Archive for June, 2020

Late Announcement: Best New Horror #30

Posted in Uncategorized on June 28, 2020 by marksamuels


If only I could also be included alongside such a grand Twitter luminary as SKU.

If only …  If only … (sobs quietly.)

Hang on a minute … I’ve just remembered it turns out that I shall be, with my marvellously “controversial” story “Posterity”.

Jolly good.

Mark S.


Qualia Is Gonna Get You, Baby.

Posted in Uncategorized on June 28, 2020 by marksamuels

“Now, when it comes to “physicalism”, it is indeed true that one falls in love with a physical object, i.e. another individual. But to claim that the physical existence of that object (person) in question is the central issue is not the case. Essentially, what one does when appreciating beauty, whether in another person, or in something experienced via the senses, such as a great work of art, is to generate qualia in the mind. It is this immaterial aspect of reality (one which we all experience in falling in love, finding something beautiful, appreciating art) that gives the lie to the view that our interaction with the ground of being consists solely of sense-data as if we were simply biological machines. Poetry, for example, is not simply a question of the ink and the paper upon which it is written. Qualia is actually so commonplace in our lives that we overlook its foundational aspect when determining that reality is not wholly a question of physicalism (aka materialism).

When it comes to category errors, it might be worthwhile to bear in mind the idea that no monotheistic religion of which I am aware has ever claimed there is a gigantic physical brain in existence at the centre of, or outside of, the universe. One can only obtain intimations of God, not a final comprehension—at least in this life.

However, let me concede one point. It probably is impossible for a materialist to gain access to a higher reality beyond that which they have set their own experiential limits. What it would require for them to transcend such a limitation would be an act of faith, such as getting down on their knees and praying to God for the proof they so ardently claim is not possible. It won’t necessarily come in terms of a miracle that suspends the “laws of nature”, but it may do in terms of a sudden realignment in one’s philosophical orientation.

Evidence of the existence of God acceptable to atheistic sceptics would involve precisely the negation of that freedom granted by a higher power. The freedom to doubt, the freedom to err, and the freedom to self-destruction are part of our spiritual heritage.

It is precisely why the oft-cited criticism of God as a form of celestial dictator is false—and little more than a futile attempt to reduce something eternal to the pigsty of political ideology, since the very idea that they are not their own dictators and not responsible to anyone other than themselves for their actions actually terrifies them.”

Mark S.




From an Email to a Muslim Correspondent

Posted in Uncategorized on June 26, 2020 by marksamuels

“There are a series of assent-propositions that lead up to religious adherence, whether one goes down the classical philosophical or the fideist route. The atheist does not get any further than opposition to the first step on that journey. The agnostic, on the other hand, puts it all to one side as “terra incognita”. I know one or two individuals who are, following their own moral code, “enlightened” pagans with behaviour-patterns utterly indistinguishable from those of atheists. What they’ve done is to accept that materialism is not sufficient to explain reality (which it isn’t) and recognise that ultimate meaning is discernible, but then stop short, as they are not prepared to cede the necessity of, therefore, submitting to God’s will: they still appear to think that God exists for man’s purpose, not man for God’s purpose. I think they’re more contemptible than (genuinely ignorant or modernity-conditioned) atheists. It’s all a sort of consequence-free philosophical parlour-game for them since they chuckle over the notion of revelation as the final piece of the jigsaw and, instead, regard it as wholly superfluous.

There are, of course, as many diversions of theological and jurisprudence views in Christianity as there are in Islam. I think the difference, right now, is that the West is busily, viciously, dismantling its own spiritual tradition from within. I think the Marxist postmodernists in the West will have a shock because Islam is now set fair, over the next few generations, to fill that vacuum for them. And, to be honest, for a traditional Catholic, provided the Islam that triumphs is not of the Sunni Salafist or Shia Jihadist school, then the society it produces could well be a huge improvement over the incoherent mess we’ve currently got. At least it’s theist and morally coherent. Naturally, I favour an internal restoration of traditional Catholic values, but I don’t see any real prospect of it happening.

The current Pope tries to be all things to all men. Still, one respects the office and prays for him. As for the Old and New Testament; God reveals his nature to men through scripture in a progressive revelation culminating in the Incarnation. The new covenant fulfils, rather than replaces, the old covenant. The idea of a wrathful, jealous, desert God is simply the interpretation had, at that time, by the tribes of Israel who first bore witness. I don’t think God, of his very essence, can actually be wrathful, jealous etc. There is the question of Christ, hypostasis, and His position of course; but these would lead me into the whole Triune God issue and the Mystery of Faith.”

Mark S.


Brothers, You Know What I Mean.

Posted in Uncategorized on June 22, 2020 by marksamuels

Mark S.

I Got Somethin’ to Say Baby

Posted in Uncategorized on June 18, 2020 by marksamuels

and you better listen.


Mark S.

Vital Realities

Posted in Uncategorized on June 16, 2020 by marksamuels



But this “ethos” also encompasses euthanasia, viz, from the TLO:


“A bidet in a bathroom”? Give me a break. This is “compassion as pathology”. As I explained in an essay in my book Prophecies and Dooms:

“Now, since human consciousness is a “mistake”, what solution do Zapffe and Ligotti offer to rectify the problem? Simple; that man cease to reproduce himself and that the species gradually ease itself voluntarily into non-existence. It all sounds so non-confrontational, peace-loving and warmly fuzzy in a nice liberal way. And this solution, in the guise of the antinatalism (hereafter AN) movement, has certainly been gathering followers lately, and is something of a phenomenon on internet social media. You soon discover that these are actually highly vociferous people who also routinely advocate dissemination of euthanasia, sterilization, abortion and suicide, on the borderland of obsession. If you have never been on the receiving end of these people’s ferocious tolerance, I can only say I envy you.

Admittedly I find it hard to accept their “elimination-of-humanity-as-a-whole” to be in the nature of a moral goal, and those people would, I imagine, be duly outraged by someone advocating the disappearance of individual yet collective groupings of humanity; for example, women, Jews, Gypsies or Blacks. Think of how many unborn generations were “spared having been brought into the suffering that is existence” by the efficiency of the industrial killing methods employed by totalitarian regimes. Indeed, the grim end-logic of the AN movement is that any relatively painless and quick act that leads to the destruction of human beings is not necessarily a crime at all, but rather a pre-emptive act of mercy killing.”

The TLO has become a self-censoring philosophical cult. It does not allow anything other than circumscribed debate.

Mark S.