notes

[qcrisp]

I've been working on a new piece recently, and just started reading The Conspiracy Against the Human Race, and somehow my responses to the work have got incorporated in the piece I'm writing. I may copy them out here later, or not. It's a work in progress, so I may just hate it too much to post any of it. Or I might post just a little bit of my response, rather than the whole thing. Not that it really matters. Just felt like saying that I'd starting reading, really. Er... well, I suppose that's all for now.

No, I'll just add that, in a way, I feel responses are superfluous, which may decide me against posting my response.

[Nemonymous]

I'll just add that, in a way, I feel responses are superfluous

I, too, had to fight against that feeling tooth, nail and hoof - but my inexorable need to respond overcame any fears of superfluity. Hindsight will either prove me wrong or righteous.
des

[qcrisp]

Quote Originally Posted by DF Lewis

I'll just add that, in a way, I feel responses are superfluous I, too, had to fight against that feeling tooth, nail and hoof - but my inexorable need to respond overcame any fears of superfluity. Hindsight will either prove me wrong or righteous. des

Well, I too, might add something at some point. At the moment, wishing to be brief, I shall limit myself to a quote from a poem by Larkin that came to mind, something like this:

"... life is slow dying, and saying so to some means nothing
Others, it leaves nothing to be said."

[qcrisp]

Well, I've finally decided to write here the extract that I mentioned, from the last piece of min to be finished in first draft. The piece has the working title of A Paris Notebook. It's in diary form, and it's really quite personal. I don't know if it's publishable, or if I even want to publish it, though I wrote it with some compulsion and enthusiasm. I hesitated before transcribing here the section dealing with The Conspiracy Against the Human Race for a number of reasons. I think out of context it may not come across exactly as I mean it. Also, I haven't finished reading CATHR, and I don't know if my responses are yet mature. I am basically not someone who likes to peddle opinions as certainties. Nonetheless, I suppose I did start this thread, so I would feel a bit lame not really saying anything in it. So, without further ado, here is the extract in question:

We have arrived at an age, it seems, when reasons not to kill yourself are harder and harder to come by. I feel that we, and particularly I, have somehow 'ended up' here -- 'ended up' is certainly the phrase. Recently I received an e-mail from Thomas Ligotti Online telling me that Ligotti's latest work, The Conspiracy Against the Human Race, a long philosophical treatise on why human life is inexcusably horrible, was available for free download for a limited period. Naturally, I leapt at the chance to read it.

Having read a number of portions of the text in a kind of trance of will-crushing dread, I find that it deals with many of the themes that have occupied me in this notebook, although the conclusions drawn -- not that I have read the final conclusion, which Ligotti tells us at the beginning is, anyway, foregone -- are slightly at variance with my own.

Inasmuch as this is what universal consciousness has washed up on the shore of my consciousness, it is, however, mine. I feel that it is what we have all come to, where we have all 'ended up'.

The treatise runs to upwards of a hundred pages. I will attempt a digest of what I have read here.

For Ligotti, consciousness, and specifically human consciousness, is an aberration in creation, and an obscenity. We are the only animals who are aware that we are alive and that we will die. As he has stated elsewhere, "It's a damn shame that intelligent life ever evolved in the first place." It is imperative for human beings, against all evidence and against all odds, to pretend that there is some meaning to this state of affairs -- the emergence of their aberrant consciousness and the animal mortality of which it makes them aware -- if they wish to survive. However, survival only means further suffering, which is dealt with by further lies about there being some meaning to life. Eventually the entire human race will end, anyway, and eternity will continue ever away from the blip of our existence, so any kind of meaning or immortality stops there. Would it not be better, at least, to reduce the needless suffering by ceasing to procreate?

This, to me, is the only logical and viable atheist position. It is atheism's logical conclusion. I admire Ligotti's thoroughness in taking such a position and fleshing it out. As far as I have read it, the essay seems to leave us with three options from which to choose:
a) lies
b) insanity
c) voluntary extinction
There is some overlap between a and b, if they are not entirely identical. Although they might facilitate our further survival, neither of them makes us proof against pain, and, of course, neither of them will ever bring us final satisfaction.

The text of the essay is impeccably well-written. This is not a question of mere style. Every word seems to fall with due gravitas into its natural place, like water finding its level, giving the impression of something, on its own terms, indisputable. The author has carried this work with him for a long time. This is not academic. It feels like the summation of a life. I do not doubt that this is a serious and considerable work, though I've no idea how the academic cliques might receive it. I am not an academic. I am, however, a bit of a flibbertigibbet. Anything I write in a notebook like this is bound to be a little flighty and flimsy and I do not hope to give the work the response it deserves. I only think that it is most definitely THERE, and cannot be ignored.

