---

[qcrisp]

Quote Originally Posted by teguififthzeal

I was aware of this response, "The Inscrutable Light". Very well written and for the most part empirical, with more than a touch of hopeful agnosticism here and there. And it's not "anti" anything that Ligotti has written. TCATHR is going to garner lots and lots of responses far more challenging than that over time.

If it's published (it is still in the hands of editors) one of the responses will be mine. Whether it's more challenging than 'The Inscrutable Light' or less, I don't know, but it is, at least, partially challenging.

I was going to write more, but I need to eat and catch a train...

[Waffiesnaq]

I've always found Frederick Copleston to be the best single counterargument against crass attacks on the Catholic mindset. I would, however, say that he was a great thinker despite his inclination towards faith and not because of it. I was given his 11-volume A History of Philosophy by my late grandmother (the fiercest atheist I've ever known) and it's something I hope to have read all of one distant day. Other outstanding educators who grew increasingly Catholic in their outlook would be Simone Weil and Mortimer Adler, although they didn't do so until late in life (in Weil's case, her all too brief life). These individuals are all to be admired, in my opinion, for their thoughts and energy—although I personally have no patience for their object of worship.

[Mr. Cheev]

I have used this quote elsewhere on this site. It seems unambiguous to me.

"Many people in this world are always looking to science to save them from something. But just as many, or more, prefer old and reputable belief systems and their sectarian offshoots for salvation. So they trust in the diety of the Old Testament, an incontinent dotard who soiled Himself and the universe with His corruption, a low-budget divinity passing itself off as the genuine article. (Ask the Gnostics) They trust in Jesus Christ, a historical cipher stitched together like Frankenstein's monster out of parts robbed from the graves of messiahs dead and buried - a savior on a stick. They trust in the virgin-pimping Allah and his drum major Mohammed, a prophet-come-lately who pioneered a new genus of humbuggery for an emerging market of believers that was not being adequately served by existing religious products. They trust in anything that authenticates their importance as persons, tribes, societies, and particularly as a world that may be uncertain in its reality and unclear in its layout, but which sates their craving for values not of this earth - that depressing, meaningless place their consciousness must sidestep every day. Sure enough, then, writers such as Zapffe, Schopenhauer, and Lovecraft only wrote their ticket to marginality when they failed to affirm the worth and wonder of humanity, the validity of its values (whether eternal or provisional), and, naturally, a world without a foreseeable end, or at least a world whose end no one wants to see."
- Thomas Ligotti TCATHR


Ligotti views religion, like many other people, as a form of control. He also implies that Christianity is derivative of past pagan religions - which it is. I hope no one is under the false impression that Jesus Christ was the first savior to be born of a virgin during the winter solstice. That would be a mistake. And I don't think it is necessary to squander one's time about the specifics of a religion if their most fundamental beliefs cannot be supported (to put it kindly). Having said that, I think it would be a mistake to dismiss everything a religious person has to say. Ligotti has stated that he holds David Tibet in the highest regard.

[Waffiesnaq]

That Ligotti quote provided by Mr. Cheev can't help but remind me of a certain passage in This Degenerate Little Town...

Quote

It seems entirely natural that, should anyone gain full knowledge of this degenerate little town, they would deny the truth of this greatest, most terrible of secrets - and, as a consequence, as an act of self-protection, would fabricate some other set of circumstances, a more companionable picture of the way of things. This would explain so many of the deranged idols and beliefs that have arisen in our world. At least we would be able to account for the multitudes of Mannequin Saviours, as one might view them - their faces smooth and serene behind display windows, welcoming the faithful who, upon their death, will enter a department-store paradise of the most vague and intangible delights. And some mention must be made of what might be called the Sect of the Puppetlands, whose highly deranged adherents posit a transcendent universe of infinite and harmless antics that are imperfectly mirrored in the chaos and crises of our own world, which, in any case, will end nicely when the Great Puppet Play is concluded in a sweet bedtime of slumber... until the next show begins.

