I don't know him all that well, and I'm not particularly diplomatic at the best of times. I don't know how I'd ask if a need to express a lack of sympathy overrode an ability to parse the passage - or if he's actually intellectually incapable, without it coming across as an insult. — counterpunch

You are afraid of insulting someone on this forum? Insult is basically second nature here.

You are afraid of insulting someone on this forum? Insult is basically second nature here. — schopenhauer1

I've pretty much managed to alienate everyone already, so in practice I would have to say, no! But I would rather it were not so. Me, I value a diversity of opinion - even stupid opinions are useful for contrast!!

I've pretty much managed to alienate everyone already, so in practice I would have to say, no! But I would rather it were not so. Me, I value a diversity of opinion - even stupid opinions are useful for contrast!! — counterpunch

Alienating everyone is also second nature here :lol:.
I liken it to porcupines around a fire.. We keep coming back to huddle but prick each other in our mutual gathering. A lot of pricks going on here.

Alienating everyone is also second nature here — schopenhauer1

I don't buy into the whole political correctness thing, or equality as a virtue. And there's a very strong left wing contingent here - who only seem interested in confirming their beliefs.

I don't buy into the whole political correctness thing, or equality as a virtue. And there's a very strong left wing contingent here - who only seem interested in confirming their beliefs. — counterpunch

Oh shit, now you're alienating me :lol:. I don't know man.. What are you saying?

Oh shit, now you're alienating me :lol:. I don't know man.. What are you saying? — schopenhauer1

Three Cubans were just rescued by the US coastguard - having fled Cuba on a tiny raft that sank, and cast them ashore on some desolate island.

That's what I mean by equality is not a virtue. Communism has failed every country that ever adopted it, and frequently, it runs to genocide.

Then there's political correctness; in my view, an utterly disingenuous dogma that uses identity politics in reverse, in pursuit of the very same authoritarian power a command economy affords.

So, no reply, huh? Fair enough, but at least ask yourself - if it's because you disagree with me, or that you fear the retribution of the mob you helped create??

Then there's political correctness; in my view, an utterly disingenuous dogma that uses identity politics in reverse, in pursuit of the very same authoritarian power a command economy affords. — counterpunch

Oh, I can get on board with that (no pun intended).

So, no reply, huh? Fair enough, but at least ask yourself - if it's because you disagree with me, or that you fear the retribution of the mob you helped create?? — counterpunch

No, I was just not on this website for a while. Nothing to do with your response.

@counterpunch, @180 Proof@Albero@Joshs@Banno@khaled@Outlander

Next quote

Within the hierarchy of fabrications that compose our lives—families, countries, gods—the self incontestably ranks highest. Just below the self is the family, which has proven itself more durable than national or ethnic affiliations, with these in turn outranking god-figures for their staying power. So any progress toward the salvation of humankind will probably begin from the bottom—when our gods have been devalued to the status of refrigerator magnets or lawn ornaments. Following the death rattle of deities, it would appear that nations or ethnic communities are next in line for the boneyard. Only after fealty to countries, gods, and families has been shucked off can we even think about coming to grips with the least endangered of fabrications—the self. — Ligotti/CAHR

to live falsely as pawns of affect, or to live factually as depressives,
— Thomas Ligotti, The Conspiracy Against the Human Race

What is said here implies that living as a depressive is as much living as a pawn of affect as any alternative.

There's a deep irrationality in thinking that being a depressive is somehow authentic, that being happy is inauthentic. — Banno

Depression is an affect, obviously. And what is expressed here is something like disgust, abhorrence, even hatred of affect itself that parallels the feelings of the anorexic for their body. It is sustained individually by the sense of superiority of privileged access to "the truth". But it is also promoted socially by, ahem, emotional correctness gone mad. Expressions of dislike, disgust, hatred, are not permitted except directed at official scapegoats. Tediously, Freud was about right about this effect of civilisation on the discontent of the individual. And the ideology of scientism supports this denigration of emotion - the primary insult against woman - and worship of the great god, Rationality.

@BannoTediously, Freud was about right about this effect of civilisation on the discontent of the individual. And the ideology of scientism supports this denigration of emotion - the primary insult against woman - and worship of the great god, Rationality. — unenlightened

So interesting points. However, I think it isn't so much against emotions qua emotions, but emotions that illicit a positive affiliation with this or that "anchoring". The anchoring of "hard work". The anchoring of "family". The anchoring of "good citizen". The anchoring of "creative artistic type". Or alternatively, he is questioning how it is we attach ourselves to certain motivational forces that makes it seem "There's something to do, There's someone to know, There's something to be, There' to know". It seems like he is saying that the depressive doesn't see an attachment to any of these via some emotional value from it. Hence his main point is this:

And to live on our emotions is to live arbitrarily, inaccurately—imparting meaning to what has none of its own. Yet what other way is there to live? Without the ever-clanking machinery of emotion, everything would come to a standstill.

