lovecraft and the shoggoth

[kaelcarp]

nigourath,

Sorry for being slightly off-topic, but it would be great if you could organize your posts into separated paragraphs or something more legible. I was initially interested in following this topic, but it's killing my eyes. I haven't been able to make it through the posts.

 

[j d worthington]

I'm afraid I have to agree with kaelcarp on this. Some white space to break up the paragraphs here would be much easier on the eyes and facilitate reading....

Now... once again, you keep using the term "linear Darwinian theory"... but the only places I see this used are sites arguing against evolution (and especially the "classical" Darwinian model); nowhere do I see it being used by any biologists, evolutionary or otherwise, nor any other scientific discipline. Nor does the term "linear" fit under any definition of which I am aware -- including its mathematical application; and in any other use of the term, it implies a simplistic chain (to use your phrase) rather than a very convoluted branching and intertwining, creating -- as I said in my earlier posts -- a proliferation that is almost a tangle. There is no linear evolutionary development; too many variables enter into the picture for it to be so simplistic. The only way I can figure this classification to be at all helpful is in certain very limited applications when looking at details, rather than evolution as a whole.

YES TRUE ENOUGH.YOU POINT OUT THAT THE PREDATOR CANT LIVE WITHOUT PREY.YES,NO WORRIES.....THATS HOW THE FOOD CHAIN WORKS(BY THE WAY,DO YOU SEE J.D.WORTHINGTON HOW YOU REACHED TO THE WORD "CHAIN".........ALL BY YOURSELF??).

Ummm... nowhere in my statements did I use the word "chain", nor even hint at it. Interrelationships between different species may be seen as a chain, but -- again -- this is a rather simplistic view of a much, much more complex matter.

NOW TO REALLY CLARIFY THIS:THE DARWINIAN NATURAL SELECTIVISM--THAT YOU CLEARLY ADOPT AS YOUR POINT OF VIEW----CLAIMS THAT THE PREDATOR EXIST AS A BURDEN OVER HIS PREY

This is your interpretation of my statements, not mine. No, I don't think that the predator exists as a burden over his prey; even predators and their prey do not perpetually (without cessation) act this way; look at the social interactions many develop around water-holes and the like. Again, it's an incredibly complex dynamic, not to be reduced to such a simple argument.

BUT WHAT IF A PREY DISSAPEARS ITSELF OUT OF THE GREED OF HIS PREDATOR??OR OVERPOPULATES AS A BURDEN OVER OTHER ONES??A FOOD CHAIN REQUIRES THE EXISTENCE OF PLANT LIFE AND HERBIVORE ANIMALS....WHAT IF SOMETHING DESTROYS THE PLANT LIFE?

I'm not sure where what you're positing here argues in the least against either Darwin or my own statements. If a carnivore "overpredates", so to speak, then that carnivore itself becomes extinct. It's a balance that is maintained. When it gets out of balance, then those concerned cease to be a part of the ecosystem (save as they provide nourishment for bacteria, etc. as they decay), whether this be carnivore or herbivore. Ditto for those events which wipe out plant life at the base of the pyramid, whether this be a meteor striking the planet and causing a "nuclear winter", or some plant virus, or overgrazing, etc., etc., etc. Again, all this is a part of the Darwinian concept of adaptation to an environment... filling an environmental niche and being able to adapt and change as the requirements of that environment changes, either subtly or radically.

THE FOOD CHAIN GETTING LIMITED ,BRINGS THE WHOLE DARWINIAN CONCEPT TO INVALIDATE ITSELF.WHY???cause ...the darwinian selectivism is only a small part OF WHAT EVOLUTION REALLY IS.....I WILL NEVER AGREE WITH AN OPINION THAT STATES THAT THE FACT THAT SPECIES HAVE ALREADY DISSAPEARED IN EXAMBLE IN THE AMAZON BECAUSE OF HUMAN GREED and INTRUSION IS IN FACT A MECHANISM OF NATURAL SELECTION......................!!I SIMPLY WONT...!!AND BELIEVE ME J.D THERE ARE MORE WHO AGREE WITH ME.....!!

And here, I would say, is where we hit the crux of the problem. You refuse to accept the evidence because it goes against what you want to believe. I'm sorry, but that is not a basis for any valid view on such matters. It a personal belief, not developed based upon the facts and the conclusions to which they lead, but rather upon a preference for believing -- at least, this is all I can gather from all of your posts -- that evolution has some sort of purpose... which it manifestly does not. Evolution is a blind process. Certain elements within the process may be self-aware enough to pick and choose (to a limited degree -- truly free choice simply doesn't exist; it's a philosophical concept that invalidates itself in the end) which actions to take, and therefore mold outcomes to a limited extent... but the overall process is completely mechanistic. I have no doubt there are plenty who would agree with you... but, again, until some sound evidence is presented to argue against the concept, this is a preference, not a scientifically valid view.

YOU ARE WRONG IF YOU INSIST THAT RANDOM EVENTS ARE BEIING CONSIDERED AND ARE PART OF THE EVOLUTION THEORY .....WHY J.D?CAUSE SIMPLY IT CANT FULLY UNDERSTAND THEM AND EVALUATE THEM....!!THE DINOSAURS DISSAPEARED AS OF WHAT,THE ICE AGE OR A COMET CRUSHING DOWN ...OR SOMETHING ELSE ??SOME BIOLOGISTS SAY THEY WERE DESTROYED BY INSECTS OF THAT PERIOD??WHAT IS REAL AND WHAT IS NOT WORTHINGTON ....??HOW CAN YOU SAY THIS IS PART OF DARWINIAN THEORY??SINCE WE DONT KNOW DAMN NOTHING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED??

For one thing, we do know considerable about this; and our knowledge comes from not one scientific discipline, but the interaction and debate (leading to a refinement of models) of many: paleontology, geology, plate techtonics, evolutionary biology, medical biology, genetics, cosmology, physics.... And I don't know of any scientist who ever claimed (at least, not for more than a century) that the dinosaurs disappeared because of the Ice Age... considering that they were (as dinosaurs) gone for nearly 160 million years before the Ice Age even occurred. The preponderance of evidence still points to at least an impact -- possibly several -- by a celestial body, causing enough matter to be dispersed into the air to cause the so-called "nuclear winter", leading to the severe limiting or even extinction of many plant species, as well as various other effects... not to mention the sheer energy released in such an impact -- something to make nearly all nuclear explosions since look like a watered-down popgun. And geology strongly backs this claim, as well.

