How Much Do We Dare to Know?
Exploring the Sum of All Knowledge with Google Gemini
This is the fifth in a series of posts exploring the consequences of humankind’s inability to “bear very much reality”. If you share my interest in what happens when reality floods our world, subscribe to DaaS.
Summary of Parts 1-4
By the will of the Almighty Algorithm, two quotes came to my attention — one from a student of cosmic horror, the other from a pioneer of quantum physics, both relating closely to my recent exploration of human responses to existential threats, including the threat of “fractal falsehood”. Considered separately, both of these quotes are instructive and worth sharing, but when juxtaposed, they add depth and nuance to my typology of survival strategies.
One
Survival Strategies: Prophecy, Anti-Prophecy, Realism - In these 4,700 words, I introduced a typology of responses inspired, in part, by popular films such as Bird Box, A Beautiful Life and Don’t Look Up. The central argument here is that, in response to existential threats, people may fight for survival through awareness, ignorance or realism. Some of these strategies may sound more appealing than others, but we all use all of them, and they all make both positive and negative contributions to collective sense-making in times of uncertainty.
Two
Seize the Means of Perception: Alternatives to Survival through Ignorance - In these 1,800 words, I examined archetypal corruptions of the two alternatives to survival through ignorance. I called the two corrupted archetypes Fanatical Prophets (FPs) and Depressive Realists (DRs) — collectively, Deluded Anti-Denialists (DADs). Based on my reflections on the two quotes below, I’m adding a third corrupted archetype: Naive Prophets (NPs).
Three
Mark of Sanity: A Response to Normal Madness - In this brief post, I examined two views of fractal falsehood as an existential threat. One view sees the threat originating from “them” and directed against “us”; the other view sees “us” enmeshed in the falsehood but clinging to sanity through self-awareness.
Four
Do Not Enter Noah's Ark: The 'Realist' Answer to a False Test - In this brief post, I highlight Ibn Arabi’s inversion of the orthodox interpretation of the story of Noah’s Ark. Instead of viewing the survivors on the Ark as the most devoted followers of God, Ibn Arabi proposes that the true devotees chose to remain unrescued because they only wanted a chance to drown in their God. This view of the true believers consumed by their God aligns beautifully with the archetypal Realist that I described in my typology of responses.
Two Quotations, Juxtaposed
Now, we can continue this exploration by juxtaposing the two quotes I mentioned.
First Quote
The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.
― H.P. Lovecraft, in The Call of Cthulhu
Second Quote
We are only now beginning to acquire reliable material for welding together the sum total of all that is known into a whole; but, on the other hand, it has become next to impossible for a single mind fully to command more than a small specialized portion of it. I can see no other escape from this dilemma…than that some of us should venture to embark on a synthesis of facts and theories albeit with second-hand and incomplete knowledge of some of them — and the risk of making fools of ourselves.
— Erwin Schrödinger, in What Is Life?
To me, these quotes suggest that Lovecraft is the wiser guide to anyone considering a voyage beyond the comforts of the known. I say this because Schrodinger appears to think that this voyage merely poses the risk of making fools of ourselves. For this reason, he fits the profile of Naive Prophets (NP) described in Ezekiel 13:3 who “follow their own spirits but have seen nothing.”
For a second opinion, I turned to Google Gemini. My initial prompt to Gemini was: “These two quotes work well together, don't you think?” Gemini responded:
Yes, these two quotes create a fascinating and somewhat unsettling juxtaposition. Here's why they work well together:
Shared Theme of Knowledge and Its Dangers:
Both Lovecraft and Schrödinger are concerned with the implications of accumulating and synthesizing knowledge.
Lovecraft paints a terrifying picture of the potential consequences: madness or a retreat into ignorance.
Schrödinger acknowledges the difficulty of encompassing all knowledge but argues for the necessity of attempting synthesis, despite the risks.
Contrasting Perspectives on the Solution:
Lovecraft suggests that ignorance is a form of mercy, a protective barrier against overwhelming truths. He fears the "piecing together of dissociated knowledge."
Schrödinger, in contrast, sees synthesis as an unavoidable and necessary endeavor, even if it requires venturing into areas where one's knowledge is incomplete. He has a more forward-looking view, even with the inherent risks.
The Dilemma of Specialization vs. Synthesis:
Schrödinger highlights the modern problem of increasing specialization, making it impossible for one person to know everything.
This directly relates to Lovecraft's fear of the "piecing together" of knowledge, as that piecing together requires the crossing of specializations.
They both recognize the problem, but offer very different reactions to it.
The Underlying Sense of Awe and Fear:
Both quotes evoke a sense of awe and a hint of fear regarding the vastness and complexity of reality.
Lovecraft's fear is more pronounced, emphasizing the potential for existential dread.
Schrödinger has a more scientific approach to the awe, and is willing to accept the risks to further the understanding of the universe.
