Failure of Lovecraft's Project: 1 of 3

[Extollager]

Thanks, Psitrekker. Here are a couple of responses athwart your comments.

1.In starting this thread, I was focusing on Lovecraft's personal philosophy -- on what he professed to believe. It would be appropriate to cite things in his stories insofar as they supported that. On the other hand, he didn't believe in the extraterrestrial races that he invented for his stories. Thus I'm not sure how relevant those are for purposes of this discussion as I envisioned it, which is not to say the discussion might not go off in some other, worthwhile directions.

2.Isn't it at least arguable that, if there are extraterrestrial beings that are older and more intelligent than we are, they would be that much more likely to respect us, as well as themselves, as significant? Don't we see a human being who would protect wild animals (including ones of no "use" to humans) as wiser than one who has no interest in or respect for them? The former perceives significance in them, in themselves, where the latter does not. Relevant to this, read sometime C. S. Lewis's short novel Out of the Silent Planet, which deals with an earthman's education out of his false fears of inhabitants of other planets. Lewis was the author of an essay against infliction of pain on animals for experimental purposes, a paper that was so ahead of its time (if you want to put it that way) that he couldn't find a publisher for it in the UK (where he was an author whose work was in demand) so that it had to appear in an obscure Australian source.

As for "puny wars" -- I guess Vietnam was a "puny war" compared to World War II, but it still seems significant even though the body count was much less.

 

[Psitrekker]

Thanks for your response to my response.
1. Okay, I didn't know you were coming at this from the perspective of HPL's personal beliefs. I thought you were commenting on his literature, and the cosmos that was presented therein. I'm well aware of the difference in an author's personal beliefs and the content that they write about. For instance, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote about a world that was very logic-based and mechanistic, while he personally believed very strongly in the supernatural.
2. I think that you are correct in that there is a case to be made (at least in some instances) for a sense of respect being given by advanced beings to lesser beings that are capable of intelligence, accumulation of knowlege, civilization, and self-advancement, however there are other variables to contend with. Some races may be more benevolent than others, and migh observe a "prime directive" as in Star Trek, others might be more inherently malevolent, and hope only to colonize other planets to exploit their resources or even to create slave races. The latter variety seems to be the type that HPL focuses on in his works--how power is misused rather than used benevolently. There do seem to be exceptions, though. The aliens in the Mountains of Madness do seem to develop a sense of camaraderie with the humans that find them, and if I recall, even the Yith had their moments of friendliness towards humans. However, if these races had not fallen from power on Earth and still had a chance to dominate this planet, I bet they would give it a shot! Also, try this analogy on for size: how interested would we humans be (given our struggles, accomplishments, and great power) in the history and goings on of ape colonies? Sure, they are social animals, have tool-making abilities, and basic proto-language ways of communicating, but when it comes right down to it, we humans have little compunction about driving them from their lands to develop them for our purposes, capturing and breeding them in captivity for zoos or research purposes, or even turning them into soldiers to fight our own battles (there was a group in Africa that was training chimpanzees to use machetes to fight their opponents). Of course, you get the ocassional Jane Goodall who is devoted to benevolent study of these creatures, but those people are the exception and not the rule.

 

[Psitrekker]

Also, what about the Old Ones? I didn't see you mention that aspect of his stories in your response, but don't they necessarily contribute to the sense of humanity's insignificance in HPL's cosmos?

 

[Extollager]

2. I think that you are correct in that there is a case to be made (at least in some instances) for a sense of respect being given by advanced beings to lesser beings that are capable of intelligence, accumulation of knowlege, civilization, and self-advancement, however there are other variables to contend with. Some races may be more benevolent than others, and migh observe a "prime directive" as in Star Trek, others might be more inherently malevolent, and hope only to colonize other planets to exploit their resources or even to create slave races. The latter variety seems to be the type that HPL focuses on in his works--how power is misused rather than used benevolently. There do seem to be exceptions, though. The aliens in the Mountains of Madness do seem to develop a sense of camaraderie with the humans that find them, and if I recall, even the Yith had their moments of friendliness towards humans. However, if these races had not fallen from power on Earth and still had a chance to dominate this planet, I bet they would give it a shot! Also, try this analogy on for size: how interested would we humans be (given our struggles, accomplishments, and great power) in the history and goings on of ape colonies? Sure, they are social animals, have tool-making abilities, and basic proto-language ways of communicating, but when it comes right down to it, we humans have little compunction about driving them from their lands to develop them for our purposes, capturing and breeding them in captivity for zoos or research purposes, or even turning them into soldiers to fight our own battles (there was a group in Africa that was training chimpanzees to use machetes to fight their opponents). Of course, you get the ocassional Jane Goodall who is devoted to benevolent study of these creatures, but those people are the exception and not the rule.

This is a worthwhile topic -- tracing the variety of conceptions of alien races that Lovecraft invented. I've read all of HPL's stories, many of them numerous times, but I don't have a strong sense that he worked out a consistent "galactic empire" type of scenario. It wouldn't surprise me if there are "inconsistencies" between stories; I think he presented creatures, races, etc. in terms suited to what he was trying to effect in a given story. I could be wrong -- there are people around Chrons who would have a better sense of these things than I.

As for "significant" -- I think you may be using the term using it in two ways.

1.A technologically "superior" group may regard a group that appears to it to be "primitive" as "insignificant." You suggest, rightly, that just as our own terrestrial history is sadly marked by cruelties inflicted by the former upon the latter -- such cruelty being "justified" by the "inferiority" of the victims -- so we ourselves as a planetary species could be the victims of technologically superior invaders who would hold to the same kind of justification of what they were doing to us.

