What's In a Haunting?

In our first installment, let's discuss what the most basic aspects of a haunting are. Namely, the focus of the haunting, and the apparent reactivity of the haunting to outside stimuli.

 

Now, we'll get to the actual operationalization of a "haunting" tomorrow, but for today, let's just assume a haunting is a series of scientifically-inexplicable events that seem to share a common denominator of some sort. And that common denominator should be the first thing every investigator asks themselves:

 

What is the phenomena apparently linked to? Is it object, person, or location-linked?

 

This first descriptor seems highly overlooked as a major classification point, in my opinion. At most, it's a detail or footnote, never warranting an actual, careful classification overall. But I think this detail is quite important, seeing as most hauntings I've ever heard of are location-based, but there are a few that seem to follow objects and even fewer that follow people. That would indicate there are exceptions to the "rule" of location-based haunting, meaning that there exists some discriminating characteristics inherent to the genesis of the haunting itself...why/how would it bond to an ambulatory object or entity, or manifest itself in a stationary or mobile manner? This is a question that any working hypothesis of how ghosts operate should be able to answer. But enough of that, onto question two:

 

Does the phenomena appear to have a measurable stimulus response, in that it's behavior changes upon (independent) changes in the environment?

 

I was originally going to summarize this one as intelligent vs. unintelligent, but I realized this is a misnomer. If we are truly talking about apparitions as a scientific possibility, then we need to also accept that we have no way to gauge their logic, intelligence, morality, or anything of the sort...you could basically argue the same thing of trying to ascribe intelligence to a collection of lichen (if you believe in the non-intelligent "spiritual energy" angle) or an extraterrestrial (if you believe in the "independent visitor from beyond the veil" idea, where they retain shadows of their former feelings and faculties). In either case, they are so far outside of what we could consider a normal life form and the rules that govern one that I think we need to establish sentience before trying to determine intelligence. And the quickest way to determine that is to see if you can influence it. Can you make it more violent by playing a certain kind of music of yelling in an angry manner? Can you calm it by cowering or patting your grandmother's urn? If you can't then it's basically a force of nature, which doesn't mean it's not worth studying, it's just not worth trying to anthropomorphize a damn tornado.  If you can, then maybe we can start trying to treat it as something -possibly- more intelligent.