Blobsquatch

If you go over to Cryptomundo and peruse some of the posts, particularly ones detailing videos or pictures that claim to be those of a certain massive, hairy nomadic missing link located primarily in the Pacific Northwest but allegedly seen in every state of the US and every province in Canada, you can’t help, when scanning comments, to stumble upon the term “blobsquatch.”

What is a “blobsquatch?” I think it’s obvious; if you’re clever you’ve already figured it out. But consider this: what isn’t it? It isn’t anything that can be described as:

Clear, concise, well-defined, obvious, apparent, evident, straightforward, unambiguous.

If your photo of the covert critter cannot be utilized as a visual aid in the dictionary definition for any of those previous adjectives, you’ve a blobsquatch on your hands. Practically, if I have to study a photo for longer than, say, ten seconds, or watch a video at least three or four times before I think I know what the mystery monster is supposed to be, I’m looking at a blobsquatch.

Besides, “blobsquatch” just happens to belong to that exclusive, underpopulated and awesome set of really cool words.

I thought for a while about posting some examples of blobsquatch (blobsquatches? blobsquatchi?) but decided against it. If you’re really as sad as I am and this interests you intensely, go to Cryptomundo and knock yerself out. But damned if I can help it, I just can’t get the word out of my mind.

Blobsquatch.

Let’s play with some antonyms, here, for that list above of what it ain’t. In other words, what it is. How about: vague, obscure, unintelligible, ambiguous, indistinct. Works for me. What else is vague, obscure, unintelligible, ambiguous, indistinct? Hmmmm. Oh, I know!

Most of us are, some of the time. Some of us are, most of the time. I think I fall in the latter category. Shall I try to be more specific? More clear and well-defined, straightforward and unambiguous? Okay, I’ll try.

I think it has something to do with authenticity. The way those darned existentialists spoke of it. Capital-A, sometimes italicized. Sartre and Heidegger come to mind, but my sieve’s very leaky when it comes to philosophy; could be a couple other of those continental thinkers. From a religious perspective, Kierkegaard may have wrote about the problem of authenticity, or rather, the problem of living authentically. Basically, I believe they’re saying that when you fail to live your life with the full knowledge of [responsibility for your existence / death / God / whatever angle the particular philosopher is playing], you are living “unauthentically.” In essence, you is a blobsquatch, undefined, standing for nothing concrete. You’re not that city on a hill; you’re not that candle on the nightstand.

When you settle for less than you can be. When you decide not to speak out. When you file your dream away in that creaky metal drawer labeled “tomorrow.” When you drink or smoke or take drugs, or waste hours and hours in front of the electronic brainwashing time-and-money thief we call a television set. When you work at a job you despise because it pays the bills. When you stay inside because it’s raining out. When you do X because you’ve always done X and everyone you’ve know has always done X even though you’d really like to do Y. When you never spend some time alone, alone with your thoughts, and find out just what the hell you think is worth dying for.

You’re a blobsquatch.

And so am I.

Oh the humanity!