I KNOW WHY ...BECAUSE YOU SAY SO !!BUT THATS NOT SO LOVECRAFTIAN NOW ...IS IT???[/quote]

This one simply seems like a personal attack, and adds little or nothing to the discussion. And the "Lovecraftian" reference here is simply puzzling....

ITS LIKE SOME DOCTORS IN A HOSPITAL TREATING A DISEASE THEY DONT HAVE A CLUE ABOUT AND TRYING BLINDLY TO CURE IT -----AND THAT HAPPENS TOO SOMETIMES.IF IN CASE MANAGE TO CURE IT SOME OF THEM SAY THEY KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT THE DISEASE AND THEY CLASSIFY IT .....AND LATER YEARS HAVE PROVED THEM WRONG AGAIN AND AGAIN....TRY PANCREATITIS FOR INSTANCE.....

Again, using this analogy, you seem to be pointing toward some sort of teleology involved in evolution -- something which is simply not even loosely the case. And it was you who apply the term teleological to Darwinian evolution; something I would say is completely off-beam.

ANOTHER MISTAKE YOU MADE IS THIS:
DINOSAURS WERENT EXTINCT BUT SIMPLY TRANSFORMED THROUGH NATURAL SELECTION TO BEASTS OF TODAY LIKE CROCODILES YOU MIGHT SAY.NO ,......WORTHINGTON READ ANY BOOK YOU WANT AND PLEASE DONT WRITE YOUR OWN .......LISTEN CLOSELY...:THEY WERE ERADICATED FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH...SOME BELIEVED THEY LIVED A TRACE THROUGH THEIR GENE POOL SOME BIOLOGISTS SAY THAT TODAYS REPTILES DIDNT EVOLVE FROM DINOSAURS BUT FROM OTHER ANCESTORS......(CROCODILES WERE ALIVE AT THE SAME TIME WITH DINOSAURS ,BUT YOU DIDNT KNOW THAT DID YOU...?)

Again, I never said that today's reptiles evolved from the dinosaurs. I said that some dinosaurs, from the evidence, apparently evolved into our modern birds. Though I've seen one reputable paleontologist question this, so far this is very much in the minority -- the consensus still support such a connection. And yes, I know that crocodiles date back to that era (or quite close to); they're among the oldest species on the planet. Again, try to avoid personal slurs and attacks... and putting words in another's mouth. Such tactics do not add anything useful to a conversation.

SO I THINK I HAVE PROVEN TO YOU THE TERRIBLE REALITY THAT THE SHOGGOTH....IS.

I'm sorry, but I have yet to see any "proof" of anything of the kind. I haven't even seen a particularly coherent -- let alone cogent -- argument on this yet, and this is what I'm most interested in, as the idea you initially expressed could be a truly fascinating take on the matter. But so far I feel that you've argued all around this one but never truly addressed it, and certainly not clarified anything on the matter. I'm not even sure you've made any points yet to clarify. So, again, I would ask you to be clear on what you see the shoggoth representing, how you see this as genuinely valid, and then presenting your evidence on this one, not only based upon any science involved, but also from Lovecraft's text -- the ultimate source, of course, for any correlation of the two being citations from the text which support your contention.

I AM PASSING TO THE NEXT MATTER SINCE I WONT RETURN TO THIS ONE.....OH ,AND ONE LAST THING THAT SOMEHOW ANGERED ME A LITTLE ALTHOUGH I BELIEVE YOU DIDNT MEAN WRONG SAYIN IT.......:THE JEW GENOSIDE FROM THE NAZI"S ALTHOUGH VILE AS YOU SAID ,TO YOU WAS A PART OF NATURAL SELECTION......WHAT CAN I SAY J.D???IN THE SAME MANNER TO YOU IT WAS NATURAL SELECTION THE GENOCIDE OF THE ARMENIANS -1.500.000 IN FACT- FROM THE TURKS IN 1915,OR THE SAME WITH THE METHODICATED EXTERMINATIONS FROM THE INDIANS BY THE AMERICANS IN THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY......WELL,LISTEN UP CLOSELY J.D:IT WAS NOT NATURAL SELECTION.!!!!!!IT WAS NOT THE HAND OF GOD!!!THESE WERE METHODICATED ACTS OF EXTERMINATION OF THE POLULACE ....THEY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST....ABSOLUTELY .TOTALLY NOTHING.....IT WAS IDEOLOGICAL OR RELIGIOUS MURDER....OR ETHNIC CLEANSING.NOT ABOUT WHO BEST SURVIVES IN AN ENVIRONMENT.....NOT ABOUT WHOSE GEEN POOL WAS BETTER BUT OUT OF ANY NATURE AND OF ANY THEORY ,SENSELESS HATE AND MURDER.YOU ARE WRONG AND I AM SURE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FORUM CAN PLAINLY SEE THIS,GO ASK THEM IF YOU WANT........BUT REMEMBER YOU ARE WRONG EVEN IF YOU DONT....

Again, what I see here is an emotional knee-jerk reaction to a statement that you are completely misinterpreting. As I tried to clarify later, this is a part of natural selection in the larger picture -- wherein the entire human race is no more nor less important than any other species, because no species is truly important to a blind, mechanistic universe without consciousness or teleology or purpose. It was this that I was explaining, and how it related to Lovecraft's "cosmic" views in his fiction, and I hope that my last post made that one clear. Yes, I, too, condemn such actions, because I am a human being and see such as the vilest aspect of our nature. Such actions are also, I feel, counterproductive to the species. They narrow down our possibilities -- they tend toward putting our eggs all in one basket, if you will. Enlarging, not circumscribing, our possibilities is the likeliest route to survival for humanity as a whole. BUT... like it or not, in the cosmic picture... it is part of the natural process because it cannot, by its existence within the natural, physical universe, transcend that process. It is directed, rather than directionless, in an immediate sense... but even in the history of the human race itself, it may be that it is more of a blind process than we are willing to concede. (A very disturbing thought, but some recent research indicates this may, unfortunately, be the case.)

As for the "hand of God" comment... again, I see us coming back to teleology. I'm an atheist. I have no belief in a god of any sort. I also see no evidence there is a guiding principle at work with evolution. So all the rest of the hyperbole and vitriol you used there was both unnecessary and about as wide of the mark as it is possible to be. I would urge you to read my posts more carefully in future, rather than putting words in my mouth (or concepts in my mind.

