You're welcome, Róisín. In my opinion, laughter isn't only the best medicine, but will also be among the sharpest weapons and strongest shields in our toolbox, whenever horror swings by for a visit.
I've spent a silly amount of time thinking about orcs, and what makes them such good foot soldiers for Sauron. If they're just green-skinned dudes with a taste for meat, then they're no more evil than lions - dangerous, but not monstrous.
It seems to me that for orcs to be monsters, they have to have been perverted away from their original forms, to such an extent that their inherent vision of the Divine is blocked out. That's what makes them monstrous - they're the end result of a blasphemous process, and this is why they're cruel and maniacal.
And this makes me think, because I'm reading "Methland" by Nick Reding, of meth addicts: Their Satanic hallucinations, their wild energy, their descent into ugliness, their penchant for murder and child abuse, the way the drug literally burns out their brains. I could reasonably say, meth makes orcs.
And while I wouldn't describe fentanyl addicts as monstrous, it's clear when I see video of the streets of San Francisco that something monstrous is afoot. Or consider the maniacal insistence on sex change operations for kids: what is the source of this? There are those who stand to profit, yes, but where does the -fury- come from?
"It seems to me that for orcs to be monsters, they have to have been perverted away from their original forms, to such an extent that their inherent vision of the Divine is blocked out. That's what makes them monstrous - they're the end result of a blasphemous process, and this is why they're cruel and maniacal."
For what it's worth, Tolkien agreed with you:
"“Evil cannot create anything new, they can only corrupt and ruin good forces have invented or made.”
As for addicts, from my perspective the drug is one of several compounding and mutually-reinforcing agents (e.g. loneliness, homelessness, loss of connection) that lends to an overall spiritual weakness.
Hi Mark! You know what weirds me out? When it occurs to me I haven't heard anything from this stack in a long time and I go and check to see if I've missed something, and no, still quiet. Then the very next day you deliver a nice long letter. Happened that way last time, too.
1) Nina Paley's art: I cannot look at it, don't know why, but MUST scroll it out of view asap. Weird, because lots of people love her stuff.
2) My husband is a scientist, I am an artist (the painting kind). We get along fine. Theory too broad. BUT he thinks my love of Jesus and Bible reading is a little off. God will bring him around but he's hanging on to his materialism for dear life.
3) check out Job 41: description of Leviathan. Doesn't that sound very dragon like? And the last verse: "he is king over all the children of pride". Just like a dragon, as Satan is called in Revelation.
4) my dad used to say "think too much about demons, attract demons". Fortunately, I have been given the Holy Spirit (praise God!), but I really don't enjoy them lurking about and trying to get at me. Something about Paley's art brings his caution to mind every time I see it. As does any AI generated art, as does the work of Cesar Santos who is ridiculously talented, got bored, and is (I suspect) now caught by the machine/powers/principalities. Check him out on IG and see if his things creep you out.
5) Yes, almost everyone is uneasy at this point. Isn't it interesting we were born to live in this time? There are no accidents with God. He knows the plan. Hang on! (And for anyone who reads this comment: if you don't know Jesus, find Him now! You might not have the time you think you do!)
6) glad you and family have weathered your difficulty! Don't forget to be praying. It's our most potent weapon against monsters!!
A good scientist is awed by the world enough to compulsively dig into it deeply. And humbled by how much more amazing it is that what they understand about it. Artists are our siblings.
I agree with this sentiment. The problem, of course, is that Cain and Abel were also siblings. Not that the rivalry always gets so bitter and violent, but sibling relationships have a particularly strong potential to sway that way. On the other hand, siblings can also become the closest of friends, and can do great things together. That is how I see the connections between art and science developing, in a better, saner world. Family businesses, instead of ridicule and sabotage.
My usual line on this topic is that: 'We know of two gateways between the Interior World and the Exterior World. Math and Art. Each gateway has its own advantages and disadvantages. Some things go easily In by one gateway but have to come Out by the other or vice versa.'
Oh yes, and he is deeply amazed, just still caught in the Enlightenment trap. Please pray with me that God will grant him repentance, so that he may know the truth, and come to his senses and escape the snare of the devil (from 2 Timothy 2:24-26).
Artists generally irritate me, so maybe they are siblings. Or maybe it's what passes as being an artist is what bugs me.
