur around its neck. Its head eases
>up until it is resting between my arms, until our noses touched.
That clinches it! You must be a werewolf! There's no other
explanation.
>I woke up at that point. I was not frightened, more angry that I could not have
>continued the dream.
>
>It was a grey wolf, with blacktip fur, more white than grey underneath, with
>more black on the face, but not too much.
>
>It smelled of the outdoors, of musty air, of the dirt in which it had rolled.
>Its eyes were a soft yellow, not brown. The eyes were wildly intelligent. It
>was choosing to come to me, to lie beside on the stone bed, curling up beside me
>not to denote submission, but to denote love.
You are a sick fuck, you know that, don't you?
>I fall back asleep thinking about the dream.
>
>A man approachs me. His face frightens me. He has the same yellow eyes as the
>wolf, who remains at my side, calm about this intrusion, as if expecting it.
>The eyes aree baneful, intelligent, alive with the spirit of life. He approachs
>the end of the stone bed, with his long yellow mane, his yellow eyes, his soft
>beige skin. His lips parts and speak, but I hear the words in my head:
>
>There is nothing to fear!
>
>My skin crawls, I try to sit, the wolf at my side undisturbed. The man holds
>out his hand, with his long nails that curled around the ends of his fingers,
>and touchs my foot. Immediately, the fear vanished. There is truly nothing to
>fear.
>
>Infused with my animal spirit at my side, I meet the one who walks the spirit
>world, calmly those who might not otherwise understand.
>
>He explains much, but without words. His mind rests in mind, telling me of
>lives before and those that will come later. He tells me not to fear life, for
>all else revolves around it. He tells me that I was chosen because wolf wanted
>me, and I have no choice.
>
>It is with the greatest sense of peace and contentment that I awake,
>disappointed it was only a dream.
Fuck, Jaue. That's just beautiful.
--
/\--/\ OFFICIAL ALT.HORROR.WEREWOLVES /\--/\
< ^..^ > BELLOWERS SOCIETY < ^..^ >
\~U/ MEMBER # 4 \~U/
PROUD SUPPORTER - MISS AMERICAN ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS 2000
GO GEORGIA! http://www.coronationinc.com/localqueens.htm
"a rose by any other name would smell as sweat" - Jaue Lang
<ja...@ionsys.com> in <37de81ec....@news.ionsys.com>
BleuLynx
>
>I have been thinking of what it means to be a were. And whether were is the
>word to use. Whether it would makes us stronger to use a term that has been
>held up to ridicule, or whether it is time to move to a new term, such as
>those
>proposed by Pinky, animality, or therianthropes. Or to try to develop a new
>word, based on a process in which we participate.
Being a "were" or a "therianthrope" is obviously something that's difficult to
define. In my opinion, there's really no one statement that could sum up what
weres really are.
Perhaps I was a lynx in a past life, I got stuck with a lynx soul instead of a
human one, or maybe I'm just a few tacos short of a combination platter.
There's a whole list of things I could be. I don't feel like my animal side
isn't anything "external", meaning I don't feel like I'm guided by a spirit. I
just feel like it's ME.
How does everyone else feel?
<~BleuLynx~>
>^..^<
"And I judge myself by the adverts I see My deoderant hides the real me These
things elevate me above animals I feel like being a girl" - Mansun
RunningRed FurBurger
>
> >Musings of the week.
> >
> >I have been thinking of what it means to be a were. And whether were is the
> >word to use. Whether it would makes us stronger to use a term that has been
> >held up to ridicule, or whether it is time to move to a new term, such as
> >those
> >proposed by Pinky, animality, or therianthropes. Or to try to develop a new
> >word, based on a process in which we participate.
>
> Being a "were" or a "therianthrope" is obviously something that's difficult to
> define. In my opinion, there's really no one statement that could sum up what
> weres really are.
> Perhaps I was a lynx in a past life, I got stuck with a lynx soul instead of a
> human one, or maybe I'm just a few tacos short of a combination platter.
I'd say you are a few fries short of a Happy Meal.
Jaue Lang
[]> Being a "were" or a "therianthrope" is obviously something that's difficult to
[]>define. In my opinion, there's really no one statement that could sum up what
[]>weres really are.
[]> Perhaps I was a lynx in a past life, I got stuck with a lynx soul instead of a
[]>human one, or maybe I'm just a few tacos short of a combination platter.
[]>There's a whole list of things I could be. I don't feel like my animal side
[]>isn't anything "external", meaning I don't feel like I'm guided by a spirit. I
[]>just feel like it's ME.
[]> How does everyone else feel?
A few tacos short of a combination platter?
Now, that's a new one for me.
Do you eat out alot?
<grin>
I am trying to put something into words. I will post it to my web site in about
a week.
I am trying to run the gamut from "it may be all in my head but that's okay" to
"its the gawd awful truth, so leave me alone".
I hope I get it write.
Jaue Lang
[]>I'd say you are a few fries short of a Happy Meal.
Well, well. I guess this is the generation coming after the generation that
comes after generation xyz or something's type of expression.
Cute!
nu...@mailbr.com.br
>>Musings of the week.
>>
>>I have been thinking of what it means to be a were. And whether were is the
>>word to use. Whether it would makes us stronger to use a term that has been
>>held up to ridicule, or whether it is time to move to a new term, such as
>>those
>>proposed by Pinky, animality, or therianthropes. Or to try to develop a new
>>word, based on a process in which we participate.
>
> Being a "were" or a "therianthrope" is obviously something that's difficult to
>define. In my opinion, there's really no one statement that could sum up what
>weres really are.
> Perhaps I was a lynx in a past life, I got stuck with a lynx soul instead of a
>human one,
Oh for fuck's sake, you don't beleive this shit as well, do you?
>or maybe I'm just a few tacos short of a combination platter.
At least you're open minded, which is far more than can be said for
many of the other fucks in here.
>There's a whole list of things I could be. I don't feel like my animal side
>isn't anything "external", meaning I don't feel like I'm guided by a spirit. I
>just feel like it's ME.
> How does everyone else feel?
--
nu...@mailbr.com.br
<rr...@ahww.arg> escreveu:
>BleuLynx wrote:
>>
>> >Musings of the week.
>> >
>> >I have been thinking of what it means to be a were. And whether were is the
>> >word to use. Whether it would makes us stronger to use a term that has been
>> >held up to ridicule, or whether it is time to move to a new term, such as
>> >those
>> >proposed by Pinky, animality, or therianthropes. Or to try to develop a new
>> >word, based on a process in which we participate.
>>
>> Being a "were" or a "therianthrope" is obviously something that's difficult to
>> define. In my opinion, there's really no one statement that could sum up what
>> weres really are.
>> Perhaps I was a lynx in a past life, I got stuck with a lynx soul instead of a
>> human one, or maybe I'm just a few tacos short of a combination platter.
>
>I'd say you are a few fries short of a Happy Meal.
Naughty, Naughty!
You used the term Happy Meal and did not crosspost to
alt.mcdonalds.crew
I've fixed this for you, but please ensure that this does not happen
again.
Thank you for your time.
Lynx Canadensis
spatu...@aol.com (BleuLynx) wrote:
> >I have been thinking of what it means to be a were. And whether were is the
> >word to use. Whether it would makes us stronger to use a term that has been
> >held up to ridicule, or whether it is time to move to a new term, such as
> >those proposed by Pinky, animality, or therianthropes. Or to try to
> >develop a new word, based on a process in which we participate.
