This is an extremely interesting image and open to all sorts of interpretations, maybe by giving you my own it will help to convey the way I think about cryptids.
Starting from the outside we have an ornate border, a vivid blue body of water, with water plants and waves represented using white. Moving inwards we see a tree or vine, with bark patterns highlighted in white encircling the scene, on the right hand side we see roots or branches that have intertwined. Stars or constellations are represented as dots in gold in the background and are enclosed in a grid pattern. towards the center and to the left we have a group of monks, and to the right we have a seated female figure. In her left hand she holds a set square and in her right a pair of callipers. A base or frame is depicted with wooden legs at the bottom of the scene, which supports a circular tabletop with a green edge or rim and a pale yellow middle. On the table are geometric shapes.
What does the picture say to me? or what do these things mean to me? :
my eye is encouraged to the center of the image where we have an extremely anthropomorphic pair of callipers, but it is almost as if the artist is giving small clues to look more closely, if I look at the set square, it is not pointing at the roots or branches, but past them, and then the gaze of the monks is not on the teacher or the table, but in the same direction as the set square is pointed.
I feel there is a dispute between the senior monks (who are depicted in blue robes with red sleeves and pointing to places on the table) and the female teacher, it even appears as if one of the senior monks has his hand over the mouth of one of the less senior ones to prevent him from speaking.
I think what the image is trying to say is that the elephant is not in the room, but it is just over there, and we can all see it, IF we look.
Cryptids are real.
But what is a real cryptid?
The
Oxford English
Dictionary defines the noun
cryptid as "an animal whose existence or survival to the present day is disputed or unsubstantiated; any animal of interest to a cryptozoologist".
This is such a broad, loose and all encompassing definition that means that all sorts of creatures could potentially qualify, one good example is the Mountain Gorilla which is often referenced by Bigfoot researchers, but in my opinion is not a "true" Cryptid.
By that logic flees and all sorts of parasites could be called "cryptids" because they have evolved to remain "hidden" from their host.
However much I love it, cryptozoology is not a very scientific subject, and as a result all sorts of ideas and agendas get mixed up in it.
For example ideas about Human evolution and origins or the age and even shape of planet Earth.
My personal opinion is that this hijacking of experiences like Bigfoot or Nessi by people with "religious" agendas is sad because they are valuable in their own way.
Cryptids used to be part of the fabric of society, and had an important role to play, they evolved alongside us, because they are part of us.
If it were up to me I would separate "mundane" animals and magic animals into separate categories.
For example I would consider a Coelacanth as a "mundane" animal and a Unicorn as a "magic" animal. (at present they are both considered to be cryptids)
Now you maybe wondering how this all relates to environmentalism?
Well its like this, when the lines of science and "belief" are blurred confusion ensues, and this confusion is exploited to "condone" or "pursue" inaction or action alike. For example global warming, there is now a situation where peoples view of global warming is more about politics than about logic.
People use the logic of convenience, and debate the reasons behind mans dominion over the animals and the planet, when actually the really important question is what are we going to do with the power?
Magic creatures like Bigfoot will live on, but mundane creatures that go extinct are gone forever.
Jurassic park is fantasy and is about as valid as the idea of some kind of "space brothers" coming to rescue us from ourselves.
Unfortunately environmentalism is confused with "tree hugging" spiritualistic "new age" "hippies". This is no accident, there is a definite attempt to belittle, ridicule and discourage people from questioning where their food or other things come from, or how they are produced.
People are confused to such a degree that you get "vegetarians" that eat Fishes, and seemingly rational people that merrily eat MRM and would even feed it to their loved ones.
Let me just say that I believe that as much as possible of an animal should be used, but within reason. A situation where on burger could contain genetic material from literally hundreds if not thousands of individual animals should never have been allowed. It is a direct result of mass production techniques applied to farming on an industrial scale.
Just to clarify my point, I believe that certain illnesses or diseases can be contracted by humans eating part of an infected animal, therefore the more "individuals" you eat, the higher your chance one was "sick" or diseased.
I have moral objections too of course.
factory farming and Industrial fishing are just two of the current pressures on the Environment, but there are countless more.
The world was extremely volatile before modern humans, and will always be, but to pretend that we have not or could not fundamentally harm or help the world around us, is unforgivable.
It would be a fair critisism to say that I seem very concerned about animals, but what about humans?
I consider humans to be animals, highly evolved yes, but still animals, so my concern is for them also.
It is usually the poorest people that are most effected by disasters, man made or otherwise, through circumstance rather than choice.
If a belief that Bigfoot is a primate and that leaving out apples for him or banging trees to communicate with him makes bigfooters happy then fine.
Who am I to judge from my armchair?
I have looked for definite proof and it doesn't exist, except in the form of eyewitness testimony, and until we have a way to transfer memories between people, we have to rely on language to describe a memory of an experience. What exactly happens when people see Bigfoot or other cryptids is very difficult to throw a blanket explanation over, but I am convinced that a human or humans must be "involved" whenever such a magic creature "manifests".
To me it matters little whether bigfoot et all can actually physically interact with the environment, it is demonstrable that they can have a profound impact on a persons psyche.
The mind and perception are notoriously difficult to "measure" and especially to discuss, but we know that placebo and its counterpart nocebo are valid concepts and do have tangible impacts.
I have run out of time I will add more when I can.