He admits that human life on a whole cannot give up emotion without coming to a standstill.

There would be nothing to do, nowhere to go, nothing to be, and no one to know. The alternatives are clear: to live falsely as pawns of affect, or to live factually as depressives, or as individuals who know what is known to the depressive. How advantageous that we are not coerced into choosing one or the other, neither choice being excellent. One look at human existence is proof enough that our species will not be released from the stranglehold of emotionalism that anchors it to hallucinations. That may be no way to live,but to opt for depression would be to opt out of existence as we consciously know it.

This means that he doesn't expect nor encourage anyone to take the view of the depressive. He is pulling a "meta meta" here. He is apathetic to both options of emotional attachment and the dysthymia of emotion of the depressive. Neither choice is excellent he says.

That all being said, I think his main insight here is that at the end of the day, if one somehow was able to strip their emotions from their "anchorings" and unquestioning motivations (like family, work, hobbies, things to do, people to see, places to go), we would be cast upon a sort of "bare bones" of what existence "is" without these hallucinations. "What's the point" would be constantly on people's mind. Hence, I think the quote that conveys his point most here is:

Yet what other way is there to live? Without the ever-clanking machinery of emotion, everything would come to a standstill. There would be nothing to do, nowhere to go, nothing to be, and no one to know.

Within the hierarchy of fabrications that compose our lives — Ligotti/CAHR

I don't get this passage in the way I got the last. I can comprehend the idea of the evolutionary organism, inventing god, nation and socio-economic class status, and wearing this ideological armour to hide his shameful, animal self. But beneath this disguise there remains a kinship tribal creature with parents and siblings, and the self - a moral being, existing in a state of nature. So I don't understand what he's deconstructing the world toward here - or how he dismisses the family or the self. I can only suppose he's driving toward nihilism, but that so, there are easier and more certain ways to get there. And in the midst of this, he speaks of salvation beginning from the bottom, but from what? What is left?

I don't get this passage in the way I got the last. I can comprehend the idea of the evolutionary organism, inventing god, nation and socio-economic class status, and wearing this ideological armour to hide his shameful, animal self. But beneath this disguise there remains a kinship tribal creature with parents and siblings, and the self - a moral being, existing in a state of nature. So I don't understand what he's deconstructing the world toward here - or how he dismisses the family or the self. I can only suppose he's driving toward nihilism, but that so, there are easier and more certain ways to get there. And in the midst of this, he speaks of salvation beginning from the bottom, but from what? What is left? — counterpunch

So this may tie into the previous quote, loosely. Just as one thinks that one has attachments to motivating factors ("People to know, things to do..etc.).. People think they have a self. This concept itself is a construction that we hold dear and its taken for granted so much we don't realize it is just a construct (one we have more engrained), just as the concept of family, country, religion, or any identity we attach ourselves with. You can think of it similar to Buddhist meditative practices where one is always questioning who is the "I" that one thinks one is. "Is this me?" "No." It is the slow unlayering of what one attaches to. He discusses ego-death in detail (and then writes about his skepticism, showing his agnosticism to these concepts right after he presents them). He discusses Buddhist ideas of non-identity too, if I remember correctly. I can probably find a quote regarding these to help elucidate this quote. He also delves a bit into neurosicence and analytic philosophy with ideas from Thomas Metzinger regarding no true "self" in the brain.

Oh, right - so is this book one long advert for Buddhism? I'm not in the market for a religion. I value existence..., I think ego is healthy....., 'stuff' is both productive and entertaining, meat tastes great, sandals look stupid, and men should wear trousers. Other than that, awesome!

Oh, right - so is this book one long advert for Buddhism? I'm not in the market for a religion. I value existence, I think ego is healthy, 'stuff' is both productive and entertaining, meat tastes great, sandals look stupid, and men should wear trousers. Other than that, awesome! — counterpunch

Quite the opposite. He presents certain aspects from Buddhism but then essentially casts it as yet another religion trying to do X, Y, Z. He is agnostic though sympathetic to some parts of what he focuses on. He never fully "leans in" to philosophers he mentions. For example he says:

Buddhism's ways and means to illumination are full of shortcomings and vexations...
The good news for Buddhism as a for-profit religion is that..[sarcastic derision to be taken here]
Like many faiths and philosophies that go against the Western grain, Buddhism has baited legions of those in the cognitive vanguard. This religion is to be praised both for its lack of an almighty god-figure and for its gateway teaching of the Four Noble Truths...Noble Eightfold Path, a list of things-to-do and things-not-to-do much like the Old Testament Decalogue, except not a s plainly spoken or easygoing.
All religions must have allowance conditions or they would implode upon themselves by pressure of thier own doctrines [speaking negatively about Buddhism here].
His quote on Western religions is pretty interesting too...

