The United Nations Institute of Object Studies
Southern Polar Technical Group
| UNIOS The United Nations Institute of Object Studies Southern Polar Technical Group |
Translations of output from the object: Status Report
There now appears to have been a breakthrough not only in "translating" but also in "communicating with" the Object. The change in output came after the fourth Translation Team, under the direction of Carol Staghunter, secured permission to fire holographically generated character strings into the concave space in the Object. Again, symbols appeared in the display field, and these were given to the translation teams for interpretation.
Using Zaar's construction of the symbols' meaning, the question: "Who are you?" was holographically generated on the same scale as the output. This message was projected into the area which had previously been probed with a metal point. The output obtained by this method is of a different order, and translations of some, using Dr. Zaar's method, have been made. The plurality of responses obtained to the single question must cause a reconsideration of the earlier "translations". Those who looked on the object as a representative for a galactic travel agent are on the wane. But as the earlier Report on translations of output from the Object may have suggested, there is still no unanimity of opinion on how this "output" should be interpreted, but it is clear that the use of holographic symbol strings has resulted in a different type of communication. The symbols used are different, (a different type-face?) and the "translations," where they are at all consistent, suggest a shift in treatment.
The following is a summary of the remaining nine teams' current opinions and positions. Budgetary consider-ations have forced the closure of Teams Six, Ten and Twelve. They will therefore not be covered in the survey.
Thereafter we have appended a number of samples of the new translations.
| Team | Leader | Location | No | Sup | Comment | * |
| 1 | Prof. I Cutler | New York , USA | 17 | 86 | Frequent reports submitted, appear to be well managed. | O |
| 2 | Prof. J Rautenbach | Rio Gallegos, Patagonia | 4 | 7 | Intermittent reports, poor accounting | ? |
| 3 | HH Prof. S Sambodhi | London, UK & Hobart, Tasmania | 2 | ?2 | Administratively non-existent. | O |
| 4 | Dr. C Staghunter | Johannesburg, South Africa | 7 | 22 | Good Theory, otherwise in chaos | O |
| 5 | Prof. J King Chen | Singapore, Malaysia | 10 | 8 | Hard-working, but not able to account for all disbursements. | ? |
| 6 | Disbanded | |||||
| 7 | Dr. Sophia Zaar | Cape Town, South Africa | 3 | 6 | Team is well run, but Dr. Zaar does not delegate enough. | U |
| 8 | Dr. A Sibourge | Kinshasa, Zaire | 4 | 7 | Frequent reports, no audit submitted as yet. | ? |
| 9 | Prof. Å Sødorff | Perth, Australia | 4 | 7 | Hardworking. Reporting frequent and detailed. | U |
| 10 | Disbanded | |||||
| 11 | rof. A Porter | Dunedin, New Zealand | 4 | 7 | No problems with admin. | U |
| 12 | Disbanded |
Section BA: Team Evaluation Summaries Team One Group Chair: Prof. Ivan Cutler (Harvard, USA) Number of Members: 17 Team Support Personnel: 86 Headquarters: New York, USA The team's position: The output reveals, in Prof. Cutler's opinion, poorly understood (and possibly random or chaotic) patterns, like the pattern of sparks produced by a grinding wheel. We are justified in pointing to certain groupings of patterns but there is no convincing basis for assigning a particular meaning to any pattern or symbolic manifestation. Methodology: Working methodology consists of subjecting the Object's output to mathematical and statistical analysis. Studying recurrent forms and using shape analyses of individual symbols as well as groups of symbols, they seek general patterns. The group have identified fourteen basic patterns common to each output set. They are backed by a team of thirty-seven statisticians and have access to three Hewlett-Packard Model 87.43 Series XIV Hypercomputers using the Hyperstatics environment. The Object: The team is of the provisional opinion that the object is of extraterrestrial origin (there exists on Earth no technological base for building such an artifact) and is possibly a not-yet-understood information- using machine. Comment: The position of Team One (the largest team) is not the general view, though it is strongly supported by Ndau's Team Eight as well as by individual members of nearly every other team. They reject Dr. Zaar's methodology as "mystical mumbo-jumbo" (Cutler).
