The Unexplained > Cryptozoology
Is this Bownessie?
Gertrudes:
--- Quote from: treesparrow on February 19, 2011, 03:15:59 PM ---Btw a good reference book and fun read about lake monsters, bigfoot and Cryptozoology in general is Alien Animals by Janet and Colin Bord. Osit.
--- End quote ---
Thanks for the tip treesparrow.
Ottershrew:
Thanks, Teresa – that’s a useful observation.
The Garden of Eden story imagines its serpent-character to originally have had legs. However, these were taken from him, and he thus became a regular leg-free snake (and presumably we’re asked to imagine that all subsequent serpents or snakes were descended from him). Or, if you like, he became a snake with a whole load of ribs, each rib acting as a kind of leg for locomotion. So you could call a snake a 30-footed beast, or whatever, according to the number of ribs, or pairs of ribs, that particular snake had. So in that sense a snake has more feet than most beasts have, and those extra feet allow for its very fluid motion. This picture here of a snake’s skeleton gives an idea of the number of pseudo-legs a snake actually has – they’re kind of legs, but encased within the body of the animal. And perhaps fluid motion is what this is all about. With a serpent living in water, you even have fluid motion within a fluid context.
And thanks, Treesparrow, for the reference to the book “Alien Animals”. It’s a decent enough introduction to window-fallers, I thought. I read it in conjunction with Stan Gooch’s book “Creatures from Inner Space”, which is also imo useful, and an entertaining read as well.
And, for sure, Gertrudes, such creatures might regularly be called "serpents". Here’s a list from Wikipedia of such monsters occurring in any number of lakes around the world. It seems, though, that such creatures tend to be given the general name “lake monster”, as opposed to such monsters in the oceans, which are regularly termed “sea serpents”. So to call a lake monster a "serpent" does still strike me as unusual. But that’s just my take on it.
edit: clarity
Ottershrew:
Another thing perhaps to bear in mind is that there is a further correlation between Loch Ness and the final chapter of John’s Gospel.
Both involve a lake: Loch Ness or the Sea of Galilee (i.e. Lake Tiberias).
In Loch Ness there are 51 serpents;
in the Sea of Galilee the disciples get hold of 153 fish.
3 x 51 = 153
The Philokalia, in its commentary on John, has a diminishing triangle to illustrate that the number 153 is important – or at least that it has a certain symmetry, if nothing else. In other words, the number 153 is a triangular number, the sum of the first 17 integers - which suggests once again the numbers 3 (it's a triangle) and 17 (it's the 17th triangular number). This parallels the fact that 51, as a subprime number, is the product of the prime numbers 3 and 17: so that's 3 and 17 cropping up again. An illustration of 153 as a triangular number can be found here. But what might this actually mean esoterically?
For that matter is it a good or useful idea to take the C’s statement about Loch Ness in an esoteric way, or look for a subtext underneath the literal text? I wonder if Loch Ness in itself is necessarily all that significant? After all, pretty nearly every major body of freshwater (and quite a few really small lakes that are practically ponds) apparently have monsters in them. And it’s interesting that the C’s didn’t mention other Nessie-type creatures. Why would that be?
The answer might be that they intend this to be taken generically – and that therefore the serpents in Loch Ness have a general significance, rather than a significance that is only applicable to Loch Ness. That may seem contrary to the statement itself, which seems to say, quite specifically, that there are 51 giant snakes in this one particular Scottish lake. No mention of any other lake-monsters though in other lakes. It may be literally true insofar as it goes, but why don’t they mention any other lake-monsters? It’s almost as though they’re pointing to the general applicability of these monsters BY OMISSION – i.e. omitting the glaringly obvious in order to draw your attention to it. Well, that’s maybe just the way I’m reading it – but if something brings one up sharp in a sentence, it’s as well to shine a bit of a spotlight on it, to see if there’s a subtext which needs to be read.
Perhaps, for instance, we have a reference to DNA. Photo 51 was the critical piece of evidence which confirmed the double helical structure of DNA. (This was an X-ray diffraction image taken by Rosalind Franklin at King’s College London in 1952.)
The 153 fish in John are netted in the context of the Resurrection: this is a Resurrection appearance story. The Resurrection appearances continue for a period of 40 days, because Easter Day to Ascension Day is 40 days. So we might have another link with the numbers given here by the C’s. (Not, of course, that the C’s are necessarily referring us back to the New Testament – but that BOTH may have an esoteric subtext.)
40 is thus a length, and a length of time. Of course time itself is cyclical, and our perception of it does seem to be distorted in some major way. Perhaps there’s a clue to how time really works simply in the numbers – and perhaps specifically in prime numbers, or multiples of prime numbers. Now 40 can be formed from the addition of two prime numbers: according to Goldbach’s conjecture, it’s suspected that all even numbers greater than 2 can be formed by the addition of two prime numbers. What's so critical about prime numbers. Well, of course the C’s have been insistent on their significance: as they’ve said: “Prime numbers are the dwellings of the mystics”.
I don't really know where all this is tending, but then, as Perceval recently pointed out:
--- Quote from: Perceval on February 21, 2011, 06:40:16 PM ---Session answers are not given as "gospel", so they can't really be called right or wrong. They are given (and are meant to be received) more in the form of hints, clues and approximations, with the intent that they be used for further research and investigation.
--- End quote ---
edit: clarity
anart:
--- Quote from: Ottershrew on February 21, 2011, 07:02:35 PM ---
For that matter is it a good or useful idea to take the C’s statement about Loch Ness in an esoteric way, or look for a subtext underneath the literal text? I wonder if Loch Ness in itself is necessarily all that significant? After all, pretty nearly every major body of freshwater (and quite a few really small lakes that are practically ponds) apparently have monsters in them. And it’s interesting that the C’s didn’t mention other Nessie-type creatures. Why would that be?
--- End quote ---
I tend to think that it is simply that the C's answer what is asked. They rarely add 'unasked for' information unless it is a very, very, very important point that they are trying to make.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version