One thing I've been discovering these past several years (or my entire life? in retrospect) is that people fling around the word "coincidence" too recklessly. We are more sensitive to distant phenomena than we think.
1) I knew that Nina's work wouldn't be to everyone's taste. The reason I chose it is because it is animated, to stress the animate/actual nature of true monsters in the Aristotlean model of being.
2) LOL, sorry. I should have stressed the "institutional Science" part in my mini-diatribe. I have friends who are scientists, and they don't seem to hold the same grudge. The scientists I'm referring to are the small-minded, power-hungry breed (which, unfortunately, I think is the most dominant version these days, and the most likely to build monsters).
3) Yeah, Leviathan is one of those "impossible" superstar monsters of scripture that doesn't seem all that impossible when we reflect on the supernatural or bioelectric layer of being. And "dragon" is very much a broad taxonomic category instead of a particular species, in my opinion.
4) I don't think I necessarily disagree with your dad. But God has a mission for each of us, and not everyone is made to for every kind of work. In other words: Thinking about demons may be a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. There have been scary times these past couple of years when I wanted to pass that very bitter cup. But I eventually realized that doing would be to go against God's will, which I have resolved to no longer do. As for Mr. Santos, I'm unfamiliar with his work (and I stay off of Instagram and other spy networks as a rule). But if you have a link to a particularly demonstrative piece I'll be happy to appraise it.
5) Amen, sis.
6) I will try my best. I don't think I have much talent for prayer, but I did recently join a friend of mine recently in praying the rosary at her church's Eucharistic adoration for an hour. Reminded me my knees aren't getting any younger, LOL. Ye, I admit I found some peace and strength in its aftermath.
I have no idea if this will work, but here's a link to one of Cesar's paintings on IG. It looks a little like a sketch, but gives a decent impression of what he's into. When I see these new works my brain goes, "Brueghel, no, Titian, no, Michaelangelo, no Bosch, oh heck!" He seems clearly, to me, to be using AI inputs (I don't know what the terminology is) as a sort of sketching device to work from. I don't care how many people shout that AI is just scraping up all that was already generated by human beings, and regurgitating it, I maintain it's a vehicle for things that like to "manifest". Who in their right mind wants to engage the machine to this extent? Too much talent can be a curse (unless you're Bezalel).
As for prayer, you don't need to be formal about it. I guess there are "schools of thought" about this, but God likes us to talk to him. If you want structure, you could say the Lord's Prayer - it's Jesus recommended! I did learn the rosary at one point, but I'm not Catholic, and I have started to jot down verses that speak to me, that can be used in prayer. The Puritans did that and it makes sense to me (probably my ancestry coming through). The point is to keep the communication open.
I've been really looking forward to the continuation of this series; it was one of the first things I found on this site, and definitely one of my biggest inspirations to start writing myself (even though my topics are considerably more mundane). Hopefully things continue to improve in your personal life, as well.
That being said, I feel like a lot of what's considered "sacrosanct" science can always be rebuffed with a simple phrase - "But what if it wasn't?" Or some permutation of them.
"Dragons weren't real." = "But what if they were?"
"That can't exist." = "But what if it could?"
"That's impossible!" = "But what if it was?"
I find that truly scientific minded people rarely, or at least hesitantly, speak in absolutes, but those guys are usually so far removed from the public eye or just amateurs in their field that most people aren't exposed to them. The most vocal members of the scientific community are always the mid-wits who are too self-unaware to understand that absolutes are just... well, silly, frankly. The best professor I ever had was of astrology, and he was always quick to remind the students that everything he was teaching was strictly theory and nothing was set in stone or impossible. This is all to say... yes, it's pretty foolish to claim that dragons were not and can never be real. Or that there can't be some sort of force that totally warps logic and bends the laws of reality in some way that could make "impossible" things very possible.
"Dragons weren't real." = "But what if they were?"
"That can't exist." = "But what if it could?"
"That's impossible!" = "But what if it was?"
It is frustrating, for sure. Particularly since they so often invert the roles, informing us that we are the children and they are the patient, sober adults. But declarations of impossibility are admissions of shortsightedness at the very least.
Everything is impossible... until one day it ain't. Every waking hour of our existence would have be deemed sorcery, up until around the start of the 20th century (and even then it was relegated to the category of science fiction).