 

[j d worthington]

2)LOVECRAFT EMBRACED SOME PARTS OF DARWINIAN THEORY THATS TRUE ...AND I DIDNT SAY IT WAS ALL WRONG MYSELF.THE DARWINIAN MECHANISMS DO EXIST BUT IN MY OPINION ARE INSIGNIFICANT TO THE TOTAL RADOMNESS OF EVOLUTION.BUT HE NEVER SAID THAT IT WAS ALL OF IT RIGHT :I REMEMBER ONE OF HIS STATEMENTS EARLY ON THAT THERE IS NO REAL PURPOSE OR GOAL IN HUMANITY"S EFFORTS TODAY,NO UTTER GOAL IN ALL OF THIS PROGRESS AROUND US.SO I DONT BELIEVE THAT THE DARWINIAN TELEOLOGIC POINT OF VIEW REALLY ATTRACTED HIM AS YOU EMPHATICALLY POINT OUT.[/quote

And here is where you use the word "teleological" in connection to Darwin. It may be applied to classical Darwinism, but I rather doubt it. (It might interest you to know that Darwin's hint of any sort of "designer" didn't appear until a later edition of his book, apparently as a result of feedback on the earlier ones. There is serious reason to doubt Darwin himself, at that point, had any sort of teleological ideas in mind.

As for Lovecraft's views on Darwin and evolution, I would urge you to read te "In Defence of Dagon" essays mentioned above, especially his replies to one Mr. Wickenden on this aspect of things. You can find these in both Miscellaneous Writings and Collected Essays, vol. 5. I will quote one brief passage on the subject, following a member of the Circulator putting forth G. K. Chesterton as a leading philosophical thinker:

Chesterton is hard to take seriously in the field of science. by manipulating the evidence -- playing up trifles and miimising important facts - one may ake a vey brilliant case; but when a man soberly tries to dismiss the resultsof Darwin we need not give him too much of our valuable time. The exact details of organic progress as described in "The Origin of Species" and "The Descent of Man" may admit of correction or amplification; but to attack the essential priniple, which lone is of universl importance, is pathetic.

(from Collected Essays 5, p. 52)

FURTHERMORE I PROPOSE YOU THIS LINK AND ALL OF THE OTHER FORUMS MEMBERS :
A SITE THAT I TOTALLY AGREE WITH ITS PERSPECTIVE ON THE MATTER.FROM THIS SITE AN IMPORTANT ABSTRACT:"
Before Lovecraft, horror tales typically dealt with the familiar monsters of myth and legend; vampires, werewolves, ghosts, witches, and suchlike. These monsters were bugaboos, night terrors, superstitions which could be vanquished by sunlight and science. (Dracula, in the end, doesn't stand a chance against Dr. Van Helsing). Lovecraft's vision is far more frightening. His monsters are not anomalies to be swept aside by modern learning, but rather the logical conclusion of our scientific studies. Einstein and Darwin make Satan and Jehovah irrelevant, but make Cthulhu and Yog-Sothoth unnervingly plausible. In an age when science and technology were seen as keys to Utopia, Lovecraft saw the dark side of our scientific worldview. These concerns appear right on target in our post-war, post-nuclear era and ensure Lovecraft's continuing appeal."

This is something I'm particularly interested in: which site was this? As for the above quotation it is either a direct quote or a very close paraphrase of part of Fritz Leiber's essay "A Literary Copernicus" (I'd have to dig out my copy of the essay to make sure which). And I see nothing exceptionable in any of it, nor in your second quote. However:

AND FINALLY "was only because of the relative insignificance of mankind that we had evaded destruction so far; but these creatures had recently turned their attention to our world once again, and were beckoning their patient servants to prepare for their apocalyptic return. The result was the disintegration of society and morality, as the telepathic and genetic influence of the Great Old Ones made humanity more like them."

That is very open to question. The entire idea that they had "recently turned their attntion to our world once again", for instance, is hardly supported by the stories as a whole, as is the "beckoning to their patient servants" bit. The closest we come to this would be "The Call of Cthulhu" and "The Dunwich Horror"... in the first of which Cthulhu himself had been imprisoned by chance by the sinking of R'lyeh for millions of years. His goal was release from this imprisonment, and he was using susceptible human minds to that end. Other than that, all the rest is entirely an overlay by human mystical societies assigning motivations of their own design (note the way these motivations once again make humanity central rather than, at best, peripheral to the purposes of the universe) to this (or these) cosmic being(s). In the latter, it is true that Yog-Sothoth is apparently creating (through Wilbur's twin) a gateway to "take the earth" out of its natural place... but, again, we are given all that information through the distorted lens of human interpretation. Even Wilbur himself is at least partially human, and he is the closest we get to actually seeing the motivation of these alien beings. (The majority of information we get on them is from Alhazred, hardly a reliable source for understanding such creatures given the time and place from which he came.)

In all other instances, any such alien beings' motivation are left very open to interpretation, from Nyarlathotep's in "The Dreams in the Witch House" to those of his avatar in "The Haunter of the Dark", or are (again) assigned to them by the narrator or others. In any event, the idea that we (or the earth) have suddenly become important to them finds little support from the events of the tales themselves, only from the human perspective of those interpreting the actions of whatever beings with whom they may happen to come in contact.

 

[j d worthington]

IN THE SAME SITE IT IS REFERENCED THAT LOVECRAFT FEARED FOR HIS OWN SANITY CAUSE OF HIS FAMILY HISTORY WITH MENTAL INSTABILITY.A MAN NOT SURE FOR HIS OWN SANITY FOR HIS OWN SELF ,HOW CAN HE BE TOTALLY CERTAIN FOR WHAT HE IS ARGUING THE ONE OR THE NEXT TIME.YET AT LIFE AS I SAID HE WAS CONTRADICTORY AND THAT EXPLAINS WHY.

And, again, this is interpretation. Nowhere in Lovecraft's work or the statements of those who knew him do we get the impression that this is at all true. Lovecraft was about the most certain person I've ever encountered, either personally or in writing. He may have had concerns of this nature, but all the evidence points to the idea that, if such existed, they were not acknowledged consciously. If anything, Lovecraft was prone to seeing his as the rational and sane view, rather than the reverse.