[Druidic]

I think Price was moving in the right direction but lost it very quickly. My own view is this: Logic, no matter how impeccable, can’t convince the existential that life is worthless unless the existential already believes that.
Durrenmatt points out that there is an unbridgeable gap between Logic (the many, the multitude) and the existential (the one). Every philosophy, every religion, every political system encounters this abyss; and when they do, they all do the same thing. They build a bridge. A vertical bridge. It’s called a ‘church’.
Communism was the most logical social order one could imagine. On paper at least, it seemed Ideal. Like most Ideals it corresponded to Nothing real in human nature. As someone once said, to live it you would have to be Christ, not a man. The soul of Communism became Fascist because human beings simply don’t behave the way the theorists wanted them to and so the Communists built a bridge and made a ‘religion’. Behavior had to be forced with Laws and the threats of Punishment. There were purges and famines, Old Testament stuff. Look at North Korea.
Now Durrenmatt sees Logic as divorced from reality, human reality (Logic being “...beyond all reality and removed from every sort of existential mishap.”) It has great use in manipulating the world but doesn’t reflect the true nature of man. We can understand that when we reflect that man is an irrational creature. His needs and lusts are driven by predictable (apparently logical) appetites…but in totally unpredictable ways. Sex would seem to be a simple ‘logical,’ i. e. predictable, response to an evolutionary drive…but its manifestations can be quite irrational and varied, with perversions or preferences infinite, having nothing to do with the drive’s reproductive ‘goal’. Logical reasoning does not predict the existential and it can not change the desire of the solitary being for fulfillment (no matter how absurdly individual desire may express itself).
Logic is never enough to sway the existential.
And assuming there is no direct bridge between Logic and the existential, there is a bridge between the existential and Logic; and the existential can pervert logic for its own ends…the emotions can pimp out the intellect to defend whatever an individual chooses to believe. Emotions move toward pleasure, Freud did get that one right, and in general we believe what pleases us. We convince ourselves our beliefs are intellectually sound—the intellect is a double-edged sword, (“thought is nihilistic”) and can cut any way you want it to since the intellect can defend almost any position—and we feel then that our emotional judgments are very logical ones and are indeed dictated by Logic.
In other words, Logic will never lead one alone to concede the rightness of Ligotti’s conclusions, no matter how rigorously logical those conclusions are; and at the same time the existential reality of some will condemn and dismiss Ligotti’s Logic as utterly irrelevant, refusing to abandon their own beliefs which they feel are more ‘Logical” because they are pleasing, they are what these individuals want to believe.


And all these sentences to tell you what you already know.



These days I feel like crap; my hasty writing reflects this. Forgive the oversimplifications and feel free to disagree as always. I. too, work in the Dark. (Good quote, Hopfrog.)

[qcrisp]

Quote Originally Posted by Cnev

The ideas presented are certainly worth serious consideration, in my opinion, given the fundamental nature of the argument. But, I suppose "serious" is defined by the person doing the reading. I myself didn't feel Ligotti was kidding around with CATHR, but it came into my life around the time watched my father suffer and wither away, so there's that. I still think it's a brilliant book, even though there's quite a bit I don't agree with. Even so, I don't feel compelled to argue my case to anyone other than my ever changing self. In fact, I don't really care to argue with anyone about anything these days. It's much too tiring, and most of the time it's nothing but a pointless battle of egos with no resolution sought from any participating party.

I mainly agree (am in sympathy) with this, but hope I will be forgiven if I use it as a springboard to various other observations.

Because I don't have any interest in the kind of battle mentioned, I'm hoping to sum up a few things (if that doesn't sound too grandiose) here. I should also say, I've actually been enjoying a lot of the TLO threads lately, so "battle" might seem inappropriate. I suppose I am unconvinced of the needs to represent my own views much further for the foreseeable future on message boards.

One thing: I actually have changed my mind as a result of and been influenced a great deal by other people's words. So, it does happen. But I think it seldom happens in an internet message thread, to any great extent, where responses follow close on each other without the physical presence of the people involved (I think this presence makes a considerable difference).

