Real vampires—apparently, it's an endless debate. I was thinking this week about the waves of trends that come and go, and many years ago, the discussion about vampires was all the rage. It's quite seasonal, and it seems to come along with periods of books, movies, and TV series. Currently, the topic seems to be gaining some attention again due to a few recent releases, but I notice it's still more subtle, and I’m somewhat grateful for that.
I think a certain level of maturity has developed over the years, especially when it comes to aging. Many of us have grown older, and I can see that a lot has changed—at least for some. Many positive things, like a stronger sense of community among Asetianists, with a lot of knowledge being shared as well.
As for new people who are joining, I’m not sure if it’s because I’ve been pretty absent, but there seem to be fewer people showing up lately, and even fewer with a deeper interest.
But back to the topic of real vampires: from different perspectives, there’s a plurality of ways people may want to define them. Regarding Asetianism, and bringing a bit of my personal view, I increasingly think that the real vampire is out there in everyday life, fighting their daily battles—with life, with bills to pay, with family, children, and their internal struggles, their quests, their evolution, their practices.
What defines a real vampire? What defines a person? What differentiates one vampire from another? In the end, it feels like rehashing heated debates that go nowhere.
I believe that each person knows themselves, feels internally what they are, what they might be, what they think they are, and lives their life accordingly. Seeking to know more and learn more is important for self-knowledge, as well as for respecting and empathizing with others. After all, could what makes us so similar be our differences? Or could what makes us so different be our similarities? As Luis Marques once mentioned: the kaleidoscope...
