*===========                 Public disclaimer                 ===========*
The following document is opinion based and relies on very few concrete
sources, if any (those used will be noted).  Comments are welcome to the
media in which this was found, or via email.  Comments may be read, unread,
deleted for no cause, deleted for good reason, ignored, archived, burned, or
crucified.  The probability that I'll respond to your comments depends
greatly on how little you make me angry.
This document is response rated: 3 - author will post and mostly ignore
(c) 1997 Lion Templin (jtemplin@monolith.leonine.com)
*===========                 Public disclaimer                 ===========*

                   A short view on modern contherianthropy
     =======================================

                            by Lion Templin, 1997

Part I - Definition of State

I assume several things in this set of theories.  These are only assumptions
to keep the explanation from getting too complex.

 o Therianthropy is defined as:
  Physical Therianthropy has been defined as the ability to
                shift from human to animal form and back again. Spiritual
                Therianthropy, then, is the ability to mentally transform
                from the normal human mode of thinking and reacting to an
                animal one.
   [FROM: AHWW FAQ - Part 2                        ]
   [http://www.wolfden.demon.co.uk/ahww/ahww2.htm  ]

 o Multiplicity is nonexsistant.  That is, each person has either
          one human component (naught), or one human and ONLY one animal
          component (therianthrope).

 o Physical therianthropy is nonexsistant.  Only spiritual/mental
   therianthropy is taken into account here.

 o You know the single agent self theory of consciousness.  Belief in
          this theory is not necessary, for the concepts here use it only
          for an abstract description of the theory.

Part II - Separation of State

The prevailing attitudes of those who subscribe in therianthropy see the
word as pertaining to those who 'shift' either their mental or physical
forms to that of an animal that's not human.  And most certainly the
classical definition of therianthropy has a great number who fit this simple
dual-based nature, that of two distinct states: human and animal.  However,
with the basis of therianthropy moored the critical 'shifter' definition, it
marginalizes those who identify and feel the presence of animals but lack
the shifting boundary.  Therefore, because they do NOT shift, they do not
fit into the classical definition of therianthropy.

These persons of mixed core nature (not dualistic) differ greatly from their
therianthropological counterparts.  Instead of transversing from one
perception to another, they perceive the world from one reasonably constant
frame.  This perception is based on a mixed amount of 'standard human'
(naughts) and high order animalistic nature that remains at it's static mix
level throughout their 'lifetime'.  Thus, these persons share the
animalistic nature that the classic therianthropes do, but on an everyday
basis instead of a dualistic single-time perception.  More precisely,
assuming a derivative of the single-agent-self idea for consciousness, the
dualistic single-time perception of therianthropes could be viewed as two
/different/ agents, one human and one animal, with only one having access to
hardware that can provide perception.  The changing of the agent that uses
the perception hardware is the moment of shifting.  However, the single
mixed agent has continuous perception /and/ animalistic nature because the
single agent itself is imbued with the animal's high order nature.

Because of this serious difference the term therianthropy cannot apply to
the single mixed agent individual.  Therianthropy, by common definition, has
the element of shifting embedded in it, if only by definition, and not the
Latin translation (which is 'beast man').  I bring forth then
contherianthropy, adding 'con', from Latin 'contas', meaning unchanging. 
The unchanging is that of the single mixed agent and it's continuous
perception.  This then gives the single mixed agents a category, instead of
a twisted definition of the parent.

Part III - Condition of State

The agent, in response to it's perception of it's environment and itself,
exerts it's control over the total hardware that interacts with it's
perception.  The nature of the hardware is of little dispute: the body. 
However, the agent is more complex to define.  But, in the case of defining
therianthropes and contherianthropes separate from naughts it makes little
difference how the agent is actually implemented.  It is the end result of
self perception and action that is the more the concern than what's doing
the self perception and controlling action.  Therefore, you can link the
agent to a soul, as in western belief, or link it to the complex pathways of
the hardware, the brain.  Both perceive and direct the hardware, the body.

