Around Christmas I never read CAS. He has no connection with such genuinely atmospheric human traditions. At this time I like to seek back to the feeling of our blissful roots (be it Christmas, or further back). And therefore it is better to choose Lovecraft, who loved this, in spite of his contemptuous abyssmal horrors pressing close. Every Christmas Eve I read The Festival, and some of his poems such as Old Christmas and Festival.

I read CAS only in the madness of the spaces between the holidays.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 19 Dec 04 | 01:28PM by Ludde.

This reminds me, I should speak to some folks about CAS at Christmas time. Perhaps Herr Doktor Bauer might enlighten and entertain us a bit? Bitte sehr? :) (Excuse the German, too much Stille Nacht, Heilige Nacht.....)
Scott

God Jul & Gott Nytt År

to all you here patrons of good taste in art and literature.

Clark Ashton Smith along with Lovecraft are probably the two most central writers in connection to this forum, since they had a close communication and interchange of ideas, and were the two single greatest writers of weird fiction, Lovecraft for his wide understanding of human culture and society, natural sciences, and in that context his very atmospheric feeling for the weird; and Smith for his erudition, his imagination and genuinely otherworldly touches.

I have been munching ginger cookies and had a few glasses of hot spiced wine, and will say something I normally would not say but have often thought about. It is great art (although not accepted as such by the elite establishment), but still, who reads these writers? My guess is that all attracted to their stories, myself included, are deeply disillusioned, have had painful childhoods, and lead rather frustrating lives. What is gained from reading these writers? Do they lead further into disillusion and confusion, leaving the stability of mundane life further behind, or can they offer a firm and lasting satisfaction in alternate pleasures and wisdom from that which is worldly, stout, and normally accepted by society and the narrowminded politically correct herd? Or is it a deliciously decadent pleasure, leading to selfdestructiveness, like entering into the Singing Flame, or following the lamia to her cot?




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 26 Dec 04 | 03:48AM by Ludde.

Ludde!

I believe that you may be erring in regards to those who read HPL and CAS. I may have had a poor childhood, but it had plenty of good points. If anything, since I remember so little about it, I must state that it must have had little too good or too bad to be truly memorable.

I have also had disillusionment, but I have also seen much splendid in life. The friendliness of most here on the forum is one example of an illusion we can live with, if illusion it be. I like people, irregardless of humanity's faults, and I genuinely look forward to each new day.

As for a frustrating life, adapting to schizophrenia has had its frustrations, as has adapting to life on a disability pension, but I accept my life's limitations, and I have fun, and I soar when and where I can. I may not live the ideal life, I may be alone, with no kids, but I am happy in my own way, and I endeavour to make this world a little better, even if only by cheering up my friends and acquaintances, for whom I hold an abiding respect and affection.

As an atheist, although I hold that life has no inherent meaning, as is supplied by adherence to a credo or article of faith, I still nonetheless impart meaning that I choose to place in it, a meaning, further, that is consonant with the fellow that I am and have become. I live, essentially, in harmony with myself and my world, and I feel -- most times -- a deep and intense serenity and peace, more so than when I believed in a God.

So, on the whole, I scarcely fit into your pattern. Ask S. T. Joshi whether he fits in, or even Dr. F, and I'm sure you would find they scarecly fit in. As for my other fellows, speak up, and let us both find out....

Ludde Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Clark Ashton Smith along with Lovecraft are
> probably the two most central writers in
> connection to this forum, since they had a close
> communication and interchange of ideas, and were
> the two single greatest writers of weird fiction,
> Lovecraft for his wide understanding of human
> culture and society, natural sciences, and in that
> context his very atmospheric feeling for the
> weird; and Smith for his erudition, his
> imagination and genuinely otherworldly touches.
>
> I have been munching ginger cookies and had a
> few glasses of hot spiced wine,

My advice is to lay off of the cookies...

> and will say
> something I normally would not say but have often
> thought about. It is great art (although not
> accepted as such by the elite establishment), but
> still, who reads these writers? My guess is that
> all attracted to their stories, myself included,
> are deeply disillusioned, have had painful
> childhoods, and lead rather frustrating lives.

Interesting...

Sometime back, I characterized why I enjoyed watching David Lynch files, for example. It's because I wanted the stimulation of his characters, but didn't actually want to meet, or have anything to do with anyone in real life who remotely resembles, e.g., Frank, from Blue Velvet.