Although there are advantages to the kind of instant exchange with strangers that the internet makes possible, I think the value of a statement (artistic or philosophical) that is produced in solitude and reflected on in solitude, might be underestimated. For instance, in my own case, I find myself, when watching a YouTube clip, almost always peeking at the comments under it before I have watched the whole thing and formed my own opinion.

I try not to do that these days.

Actually, having said that, I'm not sure that I really have much more to say.

Maybe some disjointed thoughts:

This year, I will be 42; an achievement no doubt rendered redundant by the countless millions who have reached this point before me. (Danger of tangent, which I will resist.) Anyway, I notice now something for which I was not prepared - that is, not prepared by another person, though I have taken some measures to prepare myself for it. Not only do the years speed up as one grows older, but so do the deaths. One has to conclude that they will continue to increase in frequency towards some point at which, for the person witnessing this increase, they come to an ultimate end.

There is something about this situation that it is hard, if not impossible, to put into words, but perhaps it relates to the existential considerations mentioned by Druidic above. I also think of the words of Jimi Hendrix every so often: "I'm the one who's got to die when it's time for me to die, so let me live my life the way I want to."

Anyway, one result of this realisation is that one might consider what one's priorities are for using the little time left. Argument with strangers about abstractions is slipping down my list of priorities.

Possibly conversely, or possibly not, so is maintaining a particular view for the sake of social policy, or being excessively doubtful of my own views in deference to the loud certainty of others concerning their views.

The Seventh Seal has a great deal to say about life, death, doubt and faith:

YouTube (Short URL)

"My whole life has been a meaningless search. I say it without bitterness or self-reproach. I know it is the same for all. But I want to use my respite for one significant action."

Another TLOer kindly sent me, recently, this video lecture on the philosophy of Gabriel Marcel:

Existentialism: Gabriel Marcel, On the Ontological Mystery (part 1) - YouTube

A distinction is made between a 'problem' and a 'mystery'. The former is something that remains the same whoever the subject is in relation to it. The latter is a 'problem/situation' that necessarily involves the subject as an individual.

Of course, my life is my business (as Hendrix pointed out), which is why I intend to treat it as a mystery rather than as a problem.

On Thursday, on my lunch break, I popped into Waterstones. I noticed a book with a cover that appeared to have been taken from a film poster. I don't know the title, but it appeared to have Jennifer Lawrence in it, and I could see that it was a heartwarming, restores-one's-faith-in-life sort of affair. Having seen numerous such films in my life, I turned away. How, I wondered to myself, not for the first time, can faith and hope be made into a commodity like this, and still retain, for so long, its appeal? I know from experience, that if one is hoping for such a film to change one's life, be redemptive and so on, then disappointment and hollowness will ensue. The film is just one more 'thing in the world' made by fallible and ultimately ignorant humans, and not even necessarily in good faith. But then, turning to the other books in the shop, the more 'serious' ones, I thought (again, not for the first time), but all these are equally just 'things in the world'. Why should I care to read a single one of them, knowing, as I do, the falseness of all hope as it relates to 'things in the world'? Of course, one might enjoy them simply as things in the world, as long as one is feeling sanguine about things in the world and wishing a continuing, inconclusive supply of them, as one might wish for a continuing supply of jam sandwiches.

Why do they fail to satisfy? Perhaps because one knows that the supply will end (though some say a continuous supply also palls, or palls more particularly than a limited one).

So, there is the end, ahead, of these things in the world, like a bottleneck on which they all converge. That is enough, surely, to make it all hollow.

But for me, this finitude is also infinity, because for me, all death is my death, or my death is all death, and because I don't know the ultimate nature of this limited infinity, it is to me, necessarily, at least as much a mystery as a problem, and so I am involved with it, at least partly as a mystery. And perhaps increasingly so.

In any case, so far I have noticed that the more confident I am of my own views, hard though they might be to express, the less threatened I am, and therefore the more tolerant I am, of the views of others. I hope this tendency is maintained...