>
> Being a "were" or a "therianthrope" is obviously something that's difficult
> to define. In my opinion, there's really no one statement that could sum up
> what weres really are.
> Perhaps I was a lynx in a past life, I got stuck with a lynx soul instead
> of a human one, or maybe I'm just a few tacos short of a combination platter.
> There's a whole list of things I could be. I don't feel like my animal side
> isn't anything "external", meaning I don't feel like I'm guided by a spirit. I
> just feel like it's ME.
> How does everyone else feel?
First, on the terminology question:
I think you all already know that I'm an etymology maven, and that I'm not
a big fan of the word "were", either. This is partially because, as I
posted a while back, on its own it just means "man" (werewolf is man-wolf,
literally), and partially because the label of were-anything conjures up
bad Hollywood movies in most people's minds, and as a Wiccan, I've been
through enough hassles over the word "witch" that I have trouble mustering
up much enthusiasm for going through it all again.
Part of the reason we have the word "Wicca" in the first place is that it
gives Wiccans to explain our spirituality without pulling up all the
negative, or just plain silly, images that the word "witch" does. A lot of
the people that would respond to "I'm a Witch" with "Oh yeah? <smirk> Are
you going to turn me into a toad?" or alternatively "Get away from me, you
spawn of Satan!" might actually respond to "I'm a Wiccan" with "What's
that?" - and then listen long enough for you to get across what you really
mean without a lot of unnecessary stereotypes coming into it.
Similarly, while "therianthrope" might be a bit of a mouthful, and
"spiritual therianthrope" even more so, it has the advantage that, like
the word "Wiccan", it is more likely to generate a "What's that?"
reaction, and hence a chance to explain what you actually mean, than a
word like "werewolf" (or werelynx, werehorse, etc.), which is likely to
draw - well, I think we've all seen many times over what reaction that
draws, right here in this newsgroup as well as in many of other places.
I suppose I just feel that explaining a relatively offbeat and
marginalized spiritual path clearly and concisely to someone that's
unfamiliar with it can be enough a challenge, without also inviting
misunderstandings by using a word that has a lot of connotations that you
don't want.
And as I already posted some while ago, I'm in favour of replacing the
word "phenotype" with something a bit more appropriate (and less
clinical-sounding), like "anima" ("An individual's true inner self that in
the analytic psychology of C. G. Jung reflects archetypal ideals of
conduct," according to my dictionary).
Now, on to the larger question of "What does it mean to be a (were,
therianthrope, etc.)?"
I suspect there are as many answers to this question as there are people
who define themselves by those terms. Literally, the word "therianthrope"
comes from the Greek word "therion" (diminutive of "ther", meaning beast,
or wild animal), and "anthropos", meaning human being. So therianthrope =
animal-human.
(Interestingly, the Latin word "theriaca" for an antidote against poison,
which someone mentioned a while back, comes from the same root: the Greek
"theriake", meaning an antidote to the poisonous bite of a wild animal,
which comes from "theriakos", the feminine form of "therion". [This is in
Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary under "treacle", which is derived
from "theriaca", since treacle was used in early modern times as a remedy
against poison.] And the word "fierce" is an Anglicization of the Latin
"ferus" meaning wild or savage (also the root of "feral", obviously),
which in turn is also cognate with the Greek "ther". I *did* say I was an
etymology maven, didn't I?)
So a therianthrope, in a general sense, is someone who in some way has the
characteristics of both a human being, and a wild animal of some sort. Now
obviously, this covers a lot of ground - but then, so do the people who
think of themselves as "weres". We are looking at a very diverse community
here.
There are people who believe themselves to be guided by a totem spirit,
and people who, as BleuLynx notes above, feel their animal connection to
be purely internal, a facet of the self rather than a spirit with an
independent existence. There are people who feel their therianthropy is
innate, and people who feel they consciously chose it. There are people
who feel it is purely psychological - a matter of mindset or self-concept
- and people who feel that it has at least some physical components as
well. There are people who believe physical shape-shifting to be at least
a theoretical possibility, and people who don't. There are people who
consider themselves to be fundamentally human, people who consider
themselves to be some sort of sub-species of humanity, and people who
disclaim the label of "human" entirely. And of course, there are people
who might take issue with my use the word "people". :-) And even with all
that, I'm sure I haven't covered the entire span of variation, not nearly.
So, what is the common bond? What does it mean to be a therianthrope?
Fundamentally, it means that you in some way perceive yourself as
occupying the liminal space between human (anthropos) and wild animal
(therion). You may believe yourself to be a human who identifies with a
wild animal, or a wild animal soul in a human body, or any of a number of
variants - the key concept is the liminality, the between-ness of human
and non-human animal.
And I think also the element of *wildness* is also important - "therion"
is not simply "animal", that would be "zoion" (with an umlaut on the i),
root of zoology, protozoa, etc. "Therion" is a *wild* animal, something
untamed and "other" to civilized life. And hence, therianthropy denotes a
liminal space not only between human and animal, but between culture and
nature, civilization and wilderness, order and chaos. A therianthrope is
someone who embraces the in-between spaces within these dichotomies; murky
realms of ambiguity and paradox rather than the safe but stale absolutes.
An individual therianthrope, depending upon philosophical orientation, may
feel that he or she is torn between the opposing poles, or has a special
role to play in healing the split and restoring balance, or that his or
her existence is proof that the split is illusory to begin with; it all
depends on how you choose to view your it.
As with so many things, there are as many stories as there are authors.
And most of them are still being written.
Lynx C.
--
The WildMail account is working again...
Jaue Lang
What words or parts of words or prefixes or suffixes or syllables do we have?
therianthrope = human beast thing [noun]
therianthropism = human beast noun
therianthropic = human beast adjective
therion = small beast [diminitive]
ther = beast
beast = wild animal [can we agree?]
anima = in five words or less
ferus = root of english word fierce
feral = meaning clear
esprit = french word for spirit
?????=greek word for spirit?
?????=latin word for spirit?
For suggestions:
feresprit = fiere and feral spirit
theriasprit = beast spirit [wild animal spirit]
[theresprit does not work well]
Therefore, a question might be:
What anima is your theresprit?
I love this definition belong. I captures the essence so well, without getting
creepy or silly, which is the corner we might create in something less well
thought out.
[]>Lynx C. said: And hence, therianthropy denotes a liminal space not only
[]>between human and animal, but between culture and nature, civilization
[]>and wilderness, order and chaos. A therianthrope is someone who embraces
[]>the in-between spaces within these dichotomies; murky realms of ambiguity
[]>and paradox rather than the safe but stale absolutes. An individual therianthrope,
[]>depending upon philosophical orientation, may feel that he or she is torn between
[]>the opposing poles, or has a special role to play in healing the split and restoring
[]>balance, or that his or her existence is proof that the split is illusory to begin with;
[]>it all depends on how you choose to view your it.
Soul Seeker
>
>therianthrope = human beast thing [noun]
>therianthropism = human beast noun
>therianthropic = human beast adjective
>therion = small beast [diminitive]
>ther = beast
>beast = wild animal [can we agree?]
>anima = in five words or less
>ferus = root of english word fierce
>feral = meaning clear
>esprit = french word for spirit
>?????=greek word for spirit?
>?????=latin word for spirit?
>
>For suggestions:
> feresprit = fiere and feral spirit
> theriasprit = beast spirit [wild animal spirit]
> [theresprit does not work well]
>
>Therefore, a question might be:
> What anima is your theresprit?
>
>I love this definition belong. I captures the essence so well, without
>getting
>creepy or silly, which is the corner we might create in something less well
>thought out.