I am after a vicarious thrill. In reading the two authors you mention, I find not only a vicarious thrill, but intellectual stimulation in both. In the case of Lovecraft, his cosmology is quite modern: he seems to be a strict materialist, and this believe in the possibility of multitudinal unverses, and his banging around the idea of infinity, lead inevitably to the implaction that we are Not Alone, and that which was recognizaed as thr supernatural are really manifestations of natural law, either beyond our understandings of it, or utterly beyond the bounds of physics that would operate within this universe. Quite stimulating to attempt to reconcile these aspects!

Smith I read for a) his sense of overarching destiny (prophecies are common, and they are fulfilled); the gosh-darned *beautiful* use of very unusual, but very visual, vocabulary, and c) his very ironic sense of humor.

I read both of them to escape the world of SW engineering, which needs to be more precise and deterministic, and abstract, than is truly enjoyable, except on an intellectual plane, and only in failry limited bursts.


> What is gained from reading these writers? Do they
> lead further into disillusion and confusion,
> leaving the stability of mundane life further
> behind, or can they offer a firm and lasting
> satisfaction in alternate pleasures and wisdom
> from that which is worldly, stout, and normally
> accepted by society and the narrowminded
> politically correct herd? Or is it a deliciously
> decadent pleasure, leading to selfdestructiveness,
> like entering into the Singing Flame, or following
> the lamia to her cot?

I don't know about the lamaea (sp?): it seems pretty harmless to me.

Scott Connors Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This reminds me, I should speak to some folks
> about CAS at Christmas time. Perhaps Herr Doktor
> Bauer might enlighten and entertain us a bit?
> Bitte sehr? :) (Excuse the German, too much
> Stille Nacht, Heilige Nacht.....)
> Scott

Dear Scott et al,j
Clark was amenable to the common amenities of the season, responding to the standard salutations courteously, but his
primary delight in the season were those mulled comestibles which one might enjoy with burgundy or cider - and which many of one's friends were happy to share. Carol was more prone to activiate something resembling traditional festive decor (barely). It is an especially good excuse for a party, of course, and there is an abundance of quite excellent Handel being performed all over the place, with free admission. As to the cosmic significance of the season, Clark was less than enthusiastic, though wise enough not to pursue conversation publicly about his views.
Small note as to what sort of folk read CAS - the writer following your post suggests the readership is made up of those who have been massively disillusioned -- I think not - rather those who have faced disullusionment, fought past its tricks and smokescreens to a higher reality -- Clark is not a nihilist.

frohliches funfte tage des Weihnact mit seiner Goldenen Ringen, und ein frohes neujahr!

Ludde Wrote:
> who reads these writers? My guess is that
> all attracted to their stories, myself included,
> are deeply disillusioned, have had painful
> childhoods, and lead rather frustrating lives.
> What is gained from reading these writers?

Intriguing questions. My childhood wasn't painful, but somewhat solitary and largely spent in the company of adults (I was not an only child, but my sole sibling is 18 years older. I do find life frustrating at times, but that is largely my fault in that I have problems adjusting to its "mundane" aspects. Like a Lovecraftian hero I occasionally have intimations of something "beyond" but can't turn that into adherence to a religious faith.

I add Arthur Machen to the list, by the way. I think these writers offer mental recreation and a place to spread the wings of imagination. I find their worlds very vivid; decadent perhaps, horrific certainly, but there is something reassuring about horror that can be contained within the pages of a book and turned to at our leisure. If this is a vice, it's an extremely harmless one. Perhaps people might search for similar pleasures through drugs; but there they really are in the lamia's cot.

Happy New Year, everyone!

Voleboy,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. You seem to have a cheerful mind in spite of the difficulties you mention. It sounds as if you have come to terms with obstacles, and gained real and useful wisdom, that leads you to bright spots. It is inspiring.

As for atheism, I agree, it is a choosen attitude of approach to life that has rewarding qualities, like taking charge and resolutely acting out & persuing ones needs, instead of sitting around waiting for good things to happen;
Belief in God can easily slip into passiveness and supersticious hopes that that things will go ones way, with dissapointment as an inevitable result, followed by further desperate prayers for things to turn. Futility.