FINALLY IT WAS WISE FROM YOU J.D,NOT TO COMMENT HIS EVERYDAY REALITIES AND THE EXAMBLE WITH SONIA GREEN PROVES PRETTY MUCH THE CONSTANT SCEPTICISM AND CHANGES IN HIS VIEWS THAT LOVECRAFT WENT THROUGH HIS LIFE.FROM THE SAME SITE:"
The dark side of Lovecraft's preoccupations with this tainting theme, is that he was a complete bigot for most of his life. He considered non-whites to be degenerate, considered Jews to be supersitious throwbacks, and people of African descent to be a completely different (and less evolved) species. The occasional appearances of European immigrants in his stories are hideous caricatures, while the merest suggestion of anything Asian or African is practically that of the demonic. As he grew older, he became largely disenchanted with antisemitism, married a Jewish woman (Sonia Greene), and adopted a young Jewish writer as his primary protegé— Robert Bloch, the eventual author of Psycho."

They forgot about Kenneth Sterling, also a Jew. As for my being "wise" to not comment... what on earth are you referring to? I've already addressed his racial views and how the fact that Lovecraft had the relationships he did with those of Jewish background fits in precisely with what I noted before: that he had these prejudices against a people or culture in the abstract, but when exposed to individuals he was open to them as individuals, and those he accepted were "assimilated" ethnics, not holding to their cultural roots. They became, in Joshi's phrase, "honorary Anglo-Saxons". This can be seen by the fact that Lovecraft continued to express virulent anti-Semitic prejudices in his letters, in comments to his wife, and in essays; as well as the fact that he had trouble reconciling his views on Jews with the contradictions of those views he encountered via people like Samuel Loveman. He never truly grew disenchanted with anti-Semitism, expressing it in somewhat modified but still quite virulent terms throughout his life. He became slightly less hateful where blacks an Australian aborigines were concerned, but only very slightly. Again, this shows no inconsistency -- quite the opposite -- and it certainly doesn't show any tendency to create mysteries concerning his life, and is light-years from indicating any sort of inclination to any form of mysticism. Lovecraft prided himself on his scientific rationalism (quite justly, in most cases; race beng the main exception), having scant use for any form of superstition or mysticism that flew in the face of scientific evidence. Except with correspondents who had fallen prey to such (these he tried to argue out of such beliefs more gently), his usual practice with such was unmitigated scorn and ridicule; and he had no qualms about how viciously he lampooned any belief, no matter how hallowed or attractive it might be, if it contradicted the probabilities pointed to by science.

 

[j d worthington]

Sorry for the multiple posts, but I've had to make them with the machine shutting down combined with work schedule. At any rate... I think I've got a bit closer to understanding you on a couple of things in the interim; and at least a part of the misunderstanding lies in use of terms in particular contexts. Your use of "linear" when speaking of evolution in general (rather than within specific species) is what threw me there. Yes, within a specific species, there is an argument for linearity, granted (though this, too, is questionable; see Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution). But the way your earlier posts were phrased, it sounded (to me, at any rate) as if you were positing a linearity to evolution itself -- that is, a progression from the basic protoplasm to (for example) modern man. In other words, a "goal" toward which evolution was progressing being the model that was being put forth; as far as I can tell, such is not the case. But within a species, there is a "linear progression" in the sense of descent from one subset to another, whether slightly or (in the case of periodic "leaps") more radically "advanced". (Though I would still argue that an awful lot in your posts argues that such a teleology -- perhaps even a conscious one? -- is a strong component of the view of evolution in general you put forth.)

The other point is that of (again) addressing genocide as "part of the natural order" and connected to "survival of the fittest". Here, I would say the focus is too narrow. Once again, you seem to be talking about evolution within the human species only, whereas I am speaking of evolution in general. When I note this as a part of that "survival of the fittest", I am not referring to one subset of humanity being more "fit" than another; that is, once again, an aspect of so-called "Social Darwinism". I am referring to the possibility that humanity may not be "fit" to survive; and such actions are a part of proving whether or not we are. Ultimately, the only thing which says a species is among the fittest to survive is its survival. Evolution has no morals, no ethics, save as they are a byproduct of the mechanism within a species. And on that head, I would argue that genocide is contrasurvival for the human species; and that is what I mean by it being a part of the natural order, part of our evolutionary process -- such actions may well be the deciding factor in our not surviving, because we, as a species, had too self-desctructive a streak.

However, most of this has little to do with Lovecraft, save that the indications are that he was very much a supporter of Darwinian evolution. But -- for better or worse -- I may be a little closer to understanding your phrasing in your posts, and this may help to rectify further misunderstandings of this sort.

 

[Pyan]

Evolution has no morals, no ethics, save as they are a byproduct of the mechanism within a species.

And given that, everything that a species does or does not do is part of the evolution of that species, regardless of the "moral" aspect of the action. Repugnant though the idea of genocide is, if H.sapiens is committing such acts, they are contributing to the overall evolutionary future of our species.

But I'm afraid you've lost me in any applicability to the original subject of the thread.....

 

[nigourath]

