To begin with, we seem to be talking completely at cross-purposes on a lot of concepts here, and confusing meanings of terms. When you spoke of "linearity" in the way you did, it gave me the impression of a much more restricted development; something more like a linear path or straight line. It was this I was taking issue with, as evolution relies on mutation for speciation, for one thing; and there are a lot of "wasted" branches on the evolutionary tree (meaning those evolutionary subsets that did not, for whatever reason, survive). This is more of a burgeoning, or a proliferation of many paths, rather than any truly linear concept. Add to this the fact that the phrase "linear development" in such a context tends to denote some definite goal to evolutionary development... a highly dubious assertion, to say the least.
So... when you describe (in your more recent post) such a proliferation, a more random development with elements of chaotic drift, etc.... that I tend to agree with. If you'll reread my post, you will find that this is exactly what I was saying; that I was puzzled by the way you used "non-linearity of species evolution" as if were an unusual concept. I'd say that the majority of evolutionary biologists would tend toward such non-linearity rather than otherwise. Darwin was extremely important, but he was a pioneer, and he also lacked many of the tools we now have to help us decipher some of the hitherto mysterious course of evolutionary development.
As for my not accepting the theory of evolution... I'm not sure where that came in, but I've long accepted that. If one looks at the evidence, it's rather impossible not to....
Incidentally, the reason it is much more likely for life to evolve in the sea rather than the land is because the conditions for moving from non-organic t organic compounds is much more favorable; especially the presence of so many of the elements making up the basic amino-acid compounds being in a form where they can much more freely join chemically. On the "dry ground", as it were, without the permeative presence of water, while it may not be impossibe, it is much, much less likely to occur. And, so far, we have absolutely no evidence of such a development, where we have tons of quite solid evidence for the marine origin of life.
Now... as for other points in your post: I never said that you said Lovecraft intended such; but as you had made such an assertion so strongly, I simply brought in my views, based on my study of Lovecraft and his work; this makes the connection unlikely in general, though it does not refute your own perceptions as having validity for you personally. My question was: can you argue for such a connection in such a way that the relationship becomes a viable one for others as well? It would be a very interesting concept, and I'd like to hear such. That is what I was getting at.
During their expansion in the mountains they created other forms of life birds,animals and more ....possibly in the same way they interacted with the SHOGGOTH,by transforming amorphous matter into tissue,organs and any organic accessory through their telepathetic abilities.
Now, that concept is very plainly in the novel, including the origins of humanity itself, either "as a mistake or a joke" -- a phrase that is explained later on, when Dyer and Danforth see the images of one of humanity's ancestors used as both an entertaining buffoon and as a source of meat. There is also the idea that, at some point, they became so absorbed in other things that many of these experiments were allowed to run their course uncontrolled and undirected, quite possibly leading to many, if not all, the varying forms of life (or at least fauna, as opposed to flora) on this planet. So I'd agree with you on this point. On the idea of humanity being, as it were, the descendants of shoggoths through one or several branches of that development... well, that, too, can be supported by the novel. However, this is where I would argue that this is part of why the shoggoths were so terrifying a symbol, and this ties in with that "fear of the viscous" in Lovecraft -- the "undifferentiated primal ooze", as it were. It is taking Arthur Jermyn's recognition even further, back to the origins of life... something which Lovecraft (at least fictionally; in his real-life views this is a much more arguable point) saw as threatening because it represented a possible backtracking on the course of evolution... a concept shared with Arthur Machen's "The Great God Pan", "The Novel of the White Powder", and "The Novel of the Black Seal". This, I would say, is a good part of the reason he used the quote he did from Machen for the motto of "The Horror at Red Hook". It was a theme central to Lovecraft, and was also related to his views on race and breeding (which he sometimes compared -- perhaps half-whimsically -- to chemical interactions), especially miscegenation.
But before i continue ,you said that lovecraft had stated he didnt believe in the existence of the monsters or deities he used in his work.HE maybe didnt believe in the existence of his mythical monsters -and j.d to be frank with you i heard that too...-but THAT doesnt mean he didnt believe in a pre-ancient world very different than we imagine.AND J.D HE DID BELIEVE THAT .....!!!HE BELIEVED IN THE POSSIBILLITY OF THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH LIFEFORMS NOT THE INTELLIGENT MALEVOLENT ENTITIES As HE DESCRIBED THEM IN HIS WORK .....SUCH AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION J.D.if lovecraft didnt believe that than simply nobody else could ever....!!
