Lack of mysteries

[Matthias M.]

I have a question concerning the following Ligotti quote:

'From the earliest days of man there has endured the conviction that there is an order of existence which is entirely strange to him. It does indeed seem that the strict order of the visible world is only a semblance, one providing certain gross materials which become the basis for subtle improvisations of invisible powers. Hence, it may appear to some that a leafless tree is not a tree but a signpost to another realm; that an old house is not a house but a thing possessing a will of its own; that the dead may throw off that heavy blanket of earth to walk in their sleep, and in ours. And these are merely a few of the infinite variations on the themes of the natural order as it is usually conceived.

But is there really a strange world? Of course. Are there, then, two worlds? Not at all. There is only our own world and it alone is alien to us, intrinsically so by virtue of its lack of mysteries. If only it actually were deranged by invisible powers, if only it were susceptible to real strangeness, perhaps it would seem more like a home to us, and less like an empty room filled with the echoes of this dreadful improvising. To think that we might have found comfort in a world suited to our nature, only to end up in one so resoundingly strange!'

In this text, Ligotti deals with the real world being a scaffold for multifarious strange variations. These varations point out the unreal character of the world we suppose to be real.

But what then does Ligotti mean when he writes that the world is alien to us 'intrinsically so by virtue of its lack of mysteries'? Does the word 'mystery' here stand emblematic for something we claim to know about the real?

The understanding problem I have with the quote is the following: If the weirdness of the world in all its variations shows us the unreal character of the world, what then is the 'lack of mysteries' Ligotti talks about?

[qcrisp]

Quote Originally Posted by Matthias M.

I have a question concerning the following Ligotti quote: 'From the earliest days of man there has endured the conviction that there is an order of existence which is entirely strange to him. It does indeed seem that the strict order of the visible world is only a semblance, one providing certain gross materials which become the basis for subtle improvisations of invisible powers. Hence, it may appear to some that a leafless tree is not a tree but a signpost to another realm; that an old house is not a house but a thing possessing a will of its own; that the dead may throw off that heavy blanket of earth to walk in their sleep, and in ours. And these are merely a few of the infinite variations on the themes of the natural order as it is usually conceived. But is there really a strange world? Of course. Are there, then, two worlds? Not at all. There is only our own world and it alone is alien to us, intrinsically so by virtue of its lack of mysteries. If only it actually were deranged by invisible powers, if only it were susceptible to real strangeness, perhaps it would seem more like a home to us, and less like an empty room filled with the echoes of this dreadful improvising. To think that we might have found comfort in a world suited to our nature, only to end up in one so resoundingly strange!' In this text, Ligotti deals with the real world being a scaffold for multifarious strange variations. These varations point out the unreal character of the world we suppose to be real. But what then does Ligotti mean when he writes that the world is alien to us 'intrinsically so by virtue of its lack of mysteries'? Does the word 'mystery' here stand emblematic for something we claim to know about the real? The understanding problem I have with the quote is the following: If the weirdness of the world in all its variations shows us the unreal character of the world, what then is the 'lack of mysteries' Ligotti talks about?

I understand it as follows: The word "mysteries" refers to the kind of thing of which examples are given in the first paragraph. The second paragraph relies on a twist of expectations. The "strange world" mentioned in the first, is the world where trees are signs, houses have wills of their own, the dead walk, etc. The second paragraph begins, "Is there really a strange world?" This might be taken to mean, "Do those things actually exist?" It is answered, "Of course." But the answer takes the meaning of "strange world" as something different to the set-up of the first paragraph. There is a strange world and it is this world - it is strange because it lacks all the strange things we can't help imagining.

I very much agree that the lack of strangeness is strange, and I find this a fascinating area of general reflection.

I would also ask, Why do we find the lack of strangeness strange?

[Matthias M.]

Quote Originally Posted by qcrisp

I understand it as follows: The word "mysteries" refers to the kind of thing of which examples are given in the first paragraph. The second paragraph relies on a twist of expectations. The "strange world" mentioned in the first, is the world where trees are signs, houses have wills of their own, the dead walk, etc. The second paragraph begins, "Is there really a strange world?" This might be taken to mean, "Do those things actually exist?" It is answered, "Of course." But the answer takes the meaning of "strange world" as something different to the set-up of the first paragraph. There is a strange world and it is this world - it is strange because it lacks all the strange things we can't help imagining. I very much agree that the lack of strangeness is strange, and I find this a fascinating area of general reflection. I would also ask, Why do we find the lack of strangeness strange?

Thanks Quentin. You give a good explanation of Ligotti's view of the 'strange'. My view of the 'weird' respectively of the 'strange' differs from that, as my interrogation indicates already.

I refrain from thinking that 'this world lacks all the strange things we can't help imagining'. What I see as 'strange' is that reality/world is indifferent to our imaginations, even to the imagination that it 'lacks strangeness'. So by engulfing this world with all kinds of imaginations (fictional mysteries), we turn this world inside out. So nothing is left over of our views. That to me is the ultimate strangeness. We look into the black and it looks back at us with strange eyes.

But nonetheless it is very interesting to think about why the lack of strangeness could be strange for us. I even see a certain resemblance to my view depicted above. But I have to think a little about this.

[Matthias M.]

This conversation haunted me last night. Some thoughts:

In Conspiracy Ligotti writes: "There is nothing innately impressive about the universe or anything in it.” So where do the dreamscapes in Ligotti's fiction point to? If all this horror-loaded imaginations and hallucinations simply are deviations from the unimpressive universe we live in, is the fiction simply meant to distract us?

What is the reason in creating such strange dreamscapes if in the end the strangest thing is that all these dreamscapes are unreal? So what is the drive behind Ligotti's weird fiction? Is it to create a feeling of a tremendous unease with the help of imagination which in the end points to the strangest of all? The innate lack of strangeness of the place we live?