ok.i heard everything you have to say.at least at one thing you are right:my posts are hard to read so i am stopping capitals and start using more paragraphs.
i have read with great attention what you had to say still i feel you are still -and other forum members- a little confused about the essence of my posts.maybe its my fault...i dont know ,but i pretty much thought i was sufficiently explainatory.i got the impression that the only thing that got through right to you and the rest of the forum is that i dont consider natural selection -and i dont-massive methodicated exterminations of any kind of populace....not only human.so since we are closer on that understanding i am going to start on that.
before doing so ,i must say that i dont understand your comment on returning on the evolution theme again and again,since you and others here report in their posts that they cant understand many of my remarks and they cant follow my thinking rythm or something like that...dont forget that the title of the thread is"lovecraft and the shoggoth" and since i giive evolutional significance to the term of shoggoth,at the time i post in this thread i cant really avoid that......the site that you asked me and couldnt post its link-due to the 15post restriction-is this:nycgoth
as far as genocidal acts ,and methodicated exterminations are concerned:i never aproached this with any morality-concerning intention.......where did you see this .j.d??i am not and never have been either an ethicologist or church spokesman for that matter....!!believe it my emotional reaction wasnt as vivid as you supposed in your reply yet it was a disturbance on the matter and i will prove you why....!!!
furthermore i agree that there are no moral aspects or ethics as the evolution process is concerned and never hinted any....i spoke about hatred without sense ......something basically different .so pretty much once more YOU MISUNTERSTOUND.plz dont use words and meanings that i never did...ok??now you called morals and ethics a byproduct and at this matter i have to observe by my side one thing :unfortunately its not a byproduct but more like an energy fuel reactor.....unfortunately as i say,so dont twist my words again....now this is the whole fighting point,j.d:you claim that the all events unconscious,or conscious fit in the term evolution process and since more or less they counteract one with each other in our great ecosystem that we call earth they inevitably change the future of any species and as such are an inextricable inevitable part of evolution.the survival of a species proves that it was the fittest or not.did i got this right j.d.worthington? i think i did,but please i ask of you to get right what i have to say as well,since i dont like to repeat myself :
it is ,j.d,my confident belief that since reason or consciousness came and played part on the evolutionary process-dont confuse them again with ethics plz.....thank you!--they caused a disturbance in it and they finally disrupted it.....evolution backfired when consciouness came to the center of things.natural evolution-selection is contra-opposed to the evolution of sentient beings like apes or especially humans.simply put j.d they do not fit in the same scheme!!there are 2 different parallel evolutionary paths:1)that of the sentient being primarily man 2)that of the insentient being :all other unconscious-i use your own word since i found it very appropriate-lifeforms.so evolution broke in 2 parts :the unconscious one and the conscious one.......to me they are at a constant CONFLICT!!EXPLAINING THIS:man when found a way to manipulate other animals for his benefit like pigs or horses or chickens he imposed his own rules on nature mechanisms,transcended over natures classical laws survival by manipulating nature's mechanisms thus became a god on an unconscious environment!!simply put natural selection and evolutionary polymorfism was reversed under his catalytic mind influece.his existence now couldnt anymore be DETERMINED by any nature or evolution mechanism.on the contrary he started to determine evolution himself ,deceiding who or what is going to live and exist taking nature"s place although he didnt understand the self-destructive influence that this had on him.REMEMBER that when the shoggoth went sentient in the novel they rebeled and eliminated their supervisor force, at the time, the elder ones.....!! pretty much the humans did do .,.....they rebeled against natural laws and learned to manipulate them .,and as a result they canceled the nature"s capacity for self-evolution.they even in our age started out genetical experiments .......creating ways of redefining life and even creating new species.species that accomodate the human way of living,the human existence.NEVERTHELESS,this remains in the overall cosmos a very insignificant happening and at the same time humanity"s self-destructive urge indicate mans incapacity to play the god role,insufficient in an insignificant little cosmos,as the earth stands ,a being with a very limited understanding of his own actions.......
in my "book",humanity and especially its senseless urge for hatred and massive extermination of not only humans and every species that stand in the way of its dominion is NOT part of the natural selection as many of you FALSELY believe but in reality part of the BEASTLY CONCEPT ,CALLED SHOGGOTH.shoggoth is a much wider term than what we call today evolution or modern evolutionary theory.it reflected once evolution now it doesnt since TRUE EVOLUTION has stopped happening as i said in one of my first posts due to extreme differentiation of species and the counter-action as i said now of the sentient beings upon it.so nobody can say that genocide is a par of natural selection because its the exact thing that is killing natural selection the exact thing that STOPS evolution.A NUCLEAR BOMB would cease any evolutionary path on our insignificant world ,most lifeforms destroyed and then maybe TRUE EVOLUTION WOULD START AGAIN.

ok,this is one part of my replies to j.d and to the other members of the forum.i never intented to insult anyone"s personality since i believe that only the best could communicate in an excellent forum like this one!BUT plz leave me a place for my own speculations -which i never stated that they were concrete proof-but neither should any of you claim the same.SINCE most of you including you j.d worthington are doing exactly that:SPECULATE still based on speculations of others.even fromthe letters and essays of lovecraft you can only speculate ,i am sorry you cant see this .....but i tell you things as they are.in any rate you were never in lovecraft"s mind ,and you certainly are not lovecraft -that goes for me as well.if you were in lovecraft"s mind you would probably go insane ..........nobody can define this guy ,he was a lot more then we can say about him....sry ,i hope you can see the truth in this and this goes for anyone that tries to make a film about him......i will return shortly to answer to the rest of your posts......

 

[j d worthington]

I see we ended up with triple posts on this one... I'm wondering if you had the same trouble I had yesterday, with posts not being accepted, and then showing up in multiples..... (which would mean the system is being puckish again....)

I'd agree that there's been some serious miscommunication here; as for where it comes in... I think it may be in part the crunching together of various subjects in a way that doesn't allow any of them full room to be expressed clearly; a sort of hopping from one element to another without transitions, which makes it difficult to follow (when reading) what may be perfectly clear to you yourself. On that, you may want to do a preview of your posts, and go over them with a somewhat critical eye, to see how well they may express to others what you intend. This is intended as a simple friendly suggestion to aid with communication, nothing more.

i got the impression that the only thing that got through right to you and the rest of the forum is that i dont consider natural selection -and i dont-massive methodicated exterminations of any kind of populace....not only human.so since we are closer on that understanding i am going to start on that.

I just want to be clear on this one, make sure I understand you. What I'm getting from this statement is that mass extinctions that are directed consciously are not, to you, a part of the evolutionary process. Am I correct in this reading?

before doing so ,i must say that i dont understand your comment on returning on the evolution theme again and again,since you and others here report in their posts that they cant understand many of my remarks and they cant follow my thinking rythm or something like that...dont forget that the title of the thread is"lovecraft and the shoggoth" and since i giive evolutional significance to the term of shoggoth,at the time i post in this thread i cant really avoid that......the site that you asked me and couldnt post its link-due to the 15post restriction-is this:nycgoth

Here I'm rather confused on what you're saying. The reason, for instance, that I returned to the subject of evolution was to clarify my position in response to the model you were setting forth, both as regards my understanding of the subject from various sources scientifically and otherwise, and especially in regard to setting the foundation on discussing what evolution (and the importance of the symbolism of the shoggoth where evolution is concerned) meant to Lovecraft -- therefore what he may have had in mind with the shoggoth on symbolic levels.

I'm still quite vague on what the shoggoth means to you on this level, but as you address that more below, I'll address that there. In the meantime, thanks for the infomation on the site; I'll have to find some time to go look it up (today isn't working out the way I'd planned, so I may not have a chance to look at it until sometime later in the week... something that's been happening far too frequently the last few weeks with me....)

as far as genocidal acts ,and methodicated exterminations are concerned:i never aproached this with any morality-concerning intention.......where did you see this .j.d??i am not and never have been either an ethicologist or church spokesman for that matter....!!believe it my emotional reaction wasnt as vivid as you supposed in your reply yet it was a disturbance on the matter and i will prove you why....!!!

