The Modern Unnameable

Post by **Aleister** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:59 pm

There are many references in Lovecraft's work to things 'not of this world'. Whether it is mentions of structural geometry that is 'all wrong', or objects that come from no discernable origin, such as the following short quote from 'Call of Cthulhu’:

"No recognized school of sculpture had animated this terrible object, yet centuries and even thousands of years seemed recorded in its dim and greenish surface of unplaceable stone."

There are also of course numerous mentions in the tales of 'unknown colors' seen by humans, and sounds never before heard.

Focusing on the first example, objects that seem to defy all known history and description, what are everyone’s thoughts on this type of thing? Would it truly be possible for you to see an object that seemed to go against everything you knew? Or to have properties that seem positively alien? Perhaps for some of us, we think nothing could seem so shocking.

Does anyone have any experience with such thoughts in their every day lives? Have you ever seen a sculpture, carving (or anything else) which you could truly say related to the feelings expressed by those in the stories?

(Yes this is a fairly abstract post, or at least its possibilities are, but it is interesting nonetheless I think - these questions always seem to come up with I have been reading too much :study: )

idolcrash · Post by **idolcrash** » Wed Jun 30, 2004 12:05 am

I'm not sure if this has much to do with the CM per se, but it is about as abstract: have you ever had those points in time where you would look at yourself and feel comepletely detached from your body, as if you are something just looking out and manipulating everything else? I can't really explain it, but it is quite a weird feeling I have from time to time.

When I think of those, it is difficult to visualize, but it is vague so as to leave it to the reader's imagination and give it a bit of mystery. For The Colour Out of Space, I always thought of a grayish, fluid-looking color, with rainbow swirls (similar to those you would see in a puddle of oil, although not as chemical-looking). This will be interesting to see the different replies.

Adrian · Post by **Adrian** » Wed Jun 30, 2004 2:09 pm

I havent have the pleasure of encountering such surroundings or objects, but the point of what HPL brought out is kind of haunting me: the angles and corners, from which you can enter or travel by. I know that they are spells or conditions for them somehow, as in Mythos story someone repelled creatures from the stars with the sign of the Cross. The point wasnt that creatures from outer space knew anything about old jewish rebels but the Crosss was as an elemental angle. Somehow I feel that I comprehend the point Lovecraft was trying to bring out but then I lose it or forget it, when I seem to have captured it for a second or a half.

Hope this didnt stray too far from the topic.

Adrian · Post by **Adrian** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 10:18 am

I mean, to us, beings who inhabit the 3D, the angles are just a manifestation of form; but beyond the 3 dimensions we know surely form and matter a devastatingly different, deeper in some degrees, where angles are as Gates to the other side of te 'same' Gate. Maybe the reason humans could travel these Gates in Mythos stories is that we have no angles at all: I may be mistaken, but the human body has no edges or the sort.

Sometimes I even confuse myself

Post by **Aleister** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 8:13 pm

If you have any intrest in theoretical physics, I suggest reading up on string theory (link here). It is a relatively popular belief dealing with the composition of space and time.

As far as how that goes with your angles and corners mention, perhaps it could loosely be related to precise combinations of just the right atomic structures intersecting each other on a (much more) deeper scale. But then again, the popular method for trans-dimensional travel in the stories do not neccesarily have to have much scientific backing behind them

I have always thought that humans can only fully understand the number of dimensions that they themselves exist in. If you (like many) accept time as a dimension in itself (you have to forget the idea that dimensions can exists in more than just a simple directional plane), then that too can be understood (at least with it's current understanding) of time.

But of course there is the belief that time itself is less rational. That it does not truely pass by, but rather what we call 'time' is simply the effects of our creation, and that time is nothing more than an invention of mankind, but it's effects traverse nonetheless through a dimensional path! The relations between space and time are very present in every form of phsyics.

Adrian · Post by **Adrian** » Sat Jul 03, 2004 5:41 pm

About time - I would guess that there wouldn't be any if all biological forms of existance should cease. What would be for Time to effect then anyway? And then again we can take Time as the longest measuring unit in human existance - History.

But accepting Time as a separate dimension? Time & Matter co-exist, and Time seems to apply to organic life, and organic life decomposes to elemental Matter. So a single dimension of Time seems impossible. Then again Time does not exist, not in a literal sense. It is an effect on Life, but then again Life defines Time and vice versa. Thus I think we could say that Time is a state of mind. In Mythos the beings seem to defy time, it verifies that Time is only prone to humans. Then as we humans have all the concsious (did I spell that right?) mind, that means that from the moment we evolved to own it we understood Time: that we all grow old and die and so on.
What do I mean by this mumbo-jumbo? That recently we have discovered how to bring to Life organic forms by cloning from DNA. With a sample we can repreduce a person/animal that was dead centuries ago. And if Time exists only with Life, then the analogical trick could most likely be done with Time. As we can bring back dead to life from Time, we should some day be able to send living into Time. Mythos protagonists have in some cases discovered the means.

Did I just make any sense?

Post by **Aleister** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 2:18 pm

It made sense

but cloning things from very old dna is not really bringing back the creature 'back to life', but simply creating a new creature exactly like the old one (physically).

And as far as time, one reason many can not look at it as a 'dimension' is for the simple reason that it is not like the other 3 dimensions we are very familiar with.