Still, I think that a quiet belief in God can be a help in difficult times, more so than a strict atheist determination. That is because I believe the natural Universe function as a gigantic, infinitely complex, chemical reaction, with every event an inevitable result of earlier events (possibly with intervention of spiritual matter, which itself may follow similar inevitable ways). In this process the act of prayer or meditation to "God", a sincere will of handing over, helps tone in to the natural flow of events (God might be nothing more than an abstract description of this central balance), instead of resisting and fighting them with ones ever argumenting surface thoughts; it is a way of surrendering to ones subconscious deepest intuition (cosmic connected mind) that knows the best way to harmonious solutions (which of course may include hard conscious work) and eventually brings this knowledge to the surface thoughts.
On the other hand this mental state of surrendering to deeper wisdom, in touch with the flow of things and ones personal potentials, can be achieved by an atheist too. The idea of God is only a vehicle to get there. But as said, a vehicle that is easily misunderstood to be a separate intervening entity of projected fatherly qualities, and with good intentions exclusively for human interests. This is the view of the small mind, that sees humanity as center of everything, at the opposite pole of the cosmic mind.

Sorry if I sound complicating, but that is how my mind keeps going.

Sawfish,

-"Lovecraft..", "seems to be a strict materialist, and this believe", "...that which was recognizaed as thr supernatural are really manifestations of natural law, either beyond our understandings of it, or utterly beyond the bounds of physics that would operate within this universe. Quite stimulating to attempt to reconcile these aspects!"

Yes! I agree!
Although I don't think Lovecraft saw any natural explanations for ghosts and the like other than overactive imagination and superstition, at least he claimed so in his letters. He only used it in his stories to create an illusion, invoke atmosphere, and stir our supernatural fears. In regard to space and physics he was probably more openminded.
But I think Smith said he believed in spirits, and had had a personal encounter.

-"I don't know about the lamaea (sp?): it seems pretty harmless to me."

hehe... Harmless?! Lucky fellow, no teethmarks. Well, you sound like a rather carefree soul, so maybe I was not completely right in my guessing.

-"I read both of them to escape the world of SW engineering,".

I read them because I believe their worlds to be more real than the confusion of our present modern society. They have a sense of balance between elements, insight into events and behaviour, and understanding of the importance of beauty and ethics, that has been lost in the mundane world. I only spend time in the world to get impressions that will enrich the experience of art. I avoid modern materialism as much as I can, although it isn't entirely possible, and flee to the forrest and sea and the remains of oldtime culture.
And I read them as a compensation for my social inablity to handle communication with ordinary people.

Mikey_C wrote:
-"I add Arthur Machen to the list, by the way."
Here is perhaps even more horror and shadow, but what a sense of beauty to balance it!

I wonder what made Smith so very preoccupied with death, sepulchers, and the corruption of the worm. If it was from sad childhood experiences, along with exceptional sensitiveness, or perhaps mainly from litterary impressions such as Poe?
I may have sounded as if I see Lovecraft's and Smith's writings as only dreariness, but that is not so.
I am amazed at Smith's eye for beauty and familiarity with an endless number of things, even though he lived isolated near a small community in the mountains. For example, yesterday I was reading Isle of the Torturers, and could feel the wind filling the sails and the murmurous sea around the boat's hull. Many people of today, who have traveled around the world again and again in hysteric search of exotic experiences probable haven't even noticed such details as he describes.

In my post above I simplified things to provoke reaction.

calonlan wrote:
-"Small note as to what sort of folk read CAS - the writer following your post suggests the readership is made up of those who have been massively disillusioned -- I think not - rather those who have faced disullusionment, fought past its tricks and smokescreens to a higher reality..."

I was going to come to something like that. No one escapes pain in life. We all share this. And even if some are blessed with more inner harmony and easier start from the beginning, disillusionment will come sooner or later, to all physically manifested life.
But those with rougher background often are forced to meet greater challenge to reach other depths of reality, beyond the simplest grovelling animal pleasures and disappointments.












Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 3 Jan 05 | 05:22AM by Ludde.

As for CAS' preoccupation with death, et al., perhaps one source was the precarious health of his youth, and another in the circumstances of his lifetime -- World Wars, influenza epidemic, living in rural circumstances where such is relatively common -- both of which would have impressed themselves upon a sensitive youth. Forget not that there was the early influence of Poe, and that would have helped.

Quote:

Forget not that there was the early influence of Poe, and that would have helped.

It's also important to recall in this regard the influence of the work of Thomas Lovell Beddoes, although I have no idea at what age CAS first read Beddoes's poetry.

