*=========== 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 ===========*
Building Blocks to Contherianthropy
===================================
by Lion Templin
(c) 1997
copies of this paper and other papers may be found at:
http://www.leonine.com/~jtemplin/mt_d/
Part I - Terms and Definitions
I assume several things in this set of theories. These are only assumptions
to keep the explanation from getting too complex.
o You have read and understood a previous paper, _A short view on
modern contherianthropy_. You should understand the difference
between therianthropy and contherianthropy. [1]
o You include all assumptions listed in Part I of _A modern view of
modern contherianthropy_.
o You have read and understood a previous paper, _Fun with Faith:
The Fallacy of Therianthropy_. [2]
o You have read and understood a previous paper, _Proving Individual
Contherianthropy_. [3]
Part II - Why study the beginnings of individual contherianthropy?
It is important to have an understanding as to how contherianthropy develops
in individuals. Such knowledge of the beginnings of any system certainly
aid in understanding developing th current system. In this case, the
development of the contherianthropic ideals in an individual and the
corresponding development of related response sets should provide important
clues as to how an individual deals with their contherianthropic nature on a
day to day basis.
Though there are many, and none so yet proven, theories about human
consciousness, this essay approaches the human sentient structure as in
previous essays (see #1) by regarding it as a layered system of code with
separate and distinct parts. (see Plato's _Republic_ for the distinct
division model).
Part III - Contherianthrope: Continuous Presence
The first of three types of contherianthropes is the Continuous Presence
model. Continuous Presence is, simply put, a the complete set of
contherianthropic ideals, species specific, present in an individual at
birth. The ideals vary very little over time since their emplacement is
nearly "hard-coded" into the individual. There are several indicators for a
CTH:CP individual:
o The individual will have known of their nature for most, if not
all, of their life. Since the "code" for their specific species has
been present from birth, they will have had ample opportunity to
discover their nature, if even discover is the correct term, since
discovery it his case is near to just being.
o The individual's contherianthropic response set will not be highly
visible to themselves. Since they have been conditioned from birth
by their nature, they will not likely see the contherianthropic
responses, drives, and thought processes as anything different than
nominal systems. The integration level is so high and the
operational conditions so regular that non-base line ideals will be
very difficult to self detect.
o The individual, upon actually detecting his or her
contherianthropic nature will have little changes in terms of
reactions, personality, or thought process. Since, of course, their
nature has been with them from the beginning, there's no epiphany
point per se, more so just a confirmation of what they've been doing
all along.
o Finally, since the individual has been operating under the code of
their contherianthropic nature for all of their life, social
integration could very well be high with such individuals. The
understanding that they may be different could very well be limited
to the subconscious realms, leaving the individual in a state of
"That's just the way it is." having lived their life in such a
fashion, if even they recognize a difference between themselves and
naughts. It could also be surmised that living under such
conditions could result in an understanding, if even false, that
everyone else is just like them.
In looking at the CTH:CP model, the question of the contherianthropic origin
is still not answered. The individual has their contherianthropic nature
from their birth, without any reason or understanding for such a thing.
Contherianthropy itself goes beyond basic personality traits inherited by
genetics or by environment. Since it's definition within an individual is
so precise (unlike such simple things as "short temper" or "very patient")
that the fall-back of genetics seems very unlikely to provide the complete
definition shown in this model. Therefore, I will assert that without a
rational explanation of a source for such detailed internal sub-systems,
this model does not occur.
Part IV - Contherianthrope: Overwrite
The second of the three contherianthropic types is called Overwrite. As
it's name implies, the contherianthrope's own nature pre-epiphany has been
overwritten by a species specific set of contherianthropic nature. Or, as I
will assert, an attempt will be made to overwrite one's own nature. Several
key indices of a CTH:OW can be seen:
o Low changes in one's own external nature. Since OW is a conscious
effort, it will be difficult for an individual to actually change
one's own basic response set. Low level systems, at least as
perceived by others, will be nearly unaffected. However, the
individual may claim such low level attributes as part of their
contherianthropic nature even when they do not fit their species
specific model.
o Low changes in one's own internal thought processes. The only
addition to a contherianthrope's internal though processes will be
the conscious and directed interrupts generated to show outward
contherianthropic nature. One of the major focuses of the CTH:OW is
to use others completely as their justification of their
contherianthropic status. Since they essentially do not possess
such nature, in whole or in part, they must convince others that
they indeed have such nature. Since most subtleties will not be
seen, such conscious interrupts will result in large and obvious
displays of said species nature. The CTH:OW's conscious interrupt
process can be defeated by placing the individual in a pre-epiphany
environment, sensory overload (where responses must be faster than
conscious interrupts can handle), or return to an environment where
the subject is not aware someone would be judging their
contherianthropic nature.
o The Overwrite will change to match encountered data. When the
Overwrite amasses species specific data (if ever, the likelihood may
be small since the contherianthropic nature is so shallow) he/she
will change their own response set to match, as well as possible,
the data represented. When new data is returned, the individual
will adopt the behavioral patters of such data.
o CTH:OW's may eventually result in, as again the name implies,
overwriting their upper level code to accomodate the new
contherianthropic code. However, the possibility of overwriting the
necessary low-level code is marginal. This results in long-term
obvious displays of contherianthropic nature without the underlying
motives required for true contherianthropes.