>
Hm... more words from Jaue's mental dictionary? I like the "Theriasprit" idea
though.. very nice. Where do you get all these prefixes/word translations from?
You must either have found a good translation site or have millions of
dictionaries...
Soul Seeker the Scatterbrained
/\ /\
>(( '--' ))<
"No cat has ever wanted to walk like a [wo]man.But [s]he is a [wo]man who wants
to walk like a cat."
http://members.aol.com/civetmoon/page2/index.htm
Jaue Lang
[]>Hm... more words from Jaue's mental dictionary? I like the "Theriasprit" idea
[]>though.. very nice. Where do you get all these prefixes/word translations from?
[]>You must either have found a good translation site or have millions of
[]>dictionaries...
Mental! Mental? Did someone say mental? <grin>
I have quite a collection of dictionaries. But I also speak a smattering of
languages rather poorly, such as spanish, italian, some portugese, and some
rather well, french and english. I have been working on Russian and Chinese.
I recommend that you buy lots of dictionaries, and look up words in more than
one language, and try and translate.
................................
as for theriasprit, I like that one too. It captures the spirit aspect of it,
as well as the beast, and I like Lynx's definition of beast so much.
Uncle Wolf
are looking for. Since psuche is also the root for mind, hence
psychology, you probably want something along the lines of theriopneuma,
if I recall the declension and gender of to pneuma correctly.
Howls and health-wishes,
Uncle Wolf
--
"Strange blood, howl again, for now we know to well
Better a friend on paths unknown, than to be alone in Hell!"
--"Strange Blood"
"A Wolfrider's Reflection",
various artist
Jaue Lang
[]>pneuma and psuche, or that's reasonably close, are the Greek words you
[]>are looking for. Since psuche is also the root for mind, hence
[]>psychology, you probably want something along the lines of theriopneuma,
[]>if I recall the declension and gender of to pneuma correctly.
theriopneuma???
That is good.
I like the sound that theriop makes, for whatever reason.
Often, I will shorten, in my mind, therianthropy to therianthrop, to mean
someone who is therianthropic...
<gosh, three times legitimately in one sentence>
theriop-neuma
theriopneuma
How many would recognise this?
therianthropy makes sense, because even though I did not know what theri meant
before someone explained it here, anthropy clearly mean "of human" to me.
pneuma sound like pneumonia to me and that is a illness. But doesn't that raise
interesting possibilities about what people thought pneumonia used to be before
modern science...
I think that the therio is a little heavy, and is already three syllables.
How about theripneuma? Therisprit.
Thersprit?
Therpneuma?
Does anyone want to continue?
Lynx Canadensis
Lang) wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Sep 1999 02:37:21 -0500, lyn...@wildmail.com (Lynx
Canadensis) wrote:
>
> What words or parts of words or prefixes or suffixes or syllables do we have?
>
> therianthrope = human beast thing [noun]
> therianthropism = human beast noun
The "ism" suffix, although it works admirably well in words of either
Greek or Latin derivation (since it is akin to both the Latin -isma and
Greek -ismos), tends to imply an ideology, doctrine or belief system. I
know that's not its only meaning, but it's a prevalent association a lot
of people have for it.
So again, we're stumbling up against the different views people hold of
what it is to be a therianthrope: for those who consider it at least in
part a belief system, spiritual practice, or way of thinking,
therianthropism might be a suitable word. But for those who consider it in
some way an innate condition, it may be less so. Then again, you do have
words like albinism... But "therianthropy" is shorter! :-)
> therianthropic = human beast adjective
> therion = small beast [diminitive]
It's a diminutive in its structure, but I'm not sure if it actually is in
its meaning. In the words listed in my dictionary as being derived from
therion rather than directly from ther, the definition is still given
simply as beast or wild animal, not as small animal.
> ther = beast
> beast = wild animal [can we agree?]
> anima = in five words or less
In five words or less? True inner self - or soul. :-)
> ferus = root of english word fierce
> feral = meaning clear
> esprit = french word for spirit
> ?????=greek word for spirit?
Pneuma or Psyche, as Uncle Wolf pointed out.
> ?????=latin word for spirit?
Anima or spiritus - the latter also carries the association with breath
that pneuma and psyche do, since it is also the root of "respiration" -
and "inspiration", interestingly enough. Anima I've written about before,
and I'll just add here that it's the root of the English word "animal".
> For suggestions:
> feresprit = fiere and feral spirit
> theriasprit = beast spirit [wild animal spirit]
> [theresprit does not work well]
You're mixing Greek and Latin in one word there... To stay consistently
Greek, you would need to go with theriopsyche or theriopneuma, whereas to
stay consistently Latin, you might choose with something like spiritus
animalis or anima animalis, although the latter is obviously a redundant
construction, since animal and soul come from the same root.
> Therefore, a question might be:
> What anima is your theresprit?
What spirit is your animal spirit? :-) I'm not sure that's quite what
you're intending to get at here.
The reason I originally suggested anima as an alternative to phenotype is
because it actually contains both halves of the the word we're striving
for, in a way: it means "soul" in Latin, *and* it's the root of the word
"animal". It also carries an association with breath, although a milder
one; soul appears to be primary. The adjective "animalis", from which we
get the words animal and animate, literaly means possessing a soul. The
Jungian definition of "true inner self reflecting archetypal ideals of
conduct" seemed appropriate. And, of course, it has the virtue of being a
relatively short word. :-)
So if we used that, the question above might simply be: what is your anima?
> []>Lynx C. said: And hence, therianthropy denotes a liminal space not only
> []>between human and animal, but between culture and nature, civilization
> []>and wilderness, order and chaos. A therianthrope is someone who embraces
> []>the in-between spaces within these dichotomies; murky realms of ambiguity
> []>and paradox rather than the safe but stale absolutes. An individual
> []>therianthrope, depending upon philosophical orientation, may feel that
> []>he or she is torn between the opposing poles, or has a special role to
> []>play in healing the split and restoring balance, or that his or her
> []>existence is proof that the split is illusory to begin with; it all
> []>depends on how you choose to view your it.
>
> I love this definition belong. I captures the essence so well, without
> getting creepy or silly, which is the corner we might create in something
> less well thought out.
Thank you!
Jaue Lang
[]>> therianthropic = human beast adjective
[]>> therion = small beast [diminitive]
[]>
[]>It's a diminutive in its structure, but I'm not sure if it actually is in
[]>its meaning. In the words listed in my dictionary as being derived from
[]>therion rather than directly from ther, the definition is still given
[]>simply as beast or wild animal, not as small animal.
I am not sure if this is correct, but dinimutive to me means smaller, such a
father bear, the mother bear and the itty bitty baby bear, to quote a fable.
Therefore, ther would be a beast, and therion would be a baby beast.
the only equivalent I can think of right now is:
la louve = female wolf
la louvette = female wolf pup
just as I fear using theria[sprit?] because it might mean an antidote, I don't
want to use therio[sprit?] because it might mean less of a beast.
[]>> anima = in five words or less
What this Jung who developed this word?
[]>In five words or less? True inner self - or soul. :-)
Ah!
