Lovecraft and atheism

luka

Well-known member
His vision of the singularity is much better than Nick Lands. Better drugs. Cooler friends. Bigger brain.
 

vimothy

yurp
Of course it is. You can still walk towards a mirage even though it's not real.

you can walk towards a mirage but you'll never reach it since its an illuision. similarly you can imagine that the universe is meaningful but it doesnt make it so. objectively speaking (according to the ultra-nihilistic view) it is not meaningful, and "nietzsche 101" (as you put it) is only a sublimated christianity and in the end a kind of weak-mindedness
 

luka

Well-known member
Saying such and such is only a sublimated Christianity is a very popular move but is almost always trite and obfuscatory. These cute symmetries are rarely as clever as they think they are.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Why is everyone so hung up on 'meaning', anyway? What about pleasure, humour, companionship, love? I think people who have those things don't usually waste their lives chasing the mirage of 'meaning'.
 

vimothy

yurp
Saying such and such is only a sublimated Christianity is a very popular move but is almost always trite and obfuscatory. These cute symmetries are rarely as clever as they think they are.

you'll never pass nietzsche 101 with this sort of an attitude
 

droid

Well-known member
you can walk towards a mirage but you'll never reach it since its an illuision. similarly you can imagine that the universe is meaningful but it doesnt make it so. objectively speaking (according to the ultra-nihilistic view) it is not meaningful, and "nietzsche 101" (as you put it) is only a sublimated christianity and in the end a kind of weak-mindedness

Deciding that x/y is what gives your life meaning does not mean that the universe itself has meaning. If life has no intrinsic purpose then the only purpose that can exist is that which we ascribe to. Even then, purpose itself is a meaningless concept that exists only in the context of the shared fiction of the conscious self.

It's illusion all the way down.
 

Corpsey

bandz ahoy
Why is everyone so hung up on 'meaning', anyway? What about pleasure, humour, companionship, love? I think people who have those things don't usually waste their lives chasing the mirage of 'meaning'.

It is generally the preserve of the gloomy.

To bring up Eliot again, his attempts at finding meaning in suffering, I thought how I myself have tried to find meaning in suffering, and virtue in it, and that's because I am a sufferer, I am constitutionally prone to agonising, and so both Eliot and I must find meaning in suffering, otherwise we couldn't stand it. Everybody suffers, of course, but only some suffer enough with enough of an analytical mind to develop suffering into a system of thought, in order to redeem it.
 

droid

Well-known member
It is generally the preserve of the gloomy.

To bring up Eliot again, his attempts at finding meaning in suffering, I thought how I myself have tried to find meaning in suffering, and virtue in it, and that's because I am a sufferer, I am constitutionally prone to agonising, and so both Eliot and I must find meaning in suffering, otherwise we couldn't stand it. Everybody suffers, of course, but only some suffer enough with enough of an analytical mind to develop suffering into a system of thought, in order to redeem it.

“As a fact, we cannot give suffering precedence in either our individual or collective lives. We have to get on with things, and those who give precedence to suffering will be left behind. They fetter us with their sniveling. We have someplace to go and must believe we can get there, wherever that may be. And to conceive that there is a 'brotherhood of suffering between everything alive' would disable us from getting anywhere. We are preoccupied with the good life, and step by step are working toward a better life. What we do, as a conscious species, is set markers for ourselves. Once we reach one marker, we advance to the next — as if we were playing a board game we think will never end, despite the fact that it will, like it or not. And if you are too conscious of not liking it, then you may conceive of yourself as a biological paradox that cannot live with its consciousness and cannot live without it. And in so living and not living, you take your place with the undead and the human puppet.”

...
 
I was searching for something else on my Kindle and came across China Miéville's introduction to At the Mountains of Madness

Lovecraft was strongly influenced by Oswald Spengler, according to him.

In 1918, Spengler, a German philosopher, published the first volume of his magnum opus, The Decline of the West. Spengler’s basic thesis was of a cyclical civilizational history. “High cultures” pass through stages like organisms: birth, development, a maturity of cultural flowering, then the slow decline through urban civilization to senescence, decadence, and death.

