Another great post by Greg Bishop:
CARET And Symbolic Writing
Mandalas, yantras, and sigils are well-known to most elements of the occult community, and these visual aids to self-enlightenment bear closer scrutiny in the context of the CARET episode. Some of the patterns and shapes are given to students, and others are supposed to be created by the user for specific purposes. These objects of meditation are supposed to help the user identify his or her problems, define solutions, and even create some sort of symbiosis with the mind to bring about change.
Are the CARET glyphs designed to engage the unconscious or are they the cosmic equivalent of HTML tags? Probably neither, but . . .
11 comments:
"... along with geometric forms and patterns that fit together to form diagrams that are themselves functional. Once they are drawn, so to speak, on a suitable surface made of a suitable material and in the presence of a certain type of field, they immediately begin performing the desired tasks"
LOL. Give me a break. Exactly what sort of "field" are we talking about? a "Magic" field? I want a “field” that makes drawings do tasks! And exactly what type of "tasks" are we talking about – summon demons or angels? This stuff is insulting absurd.
The reason none of these stories ever pans out is because they do not actually contain any valid information. If the Caret stuff had simply said “these intricate glyphs obviously convey some sort of information, mostly likely mathematical in nature, but we have as yet been unable to effectively decipher them” it would have been more convincing, instead they over-reached and went into territory that was beyond them. It's very easy to write words on paper that have no meaning ("I ate my favorite color for lunch" “My car giggles into paper” “The glyphs perform tasks”) but, by definition, it is impossibly difficult to legitimately explain a technology humans do not posses.
Might a higher intelligence use symbols? Sure why not, but projecting that simple assumption to some magical mumbo jumbo about "working glyphs" is pure 5th century magic. Hell at least Lazar's BS, as inaccurate as it was, sounded remotely plausible at first glance.
I don’t know where so many new-ager UfO fans get off looking down at organized religion – all these recent hoaxes getting wide attention proves they have no more judgment and discerning than those they mock.
The ultimate irony is that this “nuts and bolts” hoax employs what is essentially a new-age mystical approach to functionality of the alien tech. I guess they learned from the Lazar stuff that trying to employ real physics in your alien-stories could be quickly fact checked by real physicists. Still, someone should have noticed the mixed ideologies and done some editing. “Hey you got your peanut butter in my chocolate – no you’ve got your chocolate in my peanut butter!”
instead they over-reached and went into territory that was beyond them. It's very easy to write words on paper that have no meaning
I think you miss the point. The idea that the glyphs can "self-execute" a "program" (set in "CARET's" technological context) exerts a weird "what if" appeal. I personally found it quite creative and look forward to seeing of the idea crops up in future tales.
I think you split the difference somewhat; they're HTML tags for the unconscious. Think Klüver's form constants turned inside-out.
And hey, can *consciousness* be a field?
>>I think you miss the point. The idea that the glyphs can "self-execute" a "program" (set in "CARET's" technological context) exerts a weird "what if" appeal. I personally found it quite creative and look forward to seeing of the idea crops up in future tales.
Hey, I'm all for self-modifying, evolved AI object-oriented computer code. But a freakin glyph? Sounds to me like the "magic field" would be doing all the work. I wish the Caret stuff had been more specific about what sort of "tasks" were performed and how the magic field is supposed to work.
If it crops up again, I see it as a meme that latches upon and mutates the existing mythology, not for its inherent authentic value (MJ12 anyone?)
I've read better, more plausible sci-fi than that. But, if on some future date, it becomes clear that this stuff is even remotely REAL, by all means you can all laugh at me and call me a numbnuts for scorning it. :)
I guess that's why I loved the film 2001 so much, the aliens were just so damned mysterious. No amount of techno-mumbo jumbo could replace the engimatic monoliths. When you try to explain away "magic like technology" it looses its appeal.
TJ,
Good points, but if you're looking for definitive answers, you won't find them in the UFO world.
The word "real" does not apply here, and it probably never will. That's why the anomalies field is called that and why it's so interesting to me. These concepts/ occurences thumb their noses (and occasionally raise a middle finger to) our ideas of what's "real" and what isn't. That's why I like them. They're punks in our world of scientific and philosophical dogma.
This "Issac" character is probably not just a hoaxer, but a clever and creative one as well. Bravo. Arguing the truth or falsehood of his internet meme is a tired game that I won't play. As I see it, that's not the point.
Mac,
Thanks for the plug!
Sure, consciousness can be a "field." So is intent, or artistic expression, but I sometimes to refer to them as "dimensions."
TJ,
2001 is one of my favorites too, for just the same reason that you mentioned.
I guess I just get my panties in a bunch when I see people spending time on hoaxes because all that crap does is obsfucate the REAL (which to me means "authentic") phenomena from being explored. If the guy had come out within a week or so and fessed up I'd be like "Cool - share with us how you did the whole thing" I'm betting the Caret/Drone guy (or guys) is secretly desperate to brag about his genius and skills. I know I would be.
I suppose that if one wants to follow the whole thing at the meta level as just another aspect of the field then that's fine, but for me there are legitimate mysteries out there, full of true high strangeness. Strange stuff that I damn well would like to be solved (yea I know, fat chance!).
I'll say one thing, all this hoopla over Serpo/Chad/Caret has me daydreaming about my ultimate hoax, and where not to go wrong. Could I pull something major off? I have the digital/cg skills.. but would I make a fatal mistake along the way that I hadn't planned.. It's sort of like plotting the prefect murder....hmm.
Just kidding :) I will not turn to the dark side just yet.
"I guess I just get my panties in a bunch when I see people spending time on hoaxes because all that crap does is obsfucate the REAL (which to me means "authentic") phenomena from being explored."
Think about it this way TJ; we could all be watching American Idol or doing some equally pointless brain drain instead. Personally I would much rather spend my days exploring interesting concepts and ideas whether they be creative memes, culture jams, veiled reality...whatever.
I mean lets get real here, 99% of us aren't investigative journalists. We're geeky techno-nerds looking for a sign of life out there.
One interesting side note with the whole CARET/Drone story has been the passionate, emotional responses it evokes (on both sides). I find it odd just how angry this story makes people. It hits a nerve and not just a typical crying hoax nerve either. People SCREAM how hoax laden or how truth laden it is without out any substantive proof but mounds of speculation. That's reason enough for me to stay interested.
Denny
>>I mean lets get real here, 99% of us aren't investigative journalists. We're geeky techno-nerds looking for a sign of life out there.
I resemble that remark!
Post a Comment