Ludde Wrote:

<SNIP MUCH>

>
> Sawfish,
>
> -"Lovecraft..", "seems to be a strict materialist,
> and this believe", "...that which was recognizaed
> as thr supernatural are really manifestations of
> natural law, either beyond our understandings of
> it, or utterly beyond the bounds of physics that
> would operate within this universe. Quite
> stimulating to attempt to reconcile these
> aspects!"
>
> Yes! I agree!
> Although I don't think Lovecraft saw any natural
> explanations for ghosts and the like other than
> overactive imagination and superstition, at least
> he claimed so in his letters. He only used it in
> his stories to create an illusion, invoke
> atmosphere, and stir our supernatural fears. In
> regard to space and physics he was probably more
> openminded.
> But I think Smith said he believed in spirits, and
> had had a personal encounter.
>
> -"I don't know about the lamaea (sp?): it seems
> pretty harmless to me."
>
> hehe... Harmless?! Lucky fellow, no teethmarks.
> Well, you sound like a rather carefree soul,

...that's what the prison gurads say, too.

> so
> maybe I was not completely right in my guessing.

Who knows?

>
> -"I read both of them to escape the world of SW
> engineering,".
>
> I read them because I believe their worlds to be
> more real than the confusion of our present modern
> society. They have a sense of balance between
> elements, insight into events and behaviour, and
> understanding of the importance of beauty and
> ethics, that has been lost in the mundane world. I
> only spend time in the world to get impressions
> that will enrich the experience of art. I avoid
> modern materialism as much as I can, although it
> isn't entirely possible, and flee to the forrest
> and sea and the remains of oldtime culture.
> And I read them as a compensation for my social
> inablity to handle communication with ordinary
> people.
>

Interesting...

I'm finding life to be increasingly easy to understand, and coming to the conclusion that I tended to "over-think" it a good deal of the time. It amounts to this: you are born, gradually become sentient, become strong and mature, then get old, weaken, and eventually die. This is the same fate that is shared by any lowly toad or salamander, the difference being that we are cognizant of it for the better part of our lives, and think we can resist it. This alters tremendously the way we use whatever amount of time we have.

During your time you can try to resist this inevitable course--and some even burn away their time in service to philosophies that try to tell you that the reality is something other than what I described--or you can sort of learn to ignore distractions and get on with plowing through life, having as good a time as you can, without seriously damaging the machinery, er, ah, defiling the temple that is your corporeal self.

Really, it's as simple as that, but social pressure makes it oh-so-hard to do. For example: how motivated are you to send relief to the tsunami zone? Do you think about it a lot, dithering away a few hours/days/weeks of your finite existence over an issue that affects you materially not at all? (Of course, if it *does* affect you materially, get on with it, because that, by definition, makes it important).

When I was about 35-40 I gradually learned why humaninty voluntarily formed into units not much larger than tribes. Beyond that, it was much less voluntary. You can see what affects you and act on it, at that scale. Beyond that you are essentially powerless. Things that happen outside of the tribe may be of some value (you gradully learn to recognize that, when the tribe upstream gets sick, it's best not to drink the water), but for the most part, it's like seeing roadkill: interesting, but of no lasting importance.

The idea of the "brotherhood of man" is so vague that one can never feel any degree of closure in dealing problems of strangers, half a world away, whom you don't know and never will. At best, you'll have to either go there yourself (if such is your sense of guilt), or rely on an intermediary to tell you that your help worked, or not--that more, much, much more, is needed of you.

You can, however, help your neighbor start his car, your brother build a house, your co-worker get shitfaced when his wife leaves him. If your boss' tie catches fire from the chafing dish at the Christmas party, you can promptly put it out--or not. Scoping your life like this leads to many , many more satisfying and unambiguous life experiences.

In short, a happy, satisfying life.



--Sawfish

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

Sawfish wrote: -"...that's what the prison gurads say, too."

Is that a joke, like being in the "nuthouse"? Or are you in prison? Why? Would you share a few thoughts about this experience?

Your new outlook on life sounds very sensible, even though it seems like the materialist's and atheist's point of view. I will save some of its essence in my memory.

I am sure it is a good outlook, as long as you are also practically in touch with the spiritual side of life, the subtle unmeasurable dimensions not seen with the bodily senses. Of course, you mention caring for the individuals around you, and as long as you fully can handle that as a true insight it will be alright. Otherwise I am afraid this kind of anti-philosophy 'could' form a lifestyle leading into prison as a last stop.