[]>> For suggestions:
[]>> feresprit = fiere and feral spirit
[]>> theriasprit = beast spirit [wild animal spirit]
[]>> [theresprit does not work well]
[]>
[]>You're mixing Greek and Latin in one word there... To stay consistently
[]>Greek, you would need to go with theriopsyche or theriopneuma, whereas to
[]>stay consistently Latin, you might choose with something like spiritus
[]>animalis or anima animalis, although the latter is obviously a redundant
[]>construction, since animal and soul come from the same root.
to mix and match is okay, although not "technical", I was hoping for something
that might give some weight, such as with ther, a word or prefix I love right
now, and something that might be more recognisable, such as esprit. I
understand that french, outside of Canada, is la belle langue, and might be
considered the language of the arts, along with italian.
<Canadian groaner joke here, folks. Many in Canada consider french to be down
there beside the devil himself. That's a joke, said, but a joke, folks.>
[]>
[]>> Therefore, a question might be:
[]>> What anima is your theresprit?
[]>
[]>What spirit is your animal spirit? :-) I'm not sure that's quite what
[]>you're intending to get at here.
More like, what type of animal is your beast spirit? Assuming that beast spirit
is what we are, and animal is the flavour. But, if you didn't see that
construct, then maybe it doesn't work so well.
Ifurita
Jaue Lang wrote:
>
> On Sat, 18 Sep 1999 02:37:21 -0500, lyn...@wildmail.com (Lynx Canadensis) wrote:
>
> What words or parts of words or prefixes or suffixes or syllables do we have?
Wow, you really need labels to justify yourself.
>
> therianthrope = human beast thing [noun]
> therianthropism = human beast noun
> therianthropic = human beast adjective
> therion = small beast [diminitive]
> ther = beast
> beast = wild animal [can we agree?]
> anima = in five words or less
> ferus = root of english word fierce
> feral = meaning clear
> esprit = french word for spirit
> ?????=greek word for spirit?
> ?????=latin word for spirit?
>
> For suggestions:
> feresprit = fiere and feral spirit
> theriasprit = beast spirit [wild animal spirit]
> [theresprit does not work well]
>
> Therefore, a question might be:
> What anima is your theresprit?
>
> I love this definition belong. I captures the essence so well, without getting
> creepy or silly, which is the corner we might create in something less well
> thought out.
Yes, the world needs more labels. Lets draw some more lines in the sand.
Safari D.
Lynx Canadensis
<ki...@nex.com.au> wrote:
> Uh. Why? I mean, forgive me for being foolish, but why all this... stuff?
> Sure definitions are all very well and good, and getting accurate is a neat
> thing, but you seem to be trying to create a new language specifically for
> weres and I seriously don't see the point.
Welll, the idea I'd had when this thread started was actually to make
things *more* clear, not less. This got started, at least partially, when
Pinky pointed out that "phenotype" really was a misnomer in that its usual
definition is not even remotely like what we use it for here. I proposed
"anima" as an alternative, because the dictionary definition was in fact
relatively close to what we we usually mean by phenotype.
I think Jaue's "prefixes and suffixes" post was meant to lay out all the
parts we could potentially be working with on the table. But I agree it
did start getting a bit complex at that point... Not that I personally
mind complexity, but it does risk losing the original point.
> 'Theresprit'? Forgive me, but it sounds like a deodorant.
I'd have to agree with you on that one... :-) Also, mixing Greek and
French in the same word just doesn't do it for me.
> To add to this the term 'anima' is already
> in existence and its meaning seems to be getting a little warped here.
Phenotype is already in existence too, and its meaning isn't even vaguely
related to what weres use it for. I thought anima might be a bit clearer
in that it was at least fairly close to the meaning we were trying to
convey.
> Besides, saying 'What's your phenotype?' is just as effective and a lot
> easier when you're saying it to someone who understands what you're talking
> about. Most of us know 'phenotype' and anyone who doesn't can get it from
> the FAQ. I'd hate to have to study a new language just to understand what a
> fellow were was saying to me - I've never had a flair for languages.
Well, as I said, my original intention was to make things more clear, not
less! Such that perhaps someone could figure out what we were talking
about *without* the FAQ, simply be looking up the word in the dictionary:
phenotype (n) [G. phanotypus, fr. Gk. phanein, to show + typos, type]
(ca. 1911) The visible properties of an organism that are produced by
the interaction of the genotype and the environment.
anima (n) [NL, fr. L, soul] (1923) An individual's true inner self that
in the analytic psychology of C. G. Jung reflects archetypal ideals of
conduct...
Do you see my point? The usage of the term "phenotype" amongst
therianthropes is much closer to the conventional meaning of anima than of
phenotype...
Lynx C.
--
If a web site is "Optimized for Lynx", does that mean the icons
are shaped like snowshoe hares?
Kioma Winterwolf
> Therefore, a question might be:
> What anima is your theresprit?
>
> I love this definition belong. I captures the essence so well, without
getting
> creepy or silly, which is the corner we might create in something less
well
> thought out.
>
Uh. Why? I mean, forgive me for being foolish, but why all this... stuff?
Sure definitions are all very well and good, and getting accurate is a neat
thing, but you seem to be trying to create a new language specifically for
weres and I seriously don't see the point. You can get as technical,
pedantic, semantic, blah as you like, but when it comes right down to it
nothing has changed. I am still what and who I am. That what-and-who will
grow as I grow, and will change a little, but it's still going to be Me.
Why all the prefixes, suffixes and blahfixes? Not everything is complex
and, in my mind at least, this is one of them. 'Theresprit'? Forgive me,
but it sounds like a deodorant. To add to this the term 'anima' is already
in existence and its meaning seems to be getting a little warped here.
Besides, saying 'What's your phenotype?' is just as effective and a lot
easier when you're saying it to someone who understands what you're talking
about. Most of us know 'phenotype' and anyone who doesn't can get it from
the FAQ. I'd hate to have to study a new language just to understand what a
fellow were was saying to me - I've never had a flair for languages.
Kioma
--
________
|\_/| +--------------------------------------------------------+
/@ @\ | "A mountain with a wolf on it stands a little taller." |
\ / -| --Russian proverb |
^ +--------------------------------------------------------+
Jaue Lang
[]>> 'Theresprit'? Forgive me, but it sounds like a deodorant.
Hmmm! Deodorant?
Well that no was the reaction me wanted! <grin>
[]>I'd have to agree with you on that one... :-) Also, mixing Greek and
[]>French in the same word just doesn't do it for me.
How about betesprit?
I think it is important to change it somehow. Between Safari's denigration of
weres here and the meowers attempts to disrupt us, I think it is important to
come up with something that is less common.
[]> phenotype (n) [G. phanotypus, fr. Gk. phanein, to show + typos, type]
[]> (ca. 1911) The visible properties of an organism that are produced by
[]> the interaction of the genotype and the environment.
[]>
[]> anima (n) [NL, fr. L, soul] (1923) An individual's true inner self that
[]> in the analytic psychology of C. G. Jung reflects archetypal ideals of
[]> conduct...
I see this difference right away.
And now comes the groaner. The reason many of us stay here is because it does
attract enough weres, and not werewolves, and this gives us a chance to discuss
our werism. I think it is confusing enough that meowers make fun, and we get
the odd role player, but all in all, we do have a solid group here.
Therefore, getting a new newsgroup with the ideal name might be good for us,
but, how will we reach the new ones.
But, I still like thersprit <note only one e> and betesprit. But, my prejudices
are showing here. Even though I haven't spoken french for over ten years, I
still like to find ways.
Jaue Lang
[]>> 'Theresprit'? Forgive me, but it sounds like a deodorant.
Hmmm! Deodorant?
Well that no was the reaction me wanted! <grin>
[]>I'd have to agree with you on that one... :-) Also, mixing Greek and
[]>French in the same word just doesn't do it for me.
