I shit you not, that is apparently the source for this up coming tidbit. But lets immediately sidetrack ourselves for a moment.
This has nothing to do with Black Lake. While Fracture has been well enough to tell me how he wants me to comment for him, because I have been writing all his comments for him since he got back, he apparently isn't well enough to put together a report. Which sounds like bullshit to me. I swear I heard the son of a bitch doing jumping jacks in there the other night. Lazy sack of shit.
So I was digging through Fracture's various reports on rumors and proxy myths that didn't have a direct tie to Father and I found something seasonally appropriate for the month of October and I've decided to share it.
Can't have the blog going quiet while Fracture is slacking after all.
I must admit though, I kind of hope the following is true. I would squeal like an excited child if I could get my brother back because of Hollow's Eve.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Halloween. Or, as a dead man once explained it to me, Hollow's Eve.
I mean, Halloween is a day that naturally belongs to proxies. Honestly, any environment that encourages masks is a place where proxies flourish.
But supposedly, Hollow's Eve has some other significance to us. It used to be said that even if you were a proxy, that you had to watch for hollows on the days leading up to Halloween. Something about the month of October makes them become increasingly violent and autonomous. Some have even been known to start spewing half coherent gibberish, but only if they thought you weren't watching.
Supposedly on Halloween day proper hollows start acting on their own, abandon their pens and their squads if able, and roam city streets along side trick-or-treaters and gather in the woods. Its said that any attempts to try to stop them or bring them back will be met with violence and if you try to follow them and are stupid enough to let them lead you into the woods or some other isolated location they'll kill you on the spot.
Although I don't think that pertains strictly to proxies. We've had mutilated corpses show up the morning after Hollow's Eve from both runners and civilians. People stupid enough to follow a quiet masked man off on their own. But naturally, its hard to prove that a hollow did.
Its also said that some hollows find themselves clear across the country. Hollows from New York would magically end up Los Angeles. I would have to assume they were accessing the path... and yet they never seem to use the path to escape their pens on Hollow's Eve. If you cage them up, they'll bang and slam against their prison but they'll never path out. They'll just keep screaming and banging against their cage until they tire themselves out.
Now, I know this sounds like a real shit storm but its not all bad. Its a day for celebration for at least one reason. Assuming any of this is true and not all mere superstition and coincidence, its said on Hollow's Eve that a select few hollows will 'wake up' when the moon hits it's 'highest point in the sky'.
That, 'those most(, or least depending on how the stories told,) worthy will find new life under the light of the falling moon.'
'They find the light of Day again. They find their minds and learn to talk and say again. Hollowed true with no memories or past share a new but presence enough to earn new memories and live a new life. Never what they were but once more sentient and alive.'
Or so they used to say.
And there was one more line the old man use to say that... it didn't quite fit with the rest of the speech.
'They call to them, they sing aloud. They call the hollows, with whimsy sound. Melody of pain. Scream of delight. Sounds so shrill they cause dread and fright. Do not follow the entranced hollows, or what you hear will make you scream and shred your ears.'
Now, I'm pretty sure that had more to do with him making shit up to explain what happened to his ears because he didn't have any. His handler insisted he actually lost those to another proxy in an argument but that sounded like more hearsay to me.
Even still, I like to believe all of this is true myself but its hard to prove. Its all more or less rumors from now long dead proxies. Although, as a man serving a tall faceless monster god I try to keep an open mind.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Come back to me brother.
Devil out.
All Hallow's Eve... whence the whites of eyes widen with the moon and the tracks of man devolve into that of wolves.
ReplyDeleteTransitive Laws of conservation my dear.
DeleteWhat leaves one place, must go somewhere else.
To be uselessly and pettily argumentative... not universally.
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition
The thing I miss most about school is physics. Thank you for giving me cause to bring it up.
Would you mind honing those arguments down to a point?
DeleteWere we arguing about something?
Delete"To be uselessly and pettily argumentative..."
DeleteOh, of course. Right. Well. If something can come in and out of existence e.g. some electrons, that is to say, out of spacetime (composed of the four dimensions the transitive laws of conservation would presumably deal with) then on a quantum level, it's not necessarily a universal law.
DeleteEssentially: an old man lives all his life by a lake full of white swans. One day he goes outside and is amazed to see a single beautiful black swan.
And then that swan bats him in the leg and he drowns in the lake.
DeleteSwan are beautiful, but bastards.
I might assume that such electrons that 'randomly' appear and disappear have some cause and effect on each other. There is nothing stating that one appears or disappears that another isn't appearing or disappearing else where.
Even then, I know of a place that 'doesn't exist' with a nasty habit of taking random things in and spewing random things out.
Just because its gone, doesn't mean it didn't go somewhere.
Would you agree that the relationship between cause and effect has flexibility, perhaps can even be separate at times?
DeleteDepends on how you're defining separate.
ReplyDeleteNot contingent; independent of one another.
DeleteSo few things are truly independent. Most things echo.
DeleteSo you admit that not all do?
DeleteI've see the extreme circumstance where I turn the lights off at just the same moment that the power went out.
DeleteThat's nothing sir. I've seen the extreme circumstance where I'm walking around, minding my own business, when a horribly thin, pale, emaciated faceless man with appendages and some indiscernible force giving me a skullfuck headache like no other grabbed me by the ankle and hauled me around.
DeleteHa. I scoffed at the word extreme but I'm pretty desensitized to that. Watching it happen was the staple to my work work at one point. Life use to be so simple.
DeleteI like that you assume that has no cause or effect.
Where did I say it had no cause?
DeleteIt certainly has effects. Anyone could tell you that.
Incidentally, the power going out and you turning the light off, is contingent, caused.
You using it as an example has implications.
DeleteIncidentally, the power going out and you turning the light off, is contingent, caused.
DeleteTwo different causes turning the lifts off at the same time but only one did it.
ReplyDeleteNo, only one was a cause. The other was a potential cause, but not a cause, and in both cases, they would be contingent. The light switch going off relies on you switching it off. The power going out relies on a snag in the power lines or something to that effect (which would have been caused by something.)
DeleteI like how you say 'No, only one was a cause.' when I said '...but only one did it.' as if I had said something that implied that I believed anything different.
DeleteBoth WOULD be contingent. But the scenario dictates that I flipped the lights as the power went out. In this case, me flipping the lights and the power going out are not contingent but I still believe they are because I can't see the power going out. And while there is a contingent cause, that doesn't take away from the cause and effect of turning the lights off and the lights going off being non-contingent in this particular case.
So while the lights going off may not be on its own wholly separate and non-contingent, it is in regards to my attempt to turn the lights off. Much like you believing the slender man is attacking and appearing because 'random non-contingent principles' because you can't see the cause.
Our reality is scoped to our perception and what we perceive is so narrow that after 10,000 years we are just starting to pick up on the hints that there is more in play than we ever realized happening less than a foot from in front of our faces.
So yes. I believe in flexibility in cause in effect. The extent of this, is what we perceive to be the cause did not necessarily cause the effect. But something did. Something always does. To believe anything else, is lazy.