The pure egoist could easily feel comfortable in that philosophy (it is a philosophy, like any other. There is nothing wrong with philosophizing, it is a way of learning to understand what seems confused, growing and maturing, and it will eventually lead to more relaxing and security). What I miss in it, is more concentration on the fact that we are social beings, interconnected. Interconnected with every living thing, (even the trees... we breath what they breath out and visa versa). No one is on his own. And when you treat others you simultaneously treat yourself in the same way. We are actually one big organism, where harm to one part affect all other parts in some way, eventually if not directly. Here I agree with you that ordinary people do best in caring for their close community, since other longway "caring" is a fruitlees, grinding mental frustration if allowed to dominate the mind. And of course one should care for oneself.

Lovecraft truly understood the importance of social interconnection, and it was an integrite part of him. He understood it from deductions of his scientific and philosophical knowledge. But Lovecraft was extremely intelligent, and composed of much knowledge from wide sources; and I doubt most people can come to such integrite conclusions from purely practical thinking, without either an experience from childhood of good treatment or a spiritual belief. Lovecraft thought that Christianity was good because it held the masses at bay from delving into too much destructive egoism.
In our modern new society of liberalism, Christianity is loosing ground. Everyone is to be "free" to form his own view of life. No set values. And with no common moral values to guide the community kaos results.

p.s. Perhaps we should stop this discussion. It is seems to be going outside the area of this forum.







Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 11 Jan 05 | 08:09AM by Ludde.

Ludde Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish wrote: -"...that's what the prison gurads
> say, too."
>
> Is that a joke, like being in the "nuthouse"? Or
> are you in prison? Why? Would you share a few
> thoughts about this experience?

Hah, hah! No, it's a joke, Ludde. Just a feeble attempt at ironic humor.

You don't think I'd tell you if I were actually in prison by suggesting that the guards had commented on my well-adjusted behavior, do you? More likely, I would proclaim my innocence, and comment on the brutality of the guards...

>
> Your new outlook on life sounds very sensible,
> even though it seems like the materialist's and
> atheist's point of view. I will save some of its
> essence in my memory.
>
> I am sure it is a good outlook, as long as you are
> also practically in touch with the spiritual side
> of life, the subtle unmeasurable dimensions not
> seen with the bodily senses. Of course, you
> mention caring for the individuals around you, and
> as long as you fully can handle that as a true
> insight it will be alright. Otherwise I am afraid
> this kind of anti-philosophy 'could' form a
> lifestyle leading into prison as a last stop.

Could be, except for the part about attempting to help those around you *whom you know*.

>
> The pure egoist could easily feel comfortable in
> that philosophy (it is a philosophy, like any
> other. There is nothing wrong with philosophizing,
> it is a way of learning to understand what seems
> confused, growing and maturing, and it will
> eventually lead to more relaxing and security).
> What I miss in it, is more concentration on the
> fact that we are social beings, interconnected.

Let's not get too general in this vague description of interconnection. I've seen far too many people swallow this completely, wholey, and without question.

I am saying that scoping is everything, as regards how one might live one's life in a satisfying and fulfilling manner. Let me explain.

In 188<something>, Krakatoa went off, killing thousands. It was months before most people knew of it, if they ever heard of it, at all. This huge and catastrophic loss of human life affected in lessening degree: the victims themselves; their immediate survivors; those who knew the victims and survivors; those who had economic ties with the victims and survivors; those who had economic tiwes with those who had economic ties with the victims and survivors. To the rest of humanity--and that is the vast majority--this loss affected them in no material way. The greatest material affect was a temporary change in the weather--and that, I'm sure you'll agree, had no causal connection with the loss of human life.

Why do I use this as an example? Quite simply because it illustrates how much of Western humanity tends to do a number on itself. The loss to the victims and those related to them was very real: they required no one to inform them of the catastrophe, nor did they need an itermediary to tell them that they had cause to feel sad. However, for the farmer in Arkansas, he would require both the information of the disaster, AND an intermediary to tell him that he should, in fact, feel bad about something that his inistincts tell him to ignore as meaningless. I don't know about how it is where you live, but around here (Oregon, USA), I can tune in any number of religion-based TV channels that are, guess what? telling me about a heretofore unknown calamity ("the folks in central Africa are suffering from lack of prayerbooks"), and telling me that I should feel just *terrible* about it. I should feel bad enough to send some money "to support our mission to the good Chrsitians of central Africa".

You see, legitmate or not, I can feel no *actual* connection unless I am told to. The natural connection is non-existent.

An orthogonal leap, now.