How about betesprit?
I think it is important to change it somehow. Between Safari's denigration of
weres here and the meowers attempts to disrupt us, I think it is important to
come up with something that is less common.
[]> phenotype (n) [G. phanotypus, fr. Gk. phanein, to show + typos, type]
[]> (ca. 1911) The visible properties of an organism that are produced by
[]> the interaction of the genotype and the environment.
[]>
[]> anima (n) [NL, fr. L, soul] (1923) An individual's true inner self that
[]> in the analytic psychology of C. G. Jung reflects archetypal ideals of
Kamatu
Jaue Lang <ja...@ionsys.com> wrote in message
news:37e76f16...@news.ionsys.com...
> On Mon, 20 Sep 1999 22:27:18 -0500, lyn...@wildmail.com (Lynx Canadensis)
wrote:
>
> []>> 'Theresprit'? Forgive me, but it sounds like a deodorant.
>
> Hmmm! Deodorant?
>
> Well that no was the reaction me wanted! <grin>
>
> []>I'd have to agree with you on that one... :-) Also, mixing Greek and
> []>French in the same word just doesn't do it for me.
>
> How about betesprit?
>
> I think it is important to change it somehow. Between Safari's
denigration of
> weres here and the meowers attempts to disrupt us, I think it is important
to
> come up with something that is less common.
How about "Therianthropy" that is pretty "uncommon" a word.
--
Kamatu
Editor - The Changing Times Dot Com
http://www.thechangingtimes.com
First Werewolf to go public with a music CD
http://www.mp3.com/kamatu
President of BARK!
"Email Forgery 101" is now in session
http://www.thechangingtimes.com/forgery.htm
Azzy Proven to Be a Coward!
http://www.thechangingtimes.com/~azzythecoward
Azzy quote of the day:
"So, you expect me to root through the pile of shit known as AHW on
Dejanews looking for this obscure original article so I can do as you bid
and post my "proof" that you are a meower-whore (and a fuckwit). A time
consuming task only to answer the demand of a worthless spankard like
yourself...
((Note from Kamatu... This comes from the same mouth that said my technical
abilities were lacking if I couldn't locate the original message(which I did
in about
3 minutes... not a very time consuming task, indeed.))
Actually, I think I WON'T waste my time with this menial task, posting
your "proof" and furthermore I'll KEEP the quote in my sig. So, whether
it is real or not is immaterial as everyone who reads it will believe it
is and thus the effect will be precisely the same."
((Note from Kamatu: I agree with you 50%, not everyone believes it,
but the effect is still the same, you prove yourself a liar with each
instance
of your sig.))
Ben Goodridge
>Yes, the world needs more labels. Lets draw some more lines in the sand.
Well, that's one way of putting it. Another way is that despite centuries of
popularity in some of our beliefs, we really have no language to describe
what we are. The inability to be defined is a tool I've frequently seen used
to oppress.
New words arent necessarily "labeling." Words dont have to be confining.
They can be liberating.
Ben Goodridge
bgoo...@maine.rr.com
http://home.maine.rr.com/basement/furry
(saying "Black" just to watch Saf say "White" reflexively...)
Soul Seeker
>popularity in some of our beliefs, we really have no language to describe
>what we are. The inability to be defined is a tool I've frequently seen used
>to oppress.
I think we have enough words already.. we have "were" "therianthrope"
"phenotype" (which is really the outside appearance of an organism, so it's the
complete opposite of what we mean.. but hey.. whoever said English makes
sense?). I seem to think more in "feelings" than words a lot of the time, and
the problem with that is feelings are much harder to communicate to other
people, but do we really need to announce to the world what we are? Why isn't
it enough just to know for yourself who you are inside?
Lynx Canadensis
<kam...@thechangingtimes.com> wrote:
> > I think it is important to change it somehow. Between Safari's
> > denigration of weres here and the meowers attempts to disrupt us,
> > I think it is important to come up with something that is less common.
>
> How about "Therianthropy" that is pretty "uncommon" a word.
Yes, and also an accurate one. And in fact, if you do a web search on it,
you will find almost entirely sites related to what we are talking about.
It does not have a wildly unrelated alternate meaning, and that is why I,
at least, *don't* have any interest in changing it. Jaue may, but I
don't.
The word I *do* dislike, and had proposed an alternative to, is
"phenotype", which does have a specific meaning, which is completely
unrelated to the meaning we attribute to it here.
Lynx Canadensis
<ki...@nex.com.au> wrote:
>> > phenotype (n) [G. phanotypus, fr. Gk. phanein, to show + typos, type]
> > (ca. 1911) The visible properties of an organism that are produced by
> > the interaction of the genotype and the environment.
>
> Hmm, I'd never actually seen the word anywhere else and it hadn't occurred
> to me to dig out the long-buried dictionary and check it out. My bad. No,
> that's not very accurate AT ALL...
No, it isn't, and it probably aggravates me more than most because having
taken a certain amount of biology, I knew the word in its original sense
before I encountered it in this one.
> > anima (n) [NL, fr. L, soul] (1923) An individual's true inner self that
> > in the analytic psychology of C. G. Jung reflects archetypal ideals of
> > conduct...
> >
> > Do you see my point? The usage of the term "phenotype" amongst
> > therianthropes is much closer to the conventional meaning of anima than of
> > phenotype...
>
> Yes indeed. I see your point quite clearly. *nods thoughtfully* However,
> the only quibble I have with this is while most people out there don't know
> about Animism, there are some who do. Now, what weres are isn't quite the
> same - in fact, is enormously different - to the... religion? belief
> structure? that is Animism. This in itself could cause some problems,
> because I believe there are some weres out there who would scoff at the idea
> of Animism.
True, but I don't think that's necessarily a big issue unless we for some
reason chose to use the word animism itself, which was not really what I
was suggesting. Animism obviously comes from the same root, but then, so
do animal and animation, so I don't think there's any reason to associate
"anima" any more with one than the others - if anything, I'd think the
animal association would be more apparent.
For the record, though, animism is an interesting word because it has
actually been used to mean several different things. The three meanings my
dictionary has are:
1: a doctrine that the vital principle of organic development is immaterial
spirit. 2: attribution of conscious life to objects in and phenomena of
nature, or to inanimate objects. 3: belief in the existence of spirits
separable from bodies.
The third meaning is actually fairly compatible with at least some views
of therianthropes - those reliant on the idea of animal spirits - but the
second and (especially) the first are not really related.
> > If a web site is "Optimized for Lynx", does that mean the icons
> > are shaped like snowshoe hares?
>
> WOOHOO!!! Gotta love that. :)
Thanks. It was one of those sudden random things that just pop into one's
head...
Kioma Winterwolf
> French in the same word just doesn't do it for me.
True. Somewhat incompatible languages, like Egyptian and Furby.
> Phenotype is already in existence too, and its meaning isn't even vaguely
I'll address this below.
>
> > Besides, saying 'What's your phenotype?' is just as effective and a lot
> phenotype (n) [G. phanotypus, fr. Gk. phanein, to show + typos, type]
> (ca. 1911) The visible properties of an organism that are produced by
> the interaction of the genotype and the environment.
Hmm, I'd never actually seen the word anywhere else and it hadn't occurred
to me to dig out the long-buried dictionary and check it out. My bad. No,
that's not very accurate AT ALL...
> anima (n) [NL, fr. L, soul] (1923) An individual's true inner self that
> in the analytic psychology of C. G. Jung reflects archetypal ideals of
> conduct...