Like weird fiction itself, Spengler’s portentous vision was a scar caused by the wound of early twentieth-century cataclysms. His worldview was enormously influential. Hitler was an admirer, as were the right-wing theorist Julius Evola and the wack-job high priest of American “intellectual” fascism, Francis Parker Yockey. But Spengler’s model had a wider cultural impact. Relatively mainstream figures such as the historian Arnold Toynbee and the writers Jack Kerouac and Henry Miller drew upon his ideas.

So, crucially, did H. P. Lovecraft, who read the first volume in translation in 1927. When discussing At the Mountains of Madness, the importance of Spengler’s The Decline of the West cannot be stressed too highly. (Indeed, S. T. Joshi places Spengler at the center of his discussion of Lovecraft’s political and philosophical ideas—his book on the topic is entitled H. P. Lovecraft: The Decline of the West.) The very setting, that enormous, impossible city, is utterly Spenglerian, recalling the “civilization” phase in his cycle, when culture passes beyond its high point and its upheavals occur in burgeoning megalopolises.

“It is the Late city that first defies the land, contradicts Nature in the lines of its silhouette, denies all Nature,” Spengler says. “It wants to be something different from and higher than Nature. These high-pitched gables, these Baroque cupolas, spires, and pinnacles, neither are, nor desire to be, related with anything in Nature. And then begins the gigantic megalopolis, the city-as-world, which suffers nothing beside itself. . . .” In turn, Lovecraft describes the unbelievable sprawl and scale of the Old Ones’ city, “stretched nearly to the vision’s limit,” a “Cyclopean maze of squared, curved, and angled blocks . . . which cut off all comfortable refuge,” the “unhuman massiveness of these vast stone towers and ramparts,” as embodying “some fiendish violation of known natural law.”

For Spengler, the city-as-world exists in a vampiric relationship with the country around it. Where once the city was thrown up by the country, “now the giant city sucks the country dry,” relentlessly seducing the population until the city is full and the country is devoid of human life. In Lovecraft’s story, the dynamic of the city’s parasitic rise and fall is rendered aesthetically, with a vivid image of a dark city surrounded by country that has been sucked so dry it is bone-white, bled of all color.

As the narrator navigates the vast stone corridors, he literally walks through the architecturalization of Spengler’s cyclical history. In the bas-reliefs that he and Danforth are able (however improbably) to decipher, we read a fantasticated representation of The Decline of the West.​
 

luka

Well-known member
Spengler is absolutely central to literary modernism. I read an abridged version as a teenager and I loved it. Really good book.
 

luka

Well-known member
China Mellville seems like a bit of a drip to me. Would have thought he'd be too worthy for you HMG? Political literature in the crudest, most ham fisted and obvious way.
 
China Mellville seems like a bit of a drip to me. Would have thought he'd be too worthy for you HMG? Political literature in the crudest, most ham fisted and obvious way.

I hate his fiction, it stinks of rollies, but he's competent at picking out good bits from other people's books.
 
Last edited:

droid

Well-known member
His third fantasy book was good, as were his last two fiction things, plus his 1917 book. Best things he's done have probably been short stories. Tons of Gaimanesque dross in his bibliography though.
 
https://www.newstatesman.com/chinese-science-fiction-dystopia-liu-cixin-triology

For Western readers, Chinese sci-fi is enticing because it takes what we think know about modern China – the strange combination of ancient history and racing electronic change, the cities that spring up in months, the sheer scale of the country and its vast population – and makes it even bigger. In the opening scenes of Liu Cixin’s The Wandering Earth, engines the size of mountains stop the Earth from spinning, and the planet escapes the solar system while the sun explodes. Western sci-fi begins to look almost parochial next to such massive ideas.

So China's going through its own HG Wells period. What would a 21st century Chinese Lovecraft be writing about?

This is a challenge. I now want to to write scifi that will sell 1 billion copies in China.
 

luka

Well-known member
I read the first two last night, will read the other two later. Kind of want to dig out the McKenna book I never finished now.

1 and 3 are my favourites in that series. I've always said that the peers of Deleuze in the Anglosphere aren't in the academy, they're disreputable types like Mckenna. Swashbucklers, rogues, blarney artists
 
Top