Sunday, September 8, 2024

Lovecraft is Made of People

 Speaking of powerful and destructive entities such as paperclipping AIs, Lovecraftian deities exist in real life, we call them Homo sapiens


 The key features of Lovecraftian deities are incomprehensibility and indifference. 

 True malevolence is flattering to the narcissist. It upholds anthropocentrism, or rather, egocentrism. Wow Satan really cares about you in particular. 

 To a narcissist, the opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference. Lovecraftian gods don't kill you because they hate you. They kill you because they don't notice you're even there. One stretches its arm, Earth goes kablooie, it gets a bit of an itch, scratches the itch - incidentally squishing anyone who managed to survive - and goes about its business. To them you are bacteria and less than bacteria. 

 Lovecraftian cultists worship their god, gain powers through profane rituals...and then the god sneezes, and they're BTFO. The sneeze probably wasn't even caused by them in particular. Even the dust irritating a Lovecraftian god's nose is vastly more glorious than you in particular. 

 Even if they did notice you, they wouldn't care. "I'm killing Earthlings? What even is an Earthling, lol? Anyway..."

 

 Sapiens are barely not indifferent to each other, they can't muster the slightest care for beings such as gophers, moles, and worms. 

 People often freak out seeing the more basic things. I don't dig a hole, chop or remove wood, or build something without pouring offerings to the earth and wights.
 https://twitter.com/GraniRau/status/1807075453405900805

 If you dig a hole through a rabbit or gopher den...do you even notice?
 Can the gopher possibly understand what happened, let alone how you did it? 

 When your spade chops the worm in half, the rusty, battered metal driving dirt and grit into the open wounds...do you care? Vegetarians sure don't...even if they know the worm is there. Try telling them, see what happens. Point out the writhing body of the dying annelid. 

 If you chop a tree down, do you count the birds whose nests you smash? Do you look out for the chipmunks who lost their hollows? 

 The questions are, of course, rhetorical. 


 What Lovecraft was largely railing against was himself. As per usual for narcissists, he projects this self outside and pretends it is other. 

 Americans find Lovecraft so evocative because they're incredibly narcissistic. Lovecraft makes them feel seen. They project, just as he did, and see exactly what he saw. 

 The universe isn't indifferent to you. You're indifferent to the universe. This upsets you because it's a major problem. 



 P.S. In a full-blooded Lovecraft tale, the protagonists lose. The cosmos - the indifferent actor in the dynamic -  wins. For the mortal equivalents, this is not quite accurate.

 Certainly earthworms can't call on their extended family to start a blood feud with yours. Nevertheless, this indifference has consequences. Nature starts to feel hostile because you've made her your enemy, and her hostility is far from impotent.

 Apologizing for being a bad neighbour through [offerings] or [sacrifices], ideally more than making up for the caused harm, does in fact work. What if the local crows didn't hate your guts. What if.
 Unlike a human, defecting on animal, refusing to let it mind its own business, doesn't make it like you more. Have to contribute more than you cost them.

 If you do a big consecration ceremony before building or chopping, it will drive off most of the inhabitants, minimizing the harm for which you'll be held liable. 

 P.P.S. "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents" -H. P. Lovecraft.
 No HPL, you're just a pussy. Not even hard enough to think your own thoughts, lol.

2 comments:

rezzealaux said...

i read "the most merciful thing in the world is the ability of the human mind to correlate all its contents" and was like whats this guy talking about, why would it be a mercy. then i reread it correctly and it was even stupider.

though, i don't think i would've had the strong conclusion if i hadn't read the whole post preceding it. would've been "what is this guy talking about" but as a rhetorical question before forgetting i read it. which in turn is a step up from up until recently, where half the time it'd be "i don't understand therefore i am wrong and he is right and i must find out why he is right".

i think the gap is i don't really try to understand other people. the russian peasant, "what would make you act like this" "but i wouldn't act like this".

Alrenous said...

Strangers have strange ways. HPL is right for him, though.
He really is too soft to think his own thoughts.
His [[humanity]] broke his own mind, therefore he wrote about external entities breaking his mind...and americoids went apeshit in solidarity.