So, in the case of therianthropes, the agents are two dissimilar souls OR
two dissimilar sections or activity types of the brain*.  Perhaps, even 
* This section of the theory should be able to be proven by observation of
  therianthrope's brain activity in shifted and normal states and comparing.
with the souls or brain sharing data giving knowledge of the other, thus
realizing memories and emotions from the other agent through the perception
of the active agent.  The differences of action and self perception come
from the dissimilar makeup of the two agents.  One agent is the common human
agent, while the other is the animal agent.  These two vastly different
agents maintain their separation, and therefore understanding the values and
reactions of the two agents is much more simple because each is pure.  Even
in the case of mixed-mode operation (therianthropes that feel human and
animal presence when in human agent mode) the therianthrope's common data
repository gives them a history of both agents perceiving, therefore,
background data on how they /should/ perceive from the other agent when not
having that agent actively perceiving.

In the case of the contherianthropes, the agent (soul or brain) is singular,
with sections or routines that mix the values of human and animal.  This
then allows the contherianthrope a singular perception of the world .. with
no shifting.  But this is vastly more complex to define than a
therianthrope's.  Like the separation of the therianthropes,
contherianthropy is a realization of a finer melding of two dissimilar value
systems, again, human and animal.  Instead of two different agents,
contherianthropy takes the differences between the human and animal to a
finer grain, defining sections of the agent dissimilar.  Taking an example
from a more concrete point of view, perceive the agent as a large computer
program.  As with 4th generation languages, the program relies on the
subdividing of tasks into procedures, subunits of the main program that as a
whole complete it's function.  Therianthropes switch agents, ie, change
programs.  Contherianthropes have only one program, but some sections are
coded with human routines, some with animal routines.  Low level routines
are concrete, like drivers for systems (legs, hands), while high level
routines are abstract (emotional drives).  And because of the conflict
between high level human requirements, for example, low level societal
drives(as compared with high level, more abstract societal drives), the
conflicting low level animal routines are removed, leaving more abstract
high level animal routines.  Also, the low level animal routines that
conflict directly with human hardware are removed in favor of the applicable
human hardware drivers.  Then, as per the amount of mix (percent
human/percent animal), a contherianthrope has procedures that are human in
nature and animal in nature .. resulting in a single, unified agent.

Part IV - State of the Union

The differences in terms of daily operations for the therianthrope and
contherianthrope are large due to the differences in how their agents work. 
The end result may be similar, but the method of obtaining that result is
the crux of the matter. Therianthropes exhibit their classic shifting
behavior, limiting the animalistic natures to periods of short durations. 
Therefore, in everyday operation (ie, not shifted), the effect of the
animalistic nature on the therianthrope is limited to the impressions on the
person's memories made during times of shiftedness.  These impressions,
though possibly intense and having the ability to modify reactions, are
based only on past experience while being shifted.  This
past-affects-the-present result is countered by the intense times when the
person is actually shifted.  Contherianthropes, however, are driven in
everyday life by their combination of animalistic and human natures that are
constantly present.  The result is longer lasting strings of high order
animal reactions over time, even if the contherianthrope is totally unaware
of their animalistic nature.  For instance, take the example of a human-wolf
that joins a pack during everyday operations.  For the therianthrope, the
person is reacting to the impressions of needs on their memories from being
shifted, while the contherianthrope is reacting to a real time need to be a
part of a pack.  But, the therianthrope may not have done so until after
they understood their nature (epiphany point) and only displayed small
tokens of their therianthropic nature from subconscious or small, unknown
impressions of shifts.  In comparison, the contherianthrope would have been
a part of packs most of their life, obeying the coded wolven routines in
them, even before their epiphany point.

And so, the description of the therianthrope and contherianthrope differ not
in what the resultant actions are, but the method of arrival to those
actions and self perception.

(c) 1997 Joshua Lion Templin, 970119
    All rights reserved.