Team Two Group Chair: Prof. Janine Rautenbach (Argentina, Catholic University of The Argentine) Number of Members: 4 Team Support Personnel: 7 Headquarters: Rio Gallegos, Patagonia The team's position: Generally, though with certain reservations, Team Two support Dr. Sophia Zaar's theories. Methodology: Like most others, the team started out by seeking patterns among the output, and concentrated in particular on the search for sets which would correspond with certain basic "story patterns" identified in human cultures. Working from twenty-two such patterns expressed as symbol-strings, they used computer analysis to seek correspondences. They claim to have found four such "formal co-determinations". Since Zaar's theories were circulated, they have been concentrating on lexical- net correspondence and contributing to the Object Library set up by Team Seven and run by the Translation Co-ordinating Committee(TCC). The Object: Team Two reserve all opinion on the origin and purpose of the Object (though Rautenbach did state "Probably an extra-terrestrial computer" in a report submitted two months ago. The TCC have some evidence that they may still incline to the "Database from Outer Space" scenario. Comment:The Patagonia team's progress was disappointing until they joined the Zaarist project. Since then they have made several contributions to the TCC's Object Library. Any value placed on their input is now entirely contingent on Zaar's success.
Team Three Group Chair: HH. Prof. Samyak Sambodhi (Nalanda University, Bhutan) Number of Members: 2 Team Support Personnel: 2 Headquarters: London, UK & Hobart, Tasmania The Team's Position: The team wrote in a memo to Dr. Altmann "...as the Object is in distress, the output ought to be interpreted as calls for help, or possibly as some equivalent of fevered muttering." The team have put forward no other position. Methodology: Team Three has not provided the TCC with a synopsis of their methodology, (if any). The Object: Sambodhi has publicly supported the notion that the Object is a sentient life-form, and has criticised other interpretations for their "bio-chauvanism" and drawn attention to what he construes as a "streak of humour" in Zaar's translations. Comment: Prof. Sambodhi has made absolutely no constructive contribution to the translation project. The TCC is reliably informed that he and his assistant Yolande Smith (a twenty two-year- old graduate student) are seldom at work, and that he seems as alcoholic as ever. The two project secretaries spend the day doing typing and secretarial work for the Department of Applied Linguistics, from which they were seconded. Unfortunately, due to Sambodhi's position, the TCC is unable to take any action.
Team Four Group Chair: Dr. Carol Staghunter (People's University of Angola) Number of Members: 7 Team Support Personnel: 22 Headquarters: Johannesburg The team's position: Almost identical to that of Team Two. The majority are now Zaarists. Methodology: Originally dominated by a neo-structuralist line of thought, they sought hidden constructs in the output. Now Dr. Staghunter chairs the Informal Sentence Structure Subcommittee (ISSSC) and Team Four have contributed several hypotheses of "worth" in the area of symbol-string structure. Their work is almost entirely theoretical. Prof. Deklerk Ntagati has been singled out by Zaar herself for his "excellent work on the symbol-clause dynamic." The team has retained much of its neo-structuralist bias. The Object: Team Four have divided opinions about the nature of the object: three members hold that it is an inanimate, perhaps pseudo-crystalline structure, from a "parallel" universe; three are of the opinion that it is a device intended to entertain sentient beings, and one (Ntagati) believes that it is the remains of the guidance system of a space-craft. Comment: The Johannesburg team have contributed some useful theoretical underpinnings to Zaar's project, and Dr. Staghunter's insight has enabled the first "communication" with the Object. Administratively, however, they are in chaos. They have a large and mostly idle administrative staff. The TCC have not been able to discover how these people are employed. It has been decided not to do anything unless the Zaar project is discredited, in which case Dr. Staghunter and her colleagues may become dispensable.
Team Five Group Chair: Prof. Janet King Chen (Centre for Theoretical Studies, Djakarta, Indonesia) Number of Members: 10 Team Support Personnel: 8 Headquarters: Singapore, Malaysia The team's position: Again, a majority are Zaarists though three members support the views of Prof. Cutler. Methodology: The team started off by using psychics who studied samples of the output while in trance. Prof. Chen is both a linguist and an initiated Philippine shaman, and frequently entered trance herself. Now they work mostly on complexifying the Lexical network and adding to the TCC's Object Dictionary. Rumours that they are still using the unorthodox trance method persist, though the TCC has not been able to substantiate them. The Object: Team Five believed that the Object is the three-dimensional section of a four- dimensional hyper-object passing through three-dimensional space; thus what we see of it is the three-dimensional profile of a four-dimensional artifact, like a pen pushed through a piece of paper; that the purpose of the artifact may be, or may in part be, to serve as a database of those planets in our universe which are known to the four- dimensional makers of the Object. This interpretation is now under review, and the team have not formulated their new position officially. Comment: After the first Zaar "translations" were released, members of Team Five claimed that the ideas which allowed for the breakthrough had already emerged from one of their mediums. This was hotly denied by team seven. Chen's team has not been able to produce the transcript of the alleged "seance". The group continues to provide input and has the smallest per capita support team.
