LOVECRAFT NOETIC DREAMER: from horrorism to cosmicism (full text)

This text argues against the analyses of those writers and thinkers who seek to establish a demarcation in Lovecraft between the works of pure horror and those belonging to the dream cycle. The same noetic estrangement underlies both, and the arbitrary privileging of the horror over the dream excludes Lovecraft’s unitary vision of such estrangement or weirdness. This unitary perspective on horror and the dream can be elaborated in terms of Gilles Deleuze’s concept of the noetic estrangement manifested in science-fiction and Bernard Stiegler’s similar concept of the dream.

Full text here: https://www.academia.edu/35050840/LOVECRAFT_NOETIC_DREAMER_from_horrorism_to_cosmicism

Original draft here: https://xenoswarm.wordpress.com/2017/04/15/lovecraft-noetic-dreamer-from-horrorism-to-cosmicism/

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to LOVECRAFT NOETIC DREAMER: from horrorism to cosmicism (full text)

  1. landzek says:

    Hi Terrence: what is the simplest definition of Pluralism you got?

    One that covers all the bases and yet can be conveyed simply .
    Or perhaps a link. Or both. 🙂

    I have had a thought. And I’m wondering if it might not be similar to what you have been saying of plurality.

    Like

    • terenceblake says:

      Hello Lance, I distinguish several types of pluralism. They all have in common an opposition to the privilege of the One over the Many, see: https://www.academia.edu/9563110/FEYERABENDS_COSMOLOGICAL_PLURALISM.

      Like

      • landzek says:

        It only took 5 years. But I think I may have moved over to this Pluralist / your side. 😜 Thanks for your steadfast integrity.

        I think a very simple answer to my question ( my latest post says I’ve found an answer to my question posed at the beginning of my blog ). Is that Laruelle had to use his jargon in order to maximize/totalizer the Unitary Sun in a speech that disguises it as Plurality. If that makes any sense.

        Like

      • terenceblake says:

        Yes, this is my conclusion about Laruelle too: he is a crypto-monist. This is not just a question of his privileging of the One, but rather a question of metaphysical style. Much of his enunciated content is pluralist, to varying degrees. Nonetheless his mode of enunciation is quite dogmatically monist, and produces a number of acute blindnesses in his texts.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s