Also, thanks for the kind words and hopes, YA. We get the sense that times are tough all around, and have adjusted our outlook and expectations accordingly.
You surely have noticed that generative AI (well at least the free versions -- I'm unwilling to pay for this service) cannot draw human hands. They always look gnarly, chirally misplaced, or otherwise malformed. The resulting figures trigger the uncanny valley response and consequently seem monstrous.
I am reminded of how demons are, by lore, prohibited from taking on a fully, exactly human form. They must always display some deviation that has the potential of revealing their true nature.
There is a lesson somewhere in the juxtaposition of these two observations.
Yes, the hands are particularly troublesome for any predictive system that cannot compute the usefulness or purpose of physical bodies at all.
As an aside, hands are also among the most difficult things to draw even for real (i.e. human) artists. For instance, our first Life Drawing assignment in my art school was to draw our own hands. The experience of doing that pushes you past mere technique and takes on a spiritual dimension. To contemplate the human hand as you try to reproduce it is to glimpse its Designer, and reflect on all the purposes (good and evil) that it can and has been set to. The machine can't even get started on the problem. It can only throw examples in a blender and hit puree, spitting out hand-like monstrosities that can't be used for anything at all.
"I am reminded of how demons are, by lore, prohibited from taking on a fully, exactly human form. They must always display some deviation that has the potential of revealing their true nature."
Indeed. We might call it something like the "demon ceiling" of emulation. Again, I think this ties back into a misunderstanding of purpose a the highest level, not just of bodies but of souls.
Nice thought. I remember hearing somewhere that in witchcraft trials they were sometimes made to say the Lord's Prayer as it was thought that a witch would have to change some part. Seems like the same thing. But all of our shibboleths will be beaten in the end. If it is dark enough all forms look alike.
At the ripe age of 7, I saw something in the very new, suburban backyard of our home in Perth, Western Australia that I've never forgotten. I was with a neighbor friend and we were doing whatever 7-year old kids did back in the 1960's.
At one point, I saw something black-ish laying on the top horizontal fence support that ran the length of the backyard. (Corrugated asbestos!) When I got close, I could see whatever it was had folded wings and appeared to be sleeping in the noon light. I was about to poke it with a stick (note: even at 7 years, one learns to poke things in the wild bushlands of Western Australia with a STICK or one doesn't live long enough to learn) when the thing woke up and wow, hovered there in the air just in front of me.
All I can remember of its features were that it was a VERY deep black - inky black, like that of some bats. This creature however, was not a bat and its wings beat very quickly. About the size of a bird, it had a small, snake-like sloped head and a forked tongue shot out from its mouth. It made an audible HISS as it faced off with me. When my neighbor friend who was standing to my left moved, it rotated in place for a moment to face him, then turned back to face me and took off, flying over the fence and downward.
We both climbed the fence to look for it, but the voice of my Dad calling me to stop froze me in place.
I explained what I'd seen to him and all I remember him saying was that it must have been a hallucination. Now, young kids do have daytime hallucinations, but I've never heard of healthy kids having midday hallucinations, much less two kids having the same hallucination at the same time.
I've mentioned this in the distant past, and was told I'd come across a frilled-neck lizard. Nope, while there are some similarities with what I remember, notably the neck area, this thing was pitch black and had wings that it used to hover about 18 inches from my face in midair.
Someday, when I go before God, I think I'm going to ask Him just WHAT did I see. Until then, I'll just say that's what I saw and leave it at that.
So, can horror and comedy be two sides of the same coin? Much of what you wrote sounds like it could be Monty Python. John Cleese once said that absurdity is a key to their humor. Absurdity is key to the horror that you describe, too.
Not only can they co-exist on the same coin, but on the same face of the coin. They are both born in the sensation of surprise, which is why the horror-comedy film genre works so well. We can have good surprises (screams of laughter) and unpleasant ones (screams of terror). What matters is the scream. The surprise is manifested in my own flesh, which in turn momentarily betrays and surprises my conscious Self. That's not to say absurdity doesn't play a role, too. So does novelty, and just unusualness in general. I just think that all maps back to the surprise trigger in the order of priority.
Clowns are a powerful example of horror and comedy blending their "scream" formulas. But have you noticed that the clowns of modern media have become strictly horror icons these days? Nightmare beings like Pennywise and the Joker dominate the cultural landscape, and the traditional circus clowns (of what few circuses remain) have mostly abandoned their makeup and other traditional appliances.
