Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "The positive valence of porosity is fullness; its
> negative valence is terror. The positive valence
> of bufferdness is protection; its negative valence
> is emptiness. Taylor’s thesis is that over the
> past five hundred years Western culture has moved
> from a general condition of porosity to a general
> condition of bufferedness."
>
> [
blog.ayjay.org]
>
> You have to read more of the blog entry than just
> the three sentences I have quoted, but you don't
> have to read much. I thought this material had
> possibilities as the basis for a discussion of
> authors we talk about a lot here, as well,
> perhaps, for whatever self-disclosure folks want
> to make.
I'll set this paragraph off because to me, it is the meat of the discussion:
>
> There seems to me an interesting tension in
> Lovecraft. In his letters he seems to me a
> representative of the "buffered self," in that he
> believes that an understandable, learnable method
> -- procedural materialism -- is adequate not only
> for all we know but all we need to learn. We
> don't know everything and there might be a great
> deal we have to learn, but, in principle, we have
> the tools now for that learning; what remains is
> just details. When he knows he is going to die,
> he feels no awe, no terror; he already "knows"
> that what is closing in on him is mere extinction.
> But in his fiction, Lovecraft has obvious
> affinities with the porous self and its
> receptivity to terror. His stories are about
> cataclysmic revelations.
This description of what may have been the tension between the porous and the buffered, or the vulnerable vs the protected, selves resonates profoundly with my own experience. A quick background to let you know where I'm coming from...
My family has been described as "irreligious" by close friends in the sense that they were neither for nor against a religious foundation for existence, nor even agnostic, but rather that the entire concept of the hidden never came up. Everything that you dealt with was either known or knowable, with adequate preparation.
The entire source of impetus and useful knowledge comes from *within*, rather than from without; I'd guess it's free will on steroids. But not pure--there is also uncontrolled, and also uncontrollable, external forces. Like the draft was for me in the 60s.
This was at a practical or utilitarian level rather than an intellectual one, my family being composed of recent (1900s) peasant immigrants who had come from an eastern orthodox christian milieux. So neither was there an actual church of this denomination, nor was there a demand or desire for one within the community.
The most effective way I can describe this is that we tended to view our traditional religious structure a lot like we viewed the local Elks' Lodge: it was something others associated themselves with, but for no good reason other than social connection. Harmless but of no consequence. That's about how we saw it and it informs my current worldview, which has evolved to a kind of utilitarian materialism informed empirically. It is, therefore, limited, but realizes its limitations, mostly.
So for the most part, there are things that I know imperfectly (perfect knowledge being impossible, as is perfection, itself), but functionally well enough to achieve a level of success in my endeavors, whatever they are, and there are things I don't know, but *could* (probably)...
However...
There exists the definite possibility, as informed by the vast list of things I don't know, that there are also things that I don't know *of*--not even enough to form a conception of their existence. In fact, this seems certain, statistically.
Knowing (or rather, *believing*) this--and yet seeing NO evidence, at all, of their existence--I am strangely superstitious. I do strange, self-created rituals, or trivial borrowed ones, to guard against negative influences. Note here that it does not occur to me to invite *positive* assistance--this seems neither needed, available, or even *possible*. So what I'm after--my porous self is--is absence of malice, and in that vacuum I feel competent to succeed.
So, really, this stuff about Lovecraft sounds a hell of a lot like something I'm doing right now, and have for all my life.
Now given this, Lovecraft's approach is the philosophical link for a post-modernist, like myself, and inescapable epistemological gaps in awareness that may pose threats. And he's a good guide, too, because he is "one of us"... ;^)
I mean, a mystic could never really threaten my cosmos--Coleridge and Blake are amusing, talented storytellers--but a materialist can.
I am eager to hear your views, and the views of others.
>
> I don't know CAS well enough to speculate about
> him.
>
> But there's a lot more that can be done with this
> porous vs. buffered concept.
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~