I seldom wish to quote any "authority", since it seems to me to be a way of arguing that absoloute knowledge is held by some, to be dispensed at their suffrance to those they deem worthy. That sounds suspiciouly like a priestly hierarchy, doesn't it? The exception is when I hear a bit of advice that is so correct that I'd like to steal it, and claim it as my own, but the source of the advice/observation is so well-known that I am afraid to make public use of it without attribution. I'd like to steal it and use it, you see, but I'm afraid that I wouldn't get away with it.

A lot of early Buddhism is like this. It seems to me that it is principally a bunch of advice for how not to make yourself needlessly unhappy--and doesn't this sound like the antithesis of the person who wrings his/her hands in guilt, in New York City, over the Rwanda business some years back? Doesn't it seem that reading about massacres on the other side of the world amongst folks with whom you have no material ties, at all, and stridently developing an ulcer over it, seem like a vertiable insult to no less a philosopher than Siddhattha, his own self? And what, pray tell, could the denizen of the Westside do about it, in any significant sense, to alter the situation there? I'd say that they can do essentially nothing for those involved, but they can, however, make themselves feel like richer, more noble individuals by public breastbeating, then giving some minor token to an itermediary who assures him/her that this token will, indeed, help.

Naturally, there are practical, material lessons to be learned from these tragedies, such as trying to spot potential trouble early, and taking steps to avoid it, but to think that there is a meaningful connection thru which one such individual may consistently and reliably touch another is pure wishful thinking, just waiting to be exploited by the more cynical among us.

This situation reverse itself however, when you focus your energies on actual connections close-at-hand. My co-worker was laid-off; I can join with other co-workers still employed and get money to him (if he'll take it) and this will help him to send his kids to the school he felt was so important to their future. This is a profound material benefit, and I can see it happening without the need for an intermediary. I can therefore worry *a lot* about those close at hand, whom I care about, and offer material/spiritual help that is both effecvtive and genuinely need, rather than offering ineffective material help to a stranger (whom, given the *extremely unlikely* opportunity to meet, I may actively dislike/disrespect) to be admisinstered by an intermediary whose motives could easily fall under the scrutiny of conflict-of-interest statutes, were he a financial advisor.

Is all this clear?


> Interconnected with every living thing, (even the
> trees... we breath what they breath out and visa
> versa). No one is on his own. And when you treat
> others you simultaneously treat yourself in the
> same way. We are actually one big organism, where
> harm to one part affect all other parts in some
> way, eventually if not directly. Here I agree with
> you that ordinary people do best in caring for
> their close community, since other longway
> "caring" is a fruitlees, grinding mental
> frustration if allowed to dominate the mind. And
> of course one should care for oneself.
>
> Lovecraft truly understood the importance of
> social interconnection, and it was an integrite
> part of him. He understood it from deductions of
> his scientific and philosophical knowledge. But
> Lovecraft was extremely intelligent, and composed
> of much knowledge from wide sources; and I doubt
> most people can come to such integrite conclusions
> from purely practical thinking, without either an
> experience from childhood of good treatment or a
> spiritual belief. Lovecraft thought that
> Christianity was good because it held the masses
> at bay from delving into too much destructive
> egoism.

From reading Lovecraft's letters, I can respect his intelligence, but in no way would I want to use him for a guru.

> In our modern new society of liberalism,
> Christianity is loosing ground. Everyone is to be
> "free" to form his own view of life. No set
> values. And with no common moral values to guide
> the community kaos results.

I agree that blind adherence to positive religious doctrine serves as a benefit to social order. This is one of the ironies of life that amuses me to no end, and convinces me that humanity is still pretty animalistic.

>
> p.s. Perhaps we should stop this discussion. It is
> seems to be going outside the area of this forum.

Two points:

1) where might we continue it; and

2) it's not like we're wasting bandwidth on the Forum, you know. This is the first traffic I've seen on it in about two weeks.

I tried my best, I really did, to get something going about a week or so ago, but no response.

Quote:

the fact that we are social beings, interconnected. Interconnected with every living thing, (even the trees... we breath what they breath out and visa versa). No one is on his own. And when you treat others you simultaneously treat yourself in the same way. We are actually one big organism

I'm squarely with Sawfish on this one. Tend your own garden, and please, no generalizations about "we" or "us". There is no "we" or "us"! The notion of a "common humanity", a single and unitary species, is one of the most pernicious, uncritically held, and pervasive memes in existence.