	TLO THOMAS LIGOTTI ONLINE

[teguififthzeal]

My somewhat volatile and off the cuff response was not directed to anyone on this thread except for the individual who stated:

"I don't know why anyone would take a Catholic seriously about anything." No one else. Just wanted to clarify that.

People who are able to reconcile the blatantly obvious contradictions between observable reality and Christian dogma are people whose thought processes are not to be trusted. I was raised a Catholic and I have heard more than one person utter these unbelievable words: "The foundation of existence is love." (!) Hello? What world are you from? These are the same people who wouldn't be able to stomach watching a single video of a slaughterhouse going about its daily business - a business that has been going on since before they were born. The world is awash with blood, and just because you put it out of your mind doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. And conversely, just because you hope for a heaven doesn't make it real. One more example of religion completely inverting the truth.

Many religions can be dismissed because they cannot adequately address the following statement:

Don't tell me what you believe, tell me why you believe it.

Pointing to some old book and saying "cuz" isn't good enough. And that is the reason people believe it, because no one would ever come to those conclusions by looking around for five minutes.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=I5cXWElb-GE


I'm enjoying the deafening silence regarding Pat Condell's videos. Hard to debate the truth, isn't it?

I doubt I will have a great deal more to offer this thread, since my internet connection will be severed for the foreseeable future in the next couple of days. But while I'm able to, I'll offer up a few more observations.

I came to Catholicism when in my late twenties and had a type of secular upbringing, at home and in school, to gladden the heart of the most fervent advocate of the Neo-Atheist movement. There was no bible in the house, Christmas was just Yuletide, and wholly pagan. Easter was a time for chocolate eggs.

I do recall undergoing one term of mandatory Religious Studies classes, but these were centred around comparative religion, and the bald, white haired teacher was regarded by the pupils as a legitimate target for some really vile abuse during his own lessons, over which he had no control. His tolerance was regarded as a fatal weakness. Strangely enough, at this hell-hole, all the other teachers would resort to corporeal punishment and thought little of maintaining order through physical violence, right up until the moment the practice was forcibly abolished in all U.K. state schools in 1983. He however, refused to do so. In class he was shouted down, ignored and swore at, and I joined in. We pupils learnt nothing during those classes. Looking back thirty years to those lessons now, I think I learnt more of true worth from his example of baffled dignity than from any other of the classes I took. Needless to say every single teacher in that school was a good socialist and devout religious sceptic. And they made of me exactly the same thing.

Then, during my late teens, I discovered the works of Lovecraft. I admired his stories to the point of complete adulation. I wanted to not only to write the sort of tales he wrote, but to be exactly like this great man himself. When I also obtained his selected letters and read through them he became, as well my guide in literature, my educator. My vague, indifferent agnosticism was cast aside and I became a militant atheist and scientific materialist. HPL knew everything (except for his biological racism, but I glossed over this failing as so many others did), and so I too knew everything, since in terms of his system anything that could not empirically demonstrated was not worth serious consideration. All else was wishful thinking. I devoured the work of any atheist author I could discover, ignoring completely the other side, and became the master of confirming my own prejudices. Objections, rather than being looked into, were treated instead as mere trifles only deserving of a sneer or words of scorn.

So, there you have me up to the age of about twenty-six. These were my principles and for these alone I stood. There was no such thing as “God”. Jesus Christ, if he ever existed, was just another wandering preacher. The apostles were either lunatics or liars. What was all that nonsense compared to my iron certainty? Death meant oblivion, an end to all suffering. At any moment I could put an end to my life and embrace absolute nothingness! I was truly free. I had no master but myself. I controlled the real power in this universe, death, not life.

And yet what had I really done? I had locked myself into a prison cell with nothing but the darkness I had come to love. I knew everything that could be known, because it was everything I had chosen to know.