Adrian · Post by **Adrian** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 5:38 pm

Aleister wrote:It made sense but cloning things from very old dna is not really bringing back the creature 'back to life', but simply creating a new creature exactly like the old one (physically).

And as far as time, one reason many can not look at it as a 'dimension' is for the simple reason that it is not like the other 3 dimensions we are very familiar with.

Yes, but by creatures we mean non-humans, animals. And animals dont have memories as such. So when a creature is 'revived', it is basically, 99,9% the same as the dna sample.

swayne · Post by **swayne** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 5:35 pm

Every animal that is alive has a memory. If they did not have any sort of memory, they would simply forget how to walk, forget how to eat, forget how to crawl, forget how to breathe, assuming they could 'forget' without a memory. That is technically speaking. Animals do have memories, just a lesser form of one. Not that I know anything about cloning, but I am assuming that we cloned a cow it would not have the memory it once had. Therefor, it is not itself at all, other than its physical features. Neurologically - if I even used that correctly - they would be completely different, because DNA doesn't necessarily make up of the mind, but other individual parts do. Sure , those parts are made up of DNA, they don't have an affect on it unless it is destroyed.

Please note that I have no idea what I am talking about.

Adrian · Post by **Adrian** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 5:51 pm

Animals dont have any memory. Walking and etc are elementary. TThis is a common mistake made by people. Animals have instincts. You can't forget how to walk because you never learned to. Animals have instincts, not memories. As newborn babies can swim when thrown into water with their eyes open instinctivly, so can any other animal do whatever else it naturally does. Animals are efected by experience, that leaves them either positive or negative impressions. Negative are avoided, positive ones are repeated. Memory is an advanced piece of machinery only Man possesses.
And cloning, as in one HPL story named 'using of saltes', can maybe restore the revived man's mind too. No-one has ever documented a cloning of a Man. No-one knows what a cloned person brings back.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 7:53 pm

[quote="Adrian"]Animals are efected by experience, that leaves them either positive or negative impressions.

Just wondering- how would they remember those impressions without a memory? You can't have a random instinct about past experiences that they have no clue ever happened......

idolcrash · Post by **idolcrash** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 10:31 pm

Animals do have memory, and have been able to be taught things (most do). An animalian memory is mostly one of association (even moreso than the human memory), as dogs are able to be taught to associate an action with a verbal command, a sound they recognize. That is not instinct. Another instance of animalian memory (this mostly applies to higher-intelligence mammals, such as dogs, cats, dolphines, apes, etc., but could comprise others) would be behavioral conditioning, ie if a dog is beaten often, it is going to be naturally shy and wary of humans.

If someone was cloned and put in a different environment, while their DNA would be the same as their donor, they would develop different features for the environment (adaptation). Memory is not encoded into ones genes, so a clone having the same experiences and memory of the original person obviously a myth.

Breathing hasn't anything to do with memory, that is automatically done by the lung muscles, you can control it, but you don't have to actively make it work, just like a heart beat (although you can't hold your heart beat).

Post by **Aleister** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 10:35 pm

I would have to strongly disagree about animals and memories. There have been many many studies on the minds of animals, and it is generally accepted that at least mammals have memories. I am no biologist either, but maybe I should get one on the forum to settle this

Adrian · Post by **Adrian** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 12:26 am

idolcrash wrote:Animals do have memory, and have been able to be taught things (most do). An animalian memory is mostly one of association (even moreso than the human memory), as dogs are able to be taught to associate an action with a verbal command, a sound they recognize. That is not instinct. Another instance of animalian memory (this mostly applies to higher-intelligence mammals, such as dogs, cats, dolphines, apes, etc., but could comprise others) would be behavioral conditioning, ie if a dog is beaten often, it is going to be naturally shy and wary of humans.

If someone was cloned and put in a different environment, while their DNA would be the same as their donor, they would develop different features for the environment (adaptation). Memory is not encoded into ones genes, so a clone having the same experiences and memory of the original person obviously a myth.

Breathing hasn't anything to do with memory, that is automatically done by the lung muscles, you can control it, but you don't have to actively make it work, just like a heart beat (although you can't hold your heart beat).

Animals don't concsiously associate, thats ridiculous. Animals do not learn, they are trained. Cats and dogs are the result of millenias of domestication. In their genes there has been left an imprint of the fact that with humans there is food and warmth. It is instinct to obey the stronger one, which in this case is human. If they would run amok, we would drive the cats & and dogs into the forest because we would have no further use for them. They navigate through experience.

Of course cloning someone wouldnt make the exact copy of the donor. But then again, we dont know on how many levels this is true. Maybe if DNA is taken from an old person, some characteristics are already embedded into the DNA. Or then again, maybe thats all sci-fi

Again - digs and other household animals hav been programmed by humans for centuries, they have lost their own primal instinct. If your theory of an 'animal memory' is true then give me a cow or a fox that can roll over and fetch a stick on command.

Post by **Aleister** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 2:19 pm

This training you mentioned does not in any way affect the animal's DNA. The DNA structure an animal is born with does not change over the course of it's life. This is fact. There is no way that the experiences of an animal would somehow become part of it's DNA and go on to the next generation.

This post sure has undergone a lot of subject changes hasn't it