Again, I'm a little confused about some of what you're saying here. The reason I brought up the morality aspect is that your phrasing and tone in your reaction (not to mention your stating that my original comment made you angry) shows a strong emotional stance on this issue -- and that's not something I take any issue with, by the way; having known people who went through both sides of the Nazi society and the camps, I have strong emotional reactions to the subject myself in most respects. This remains one of the most horrific and ghastly pages in human history, and will remain a blot on our record as a species for as long as we continue to survive.

As for how strong your emotional reaction was, or whether you approached it with any sort of ethical stance... I'd suggest you try rereading your post. It was very loaded with such. Again, not criticizing you for your reaction to the subject; but explaining why I picked up on that in my response. My admonishment in that response was to put the subject in perspective from that larger, cosmic view which Lovecraft espoused his entire life (well, at least since he was in his early teens), in which (to use his phrasing) "Our human race is only a trivial incident in the history of creation. It is of no more importance in the annals of eternity and infinity than is the child's snow-man in the annals of terrestrial tribes and nations" (Selected Letters I, p. 24). From such a perspective, anything we do (or any other species does), is a part of the "Petrie-dish environment" of evolution. It is a part of that blind process outside of which we cannot truly step -- certainly not as a species, and nor as any nation or culture; both of which do tend to follow unconscious (therefore largely blind) impulses in their actions more often than not. I hope this helps clarify my response.

now you called morals and ethics a byproduct and at this matter i have to observe by my side one thing :unfortunately its not a byproduct but more like an energy fuel reactor.....unfortunately as i say,so dont twist my words again....

I had no intention of twisting your words; I was simply trying to understand and respond to what I read there. If I misunderstood, I apologize; but I was attempting to read it carefully and respond accordingly. Now... as for the "energy fuel reactor"... that's an interesting analogy. I'm not sure I quite understand you there, but it's an intriguing take on it. Without meaning to take things further off-topic, if you could explain just a bit, so I understand you clearly, it may help to keep us "on the same page" as far as each other's terms are concerned....

now this is the whole fighting point,j.d:you claim that the all events unconscious,or conscious fit in the term evolution process and since more or less they counteract one with each other in our great ecosystem that we call earth they inevitably change the future of any species and as such are an inextricable inevitable part of evolution.the survival of a species proves that it was the fittest or not.did i got this right j.d.worthington? i think i did,but please i ask of you to get right what i have to say as well,since i dont like to repeat myself:

In essence (if I'm understanding you here) yes, that's more or less my contention. That, from the greater perspective outside the human sphere, anything that happens within the history of a species is a part of its evolutionary path; the impact of that species' actions on the environment around it is part of the larger evolutionary realm, and so on.

it is ,j.d,my confident belief that since reason or consciousness came and played part on the evolutionary process-dont confuse them again with ethics plz.....thank you!--they caused a disturbance in it and they finally disrupted it.....evolution backfired when consciouness came to the center of things.natural evolution-selection is contra-opposed to the evolution of sentient beings like apes or especially humans.simply put j.d they do not fit in the same scheme!!there are 2 different parallel evolutionary paths:1)that of the sentient being primarily man 2)that of the insentient being :all other unconscious-i use your own word since i found it very appropriate-lifeforms.so evolution broke in 2 parts :the unconscious one and the conscious one.......to me they are at a constant CONFLICT!!EXPLAINING THIS:man when found a way to manipulate other animals for his benefit like pigs or horses or chickens he imposed his own rules on nature mechanisms,transcended over natures classical laws survival by manipulating nature's mechanisms thus became a god on an unconscious environment!!simply put natural selection and evolutionary polymorfism was reversed under his catalytic mind influece.his existence now couldnt anymore be DETERMINED by any nature or evolution mechanism.on the contrary he started to determine evolution himself ,deceiding who or what is going to live and exist taking nature"s place although he didnt understand the self-destructive influence that this had on him.

Here's where we part company in interpretation of evolution -- and it is a debate that has periodically broken out in the scientific community, as well, though it has usually come out with the idea that this intelligence (or extremely complicated self-awareness, as we are learning that quite a few species are not only sentient but have a lot more self-awareness and conscious planning on various levels than we'd ever realized) is a part of the larger evolutionary process. But... you see it differently, and that's where a large part of the miscommunication came in, I think: we interpret the definition of evolution differently on this point.

REMEMBER that when the shoggoth went sentient in the novel they rebeled and eliminated their supervisor force, at the time, the elder ones.....!! pretty much the humans did do .,.....they rebeled against natural laws and learned to manipulate them .,and as a result they canceled the nature"s capacity for self-evolution.they even in our age started out genetical experiments .......creating ways of redefining life and even creating new species.species that accomodate the human way of living,the human existence.NEVERTHELESS,this remains in the overall cosmos a very insignificant happening and at the same time humanity"s self-destructive urge indicate mans incapacity to play the god role,insufficient in an insignificant little cosmos,as the earth stands ,a being with a very limited understanding of his own actions.......

Now we're getting somewhere! I believe I understand what you're saying here, and while I have some disagreements about the interpretation, it does make sense, and is an interesting take on the idea, definitely worth exploring.

in my "book",humanity and especially its senseless urge for hatred and massive extermination of not only humans and every species that stand in the way of its dominion is NOT part of the natural selection as many of you FALSELY believe

I have to call you on this one. What I'm seeing here, with that "as many of you FALSELY believe", is not only interpreting what others believe or gather from the evidence, but denigrating the value of their own interpretation or understanding of the facts, without providing any evidence to show that theirs is any less accurate than your own. It's fine to try to correct a misapprehension, but in order to do so, you have to do more than make an assertion that someone is wrong; you have to provide evidence to the contrary. Otherwise that is all is can possibly be: an assertion, with no genuine value of itself whatsoever.

but in reality part of the BEASTLY CONCEPT ,CALLED SHOGGOTH.shoggoth is a much wider term than what we call today evolution or modern evolutionary theory.it reflected once evolution now it doesnt since TRUE EVOLUTION has stopped happening as i said in one of my first posts due to extreme differentiation of species and the counter-action as i said now of the sentient beings upon it.