I've just figured out something that's been bugging me for quite a while; that is, why - when it's cold do we instinctually want to curl up - rather than run around? After all, they say, he who chops the wood gets warmed twice. Quite difficult to explain in evolutionary terms, such that I thought maybe, it's molecular - y'know, how atoms slow down when it gets cold. But no. It is an evolutionary instinct. I just figured it out.

Because humans are ill-equipped for cold conditions. You have to layer up which can be tedious.. runny noses whipped by the winds, the stinging cold on exposed skin. etc. Animals more equipped for it don't mind a bit and probably get overheated otherwise.

My guess is that we feel most contented at 65-85 degrees, as that is the environment in Eastern Africa our bodies evolved in. Sure, we can survive in extreme cold and heat, but its always a mediation with tools. There would be no need to mediate if our bodies truly didn't mind it without any preparations to withstand the conditions.

Humans left Africa 70,000 years ago, and migrated all around the world. We have adapted to local conditions; most obviously, the amount of melanin in the skin in relation to how much sunlight there is. There's been plenty of time to adapt an instinctual tendency to reduce activity in cold weather; a tendency I'm experiencing first hand - because when everyone in my building turns their heating on, I get no heat - and all I want to do is curl up against the cold. There's a good reason for it, and I've figured out what it is. I think it's an interesting puzzle, because subjectively, it's a bad strategy. I feel the cold much more when I'm curled up than I do when running around. It doesn't matter how cold it is if I keep moving, I hardly feel it. Yet...I don't want to. Why not?

Humans left Africa 70,000 years ago, and migrated all around the world. We have adapted to local conditions; most obviously, the amount of melanin in the skin in relation to how much sunlight there is. There's been plenty of time to adapt an instinctual tendency to reduce activity in cold weather — counterpunch

Yes, I accounted for this idea in that we mitigate through behavior and culture. Our bodies naturally shiver, and the natural reaction is to get warmer. But, on our own, our bodies are not equipped for that without modification.

I get no heat - and all I want to do is curl up against the cold. There's a good reason for it, and I've figured out what it is. I think it's an interesting puzzle, because subjectively, it's a bad strategy. I feel the cold much more when I'm curled up than I do when running around. It doesn't matter how cold it is if I keep moving, I hardly feel it. Yet...I don't want to. Why not? — counterpunch

Don't know. It's like exercising to lose weight.. That will work, but the motivation sometimes is lacking. There is an inertia in starting any activity which you have to overcome. That inertia is usually a tendency to conserve energy, even if not doing so is of some loftier benefit.

You're almost there. It's about conserving energy when food is scarce. In winter, there's less food around, so the natural tendency is to conserve energy by conserving heat, rather than generate heat by burning energy. Odd how we are crafted by evolution in relation to the causal reality of the environment in ways that effect our behaviours, of which we're barely aware.

I think it isn't so much against emotions qua emotions, but emotions that illicit a positive affiliation with this or that "anchoring". The anchoring of "hard work". The anchoring of "family". The anchoring of "good citizen". The anchoring of "creative artistic type". Or alternatively, he is questioning how it is we attach ourselves to certain motivational forces that makes it seem "There's something to do, There's someone to know, There's something to be, There' to know". It seems like he is saying that the depressive doesn't see an attachment to any of these via some emotional value from it. Hence his main point is this:

"And to live on our emotions is to live arbitrarily, inaccurately—imparting meaning to what has none of its own. Yet what other way is there to live? Without the ever-clanking machinery of emotion, everything would come to a standstill." — schopenhauer1

I hope you mean elicit not illicit. :grimace: Depression is an anchor too. One cannot write a book without a strong attachment to the topic.What he does is contrive to negate positive emotions as 'false', 'arbitrary', 'inaccurate', etc, but his own feelings are exempted from this because they are already negative, and thus their negation makes them positive - honest, realistic, intelligent. Thus he is positively attached to depression. And again, he negates the character of life in a very 19th century scientific traditional way here: "the ever-clanking machinery of emotion". The thing about machinery - even quite sophisticated machinery, is that it is devoid of emotion, but with a sleight of mind and a turn of phrase, Ligotti contrives the mechanisation of emotion itself, and even complains of the noise! The age of clanking machinery has long gone!

I hope you mean elicit not illicit. :grimace: — unenlightened

Yep.