>
> Do you see my point? The usage of the term "phenotype" amongst
> therianthropes is much closer to the conventional meaning of anima than of
> phenotype...
Yes indeed. I see your point quite clearly. *nods thoughtfully* However,
the only quibble I have with this is while most people out there don't know
about Animism, there are some who do. Now, what weres are isn't quite the
same - in fact, is enormously different - to the... religion? belief
structure? that is Animism. This in itself could cause some problems,
because I believe there are some weres out there who would scoff at the idea
of Animism.
> If a web site is "Optimized for Lynx", does that mean the icons
> are shaped like snowshoe hares?
WOOHOO!!! Gotta love that. :)
Kioma
Kioma Winterwolf
> []>French in the same word just doesn't do it for me.
>
Three words: Werewolf: the Apocalypse. In specific, the name for the
Changing Breed in that game (ie. all the shapeshifting critters) is Beté.
Yes, I know it's by and far not the origin of the word, but that's where
most of the English-speaking world nowadays with a keen interest in
werecritters will know it from.
> I think it is important to change it somehow. Between Safari's
denigration of
> weres here and the meowers attempts to disrupt us, I think it is important
to
> come up with something that is less common.
But you confuse 'less common' with 'clever-sounding'. It doesn't need to be
fancy and, while it is quite an elegant language, French sounds extremely
fancy. It's designed to be pleasing to the ear, and has a habit of being...
flowery? to people who don't speak it. Believe me, I speak from experience.
I only know a smattering of French. Things aren't always complex - we don't
need to sound fancy to have our own identity.
> our werism. I think it is confusing enough that meowers make fun, and we
get
> the odd role player, but all in all, we do have a solid group here.
You mean, the odd person who thinks this is JUSt roleplaying. I'm a
roleplayer and while I can easily be defined as odd, I do not consider this
a game. I'm not playing.
> Therefore, getting a new newsgroup with the ideal name might be good for
us,
> but, how will we reach the new ones.
We've been through this. We can't. At least, no way we KNOW is going to
work.It's a matter of prevalence: in the world of supernatural creatures the
Vampire is by and far the most well known. In the world of werecreatures,
the werewolf is by and far the best known. If someone is going to do a
search on wereism, the chances that they're going to type in 'were' for the
search is not nearly as likely as 'werewolf' or 'werewolves'.
> But, I still like thersprit <note only one e> and betesprit. But, my
prejudices
> are showing here. Even though I haven't spoken french for over ten years,
I
> still like to find ways.
I'm not going to pretend my views on the French language aren't biased; they
are. And from two angles: though I don't speak in a typical or even
stereotypical Australian way, we tend to discourage the sort of 'bells and
whistles' that are so characteristic of the more Romantic languages, like
French. To add to this, all three of my elder brothers know French to some
degree or other, and Gods know I'm far from immune to the ol' sibling
rivalry effect.
To add to this, French seems to be a language that appeals to my mind;
wereism is something that subsides in my heart, my emotions, my very soul.
French just seems... inadequate.
Just to recap - I have nothing against French language, people or customs
(though the Muaroa Attol (sp?) thing was not to my tastes). I've nothing
against them but I don't speak the language and it doesn't suit my sense of
aesthetics. Y'know, it's one of those personal opinion thingies.
Polenth
>I think we have enough words already.. we have "were" "therianthrope"
>"phenotype" (which is really the outside appearance of an organism, so it's the
>complete opposite of what we mean.. but hey.. whoever said English makes
>sense?).
A phenotype is a visible trait, but not neccassrily an appearance one.
It's perfectly acceptable to use phenotype to describe behavioural
traits. The only problem with what weres do is that they don't
differentiate between their appearance phenotype and their behavioural
phenotype. But it's easy enough if someone new gets confused and ask if
they mean they look like a wolf to say 'No, I mean my behavioural
phenotype'.
Therianthrope always seemed a good one, as it covers the same concept as
werecreature without the hollywood sterotyping. Therianthrope is a bit
long, but it could be shorted much like werecreature is for general
usage. 'Ther' would seem a reasonable shortening.
(And it also rhymes with were (depending on how you say both words).
This doesn't have much relevance, unless you want to write a rhyming
poem, but someone might.)
>I seem to think more in "feelings" than words a lot of the time, and
>the problem with that is feelings are much harder to communicate to other
>people, but do we really need to announce to the world what we are? Why isn't
>it enough just to know for yourself who you are inside?
I do tell people what I am, but I use common English to do it. It's a
whole lot easier for them to understand that way. If you use fancy
words, you just confuse people, and have to explain it anyway. It can be
a hard enough concept for people to understand anyway, so it's best to
reduce the potential confusion as much as possible.
--
Polenth
ICQ UIN: 8342844
http://www.polenth.demon.co.uk/
http://www.h2g2.com/U52099
Orion Rainy
>
> Soul Seeker <cive...@aol.comnospam> murmured mushroomyly:
> >I think we have enough words already.. we have "were" "therianthrope"
> >"phenotype" (which is really the outside appearance of an organism, so it's the
> >complete opposite of what we mean.. but hey.. whoever said English makes
> >sense?).
I have been watching a number of latin and greek terms (and latin+greek
terms) and have seen very few that "fit" well. The technical definition
may be more correct, but I will never describe myself as a theriopneuma or
as having a therespirit. These words can be explained, but without
explanation a person seeing them can draw the wrong conclusions if they do
not know the roots that the words are being drawn from (and I hardly expect
them to go look it up). Such may do more harm from misperceptions than
were-something does already. Were seems a good short form for self
referral (within the were community), outside that it draws in the wrong
conclusions due to the stories, movies, and mythos that is in place.
Therianthrope seems both a good sounding and a fairly well defining word
with which to describe ourselves and not drag in the baggage. It has the
bonus of being derived from and very recognizable root (anthro) that helps
give weight to the fact that most of us recognize that we are human beings
or in human form as well as being connected to animals.
> A phenotype is a visible trait, but not neccassrily an appearance one.
> It's perfectly acceptable to use phenotype to describe behavioural
> traits. The only problem with what weres do is that they don't
> differentiate between their appearance phenotype and their behavioural
> phenotype. But it's easy enough if someone new gets confused and ask if
> they mean they look like a wolf to say 'No, I mean my behavioural
> phenotype'.
Interesting, I did not know of the split ways that it could be used. In
some ways that makes fit even better. The behavioral traits part applies
well, the physical usually less so. I wonder if phenotype can be validly
pushed for a third definition covering spiritual shape. (In saying that my
phenotype is coyote, I am not saying that I look like a coyote or act like
a coyote all the time, but I am saying that my spirit is very much combined
with and shaped by and like coyote)
> Therianthrope always seemed a good one, as it covers the same concept as
> werecreature without the hollywood sterotyping. Therianthrope is a bit
> long, but it could be shorted much like werecreature is for general
> usage. 'Ther' would seem a reasonable shortening.
I tend to shorten it mentally to 'thrope. This sounds more like a noun
that ther' does. Cound also be shortened to therian to sound like a noun,
but there is the disadvantage of therian being a word on it's own and thus
leaving it open to misinterpretation.
> (And it also rhymes with were (depending on how you say both words).
> This doesn't have much relevance, unless you want to write a rhyming
> poem, but someone might.)
>
> >I seem to think more in "feelings" than words a lot of the time, and
> >the problem with that is feelings are much harder to communicate to other
> >people, but do we really need to announce to the world what we are? Why isn't
> >it enough just to know for yourself who you are inside?