Team Seven Group Chair: Dr. Sophia Zaar (Sorbonne, France) Number of Members: 3 Team Support Personnel: 6 Headquarters: Cape Town, South Africa The team's position: The team believe: 1: that translation of the output is possible in spite of a "lack of objective correlatives for the symbols;" 2: that the translations obtained thus far are accurate, or approximate accuracy; 3: that there is still no basis for assigning a "purpose" to or offering an explanation for, the texts so far translated; 4: That the apparent diversity in the output, as well as what seem to be contradictions, are also part of the object's "message." Methodology: Zaar's team projected the computer output into an Artificially Intelligent Virtual Environment (AIVE), she entered the environment herself, and created feedback loops between the output and her own brain. They use six mega-linked XNN- 340 computers and a variety of peripherals. The theoretical basis of the lexical nets and "object grammar" used by Zaar's team lean heavily on linguistic economics and Ntondo's theory of shared difference, but the overall position is coming to be known as "Zaarist". Dr. Zaar has distanced herself from the term. The Object: Team Seven have offered the theory that the object is a "message" from intelligent beings elsewhere in the universe, or in a "parallel" universe. The object is itself insentient, but, when linked Cybernetically to an intelligent being or system, a new order of organisation and communication is brought about, and consequently a new type of intelligence. Comment: Team Seven's work has certainly shown the most promise in uncovering the mystery of the object, and has produced a number of internally coherent texts as "translations". There are however several problems with their methodology. In particular, the creation of a "learning matrix" of machine-person-text has been difficult to duplicate. Also, the "plurality" revealed in the output by Staghunter's experiments means that, in peeling away one level of the code, we merely reveal another. Zaar has not formulated or disclosed an overall frame of reference which "explains" the translations as a whole. Such a theory would throw much light on the origins and purpose of the Object itself.
Team Eight Group Chair: Dr. Arlette Sibourge (National Technical University of Zaire) Number of Members: 4 Team Support Personnel: 7 Headquarters: Kinshasa, Zaire The team's position: Generally they concur with Team Seven, but offer a number of interpretive refinements, particularly in the area of cyclic structures. Methodology: Their initial tactic was to attempt the translation of the object's output into music. Seeking repetitions, they have created some renditions of the output as patterned sound. They have now enlisted this analytic method to Zaar's project. Music generated by their programs is now used to score the virtual reality dance which Dr. Zaar originated. The Object: They believe that there is still insufficient data to reach any meaningful conclusion on the Object's nature, but are certain that it represents a superior technology to ours. Comment: Though they have been highly scrupulous in submitting reports, there is a persistent feeling that Team Eight is withholding something. Their reported progress in no way matches up to their reputation as a team that's made meaningful contributions to the project.
Team Nine Group Chair: Prof. Åke Sødorff (KBU, Norway) Number of Members: 4 Team Support Personnel: 7 Headquarters: Perth, Australia The team's position: Generally they concur with Team Seven, though they have adopted a Jungian interpretation of the content of output translations. Only one member, Dr. Elbert Kørnped has remained a staunch materialist and has adhered to Cutler's camp. Methodology: Before joining the Zaar project they pursued an ethnolinguistic direction, without much success. The Object: They offer the idea that the Object is a projection screen, a "materialisation" of a human unconscious material, and that even if it were of extraterrestrial origin, our study must take us back to ourselves. Comment: Team Nine have been diligent, if unhelpful contributors to Dr. Zaar's project.
Team Eleven Group Chair: Prof. Ariel Porter (Cambridge, UK) Number of Members: 6 Team Support Personnel: 17 Headquarters: Dunedin, New Zealand The team's position: The team has a number of provisional positions: They use Zaar's results, but maintain a scepticism about any interpretations which may be offered. Methodology: Like others, Porter's team have opted for a mathematico-linguistic approach. They have made extensive use of the Wisdom-2000 Artificial Intelligence package, running on eight networked Cray teraflop processors. The Object: They believe that there is still insufficient data to reach any meaningful conclusion on the Object's nature. Comment: The Cambridge team have been extremely tentative in their offerings; this tentativeness has meant that though they have not been constructive in the overall project, neither have they been obstructive. Porter's renowned "cool objectivity" has also forced the reconsideration of some of the wilder interpretations emerging from the Zaarist camp.
| Annexure 01: The Planet Argo Annexure 02: The Planet Baal Annexure 03: The Planet Dao Annexure 04: The Planet Eris Annexure 05: The Planet Frea Annexure 06: The Planet Ghanta Annexure 07: The Planet Hevajra Annexure 08: The Planet Indra Annexure 09: The Planet Kama |
| Home |