There is nothing I can put into words of which I am certain, and this effectively means that I am not an atheist, if for no other reason than that atheism is just another word. When you are not an atheist, the three options previously mentioned begin to look different and change. In particular, the first option may be replaced by others. Some may even be creative enough to come up with more than three options. In my own case, I have never been entirely able to persuade myself that reasons for living are either lies or truth. It seems to me that there may indeed be a meaning to existence. Why? Why not? I mean, why shouldn't there be? Oh, nothing to do with words, of course. I noticed an interesting phrase in Ligotti's essay, in quotation marks. Even most intellectual writers, he says, fall short of complete nihilism and back on "what the heart knows". I can't say I've noticed a great deal of this among intellectuals myself, but it's certainly something that is true of me. At least, the phrase means something to me, however it was intended.

Anyway, there may be a meaning to life, and if so, it is my task as a writer to discover it. Not that I can express it directly. It would have to exist between the lines. I'm entirely aware of how trite and naive that sounds, but there it is. I won't dress it up or down.

As I said, I am certain of nothing I can put into words, but for me the dilemma of existence goes something like this: If evil exists in the world, and it certainly does, then the entire universe must be evil, because a benevolent universe could not possibly support evil. Therefore the universe, if it falls below perfection at any point, and it has, must be evil. So, let's say the universe is evil. In that case, how is it that I am able to experience anything as good at all -- the beautiful things I see, the people who seem always to have had a place in my heart. Where do these things come from in a universe that is entirely evil? You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, as they say, and however many times you add evil to evil, it still equals evil. Good cannot spring up ex nihilo, and therefore can only come from a universe that is entirely good (one that is only slightly good is, as we have seen, already entirely evil). Therefore the universe is entirely good. But if so, where does evil come from? Etcetera.

You could say, theologically, or philosophically speaking, that I swing both ways. It has really cost me more than I can ever explain, and continues to do so.

For me, anyway, the jury is still out. Until a verdict is returned, a unanimous verdict, you might say, I believe it is best to err on the side of caution and refrain from procreation.

Ironically, if all were to adopt such a policy, it would probably preclude any verdict ever being returned, anyway.

	CATHR The Conspiracy Against the Human Race

[darrick]

i enjoyed your post, qcrisp. thanks.

i noticed one thing that stuck out at me: why does the universe have to be perceived as good or evil? isn't that all ego-centric and relative? without human beings to observe it, the universe can be neither good nor evil... it just is.

but if we did try to see the universe in human and dualistic terms, what would be our definition of good and evil? pleasure and pain? that reminds me of something Mel Brooks said, "Comedy is when you fall down an elevator shaft and die; tragedy is when i get a small cut on my finger." it all depends on who's looking at what.

have you ever seen the British movie, Naked? it's very good and quite nihilistic. the protagonist of the film makes a similar case... that if the universe was good, then evil couldn't exist. which means that god is evil. it's more involved than that, but that's the gist.

i haven't had the pleasure of reading TCATHR yet because i'm waiting for it in hardcover, but i'll share my own personal philosophy here in the briefest of terms:

existence, taken in an ordinary way, is unsatisfying... which is why certain individuals need to find extraordinary means for escape... transcendence.


Darrick

	TCATHR The Conspiracy Against the Human Race

[G. S. Carnivals]

Quote Originally Posted by darrick

existence, taken in an ordinary way, is unsatisfying... which is why certain individuals need to find extraordinary means for escape... transcendence.

darrick, your worldview is succinct. John Lennon had his notion of "whatever gets you through the night." Why not a personal transcendence? Or personal self-delusion (to simplify a concept conveyed in CATHR)? My personal transcendence or self-delusion is rooted in my refusal to take anything which exists too seriously. I consciously make an attempt to vault over the crapola straight into the absurdity of the situation. This is why my content here at TLO is often riddled with the bullets of a twisted sense of humor. If I lacked this self-delusion, I would have accidentally on purpose hit my OFF switch long ago.

Making it through tonight,
Phil

	TLO THOMAS LIGOTTI ONLINE

	CATHR The Conspiracy Against the Human Race

[Nemonymous]

I consciously make an attempt to vault over the crapola straight into the absurdity of the situation

I'm like that, too, Phil.

As to Q's point that the world is all evil if it is partly evil, I'd say the world's probably a flawed masterpiece. And to be a true masterpiece one needs an optimum of flawing.


Also, I haven't finished reading CATHR, and I don't know if my responses are yet mature.

I agree with that. That's why my review was on the hoof with the promise of a second review at some stage. Whether one should review it at all remains a moot point. If someone convinces me, I shall remove my review from view! Or is that me being subsumed by absurd self-delusion again?

des

[qcrisp]

"but if we did try to see the universe in human and dualistic terms, what would be our definition of good and evil? pleasure and pain?"

