"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.

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.

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.

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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.

This is surely a *good* one, Dale!

I'll read the link later today, but the quoted proposition intrigues me. I may wish to play around with the notion of psychological valence, since this is new to me. I want to get the underlying principles of the proposition solid in my mind before going deeper.

But the point you make about Lovecraft, especially as it relates to other posts here about his personal worldview, sort of intuitively "clicked" when I read it. I think you have something there. It may be the key to *why* he endures, because it certainly isn't his stylistic qualities.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Whatever one might say about Donald Rumsfeld, I've always liked his breakdown of things thus:

Knowns
Known unknowns
Unknown unknowns

There are things we know; there are things we know that we don't know yet (but knowing this, we can try to discover more); there are things that we don't know we don't know.

Putting it simplistically, I believe that Lovecraft, personally, thought there were the things we know, and there are also knowable unknowns: the universe may send something our way that we don't now know about, but, in principle, it must be something we could come to know, could understand, if we have enough time and sufficiently developed instruments of knowledge. The principle is that of mechanistic materialism.

But in his fiction, he might want to let in the idea of the unknown unknowns that are essentially unknowable -- things that we could never understand, not even in principle. These would be things that cannot be explained in any way, not even by means of mechanistic materialism.

So my question here is, what do experienced readers of Lovecraft think? Keeping the discussion focused on his fiction -- not turning top his letters and essays -- did he deal with the idea of the truly inexplicable? It would seem to me that that would be more "sublime" than the idea of things that are scary, yes, but that could and must be explicable, after all, in the same terms that explain familiar phenomena by means of materialism.

Very briefly, Dale, I consider the short descriptive piece, "Nyarlathotep", to describe a situation that superficially comes off as a svengali-like persona who passes thru modern society irreversibly disrupting it like the contagion in the Masque of the Red Death.

What happens at his gatherings, and what subsequently happens, ostensibly as a result, can be described, but cannot be comprehended, nor is there any indication to me how it could ever be comprehended, so I would classify it as completely and permanently unknowable to humanity.

I'll try to find more specific instances of descriptions of "the unknowable" in Lovecraft.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That's a profoundly un-buffered, porous self at the end of "Nyarlathotep."

I revisited the ending of this piece, and thought that, at the very end, the first-person narrative voice has given way to the voice of an omniscient narrator -- else how could the piece end with the bit about Nyarlathotep as the "soul" (sic) of the idiot "gods"?

Well, it might be argued that, at the end of the story, the narrator has, in fact, by contact with Nyarlathotep become "omniscient; is in some way merged with Nyarlathotep. In Lovecraft's terms, this scenario might be comparable to the fate of Judas in Dante's Inferno, where the traitor disciple's head is endlessly chewed by the monster.

[Added later] …. Whoa! I spotted something pertinent … Charles Taylor, who developed this porous/buffered concept in his book A Secular Age, said that, as compared with 500+ years ago, "One of the big differences between us and them is that we live with a much firmer sense of the boundary between self and other."

So, if the reading of the end of "Nyarlathotep" I have offered makes sense, then this could be Lovecraft's great nightmare of the demolition of the buffered self, overwhelmed by, absorbed by, the other.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 3 Mar 20 | 05:21PM by Dale Nelson.

My source for the Taylor quotation:

[www.thenewatlantis.com]

Jacobs adds: "a person accepts a buffered condition as a means of being protected from the demonic or otherwise ominous forces that in pre-modern times generated a quavering network of terrors. To be a pre-modern person, in Taylor’s account, is to be constantly in danger of being invaded or overcome by demons or fairies or nameless terrors of the dark — of being possessed and transformed, or spirited away and never returned to home and family."



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 3 Mar 20 | 05:27PM by Dale Nelson.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's a profoundly un-buffered, porous self at
> the end of "Nyarlathotep."

Hah! Indeed!

>
> I revisited the ending of this piece, and thought
> that, at the very end, the first-person narrative
> voice has given way to the voice of an omniscient
> narrator -- else how could the piece end with the
> bit about Nyarlathotep as the "soul" (sic) of the
> idiot "gods"?

Excellent detailed observation.

It's first person--conveys tremendous narrative impact--and yet the POV could not, as a typical urban resident of the 20th C, have known anything about this alien and obscure pantheon.

But then again, since he might well be using the reference to the "idiot gods" not literally--i.e., there are no such entities known to narrator--but figuratively; at this last point of coherence, he views Nyarlathotep as behaving *as if* he were the soul of idiot gods.

>
> Well, it might be argued that, at the end of the
> story, the narrator has, in fact, by contact with
> Nyarlathotep become "omniscient; is in some way
> merged with Nyarlathotep. In Lovecraft's terms,
> this scenario might be comparable to the fate of
> Judas in Dante's Inferno, where the traitor
> disciple's head is endlessly chewed by the
> monster.

No longer remember the details, but you've piqued my interest to review that part.

[Still sticking with Celine--"Journey..." is a very ugly book, but is filled with worthwhile observations on humanity.]

>
> …. Whoa! I spotted something pertinent …
> Charles Taylor, who developed this porous/buffered
> concept in his book A Secular Age, said that, as
> compared with 500+ years ago, "One of the big
> differences between us and them is that we live
> with a much firmer sense of the boundary between
> self and other."
>
> So, if the reading of the end of "Nyarlathotep" I
> have offered makes sense, then this could be
> Lovecraft's great nightmare of the demolition of
> the buffered self, overwhelmed by, absorbed by,
> the other.

I think that observation works also in an examination of the narrative, where in fact the narrator becomes a part of a driven, senseless mob that's under the control of an external and unknown impetus, for reasons that are unknown as well, and is entering a physical universe that has no parallel or precursor.

This whole notion of "buffered/porous" is very intriguing and thought-provoking, Dale. Thanks for introducing it to the discussion.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~