Horror Gnosis: Proof By Negation (Basic Theory)

The topic that I want to talk about is something that I mentioned in my earlier blog entry; the concept of Horror Gnosis.

There are a few concepts I need to discuss and introduce before the word horror even enters into 

this writing.

In philosophy if we take a statement like if A then B; or A->B if we have proof of A then we have proof of B.  This is also known as Modus Ponens.  There is also the proof known as Modus Tollens; we have the proof that B does not exist then we have proof that A does not exist.

The second concept is the work Immanuel Kant who introduced the notion of the categorical imperative.  One of the keystone elements of his moral theory was that in order to test any sort of moral theory was that if we were to take a moral statement and universalize it’s opposite would the world still exist and be functioning  For example if we were to take the notion of “thou shall not kill” and universalized it’s opposing statement “that one should kill” we find that we live in a non-functioning world. 

We as human beings seem to have a certain “notion” of how the world should be/how the world is.  They are certain existential/spiritual truths.  They are existential in the sense that they are true because they seem to be required in order for the world to function.  For example a certain existential truth that I take for granted is the fact that the world that I perceive is a “truth”.  There are other truths that deal with the notion of the “essence” and qualities of existence, being human, other beings, and the divine(our notion of god) as well that many of us believe as well. I believe that we can apply these ideas towards self growth (and very scary fiction).

I believe that if we take one of these spiritual/existential truths and maximize the opposite of that truth we create a contradiction that will inevitably create a world in which it is impossible to exist.  We basically introduce the element of horror that will slowly build until the character can no longer “interact” at which the point the story has to come to some sort of conclusion.  The action of doing this serves as a form of perfect/imperfect proof in the same sense that Kant’s system of morality offers the notions of imperfect/perfect moral laws (worlds where we would not want to live versus the worlds in which we cannot exist).

Let’s use the Lovecraft short story The Whisper In Darkness to demonstrate the principle.  In this story there comes a point in which a characters mind is separated from their body with his remaining flesh used as a “mask” for one of Lovecraft’s creatures.  There is a point in this story in which one of the given truths that we normally go by deviates in the story.  I take this “universalized horror” to be the notion of “identity” as others can see it in our world being solely contained within the body; with the body being nothing more than a mask for that which wears it.

So I take the idea, the spiritual concept as being that our own identities are a product not of our physical person but rather our mental selves as well.  Within this story there is a point at which the story diverges from that until such time as the world can no longer exist in a way in which we can also exist within it.  At this point we are faced with a truth.  Now this could be something that is true just for us, true for us culturally, and true for us as human beings.

My understanding is that those things which disturb at an individual level and at a cultural level are things that it would seem can be worked past; but those things that disturb us at an existential level I am not so sure about.  But it would seem most of the protagonists in these stories do not so much as win as they survive.  But in their stories we have proof by negation.

In order to understand, exercise might be best.  Think of some “truth” that you know, the more universal was better.  Don’t think of some sort of scientific truth such as water boils or that gravity exists, but think of a metaphysical truth such as the passage of time (Rip Van Winkle), identity, or something within your own faith.

Now write down a story, a few pages.  And create a situation in which the opposite of some sort this truth is held.   At this point write in the manner that you would feel that you would act.  How would you deal with this situation and how would you react to this particular “reality” that you are creating.  The more extreme better.  If the truth is that there is a soul with an attached consciousness and there is an “afterlife” write down how a soul must feel the passage of time and the decaying of its body over time.  (There are plenty of stories of the sheer horror of a premature burial because someone “thought” someone else was dead.) the opposite of this truth is that there is a soul but no afterlife and the soul must survive and experience “total” death as in the complete decay and rot of the body.  The words extreme Chinese water torture come to mind.  But the idea is to try and “create” the feeling of such in an experience in your own words so you can imagine your “horror” being tested and come to a better knowledge of the “truth” are you are attempting to understand.