...the shoggoth i say again symbolises the loosesness of the evolution ,the fact that everything was permitted in the millions of aeons past in a genomic level.if it pleases you then call it a "GENOMIC CHAOS" ,WHERE STRICT RULES OF EVOLUTION DONT APPLY.!!!simply put "EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE" AND BELIEVE ME LOVECRAFT PASSES THAT FEELING THROUGH ALMOST EACH PART OF HIS WORK......so he believed in that pretty damn surely if you ask me["after strange aeons even DEATH MAY DIE"].
OK as far as if lovecraft wanted to pass that exact shoggoth symbolism through this novelle i cant put my signature on......but how you ,friend j.d ,can you be so sure about the exact opposite?CAN ANYONE BE SURE OF THE EXACT SYMBOLISM OF LOVECRAFT"S WORK?if he does he is a lier
first to himself......more IMPORTANTLY YOU KNOW that lovecraft in his letters signed always like somebody else ,he used many different names and even the content of these letters to his friends ,his cycle were sometimes contradictory.Worthington ,H.P LOVECRAFT LIKED TO PLAY "GAMES" WITH HIS FRIENDS,AND CREATING MYSTERY EVEN IN HIS PERSONAL LIFE..........MANY TIMES SURPRISING EVEN THE MOST RATIONAL OF THEM.That was lovecraft......dont take as granted what he said to his one friend because he immediately changed that the next time.Even during the end of his life lovecraft remained pretty much the same......
This is a debate that has gone on at least since his correspondent William Lumley (himself an occultist) claimed that Lovecraft, Howard, Smith, et al., were in effect "channelling" for the Old Ones... something Lovecraft found more than a little amusing. No, Lovecraft had absolutely no belief in such things. He enjoyed playing with the possibilities as a creative artist, but throughout all of his correspondence his total skepticism on this issue is abundantly clear. This was not something he altered from correspondent to correspondent; it is one of the keystones of his worldview, gone into time and again throughout all his nonfictional writings. As to how I can be so sure about the points I debate with you... because I've studied Lovecraft for the past 3-1/2 decades, reading not only his fiction, but all the published letters I could lay my hands on, as well as the two full biographies, the numerous memoirs by friends, the poetry (even there these topics are dealt with), and now the complete essays (which I am currently reading through -- or, in a fair number of cases, re-reading -- now that they are all available.
No, no one can be 100% sure of the exact symbolism throughout; but a fair amount of it we can, based upon Lovecraft's life and expressed beliefs -- especially where those beliefs are backed up by the observations of those who knew the man. As for Lovecraft creating a sense of mystery... that is very debatable. Some aspects of his life he did avoid discussing (such as his marriage, with those who had not known him during that period), or occasionally -- very, very few times, but occasionally -- "fudging" the facts on an item here and there (such as the reasons he never attended college; it wasn't
just his nervous collapse, but the fact that that collapse prevented him from ever graduating from high school). But one thing we do know for certain: Lovecraft was a rationalist in his worldview, having little patience for genuine beliefs that flew in the face of evidence. The one area where he fell down on this was that of race; yet even there he became slightly less dogmatic as the years advanced and he was exposed to different views and contrary evidence. While never letting go of those views, they were modified to some extent.
As for the hexadactyly... I said it was a minor mutation, which it is. It is not an example of speciation or even sub-speciation. It is an individual mutation. That such a condition has or can have aspects which are contra-survival does not alter the fact that the condition itself is a comparatively insignificant one in the overall range of human development; so is haemophilia, albinism, or many another condition which carries with it harmful effects. To the individual and their family it is vastly important; in the overall scheme of things... very negligible.
As for the analogy with the "fall" of the Roman empire... I wouldn't be too hasty to dismiss that, especially as grounds for it is given in the novel itself, with the mention of how Constantine had the older works looted and used in place of his contemporaries', because of the decay in quality... and the shoggoths can easily be seen as a fictional analog to the goths overwhelming the city. Besides, with his passion for Rome, such an analogy would almost certainly be on his mind at that point -- and would also make sense with his cylical view of the rise and fall of nations or cultures. His transference of his allegiance (if that is the proper word) to the Teuton (and, more specifically, the Anglo-Saxon) is dated at the rise of the Britons, not until the "grandeur that was Rome" (to use Poe's phrase) was undeniably a thing of the past....
)