2.From a "cosmic" point of view such as Lovecraft expounded, there is no moral norm to which the victim might appeal, or which might condemn such of the perpetrators as had any conscience. Moral norms, in his thought, are cultural artifacts and/or the arbitrary choices of individuals. But if this is the case, then there is no independent moral standard, or nature of the universe (=Natural Law); and victims really do not have justice on their side, since there is really no such entity.

This kind of attitude towards morality goes along with Lovecraft's insistence on "insignificance."

Conversely, any creature or species that can make true moral arguments is hardly "insignificant," however brief its lifespan, however "primitive" its artifacts, etc.

So when you refer to aliens that are malevolent, I agree with you: there is a moral standard according to which judgments about good behavior or malevolence may be made. "Puny earthlings" stamped out by cosmic bullies would be in the right when they protested against injustice (to the invaders,or a galactic court, or to God, or...). Lovecraft wanted to have it that such invaders would seem malevolent to us, but our standards are provincial and of no significance. I don't agree. If Lovecraft saw someone brutally kicking a kitten, he, a cat lover, wouldn't have liked it, but his moral condemnation of such behavior would be more than the statement of a mere personal feeling. Yet if the kitten is insignificant in an insignificant universe, then no, all he would have said in protesting is that he didn't like that.

 

[Psitrekker]

Hi again, Extollager, I wanted to respond again, as this is really getting to the core of the issue here.
In reference to your first point, "A technologically "superior" group may regard a group that appears to it to be "primitive" as "insignificant.", I agree with this. I really do feel that power has and will continue to be misused in certain circumstances, and by certain people. You are referencing relative morality here.
I also agree with your second point that "From a "cosmic" point of view such as Lovecraft expounded, there is no moral norm to which the victim might appeal, or which might condemn such of the perpetrators as had any conscience. Moral norms, in his thought, are cultural artifacts and/or the arbitrary choices of individuals." In other words, there is no one tending the light at the end of the tunnel. There is no righteous God that is overseeing the governing of sentient beings' actions. There is no absolute morality...
These are both elements that are found in Lovecraft's works. We're on our own here in this bleak Lovecraftian universe, and there will be no one here to save us when things get really bad, no matter how much we pray to our gods of justice and goodness. Those gods have long ago been cast into oblivion or rendered impotent or perhaps never existed in the first place. There are no moral standards in this universe that all beings can agree upon, and therefore, it's kinda like the Wild Wild West. If you're a great alien civilization or a Great Old One, go out there and claim as much as you can in your own name without feeling any remorse for what disasters might ensue along the way. To quote Crowley here, "Do as though will shall be the whole of the law". I think that is the morality that all superpowers observe, be they Old Ones, ancient alien civilizations, or even nation states here on (the REAL) planet Earth. Higher level morality and ethics can be left to the relatively dis-empowered constituents of those organizations. This kind of morality is NOT what I personally believe in myself, but it seems to be the dreadful truth that Lovecraft was trying to get at or describe in some way in his works. Of course, he was also a xenophobe and an unashamed racist for most of his life as well...

 

[Extollager]

To quote Crowley here, "Do as though will shall be the whole of the law". I think that is the morality that all superpowers observe, be they Old Ones, ancient alien civilizations, or even nation states here on (the REAL) planet Earth. Higher level morality and ethics can be left to the relatively dis-empowered constituents of those organizations. This kind of morality is NOT what I personally believe in myself, but it seems to be the dreadful truth that Lovecraft was trying to get at or describe in some way in his works. Of course, he was also a xenophobe and an unashamed racist for most of his life as well...

Hi, Psitrekker! I don't know if HPL speculated about what might be the outlook and habits of actual non-human intelligences, such as extraterrestrials, if they exist. I'm not sure he would assume that any such "superpowers" would simply do as they pleased without reference to any ethics. For the purpose of writing horror stories, he could propose that any superpower would not care about less intelligent and technologically advanced species, but for all I know he may have thought they would be likely to be "humane." JD would have an informed opinion on this.

 

[Psitrekker]

Hi guys, I know this is off-topic, but I've recently been reading "The Azathoth Cycle" and it is quite the wonderful set of tales. My favorite so far is "The Throne of Achamoth". Truly inspiring! And it fits with my previous intuition that Azathoth is both the demiurge in the gnostic sense, but also equivalent to every black hole at the center of each galaxy in the universe as well as other universes. I highly recommend this compilation!

Psitrekker

 

[Extollager]

I'm going to revive this and related threads. I might be talked out about them, but are the threads "done"?

 

[Extollager]

They key to understanding Lovecraft, for me, is to see him as permanently abiding in the state where C. S. Lewis was as a young adult and, I suppose into his early thirties or so. Put simply HPL/CSL had their intellectual notions (the universe is meaningless, etc.) and their imagination world (fascinated by beauty,* etc.), each going its own way.

Now this division relates very much to Iain McGilchrist's current discussions about the brain hemispheres. Listen maybe to the conversation below or one of the other YouTube conversations with the man.

I haven't even listened to all of this, but I'm acquainted with McGilchrist's thesis, and this is a recent talk (though there may be more recent ones still, out there online).

*If anyone starts to say that he or she sees no conflict, I can't stop that, but I do say the concept of "meaningless beauty" or of a beauty without meaning is incomprehensible to me.