On the TRUE EVOLUTION -- again, this is your interpretation, not supported by either the scientific community or the evidence. In order to convince others that yours is the genuine thing, you must present some valid evidence (and that's going to be one heck of an uphill battle, with the mountains of evidence and accepted models to the contrary), not make an unsupported assertion that your view of evolution is the one and only "TRUE EVOLUTION". I'm sorry, but that really does smack of evangelism (though not necessarily of a recognized religion) rather than anything else.

As for the "due to extreme differentiation of species" -- that's one of the cornerstones of evolution: such differentiation to fill various ecological niches. Otherwise, you have a simplified (and most likely static) state of affairs which would preclude evolution.

so nobody can say that genocide is a par of natural selection because its the exact thing that is killing natural selection the exact thing that STOPS evolution.A NUCLEAR BOMB would cease any evolutionary path on our insignificant world ,most lifeforms destroyed and then maybe TRUE EVOLUTION WOULD START AGAIN.

Again, this is your own interpretation of what evolution is or isn't; and it's not correct even in that. A nuclear bomb -- even nuclear saturation of the entire planet -- would not at all "cease any evolutionary path", because there are species that are (at least, as far as we've been able to tell) darn near immune to such radiation: various insects, for example. It would, if anything, make for even more evolutionary development in the realm of microbes, viruses, bacteria, various forms of plant life (algae, etc.). It might well eliminate anything higher on the taxonomic scale than certain forms of insects, but it would by no means stop evolution.

ok,this is one part of my replies to j.d and to the other members of the forum.i never intented to insult anyone"s personality since i believe that only the best could communicate in an excellent forum like this one!BUT plz leave me a place for my own speculations -which i never stated that they were concrete proof-but neither should any of you claim the same.SINCE most of you including you j.d worthington are doing exactly that:SPECULATE still based on speculations of others.even fromthe letters and essays of lovecraft you can only speculate ,i am sorry you cant see this .....but i tell you things as they are.in any rate you were never in lovecraft"s mind ,and you certainly are not lovecraft -that goes for me as well.if you were in lovecraft"s mind you would probably go insane ..........nobody can define this guy ,he was a lot more then we can say about him....sry ,i hope you can see the truth in this and this goes for anyone that tries to make a film about him......i will return shortly to answer to the rest of your posts......

Believe me, I'm not trying to block your speculations. As I've said repeatedly, the basic idea you introduced is an intriguing one, and I'd like to see it developed and explained. It gives me a new way to look at a subject of which I'm (obviously) very fond. But once again I must insist that, if you're going to argue interpretations, you have to present evidence that supports your claim, else it remains only your own idea, your own emotional reaction to a thing. There's certainly nothing wrong with such, but it may lack authority, and is unlikely to even be conveyed well to others without some form of debate backed by evidence from the sources.

I do not claim to completely understand Lovecraft -- I don't claim to completely understand anyone, myself included. The human mind is too complex to truly be understood consciously at this stage in our existence. But I must completely disagree with you that all speculations or interpretations are of equal value. Those that are backed by evidence have a much greater probability of being accurate than those which are not. As in science, that is the very basis of critical interpretation: to be able to garner, from a text, that which both generates and supports a supposition; and the more evidence you are able to gather from that writer's work, the better an argument you will have for your interpretation.

Be that as it may, I repeat: I find your interpretation of what the shoggoth represents a very interesting one, and I would urge you to go through the novel and look for evidence that supports that interpretation; think it through more thoroughly in light of that evidence, and present a more fully-developed version for the interest of others (and, one hopes, your own enjoyment as well).....

Oh, and by the way... on the subject of the "Cthulhu Mythos", you might want to take a look at the list I've posted on the following thread, which tends to pinpoint where the Mythos as it is popularly conceived seems to have truly begun....

http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/43873-which-stories-fit-into-the-mythos.html

 

[Ningauble]

SINCE most of you including you j.d worthington are doing exactly that:SPECULATE still based on speculations of others.even fromthe letters and essays of lovecraft you can only speculate ,i am sorry you cant see this .....

If Lovecraft says something over and over again and is consistent about it, then it must be viewed as his actual opinion on the matter. Claiming something else, without support in his writing -- THAT would be speculation. Anyone who wants to discuss the philosophy of HPL really needs to familiarise himself or herself with his essays and letters.

but i tell you things as they are.in any rate you were never in lovecraft"s mind ,and you certainly are not lovecraft -that goes for me as well.if you were in lovecraft"s mind you would probably go insane ..........

Why? He makes an extremely sane impression, albeit with some quirks. And I have read his letters and essays; my impression is not based on his fiction.

nobody can define this guy ,he was a lot more then we can say about him....sry ,i hope you can see the truth in this and this goes for anyone that tries to make a film about him

Through his writings -- stories, poems, essays and letters -- he defines himself quite clearly. This makes some interpretations more valid -- or less valid -- than others.

I'm sorry to say that I won't be joining this discussion; unfortunately, n3tsp34k or whatever it's called (omitting capitals completely and things like that) is terribly difficult to read and I have serious trouble taking it seriously. For what its worth, I'm in j.d.'s camp.

 

[nigourath]