But maybe the circuit can flow the other way, too, turning what was once horrifying into something laughable. I think that's what happened with the concept of monsters, for good and for ill.
And a special thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have heard of this joker before, but wasn't aware how far he'd actually pushed this lunacy. I will need to revise my next chapter to include him (and will credit you with the link, of course).
I kept checking in to see if I missed anything new. After awhile, I decided it there was nothing posted or no explanation after two months, I would cancel my paid subscription.
Wow. Knocked it out of the (jurassic) park, Mark. Can't wait for pt.2. You inspire me to imagine what AI would do with a 3D printer loaded with GoF DNA and an instruction set for 'monster' in the manner of Dr Moreau and non-binary trans humanoid with lethal capability.
Thanks, Navyo. As Gary Sharpe points out below, genetically-altered/printed freaks are only the tip of the iceberg, when it comes to the host of biological obscenities on order.
I definitely think it’s possible the beasts of Revelation may be literal dragons etc, but there is precedent in Scripture for monstrous beasts in prophetic visions being metaphors for earthly kingdoms/rulers. So it’s not necessarily a skeptical, watering down move to identify the beasts as more mundane things.
They get a lot of flak, but I still love the Left Behind books, even if I don’t think they got everything right.
Mark, I’m a longish-time subscriber, but I’d somehow managed to miss this series utterly until I scrolled through a long, long list of missed notifications from John Carter’s Telegram channel. I’m quite grateful I didn’t simply ignore those.
I must say as a scientist, at least by training, I cannot help but agree with your statement that the artist’s way of knowing things is in some real way at least *faster* than, if not superior to, the scientist’s. I think it’s because of the way that science is so incredibly narrow in its scope, by design (though I may have picked up that hypothesis from this series too).
I don’t know what possesses me to denigrate my profession like this. Maybe it’s the stunted artist dwelling in some dark cavern near the back of my head. Who knows?
You know damn well that I feel it, I have felt it, and I will fight the fucking fuckers until they return to entropy, a frozen state of nothingness. ("Back to your falling, Lucifer, you've got a long way to go into the abyss that you machinated.")
Not only do I love this post, I especially love that your pet peeve/righteous anger about dinosaurs aka dragons is so obviously very real!
The smile was much appreciated, because unfortunately the answer to this is a resounding yes:
"Don’t you feel it?
The sudden and energetic sharpening of blades? Two battle lines hardening into steel, and the rapidly fading hope of surviving in between them?"
You're welcome, Róisín. In my opinion, laughter isn't only the best medicine, but will also be among the sharpest weapons and strongest shields in our toolbox, whenever horror swings by for a visit.
I've spent a silly amount of time thinking about orcs, and what makes them such good foot soldiers for Sauron. If they're just green-skinned dudes with a taste for meat, then they're no more evil than lions - dangerous, but not monstrous.
It seems to me that for orcs to be monsters, they have to have been perverted away from their original forms, to such an extent that their inherent vision of the Divine is blocked out. That's what makes them monstrous - they're the end result of a blasphemous process, and this is why they're cruel and maniacal.
And this makes me think, because I'm reading "Methland" by Nick Reding, of meth addicts: Their Satanic hallucinations, their wild energy, their descent into ugliness, their penchant for murder and child abuse, the way the drug literally burns out their brains. I could reasonably say, meth makes orcs.
And while I wouldn't describe fentanyl addicts as monstrous, it's clear when I see video of the streets of San Francisco that something monstrous is afoot. Or consider the maniacal insistence on sex change operations for kids: what is the source of this? There are those who stand to profit, yes, but where does the -fury- come from?
"It seems to me that for orcs to be monsters, they have to have been perverted away from their original forms, to such an extent that their inherent vision of the Divine is blocked out. That's what makes them monstrous - they're the end result of a blasphemous process, and this is why they're cruel and maniacal."
For what it's worth, Tolkien agreed with you:
"“Evil cannot create anything new, they can only corrupt and ruin good forces have invented or made.”
As for addicts, from my perspective the drug is one of several compounding and mutually-reinforcing agents (e.g. loneliness, homelessness, loss of connection) that lends to an overall spiritual weakness.