As implied, the CTH:OW is not a true contherianthrope. The results of
overwriting one's previous nature in favor of the contherianthropic ideal is
just the result of therianthropic infection. (See #2) The end result may,
at first glance, appear to be the same as true contherianthropes, but when
seen from the low level motives and understanding of the individual, there
is a major difference. Because of this model's ease of adoption and the
fact it allows anyone to supposedly become a contherianthrope, it is likely
the most common by far of the three types of contherianthropes.
Part V - Contherianthrope: Code Hook
The final theory is the most complex of the three. The term 'code hook'
refers to a system in programming that allows certain high-level sections of
code to 'hook' into low-level code using predefined connection points. This
relates to the code hook theory in that the CTH:CH has, from birth, the
basic building blocks of possible contherianthropic nature. These building
blocks are sets of low level routines that when combined form a unique base
nature of an individual. These sets, since they are general in nature, can
be accounted for by genetics or base environment. The individual, with the
correct set of low-level routines, or code hooks, then can bind them with
upper level routines based on contherianthropy. After a binding definition
time, the individual successfully integrates the high-level
contherianthropic routines with their already present low-level routines,
thus forming a complete set of contherianthropic nature. An example may
assist in understanding:
Bob, at age 27 realizes that he, all his life, has shown the basic
tenets of the species "bear". He's a larger man, lumbers, has an
even disposition, and several other base characteristics of "bear"*.
He realizes that this basic nature has been with him, but only as a
basic nature and now wishes to understand himself better as a
"bear". During the next year, Bob builds the ideal of what it means
to be a "bear" in today's world. Succeeding in that goal stemming
from his epiphany point at age 27, Bob moves on in life with the
newfound and much more precise definition of himself.
* I have no idea of the basic tenets of "bear", these are intuitive.
In this example the code hooks are the low level motives and repose sets of
Bob, whereas the high level contherianthropy comes in at his epiphany point,
where he then develops the high level routines to match the already present
low level systems. This system has several interesting effects:
o Not anyone can develop contherianthropic systems for any species.
You are, by definition, required to have the low level code in order
to build the high level code upon it. This limits people to
developing singular species, a "destiny" if you will. The low level
code differs greatly from species to species, making the code hooks
distinct and not interchangeable.
o Potential contherianthropy is contherianthropy. The possession of
a compete set of low-level code hooks determines you
contherianthropic status. There is the possibility that some will
not , and quite possibly often, develop the high level code. Those
who do will , however, have a much more complete and unified
understanding of themselves. It is, by far, the low level nature of
an individual that determines true contherianthropy.
o Purist definitions of a code hook set are required. Since
contherianthropic nature is so precise by definition, an all
encompassing set of code hooks, or low-level sets, is required to
complete a definition of a contherianthrope. The limited spectrum
of personal low-level motives is such that if multiples are claimed,
then such basis is made upon subtleties and not true low-level
routines. An individual claiming multiple code sets is either not
realizing the correct code set or is trying to Overwrite using their
own mixture of what they feel best from each species.
The CTH:CH individual has several indicators:
o Some change in external motives. Since a CTH:CH has the already
defined low-level motives for his/her species, observers may see
some change in external behavior. This is a result of the changing
high-level contherianthropic code installation. However, basic
motives will remain near constant.
o Massive internal restructuring of thought processes. The CTH:CH
restructures his/her thought processes to accomidate the unifying
aspect of the contherianthropic upper-half. In essence, the CTH:CH
will begin to think as their species, and not just a reflection of
the species based upon low-level drives. The code hooks mesh
perfectly, and therefore the new high thought process model will
function far better than the cobbled together model used previously.
o Staggering epiphany point. The ability to reconcile a lifetime of
unconnected drives into one unifying ideal should astonish the
CTH:CH. The epiphany point will be very important to the
contherianthrope as it is the beginning of upper level code
implementation.
o Code implementation time. The CTH:CH will require time to collect
all the low-level routines and build the correct high-level routines
upon them. Since the process of re engineering of high-level ideals
over such a wide base of low-level systems, this may take a
significant amount of time. * This has been observed in several
interviewed contherianthropes.
There are several points to be made to differentiate the CTH:CH from the
other types. For instance, the method used to defeat the CTH:OW (The
unknown observer example) fails the CTH:CH. Since the CTH:CH has the
species specific low level routines AND the correctly built high-level
routines, there is no change in behavior. The CTH:CH is 100% their species.
Also, the low-level ideals have a plausible and rational explanation for
pre-exsistance to environment, the CTH:CH is immune to such attacks as the
claimed CTH:CP. Finally, the numbers of CTH:CHs are limited, as expected.
It is not likely that such a precise definition of an individual as a
contherianthrope would exist in high percentages in a population. The
observed and estimated CH population is a low percentage in total population
AND in claimed contherianthropic/therianthropic populations.
Part VI - Conclusion
Contherianthropy can be broken into three distinct development types. Two
of which are actually valid. Those who claim CTH:CP status most likely are
in the category of CTH:OW. And again, of those two ideals (OW & CH) there
are distinct differences in the final outcome of the individual implementing
them.
Lion Templin, 1997
|