hi j.d and to the rest of the forum .sorry for my delay.first of all many expressed they loss of orientation through this thread ,and i have to say to them its not an obligation to follow this thread,since they have problems understanding its many themes or even having trouble taking it seriously.its allright with me ,they can read or post to other threads,and the others that have even found it a litttle interesting they can follow it- or not- if they are intrigued by it-or not.really not an issue for me....
j.d i am pleased by your patience in the thread -even as we disagree in many things-and your sincere efforts to make the themes more clarifying for every one,including yourself too...not a bad thing since issues and interpretations like these we are dealing with are pretty hard for anyone to accept without very serious consideration and even stubborn denial.worthington ,you did the right thing defending the letters ,essays and the essence -as you believe it -of lovecraft"s work-your expertise on the masterwriter commands you to do so.furthermore i believe you are obligated to do so since many newcomers on your excellent forum come with differerent notions on lovecraft"s work some challenging or on the other hand ignorant of his work,so a guy with your expertise actually should really FILTER these notions ,lead them on the real side of the tracks ....or even protect the other members of the forums from any misconceptions and even deliberate ones...(i have heard of a real cthulhu cult?? .....something lovecraft himself would lough about..).so i believ e you are a good pilot!!
now ,i have a few things i have to say on the matters:
THE CTHULHU MYTHOS i believe is more of a creation of lovecraft"s literaturistic cycle mainly derleth.did i say something else??i didnt read the link that you gave me ,sorry-but yes lovecraft never created any mythos,although the greatest invention in the fantasy-horror literature belongs to him and it is the NECRONOMICON!never said or meant that he constructed any mythos like the cthulhu mythos.
yes we have a fairly different impression on what evolution is and what really happened on the matter ,no point on arguing upon this any longer.....a nuclear afterlife would most certainly exclude most known lifeforms,some smaller microorganisms would survive -never said that all life would discontinue read my post again if you would like.....most lifeforms would be destroyed and as i said "TRUE EVOLUTION"would START AGAIN ,never said it would cease.by the term "true evolution", i mean the randomised in the genomic chaos of shoggoth,ofcourse..... ofcourse as you say under the newlly developed climatologic changes maybe other very different lifeforms would appear...not a doubt about it.it would be a new evolution ,not the continuation of the last one...radically different than that.....evolution is not a straight line in this one ....it is not ONE EVOLUTIONARY PATH ....IT IS A NEWLY RECOMPOSED ONE.i wont persist since i know you confidently believe in one unstoppable ,continuated evolution no matter what in includes.the same validity have mass methodicated exterminations so yes you read correctly they are -TO ME- NOT a part of evolutionary process,creating a more POORER GEEN POOL,the reachest this pool is the more of an evolution will result from it and the criterium here is invaluating ,since there is hatred and pleasure,ideological or not in these genocidal acts.i already predict your reaction worthington in this:to you humanity"s procurance is as valid as an external factor is ..examble a a great cataclysm or a comet crushing down.i didnt say you said that- its my guess....and all these contribute till now-today and define evolution by its final outcome!i totally understand what you are saying.....but as i said i stand far away from this!great cataclysmic events,volcanic activity ,stars crushing to earth ,humanity exterminating efforts of other species or its own ALL fall to me to one CATEGORY,THAT of the SHOGGOTH ,THE BEAST OF EVOLUTION!!SHOGGOTH IS NOT EVOLUTION ITS AN EVOLUTIONARY CONCEPT!!!IT DESCRIBES EVOLUTION ,IT IS A WIDER NOTION,it describes the random enrichment or bareness of the available genetical polymorfism,genetical pool DRIVE and energy....only to me I KNOW....!but you wanted some more hint. I KNOW you will never AGREE to this ,but it is what i believe ,and i am not saying that you shouldnt believe what you believe,if thats your piece of mind i wont change it,nor you can do the same.ITS JUST A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION!!nothing more,nothing less.
also about birds coming from the genom of dinosaurs ,i only knew it as a hypothesis.in your link that you gave -thanks for that ,j.d-it clearly says that it is a scientific consesus,few scientists still debate it.yet worthington the link also points out that it is very uncertain to what stage of the dinosaur evolvement the birds start their unique diferrentiation ,still uncertain their origination.but mostly points out dinosaur genom yes.....still i believe that other genoms existed before that era ,that may have given off both dinosaurs and birds at the same time ,not the one resulting from the other but from a common ancestor!!something i have NOT A SINGLE PROOF ABOUT-IT IS SOMETHING FOR FUTURE SCIENCE TO JUDGE.STILL A good possibillity to me yet a faraway one to today"s science.
finally lovecraft was a gentleman of the rare sort as you say ,furthermore in my opinion widely underestimated somewhat a disproportional finding compared to the dominating artistic influence in the last century- still more of this to come too-of this most likely NUMBER ONE FANTASY-HORROR OF THE 20TH CENTURY AUTHOR,still a very annoying contradiction at least to me......as for the letter and essays i still have the strong inclinement to consider them primarily sources of artistic value ,and although he lays some philosophical points in them they have an artistic "color " into them!
with friendly regards to all of you here.

 

[j d worthington]

All right... though I find some of that post confusing, I think I have a better idea of what you're getting at with the shoggoth as evolutionary concept, and how it ties in with what you said originally about the Holy Ghost, etc. On the general ideas of evolution, I'd say there are some fundamental differences in our models, but I'd also say that in some points we're a lot closer in concept, but our use of terms is vastly different.

However, I think I understand you well enough that we could, if you wish, move on to other points or interpretations you'd like to discuss/debate....

By the way... yes, I've heard about such cults, and have since the early 1980s, off and on. Whether this is true or not, I can't say... though I doubt they have all that large a following. (I could be wrong on this, though... never underestimate the ability of human beings to mistake fantasy for reality.)

On the Necronomicon... that's a concept with an interesting bit of history behind it. You might find some of the comments here interesting, especially concerning "The Hound", where the book itself makes its first appearance:

http://members.fortunecity.com/moderan/nonfic/tsou2.html

As for Lovecraft being a rather underestimated writer... well, Poe still suffers from that now and again; certainly Bierce has, as well. There are people who are very much in favor of M. R. James' other writings, yet dismiss his "ghost stories" completely, despite the fact that these are what he is truly remembered for in the larger sphere, and where his greatest influence lies. The list goes on and on.... Essentially, fantastic literature is still often seen as a "poor relative" when it comes to the literary family tree, despite the fact that its roots go as deep as any, and it tackles -- often with great artistic skill and insight -- some of our deepest emotions and interpretations of the universe around us.

BUT... Lovecraft's reputation continues to grow, and he is becoming harder and harder to dismiss as a major writer; and those who do are sounding more and more desperate and reactionary with their statements... again, much like what we've seen with Poe, Tolkien, or (for the matter of that) Mary Shelley or Ann Radcliffe....

 

[Ursa major]

All right... though I find some of that post confusing....

Then you're way ahead of most of us, J.D. (Well, way ahead of me, anyway. )


But at least I can follow one side of the debate, thanks to you.

 

[Pyan]

Actually, since the we've lost the capitals and the stream-of-consciousness-ness, I'm beginning to comprehend (a bit) of what Nigourath is trying to say...

 

[j d worthington]

Thanks, U.m. The thing is, though I don't necessarily agree with what I'm getting understanding of his idea, it is a fascinating take on the subject; one I've never encountered before, and I'd rather like to see this one refined and put out there for consideration. However, as I said earlier, I think it would help to clarify the idea even more if we were given citations from the work that sparked (and possibly support) this interpretation....

 

[j d worthington]

Incidentally, for those interested, I finally tracked down where I'd run into that connection between racism and the shoggoth; it was from a discussion at the Eldritch Dark forum, and had its beginning (more or less) here:

Eldritch Dark Forum :: Werewolf query

*sigh* My blasted memory (like the old grey mare) just "ain't what she used to be"....