Depression is an anchor too. One cannot write a book without a strong attachment to the topic.What he does is contrive to negate positive emotions as 'false', 'arbitrary', 'inaccurate', etc, but his own feelings are exempted from this because they are already negative, and thus their negation makes them positive - honest, realistic, intelligent. Thus he is positively attached to depression. And again, he negates the character of life in a very 19th century scientific traditional way here: "the ever-clanking machinery of emotion". The thing about machinery - even quite sophisticated machinery, is that it is devoid of emotion, but with a sleight of mind and a turn of phrase, Ligotti contrives the mechanisation of emotion itself, and even complains of the noise! The age of clanking machinery has long gone! — unenlightened

Again, I don't think he "leans in" to any particular philosophy with too much conviction. He presents certain cases and critiques each one, though piecing together a mosaic that reveals something. Thus he says "both" (depression and the attachment to other emotions that elicit motivation) are not excellent.

As I said:

This means that he doesn't expect nor encourage anyone to take the view of the depressive. He is pulling a "meta meta" here. He is apathetic to both options of emotional attachment and the dysthymia of emotion of the depressive. Neither choice is excellent he says.

That all being said, I think his main insight here is that at the end of the day, if one somehow was able to strip their emotions from their "anchorings" and unquestioning motivations (like family, work, hobbies, things to do, people to see, places to go), we would be cast upon a sort of "bare bones" of what existence "is" without these hallucinations. "What's the point" would be constantly on people's mind. Hence, I think the quote that conveys his point most here is:

Yet what other way is there to live? Without the ever-clanking machinery of emotion, everything would come to a standstill. There would be nothing to do, nowhere to go, nothing to be, and no one to know. — schopenhauer1

What about that part?

What about that part? — schopenhauer1

I already critiqued the ever-"clanking machinery of emotion", and having mechanised emotion and so deprived life of all its liveliness, he declares it vacuous. Emotion is the relationship of a life to the world, and without relationship to the world life would indeed come to a standstill. So what? So treasure your emotions, even the negative ones.

I already critiqued the ever-"clanking machinery of emotion", and having mechanised emotion and so deprived life of all its liveliness, he declares it vacuous. Emotion is the relationship of a life to the world, and without relationship to the world life would indeed come to a standstill. So what? So treasure your emotions, even the negative ones. — unenlightened

So I think he gets more to the point at what he's getting at here:
Have you ever felt that there was nothing to do, nowhere to go, nothing to be, no one to know? I am not asking for self-help or anything or to "snap out of it", just curious if that feeling ever came upon you where no motivation or significance had impetus.

Have you ever felt that there was nothing to do, nowhere to go, nothing to be, no one to know? I am not asking for self-help or anything or to "snap out of it", just curious if that feeling ever came upon you where no motivation or significance had impetus. — schopenhauer1

Yes. I call it 'peace'.

ALL is best, though we oft doubt,
What th' unsearchable dispose
Of highest wisdom brings about,
And ever best found in the close.
Oft he seems to hide his face,
But unexpectedly returns
And to his faithful Champion hath in place
Bore witness gloriously; whence Gaza mourns
And all that band them to resist
His uncontroulable intent.
His servants he with new acquist
Of true experience from this great event
With peace and consolation hath dismist,
And calm of mind all passion spent. — John Milton

I think that is his point, so not sure where the disagreement. — schopenhauer1

The disagreement is that "nothing in this world" implies the entirety of existence as opposed to the environment in which we dwell in. I suppose, notwithstanding, the freedom, time, and ability to complain and be heard about "there being nothing" is a world of difference from an earlier world where such liberties were not to be found.

It's more to me about motivations. The feeling that there is "nothing to do, nowhere to go, nothing to be, and no one to know". — schopenhauer1

He conveys the depressive mindset well, I see. Does he not make any attempt to bring good to what he himself deems as "bad" ie. depressive? There is always something to do, someone to be, and someone to know, if one's wants and expectations are realistic, or even adamant enough.

I like this one a lot:

One cringes to hear scientists cooing over the universe or any part thereof like schoolgirls over-heated by their first crush. From the studies of Krafft-Ebbing onward, we know that it is possible to become excited about anything—from shins to shoehorns. But it would be nice if just one of these gushing eggheads would step back and, as a concession to objectivity, speak the truth: THERE IS NOTHING INNATELY IMPRESSIVE ABOUT THE UNIVERSE OR ANYTHING IN IT. — Ligotti

I think it's pretty impressive.

I think it's pretty impressive. — darthbarracuda

The quote or the universe? :lol: .

I think he is trying to make a rebuttal for science writers like Richard Dawkins, or anyone of a "scientism" bent to think that the knowledge of science somehow creates significance. I read someone describe CATHR as like being in an elevator and having nowhere to go. You must remember he's a horror writer and even this non-fiction is written as a cosmic horror of sorts. He is trying to leave no room for air, so to speak.

Edit: Nothing. It was meaningless. And still is.