This is a good question, and probably better than any answer I can give to it. I suppose I would say, however, that since the discussion is about whether or not humans should continue to exist, evil must be viewed in terms of human experience. I suppose you could call it pleasure and pain, although I don't think it's that simple. Things get a bit complicated here because there are possibly two different kinds of dualism at work in this discussion. One is, as you have pointed out, good and evil. The other is subject and object. To dismiss the former kind of dualism, the latter is often used. Objectively, in the 'real' world, our subjective human experience means nothing. To me, however, and to most humans, I suspect, an 'objective' universe is already pretty much evil. That is precisely what our experience of evil is - that there is a real, objective universe out there that in some way is uncaring and, through 'nature' or through other human beings, uses us as pawns in some blind game of horror.

I suppose what I am therefore saying is that, maybe, just maybe, any experience of good in the universe is actually always an intimation that there is no objective "out there", that everything is "what the heart knows". An experience of evil is the falling away from such knowledge and believing that there is some objective 'out there' that is fucking you around in some way. Ligotti's work is interesting in that it seems often to suggest there is no objective out there, that it's all a vast illusion (see Mystics of Meulenberg, Cocoons and so on), but other times seems to insist on the subjective/objective divide as the focus of the horror of existence. For instance, the very idea of consciousness as an aberrance is based on this divide. There is animal (objective) and consciousness (subjective), and it's horrible to have the one trapped inside the other.

Well, I hope that forms some sort of answer to your question.

I haven't seen the film you mention. I shall have to look out for it.

Unfortunately my reading of The Conspiracy Against the Human Race is very slow at the moment, because my eyes are bad, I can't read much off the screen, and my printer is broken.

In solid book form, however, I am reading The Razor's Edge by Somerset Maugham at the moment. Coincidentally, it deals with some similar themes about good and evil and so on. I'm enjoying it immensely and recommend it.

[darrick]

Quote

Why not a personal transcendence? Or personal self-delusion (to simplify a concept conveyed in CATHR)?

indeed, i think any kind of authentic transcendence has to be a personal one. a generic, catch-all transcendence would be absurd and probably the antithesis of transcendence. i believe truth is always hidden, that's part of what makes the universe "evil".

rather than self-delusion, why not call it self-reality? each human being creates their own paradigm. i firmly believe this too.

Quote

That is precisely what our experience of evil is - that there is a real, objective universe out there that in some way is uncaring and, through 'nature' or through other human beings, uses us as pawns in some blind game of horror.

i agree. and if we can say the definition of evil is hostile to mankind, then let us call the universe exactly that... evil.

Quote

Ligotti's work is interesting in that it seems often to suggest there is no objective out there, that it's all a vast illusion (see Mystics of Meulenberg, Cocoons and so on), but other times seems to insist on the subjective/objective divide as the focus of the horror of existence. For instance, the very idea of consciousness as an aberrance is based on this divide. There is animal (objective) and consciousness (subjective), and it's horrible to have the one trapped inside the other.

i've picked up on that without having it pinned down so well. thanks for that. it is a frightening notion. i feel the horror too, but mine is coupled with three strong doses of Nietzsche's Will to Power. so instead of lamenting my condition, i can only struggle to conquer it... knowing that i shall eventually succeed.

i wish we had this sort of conversation/debate on my forum. (and yes, this is a thinly veiled plug for the Cult of Cthulhu forum... see my sig) this level of philsophical examination is seriously lacking over there.

D

[YellowJester]

I thought I would inject myself into this particular thread because I find it exemplary of what I hoped to see when Dr. Bantham afforded me the benefit of putting CATHR on TLO. By this I mean that it's my good fortune to witness how ideas that have been knocking around in my head for a long time are eliciting a variety of viewpoints from thoughtful minds who share many of my concerns, although they may not perceive them in the same way as I do or agree with them in the least. A good example is what someone wrote about expressions of pessimistic cast prompting "questions about one's sanity, rationality, and intelligence." I'm absolutely uninterested in being defensive about such comments or in arguing points of interpretation about CATHR. I just appreciate that anyone has taken the trouble to read it, or at least read in it, and say what they think about what they've read. It took me a few years to finish this book--it's actually longer than it seems in the online presentation or the PDF file--and I've continued to expand, refine, and polish it since its appearance on TLO. Therefore, I've had the advantage of pondering its ideas for quite a while. And now I have the advantage of having this document contemplated and challenged in whole or in part. For anyone to swallow whole hog what I've had to say in CATHR, they would really have to be so like me that we would practically be indistinguishable in our view of life, the universe, and everything. I do think that some people who read CATHR will be that like-minded in their views. In fact, I've received such reactions in private correspondence. But naturally most people will not be so like-minded. With the possible exception of Zapffe, I myself am not totally in tune with everything that the authors I cite and celebrate. Differences among people's minds is of course one of the themes of CATHR. Okay, I've got to wrap up this post before I time out and lose it. Thanks again to you all.

TL

	TLO THOMAS LIGOTTI ONLINE

	CATHR The Conspiracy Against the Human Race