Not monsters, no. Demonically possessed? Maybe.
A viewpoint akin to Tolkien's quoted is in a book I heartily recommend: "The Rose of the World" by D. Andreev.
Hi Mark! You know what weirds me out? When it occurs to me I haven't heard anything from this stack in a long time and I go and check to see if I've missed something, and no, still quiet. Then the very next day you deliver a nice long letter. Happened that way last time, too.
1) Nina Paley's art: I cannot look at it, don't know why, but MUST scroll it out of view asap. Weird, because lots of people love her stuff.
2) My husband is a scientist, I am an artist (the painting kind). We get along fine. Theory too broad. BUT he thinks my love of Jesus and Bible reading is a little off. God will bring him around but he's hanging on to his materialism for dear life.
3) check out Job 41: description of Leviathan. Doesn't that sound very dragon like? And the last verse: "he is king over all the children of pride". Just like a dragon, as Satan is called in Revelation.
4) my dad used to say "think too much about demons, attract demons". Fortunately, I have been given the Holy Spirit (praise God!), but I really don't enjoy them lurking about and trying to get at me. Something about Paley's art brings his caution to mind every time I see it. As does any AI generated art, as does the work of Cesar Santos who is ridiculously talented, got bored, and is (I suspect) now caught by the machine/powers/principalities. Check him out on IG and see if his things creep you out.
5) Yes, almost everyone is uneasy at this point. Isn't it interesting we were born to live in this time? There are no accidents with God. He knows the plan. Hang on! (And for anyone who reads this comment: if you don't know Jesus, find Him now! You might not have the time you think you do!)
6) glad you and family have weathered your difficulty! Don't forget to be praying. It's our most potent weapon against monsters!!
A good scientist is awed by the world enough to compulsively dig into it deeply. And humbled by how much more amazing it is that what they understand about it. Artists are our siblings.
"Artists are our siblings."
I agree with this sentiment. The problem, of course, is that Cain and Abel were also siblings. Not that the rivalry always gets so bitter and violent, but sibling relationships have a particularly strong potential to sway that way. On the other hand, siblings can also become the closest of friends, and can do great things together. That is how I see the connections between art and science developing, in a better, saner world. Family businesses, instead of ridicule and sabotage.
I would also say (just looking at your response for example) that siblings make the world a richer place. That is a great response.
My usual line on this topic is that: 'We know of two gateways between the Interior World and the Exterior World. Math and Art. Each gateway has its own advantages and disadvantages. Some things go easily In by one gateway but have to come Out by the other or vice versa.'
Still, you recursively state that "scientists envy artists", and "scientists hate artists", and never also claim the reverse.
Note that this bias annoyed me while I certainly incline more toward the artistic than scientific.
Oh yes, and he is deeply amazed, just still caught in the Enlightenment trap. Please pray with me that God will grant him repentance, so that he may know the truth, and come to his senses and escape the snare of the devil (from 2 Timothy 2:24-26).
Artists generally irritate me, so maybe they are siblings. Or maybe it's what passes as being an artist is what bugs me.
Sort of like what passes as being a scientist bugs Mark.
Yes, I will pray for salvation and healing for your husband.
Hi Miss, Teacup!
One thing I've been discovering these past several years (or my entire life? in retrospect) is that people fling around the word "coincidence" too recklessly. We are more sensitive to distant phenomena than we think.
1) I knew that Nina's work wouldn't be to everyone's taste. The reason I chose it is because it is animated, to stress the animate/actual nature of true monsters in the Aristotlean model of being.
2) LOL, sorry. I should have stressed the "institutional Science" part in my mini-diatribe. I have friends who are scientists, and they don't seem to hold the same grudge. The scientists I'm referring to are the small-minded, power-hungry breed (which, unfortunately, I think is the most dominant version these days, and the most likely to build monsters).
3) Yeah, Leviathan is one of those "impossible" superstar monsters of scripture that doesn't seem all that impossible when we reflect on the supernatural or bioelectric layer of being. And "dragon" is very much a broad taxonomic category instead of a particular species, in my opinion.
