Footnotes

Previous Section: Conclusion

[1] cf. Philosophical Proof the Thing is A Zombie Stealer of Souls.

http://www.outpost31.com/vistar/essays/zombie.html

[2] Understand "spirit", again, in terms of a principle of action or power, an /intention/ in nature, in the same way as the universal principle of gravitation, or Fermat's principle of light, or even human cognition, are expressions of /intention/ in nature. Think of the quote from Lieutenant Rimgale from the film Backdraft (1991), after he has intentionally set a small lighter-fluid fire in front of his assistant Brian, and they watch the bluish-orange flame crawl up the wall and wend across the ceiling of the charred building.

"It's a living thing, Brian. It doesn't go where it does, because of the interactions of the laws of combustion and thermodynamics. It does it because it /wants/ to."

Believe it or not, this is scientifically correct, in principle, if not necessarily explicitly proven sufficiently for the case of fire per se. Kepler's discovery of universal gravitation could only come about through his insight that the elliptical orbit of the planets, which is non-translatable perfectly into algebraic or digital form, expresses a principle of intention operating in the solar system. There is no deductive necessity for the planet to behave in that way, which is why only creative human reason could have discovered the transfinite curvature of its progress through the solar system (contrary to the vain, circles-within-circles attempts at approximation conducted by Copernicus and Ptolemy). The Earth goes around its orbit because it /wants/ to, and because its nature is exclusive to want in that way alone. Thus, it doesn't have a choice, because it has no way in its nature to /want/ anything other than what it wants.

[3] That it attacked at all, supports a lack of a self-reflective brain that would allow it to think spatially and temporally. All it could do was go on the evidence, namely that attack-words ("defibrillator" -> electroshock -> tissue damage) were being spoken. When actually attacked, it had no choice but to respond bestially, rather than rationally numbing its nerves and "playing dead" in the knowledge the shocks would eventually cease. Not being aware of the human principle of action behind the attack, then, nor of any boundary condition, it freaked out. This raises the interesting possibility (used by me during the lone Thing-sequel RPG scenario I ran one time), of the Thing being able to survive through conditioning:

That is, suppose the Norris-head had escaped. It would retain the memory-association inherited from Norris himself, ("defibrillator" -> tissue damage). It would retain the memory of escape. If it then attacked a man B, then B would gain these memories as part of its curvature. Were it confronted with the same sort of situation (hearing "defibrillator"), while of the same sort of mind (bestial), it would also remember the curvature of the outcome (risky escape) such that it would have the option, if not the mandate, to "play dead". To grasp this fully one must realise the Thing does not operate according to nervous conditioning per se, but rather to curvature conditioning. The shape of its singularity decides what its options are, out of the material situation given. One wonders how much this shape can /learn/…

[4] Combine this /fertile/ aspect, a feminine characteristic, with its ability to absorb and display male characteristics, and the creature amounts to a hermaphrodite, identifying it with the demon Baphomet, or the Goat of Mendes. This creature has many names. The name given by Hebrew sigils associated with the Goat of Mendes (encircling the inverted pentagram), is Leviathan (Job, Chapt. 41).

Of Carpenter’s Trilogy, only In the Mouth of Madness shows purely spiritual possession with a literary catalyst. Prince of Darkness shows us a biological concentrate (liquid) partnered with abiotic action (cosmic rays), as the catalyst. And the Thing never reveals its true form; this sophistication is partly why it remains the strongest of the three films. In order of their release, then, we end up practically, with Baphomet, Satan, and the Anti-Christ.

[5] cf. The Hidden, 1989.

[6] To understand this better, one needs a grasp of how the advance of science, consists in a succession of theorem-lattices, A, B, C, etc., based on axiomatic assumptions about the nature of the universe, and separated by inconsistencies which are bridged by successfully validated scientific hypotheses. These inconsistencies are otherwise known as "singularities" because they have a mathematical significance. A singularity, there, is equivalent to the human faculty of cognition, which itself is a principle of action upon the universe. That is, without human cognition, certain things in the universe not only would not happen, but also could not happen on principle, such as a spaceship going to the moon. Thus, a singularity possesses /power/ to change the universe. It is this definition of /power/ which properly applies to the Thing, as a singularity, in a real, mathematical sense.

