>I think your premise is faulty because you assume everyone is not aware of being a meatbag, nor even ready to accept that.
I think it's a pretty accurate assumption.
>the very process of creating new life (in principle) isn't the exact antithesis to "worldliness"
I think the duality of life and death is a spook. Life seems to be quite adjacent to death in all things.
>in that by procreating a part of you will certainly live on.
Your genes will live on. "Your" genes. Unless you somehow impart a sense of identity to a collection of molecular on/off switches, saying that genes are a part of "you" doesn't make much sense. I'd be more accurate to say that you are a vehicle for carrying genes.
Also, almost all of your genetic information will be completely diluted in a finite number of generations until there's basically no information about "you" preserved in your grand grand grand ... children, so that's not even true.>>75756
> Body horror employs sexual imagery because a) bodies are involved and b) sex is usually something pleasant, but can easily become unpleasant when one of the involved parties is not willing. And since horror is, among other things, about perverting, this plays right into that direction. Furthermore, body horror also deals with the fear of abnormality. Normal people, even the most open-minded ones, will have a certain adverse reaction to mutilations or deformation and THAT does indeed play into the worldliness of your body, in that by decreasing the structural integrity of one's body, one's life force is also decreased. And that's already before things like nazi doctors and Unit 731 (although I wouldn't put medical horror with body horror; they have overlaps, but are not subsets of each other).
You are operating on a lower abstraction level here.
The question is, WHY does a deformed face, or sexual imagery presented in grotesque manner, disgusts and horrifies us?
We shouldn't just settle on the fact that it does as the ground truth, but examine the underlying reason for such a reaction in the first place. My point is that presenting us with the materiality of our existence is that reason.
In both cases, body horror strips away the parts of the human body that our minds process and "filter" into recognizing as "humans" (as in the idea of a human), leaving only the sensory perception of a body. Deform a face, and your brain stops interpreting it as a "face", and switches into interpreting it as a mass of flesh. Sexual imagery that is devoid of arousal, is just flesh.
But both a normal face that we see as a face, and a deformed face that we see as a mass of flesh, are both masses of flesh. So, the "true" perception must then be that of the mass of flesh, and the perception of a face is just an evolutionarily beneficial illusion.
This pattern of taking something that our brains filter into pleasant experiences, and switching them off, can be seen all over horror by the way. Cuteness also works. Lots of horror imagery revolves around ordinarily cute things, deformed or altered in certain ways. It's because much like arousal or face recognition, cuteness is a hard-wired "filtering" layer.
So, my ultimate point is that such horror works because it points out that our perception of something looking "human" or "nice" or "sexy" is an arbitrary biological phenomenon, and without such a filter, humans just look like flesh. Hence, reminding us of our worldliness.
It has to be pointed out that apples being tasty is not a property of apples, but a property of our minds to find apples tasty. Now imagine eating an apple that tastes like nothing. Then it becomes apparent that eating apples is merely a biological function, and the "taste" didn't exist. An apple is just a sack of water and carbon. Just like human bodies.
That, or you're eating Red Delicious.