4) I don't think I necessarily disagree with your dad. But God has a mission for each of us, and not everyone is made to for every kind of work. In other words: Thinking about demons may be a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. There have been scary times these past couple of years when I wanted to pass that very bitter cup. But I eventually realized that doing would be to go against God's will, which I have resolved to no longer do. As for Mr. Santos, I'm unfamiliar with his work (and I stay off of Instagram and other spy networks as a rule). But if you have a link to a particularly demonstrative piece I'll be happy to appraise it.
5) Amen, sis.
6) I will try my best. I don't think I have much talent for prayer, but I did recently join a friend of mine recently in praying the rosary at her church's Eucharistic adoration for an hour. Reminded me my knees aren't getting any younger, LOL. Ye, I admit I found some peace and strength in its aftermath.
I have no idea if this will work, but here's a link to one of Cesar's paintings on IG. It looks a little like a sketch, but gives a decent impression of what he's into. When I see these new works my brain goes, "Brueghel, no, Titian, no, Michaelangelo, no Bosch, oh heck!" He seems clearly, to me, to be using AI inputs (I don't know what the terminology is) as a sort of sketching device to work from. I don't care how many people shout that AI is just scraping up all that was already generated by human beings, and regurgitating it, I maintain it's a vehicle for things that like to "manifest". Who in their right mind wants to engage the machine to this extent? Too much talent can be a curse (unless you're Bezalel).
https://www.instagram.com/p/CxpUIG9Mxxd/?igshid=MW03eDA3azJzc3Jjbw==
As for prayer, you don't need to be formal about it. I guess there are "schools of thought" about this, but God likes us to talk to him. If you want structure, you could say the Lord's Prayer - it's Jesus recommended! I did learn the rosary at one point, but I'm not Catholic, and I have started to jot down verses that speak to me, that can be used in prayer. The Puritans did that and it makes sense to me (probably my ancestry coming through). The point is to keep the communication open.
"The scientists I'm referring to are the small-minded, power-hungry breed".
Those are technocrats, not scientists.
I've been really looking forward to the continuation of this series; it was one of the first things I found on this site, and definitely one of my biggest inspirations to start writing myself (even though my topics are considerably more mundane). Hopefully things continue to improve in your personal life, as well.
That being said, I feel like a lot of what's considered "sacrosanct" science can always be rebuffed with a simple phrase - "But what if it wasn't?" Or some permutation of them.
"Dragons weren't real." = "But what if they were?"
"That can't exist." = "But what if it could?"
"That's impossible!" = "But what if it was?"
I find that truly scientific minded people rarely, or at least hesitantly, speak in absolutes, but those guys are usually so far removed from the public eye or just amateurs in their field that most people aren't exposed to them. The most vocal members of the scientific community are always the mid-wits who are too self-unaware to understand that absolutes are just... well, silly, frankly. The best professor I ever had was of astrology, and he was always quick to remind the students that everything he was teaching was strictly theory and nothing was set in stone or impossible. This is all to say... yes, it's pretty foolish to claim that dragons were not and can never be real. Or that there can't be some sort of force that totally warps logic and bends the laws of reality in some way that could make "impossible" things very possible.
"Dragons weren't real." = "But what if they were?"
"That can't exist." = "But what if it could?"
"That's impossible!" = "But what if it was?"
It is frustrating, for sure. Particularly since they so often invert the roles, informing us that we are the children and they are the patient, sober adults. But declarations of impossibility are admissions of shortsightedness at the very least.
Everything is impossible... until one day it ain't. Every waking hour of our existence would have be deemed sorcery, up until around the start of the 20th century (and even then it was relegated to the category of science fiction).
Also, thanks for the kind words and hopes, YA. We get the sense that times are tough all around, and have adjusted our outlook and expectations accordingly.
You surely have noticed that generative AI (well at least the free versions -- I'm unwilling to pay for this service) cannot draw human hands. They always look gnarly, chirally misplaced, or otherwise malformed. The resulting figures trigger the uncanny valley response and consequently seem monstrous.
I am reminded of how demons are, by lore, prohibited from taking on a fully, exactly human form. They must always display some deviation that has the potential of revealing their true nature.
There is a lesson somewhere in the juxtaposition of these two observations.
Yes, the hands are particularly troublesome for any predictive system that cannot compute the usefulness or purpose of physical bodies at all.