Further, any of its fleshly forms are analogous to an axiomatic theorem-lattice, constructed provisionally, but which holds no value in terms of long-term successful survival. In other words, its bodily forms are /unintelligible/, just as scientific axioms, are unintelligible, being arbitrary presumptions about the universe. Because they do not conform to the physical curvature of reality, being fabricated of the mind for the sake of dealing with a contingency, they will ultimately fail, and therefore must be revised. Hence the Thing’s perpetual mutation. The difference between the Thing and scientific revolutions, lies in its Satanic nature, as that relates to human cognition, which is explained later on, above.

[7] I mean "curvature" with respect to the principle of Least Time, whereby the shortest distance of movement between two points, is not necessarily the shortest measurable distance between them, but rather along the curve of least-action. For example, take a cycloid, which is a curve generated by a point of a circle’s circumference, as that circle rolls along a straight line. Invert the cycloid, forming a bowl. Place an incline plane, from one end of the cycloid, down to its middle, as shown below:

Consider all the surfaces to be nearly frictionless. If two ball-bearings are released from the same point (the end of the cycloid), but one rolls down the incline plane, while the other rolls along the curved surface, which one will reach the middle of the cycloid first? The answer is, the one rolling down the curvature, because it is the path of least-action. This demonstrates the notion of /physical curvature/. Think of the Thing in these terms, as a physical curvature existing inside the mind of its victim, and corresponding to the curvature of the situation (both induced from the same ultimate source).

[8] Cf. Postmodern Things.

http://www.outpost31.com/vistar/essays/postmod.html

[9] cf. Who Goes There?, by Don A. Stuart:

"It came from space, driven and lifted by forces men haven’t discovered yet, and somehow – perhaps something went wrong them – it tangled with Earth’s magnetic field. It cam south here, out of control probably, circling the magnetic pole. That’s a savage country there, but when Antarctica was still freezing, it must have been a thousand times more savage. There must have been blizzard snow, as well as drift, new snow falling as the continent glaciated. The swirl must have been particularly bad, the wind hurling a solid blanket of white over the lip of that now-buried mountain.

"The ship solid granite head-on, and cracked up. Not every one of the passengers in it was killed, but the ship must have been ruined, her driving mechanism locked. It tangled with the Earth’s field, Norris believes. No thing made by intelligent beings can tangle with the dead immensity of a planet’s natural forces and survive."

[10] An analogous process must take place in non-human victims. That they have no cognition to conform to only removes the problem which conforming to it is intended to solve.

[11] His faith in reason is an outgrowth not only of his pragmatism, but his faith in God; viz. a rational God, who created a rational, knowable universe which humans can master (partly by doing things like setting up polar research bases). Hence, when in doubt, his telling Blair to "Trust in the Lord".

This faith is further evident at least a three more times. First, when betrayed by Nauls, he doesn’t immediately presume Nauls suspected him, exclaiming "The line broke!" while in the store room. Second, when he gains the upper hand, he doesn’t immediately kill Nauls, as Childs would have done ("You woulda done the same thing" – implying vice versa), but instead mutters at him, "I should kill you on general principles, Nauls." Mac thinks in /terms/ of principles, not in terms of deductive reasoning, as Childs does (hence the name? – "childish" reasoning); and he scorns popular opinion as worse than useless ("Did it ever occur to anyone on the jury?"

Third is the quality of agape that he settles into as if instinctively, once it becomes apparent that Blair is moving into the endgame. This is the inspiring scene where Garry and Nauls are inspired, under his leadership, to work to wipe out the Thing for the benefit of all humanity, at the cost of their own lives. Mac fits into the tradition, literally, of the likes of General MacArthur, Jeanne D’Arc, and Jesus Christ, of acting on principle for the sake of immortally assisting humanity.

[12] Just as a human mind, is in immediate harmonic relationship with any tool made by mankind using cognition. Both the existence of the tool, and the humanness of the man, both come from the same source: the efficient action of cognition upon the universe.

Return to Fan Essays Main Page