>
> I do tell people what I am, but I use common English to do it. It's a
> whole lot easier for them to understand that way. If you use fancy
> words, you just confuse people, and have to explain it anyway. It can be
> a hard enough concept for people to understand anyway, so it's best to
> reduce the potential confusion as much as possible.
This is one of the reasons that I like therianthrope. It is from a
familiar root and so does not sound completely cryptic, but is enough to
get a person asking questions at which point the down the earth (english)
explanation can be given.
. . Rors (Rorschach)
| \ / |
|/ """ \? A simple pattern of Black and White?
//,\ /,\\ Within you can find images, reflections, maybe balance.
\ |_| / We walk a risky path: alone, yet not: divided, yet whole.
`=' "Sometimes the wolves are silent and the moon is howling"
Orion Rainy
>
> In <CLRF3.258$ZI2...@newsr2.maine.rr.com>, Ben Goodridge wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > >Yes, the world needs more labels. Lets draw some more lines in the sand.
> >
> >
> > popularity in some of our beliefs, we really have no language to describe
> > what we are. The inability to be defined is a tool I've frequently seen used
> > to oppress.
> >
> > They can be liberating.
>
Who's the loon? You are the one talking to things that don't exist. : )
Polenth
>Polenth wrote:
>>
>> Soul Seeker <cive...@aol.comnospam> murmured mushroomyly:
>> It's perfectly acceptable to use phenotype to describe behavioural
>> traits. The only problem with what weres do is that they don't
>> differentiate between their appearance phenotype and their behavioural
>> phenotype. But it's easy enough if someone new gets confused and ask if
>> they mean they look like a wolf to say 'No, I mean my behavioural
>> phenotype'.
>
>Interesting, I did not know of the split ways that it could be used.
Phenotype doesn't really have split ways of being used. What is split
are the types of thing which are 'visible'. Low level science tends to
use appearance examples, such as petal colour and seed type, because
it's easier to understand. There's not much of an environmental effect,
the gentics are simple, and the phenotype is easy to see. Biochemical,
behavioural and personality traits are not so easy to work with.
>In
>some ways that makes fit even better. The behavioral traits part applies
>well, the physical usually less so. I wonder if phenotype can be validly
>pushed for a third definition covering spiritual shape. (In saying that my
>phenotype is coyote, I am not saying that I look like a coyote or act like
>a coyote all the time, but I am saying that my spirit is very much combined
>with and shaped by and like coyote)
In general, the principle of phenotypes can be extended. A spirit would
probably have some base traits/predispositions that it starts out with,
which could be a gene substitue. It's base form may even be connected to
genes. And it's shape could be altered by the experience of the
individual with the spirit, so those are environmental factors. However
you cannot test whether spirits exist, let alone what they look like. So
a spiritual phenotype would be a purely theoretical concept. It doesn't
mean you can't use it, just that it isn't a concrete idea needs to be
kept in mind.
>> I do tell people what I am, but I use common English to do it. It's a
>> whole lot easier for them to understand that way. If you use fancy
>> words, you just confuse people, and have to explain it anyway. It can be
>> a hard enough concept for people to understand anyway, so it's best to
>> reduce the potential confusion as much as possible.
>
>This is one of the reasons that I like therianthrope. It is from a
>familiar root and so does not sound completely cryptic, but is enough to
>get a person asking questions at which point the down the earth (english)
>explanation can be given.
I tend to use transspecies in the same way.
Roger Williams
> BleuLynx wrote:
>>
>> >Musings of the week.
>> >
>> >I have been thinking of what it means to be a were. And whether were is the
>> >word to use. Whether it would makes us stronger to use a term that has been
>> >held up to ridicule, or whether it is time to move to a new term, such as
>> >those
>> >proposed by Pinky, animality, or therianthropes. Or to try to develop a new
>> >word, based on a process in which we participate.
>>
>> Being a "were" or a "therianthrope" is obviously something that's difficult to
>> define. In my opinion, there's really no one statement that could sum up what
>> weres really are.
>> Perhaps I was a lynx in a past life, I got stuck with a lynx soul instead of a
>> human one, or maybe I'm just a few tacos short of a combination platter.
> I'd say you are a few fries short of a Happy Meal.
I'd say you are a few CD's short of a Time/Life musical retrospective.
--
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} \|/
{} RogerW rog...@newsguy.com {} 0< -- parrot.net!
{} http://www.parrot.net ad...@parrot.net {} ^^^^(*)^^^^
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} ^^ / \ ^^
/\--/\ OFFICIAL ALT.HORROR.WEREWOLVES /\--/\
< ^..^ > BELLOWERS SOCIETY < ^..^ >
\~U/ MEMBER #27 \~U/
Jaue Lang
All those in favour: Yea!
All those opposed: Nay!
All those who abstain: Nada!
Jaue Lang
[]>> It's hard to be defined when you don't even exist, wereloonie.
There is nothing more beautiful than a Canadian Loon. It graces the back of our
one dollar coin. I have seen so many of them while up north, and they are
beautiful birds.
To be a wereloon would be something marvellous.
[]>Who's the loon? You are the one talking to things that don't exist. : )
I don't know, but, they would have to be beautiful.
[]> . . Rors (Rorschach)
[]> | \ / |
[]> |/ """ \? A simple pattern of Black and White?
[]> //,\ /,\\ Within you can find images, reflections, maybe balance.
[]> \ |_| / We walk a risky path: alone, yet not: divided, yet whole.
[]> `=' "Sometimes the wolves are silent and the moon is howling"
___________________________________________________
Ifurita
Jaue Lang wrote:
>
> On Mon, 20 Sep 1999 22:27:18 -0500, lyn...@wildmail.com (Lynx Canadensis) wrote:
>
> []>> 'Theresprit'? Forgive me, but it sounds like a deodorant.
>
> Hmmm! Deodorant?
>
> Well that no was the reaction me wanted! <grin>
Of course not. You wanted everyone to jump for joy at your insight and
creativity.
>
> []>I'd have to agree with you on that one... :-) Also, mixing Greek and
> []>French in the same word just doesn't do it for me.
>
> How about betesprit?
How about teenspirit, and then we could have nirvana be our trademark
band, and then we could have a great image.
>
> I think it is important to change it somehow. Between Safari's denigration of
> weres here and the meowers attempts to disrupt us, I think it is important to
> come up with something that is less common.
Yes, we shouldn't handle the problems. We can just ignore the truth and
redefine ourselves whenever someone spots the truth behind the illusion.
OK, lets say for a while you confuse me with a new word, how is it going
to get the meowers out of the group?
>
> []> phenotype (n) [G. phanotypus, fr. Gk. phanein, to show + typos, type]
> []> (ca. 1911) The visible properties of an organism that are produced by
> []> the interaction of the genotype and the environment.
> []>
> []> anima (n) [NL, fr. L, soul] (1923) An individual's true inner self that
> []> in the analytic psychology of C. G. Jung reflects archetypal ideals of
> []> conduct...
>
> I see this difference right away.
Now if only we could show you the difference between your delusions and
the truth.
>
> And now comes the groaner. The reason many of us stay here is because it does
> attract enough weres, and not werewolves, and this gives us a chance to discuss
> our werism.
I thought you weren't a were? I thought you were just guided by the wolf
(Sounds like a bad remake of a duran duran song). Didn't you insist that
nothing we say would make you a werewolf?
I think it is confusing enough that meowers make fun, and we get
> the odd role player, but all in all, we do have a solid group here.