As an aside, hands are also among the most difficult things to draw even for real (i.e. human) artists. For instance, our first Life Drawing assignment in my art school was to draw our own hands. The experience of doing that pushes you past mere technique and takes on a spiritual dimension. To contemplate the human hand as you try to reproduce it is to glimpse its Designer, and reflect on all the purposes (good and evil) that it can and has been set to. The machine can't even get started on the problem. It can only throw examples in a blender and hit puree, spitting out hand-like monstrosities that can't be used for anything at all.
"I am reminded of how demons are, by lore, prohibited from taking on a fully, exactly human form. They must always display some deviation that has the potential of revealing their true nature."
Indeed. We might call it something like the "demon ceiling" of emulation. Again, I think this ties back into a misunderstanding of purpose a the highest level, not just of bodies but of souls.
Nice thought. I remember hearing somewhere that in witchcraft trials they were sometimes made to say the Lord's Prayer as it was thought that a witch would have to change some part. Seems like the same thing. But all of our shibboleths will be beaten in the end. If it is dark enough all forms look alike.
At the ripe age of 7, I saw something in the very new, suburban backyard of our home in Perth, Western Australia that I've never forgotten. I was with a neighbor friend and we were doing whatever 7-year old kids did back in the 1960's.
At one point, I saw something black-ish laying on the top horizontal fence support that ran the length of the backyard. (Corrugated asbestos!) When I got close, I could see whatever it was had folded wings and appeared to be sleeping in the noon light. I was about to poke it with a stick (note: even at 7 years, one learns to poke things in the wild bushlands of Western Australia with a STICK or one doesn't live long enough to learn) when the thing woke up and wow, hovered there in the air just in front of me.
All I can remember of its features were that it was a VERY deep black - inky black, like that of some bats. This creature however, was not a bat and its wings beat very quickly. About the size of a bird, it had a small, snake-like sloped head and a forked tongue shot out from its mouth. It made an audible HISS as it faced off with me. When my neighbor friend who was standing to my left moved, it rotated in place for a moment to face him, then turned back to face me and took off, flying over the fence and downward.
We both climbed the fence to look for it, but the voice of my Dad calling me to stop froze me in place.
I explained what I'd seen to him and all I remember him saying was that it must have been a hallucination. Now, young kids do have daytime hallucinations, but I've never heard of healthy kids having midday hallucinations, much less two kids having the same hallucination at the same time.
I've mentioned this in the distant past, and was told I'd come across a frilled-neck lizard. Nope, while there are some similarities with what I remember, notably the neck area, this thing was pitch black and had wings that it used to hover about 18 inches from my face in midair.
Someday, when I go before God, I think I'm going to ask Him just WHAT did I see. Until then, I'll just say that's what I saw and leave it at that.
So, can horror and comedy be two sides of the same coin? Much of what you wrote sounds like it could be Monty Python. John Cleese once said that absurdity is a key to their humor. Absurdity is key to the horror that you describe, too.
Clowns seem to fit the bill as well.
Not only can they co-exist on the same coin, but on the same face of the coin. They are both born in the sensation of surprise, which is why the horror-comedy film genre works so well. We can have good surprises (screams of laughter) and unpleasant ones (screams of terror). What matters is the scream. The surprise is manifested in my own flesh, which in turn momentarily betrays and surprises my conscious Self. That's not to say absurdity doesn't play a role, too. So does novelty, and just unusualness in general. I just think that all maps back to the surprise trigger in the order of priority.
Clowns are a powerful example of horror and comedy blending their "scream" formulas. But have you noticed that the clowns of modern media have become strictly horror icons these days? Nightmare beings like Pennywise and the Joker dominate the cultural landscape, and the traditional circus clowns (of what few circuses remain) have mostly abandoned their makeup and other traditional appliances.
But maybe the circuit can flow the other way, too, turning what was once horrifying into something laughable. I think that's what happened with the concept of monsters, for good and for ill.
Sorry Mark, I don't have anything more intelligent to say than, "huh." That's all your scientist brother's got here.
Cheers, though. Jeff
LOL, sorry.
Here's a gift, to make up for my meandering digression...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNeeovY4qNU
> The causes of the rapid extinction of the Dinosaur remain mysterious; the species had
evolved and grown throughout the Triassic and the Jurassic, and for 150 million years
the Dinosaur had been the undisputed master of the continents. Perhaps the species was
unable to adapt to the great changes of climate and vegetation which took place in the
Cretaceous period. By its end all the Dinosaurs were dead.