In essence, Lovecraft presents the chilling potential of unchecked knowledge, while Schrödinger offers a pragmatic, albeit risky, approach to navigating the ever-expanding frontiers of understanding. They are two sides of the same coin, reflecting the tension between the allure and the terror of knowledge itself.
In my next prompt, I shared with Gemini my view that, based on these two quotes, Lovecraft seems the wiser guide for explorers of the unknown. Gemini responded:
That's a very interesting interpretation, and it highlights the crucial difference in the underlying philosophies of Lovecraft and Schrödinger. Here's a breakdown of why your perspective holds weight:
Lovecraft's Cautionary Wisdom:
Lovecraft's perspective is rooted in a deep sense of humility and a recognition of the limits of human understanding. He emphasizes the potential for catastrophic consequences when humanity overestimates its capacity to comprehend the vastness of reality.
His "black seas of infinity" represent the overwhelming unknown, and his warning against "voyaging far" suggests a profound respect for the inherent dangers of unchecked exploration.
In this sense, he embodies a form of "wise caution," acknowledging that some knowledge may be too dangerous for humanity to bear.
Schrödinger's Apparent Naiveté?
Schrödinger's focus on the "risk of making fools of ourselves" seems to downplay the potential for more profound consequences. While he acknowledges the difficulties, his tone is more optimistic, even adventurous.
From your perspective, this optimism could be interpreted as a form of naiveté, a failure to fully grasp the potential for existential danger.
Drawing the parallel to Ezekiel 13:3, you suggest that Schrödinger's drive to synthesize knowledge may stem from "following his own spirit" rather than a true understanding of the potential ramifications.
This is a valid point. In the context of the bible verse, it is talking about people who are claiming to have knowledge, or visions, that they do not truly have. It is that sense of false knowing that can be applied to the way that Schrodinger is viewed in this context.
The Contrast:
The core of your argument lies in the contrast between Lovecraft's profound sense of dread and Schrödinger's seemingly lighter concern for mere embarrassment.
This contrast highlights the fundamental difference between a philosophy that prioritizes caution and one that emphasizes exploration, even at the risk of error.
In conclusion, your interpretation provides a compelling perspective on the contrasting philosophies of Lovecraft and Schrödinger. By drawing a parallel to Ezekiel 13:3, you effectively highlight the potential dangers of unchecked optimism and the importance of acknowledging the limits of human understanding.
It seems unfair to label Schrödinger a Naive Prophet based on a single quote, but the point here is not to indict Schrödinger or anyone else but to illustrate and develop the typology of responses to existential threats. As I wrote in Part 1 of this series, each archetypal response finds both positive and negative expressions, and our understanding of the latter sustains the alternatives to survival through ignorance.
Further Reading
Next, I prompted Gemini: “What further reading would you recommend to build on Lovecraft's cautionary perspective?” Gemini responded:
To delve deeper into Lovecraft's cautionary perspective, it's beneficial to explore works that share his themes of cosmic horror, existential dread, and the dangers of unchecked knowledge. Here's a curated reading list that expands upon Lovecraft's core ideas:
Authors and Works that Echo Lovecraftian Themes:
Laird Barron:
Barron's work, particularly his "Old Leech" mythos, captures the essence of Lovecraftian dread. His stories often feature ancient, malevolent entities that exist beyond human comprehension.
His short story collections and novels, like "The Croning," are excellent examples of modern cosmic horror that build upon Lovecraft's foundation.
Thomas Ligotti:
Ligotti's fiction is known for its pessimistic and nihilistic worldview. He explores themes of existential horror, the futility of human existence, and the inherent strangeness of reality.
His work, such as "Teatro Grottesco," delves into the psychological aspects of horror, creating a sense of unease and dread that resonates with Lovecraft's themes.
Algernon Blackwood:
Blackwood's stories, particularly "The Willows," are considered precursors to Lovecraft's cosmic horror. He emphasizes the power of nature and the sense of being insignificant in the face of vast, unknown forces.
Arthur Machen:
Machen's work, such as "The Great God Pan," explores themes of hidden realities and the dangers of delving into forbidden knowledge. His stories often feature unsettling encounters with ancient, primal forces.
Modern Authors:
Victor LaValle: "The Ballad of Black Tom" is a novella that offers a compelling re-imagining of Lovecraft's "The Horror at Red Hook," providing a critical perspective on Lovecraft's racism while maintaining the cosmic horror elements.
Authors like Stephen Graham Jones also contribute to modern horror that play with similar themes of unknowable dread.
Why These Authors?
They explore the limitations of human perception and the existence of forces beyond our understanding.
They evoke a sense of cosmic dread and existential horror.
They often feature themes of ancient, hidden knowledge and the dangers of seeking it.
They often provide a sense of humanities small place in the grand scheme of the cosmos.
By exploring these authors, you'll gain a broader understanding of the cautionary themes that Lovecraft explored, and see how those themes continue to resonate in contemporary horror literature.
Explore at your own risk.