And then the cracks in the walls of the cell began to show, and a little light poured through them. It was painful to behold. I had been too careless in my reading, and ventured into the pages of authors, the likes of Machen, C.S. Lewis, Belloc and Chesterton, who did not think as I did. I don't think I picked up any single book or work by any of these authors and said “Now I believe!”. The thing is cumulative. Indeed, I am convinced that their works would have no effect whatsoever on a person unless one has reached a particular moment in one's life. We all carry with us gigantic mental superstructures that do not turn easily from the direction our thoughts have long been accustomed to chart. Anyway, I became perturbed. I found myself agreeing with some of their criticisms and objections to the all-knowing atheistic worldview. Only a few of them struck home at first, but enough to raise doubts. I loved my beautiful darkness, with nothing in it but myself, and having no doubts whatsoever. For me, CATHR was written twenty years too late!

Unfortunately, to make matters worse, I then began to undergo certain experiences, mystical if you like, that to a good atheist could only be described as crazed hallucinations. The really odd thing was that I had experienced actual hallucinations before (while under the influence of hash and L.S.D. in my early twenties, in both good and bad trips) and this was nothing like them. Nor were they like dreams. When you look back on a dream, you remember it was a dream. But looking back on these experiences, they remain as vivid and powerful as any real event in my life, such as my having been in Paris or Rome, or my knowing what an orange tastes like. It would require rather more time than I have to describe these experiences to my satisfaction here (and I not sure that they would convince sceptics any more than I myself, when aged twenty-six, would have been convinced) and they began incrementally only achieving grandeur later on. Suffice to say they are of an order requiring detail probably greater than that required by someone who resolutely contended that “Samuels (who cannot even communicate to us in words what an orange tastes like) has probably never been in Rome or Paris! He is deluded religious crackpot!”. Something of their character can be found, albeit dimly, in my stories “The Tower” and “In Eternity – Two Lines intersect”.

And now I am going to be controversial. It has lately occurred to me that I am not sure anyone but an ex-Catholic could have written something like CATHR. Lovecraft could not have done so. He saw the universe as something essentially indifferent rather than malignant with regards to humanity (see for example his letter to James Morton, October 30th, 1929). With Ligotti, as far I can tell, it's a personal thing between him and the universe. He doesn't want to be here. I blame that zealot of a priest who told him that being naughty would end up in his going to a literal hell of brimstone and fire where the damned are tortured for all eternity. That priest has a lot to answer for. I am not going to enter into a dissertation on the true nature of Hell here except to say that any right-minded Catholic would hold that it consists solely of a state wherein the individual, at death, when all truths are revealed, freely rejects God, who is Love. Hell exists, but we choose to go there. It is our choice and no-one else's. We are not put there for being naughty boys and girls. We are never required by the Church to act against our own informed consciences. Personally, I think Hell is a pretty empty place. Rather like a pitch-black cell, in fact. I often feel I've been there before.

I will end with apologies for the length of this spiel, and for any annoyance I invariably seem to cause.

Mark S.

[Karnos]

Quote Originally Posted by teguififthzeal

While this may sound strange--mighty strange--I've read and re-read the book over the years, once owning it in a hardcopy edition and then in softcover, and I find it calming, while not agreeing with the majority of it, even. Very calming.

I haven't read the final manuscript, but I had the chance to read one of the drafts someone here was kind enough to drop on my private message box. That was probably in 2008 or so, I really don't remember.

Back then I agreed with plenty of the material on it, and even though my worldview has changed a little bit from those days to the present moment, to the point where I disagree with a good deal of it, I do understand perfectly well what you mean about it being a very calming experience. I think Cioran wrote something along those lines? About how the idea of death and finality can bring forth calmness and comfort? (I may be talking out of my rear end here, I don't remember where I read that)

About a year ago I was very close of getting killed during a very violent mugging that went horribly wrong. I was jumped by two thugs while walking drunk on the beach at night, I resisted, wrestled with one of them on the sand and then the second guy pulled a knife while kicking me, then held it very close to my neck. I have no idea if it had to do with the setting (the sea waves, the cool wind, beautifully starry sky) and the fact that I was going through some tough depression at the time, but I suddenly felt very calm, at ease, at the prospect of being done for there and then.

I guess finality of one's life can be perceived differently depending on setting, mood, etc?