> All except me, — Qfvfq corrected, — because, for a certain period, I was also a
Dinosaur: about fifty million years, I'd say, and I don't regret it; if you were a Dinosaur in
those days, you were sure you were in the right, and you made everyone look up to you.
...
> Since then I had leamed many things, and above all the way in which Dinosaurs
conquer. First I had believed that disappearing had been, for my brothers, the
magnanimous acceptance of a defeat; now I knew that the more the Dinosaurs disappear,
the more they extend their dominion, and over forests far more vast than those that cover
the continents: in the labyrinth of the survivors' thoughts. From the semidarkness of fears
and doubts of now ignorant generations, the Dinosaurs continued to extend their necks, to
raise their taloned hoofs, and when the last shadow of their image had been erased, their
name went on, superimposed on all meanings, perpetuating their presence in relations
among living beings. Now, when the name too had been erased, they would become one
thing with the mute and anonymous molds of thought, through which thoughts take on
form and substance: by the New Ones, and by those who would come after the New
Ones, and those who would come even after them.
...
Full (approximately 10-page) story here:
https://archive.org/details/CalvinoItaloCosmicomics/page/n43/mode/2up?view=theater
Thanks, Iri. I will read in full and comment. Even with this brief excerpt, think I have a good idea where its headed.
Welcome back! Are you aware of Michael Levin's work? He is creating monsters and chimeras in his lab https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XheAMrS8Q1c
Thanks, Gary. Great to be back.
And a special thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have heard of this joker before, but wasn't aware how far he'd actually pushed this lunacy. I will need to revise my next chapter to include him (and will credit you with the link, of course).
I kept checking in to see if I missed anything new. After awhile, I decided it there was nothing posted or no explanation after two months, I would cancel my paid subscription.
But then....two months passed and I did not.....
Glad to see you back.
Thanks for sticking with me, Hunter. It's good to *be* back, in company of such stellar folks.
God bless you. welcome back to this messy fight for truth and knowledge
Thanks Sharon! There's hard work ahead, but I think we'll prove we're up for the challenge.
Great read and prayers for you and your family. I hope the future is better! And my answer is also yes. I feel it every day now.
Thanks, CeeMcG. I feel it too.
Wow. Knocked it out of the (jurassic) park, Mark. Can't wait for pt.2. You inspire me to imagine what AI would do with a 3D printer loaded with GoF DNA and an instruction set for 'monster' in the manner of Dr Moreau and non-binary trans humanoid with lethal capability.
Thanks, Navyo. As Gary Sharpe points out below, genetically-altered/printed freaks are only the tip of the iceberg, when it comes to the host of biological obscenities on order.
I shudder to think...
I definitely think it’s possible the beasts of Revelation may be literal dragons etc, but there is precedent in Scripture for monstrous beasts in prophetic visions being metaphors for earthly kingdoms/rulers. So it’s not necessarily a skeptical, watering down move to identify the beasts as more mundane things.
They get a lot of flak, but I still love the Left Behind books, even if I don’t think they got everything right.
I guess as usual my answer would be "Yes... and." Monsters and kingdoms, spirits and machines, all in evil alignment at multiple scales.
P.S., if you want to see an example of monsters that are already being made, check out the next article in this series.
Mark, I’m a longish-time subscriber, but I’d somehow managed to miss this series utterly until I scrolled through a long, long list of missed notifications from John Carter’s Telegram channel. I’m quite grateful I didn’t simply ignore those.
I must say as a scientist, at least by training, I cannot help but agree with your statement that the artist’s way of knowing things is in some real way at least *faster* than, if not superior to, the scientist’s. I think it’s because of the way that science is so incredibly narrow in its scope, by design (though I may have picked up that hypothesis from this series too).
I don’t know what possesses me to denigrate my profession like this. Maybe it’s the stunted artist dwelling in some dark cavern near the back of my head. Who knows?
There are feeling and intuitive artists; and feels-only artists. There are reasoning and intuitive scientists, and logic-only scientists.
Both kinds come in 2 very different flavours, a complete one, and a earth-bound one (as it were).
You know damn well that I feel it, I have felt it, and I will fight the fucking fuckers until they return to entropy, a frozen state of nothingness. ("Back to your falling, Lucifer, you've got a long way to go into the abyss that you machinated.")