Let us not forget the posers. Without that group in here you would not
have a place.
>
> Therefore, getting a new newsgroup with the ideal name might be good for us,
> but, how will we reach the new ones.
net.lycanthropy. OK, you are only ignorant of this situation due to your
lack of time here, so let me explain. This topic has not only been
suggested and discussed to death, but tried in multiple locations. As a
matter of fact there was a private news server set up for a while with
many were related newsgroups, but it just didn't get the traffic AHWW
does.
>
> But, I still like thersprit <note only one e> and betesprit. But, my prejudices
> are showing here. Even though I haven't spoken french for over ten years, I
> still like to find ways.
It's nice, but it is like adding a redundancy to an already all to
misunderstood concept. You just want to be the one who makes the new
word, and terianthropy fits just fine. Hell, I thought were fit just
fine.
Safari D.
Ifurita
Kamatu wrote:
>
> How about "Therianthropy" that is pretty "uncommon" a word.
Unfortunately, it no longer has the mystery that it once has, and now in
order to increase the image of the mysterious spiritual wolves they must
change the word or else beginning to become known. The true nature of an
image seeker is the constant need to have new definitions to describe
themselves.
Safari D.
Methuselah
post...
Safari said:
>As a matter of fact there was a private news server set up for a while
with
>many were related newsgroups, but it just didn't get the traffic AHWW
>does.
>
Y'know, I *still* can't get to net.lycanthropy through Earthlink. Don't
get me wrong, it's not like I feel like I'm *stuck* with you guys... I
just miss some of the old farts who bailed on ahww when the traffic got
too cluttered. But what the hell. AHWW hasn't gone completely south.
(No thanks to me, of course... I bail on it myself for months at a
stretch and only pop up to offer my own pearls o' wisdom when I get
stuck in the middle of my own stories and bored with trying to pretend
I'm not a were.)
>> But, I still like thersprit <note only one e> and betesprit. But, my
prejudices
>> are showing here. Even though I haven't spoken french for over ten
years, I
>> still like to find ways.
>
>It's nice, but it is like adding a redundancy to an already all to
>misunderstood concept. You just want to be the one who makes the new
>word, and terianthropy fits just fine. Hell, I thought were fit just
>fine.
Yup. I'm with you there. "Were" fits my own personal labeling
purposes, and "therianthropy" lends me all the scientific cachet and
credibility I'm likely to need in my circles. Changing the newsgroup
was a schismatic response to unwanted, distracting, spammulous,
flamebaiting traffic, and I suppose it was well justified. (Please send
my forlorn Howdys to all my old pals over there who no longer slum with
us here in the old neighborhood... wish I could come visit, and one of
these days I shall.) But renaming the... uh... well, "race" of weres
here seems kinda pointless. Since I mentioned race, let's look at what
black folks have tried to do. They've been called everything from
"colored" to "black" to "Afro-American" to "Negro" to "of color" to
"African-American," and can they *yet* drive through Beverly Hills at
night without getting pulled over? Nope. Seems to me that all of those
names, from the 1950's old-South segregationist sobriquet "colored
people" to the amusingly retro yet apparently P.C. 1990's term "people
of color," to the racially proud if often far from accurate
"African-American," didn't really seem to help how these folks have been
treated over the years. Maybe my perspective is skewed, since I'm
white. Hell, I know it is. But I've been called everything from
Anglo-Saxon to white to Northern European to skinny-assed honky to
Caucasian to poor white trailer-park trash, and it's never made the
slightest bit of difference to me. Any label like that is much less
than the smallest condensation of any collection of words which may
attempt to describe me or my characteristics or other folks with whom I
may identify. Such a low common denominator (a description of a person
or group of persons less than twenty letters long) cannot be incredibly
useful, neither as a description nor as an identity.
But whatever flips y'all's switches.
-Methuselah
Kamatu
Ifurita <mak...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
news:37E9D345...@bestweb.net...
How sad, but how true.
--
Kamatu
Editor - The Changing Times Dot Com
http://www.thechangingtimes.com
**Quote of the week**
"I never change my email address, there is
obviously something wrong with your killfile!"
From:
azz...@hotmail.com
azz...@yahoo.com
meowa...@hotmail.com
LADYSM...@AOL.COM
"Kamatu" <kam...@thechangingtimes.com>
BleuLynx
>
>
Well, what do YOU suggest?
<~BleuLynx~>
>^..^<
"And I judge myself by the adverts I see My deoderant hides the real me These
things elevate me above animals I feel like being a girl" - Mansun
Rorschach
>
> >Yes, the world needs more labels. Lets draw some more lines in the sand.
> >
> >Safari D.
> >
>
> Well, what do YOU suggest?
Be yourself, enjoy your friends, ignore those who piss you off, find the
truths within your heart that you can hold onto.......
We are human AND we are something else. Being were does not seperate us or
aliviate us from all the human foibles and follies and bigotries and joys
and acomplishments.
There is no line to draw, and to create one cuts us off from those who
might otherwise be our friends and supporters. No one wants to hear "I am
better than you because I am an X", they are usually much more willing to
listen to you when you say "I am this way, it is not better or worse, just
different...."
Therianthrope and were are a classification, a way to point to a difference
like the color blue is different than the color green. The moment it gets
used as a label in that what is being referred to is defined by the label
itself is the moment that we lose. It is each of us as individuals that
must define our very own place in the world and among each other. If I am
a fuckhead and claim to be a were, attempting to appear stronger or more
powerful, this doesn't make me anything more than a fuckhead.
You are what you are, how you label it should have no effect on your life.
If changing the label changes you, then something is wrong and some soul
searching is neccesary.
This is one of the ways that we are up from the animals that are part of
us. We do not have to be defined by the group (pack) that we belong to.
We are social by choice rather than by needs of pure survival.
Ben Goodridge
>There is nothing more beautiful than a Canadian Loon. It graces the back
of our
>one dollar coin. I have seen so many of them while up north, and they are
>beautiful birds.
>
>To be a wereloon would be something marvellous.
Ah, another soul in the North Woods who enjoys the cry of the loon.
My Grandfather's summer home (don't worry, it's not as obnoxious as it
sounds) on Craig Pond near Bangor is on a lake smooth as a millpond, and
come the mornings one can sit out of the dock with one's cup of coffee and
watch the loons diving for minnows. I swear, were I to set out in a canoe
they'd paddle right up to the bow. You can hear 'em most of the day.
Remind me. Next time I'll make some pictures.
Jaue Lang
<bgoo...@maine.rr.com/nospam> wrote:
[]>My Grandfather's summer home (don't worry, it's not as obnoxious as it
[]>sounds) on Craig Pond near Bangor is on a lake smooth as a millpond, and
[]>come the mornings one can sit out of the dock with one's cup of coffee and
[]>watch the loons diving for minnows. I swear, were I to set out in a canoe
[]>they'd paddle right up to the bow. You can hear 'em most of the day.
I actually do have in my possession a real live photo of a loon.
The weregoddess musta been with me that day.
You can only see the loon as a smug in the centre of the photo, but it is the
most spectacular photo I ever took. Perhaps it was a gift.
<grin>
Cat X.
^..^<
Here is a radical notion: why not call yourself whatever you feel most
comfortable with; and I will do the same. Why should we conform to one
word. I am a cat, Weretiger to be more precise. I will just go with Cat
and be done with it.
Cat X.
http://community.webtv.net/STEPPENWOLFFE/CatXWerecard
http://members.tripod.com/~robertpetzel/meowth.gif