...have you answer your own questions as if you were me....
I will do so below.
1) Do you believe in the literal existence of Cthulhu, Yog-Sothoth, Nyarlathotep, etc.?
no. by 'literal existence' i understand this to mean a physical one. I do not think that fictional characters or gods exist on the physical level. fictional characters exist as figments only. once fictional characters are engaged as intelligences of their own right, then they may begin to exist as internal intelligences with whom / which one may interact.
1 A) Where do you believe that they exist?
interior to consciousness only. I have evidence that gods have this capacity, but i am unable to easily verify any specific god within any particular consciousness outside my own involving gods whose interaction with which i have been blessed. by this assessment, the existence of gods is somewhat incidental on the order of imaginary friends except insofar as human beings have some ability to manipulate the cosmos at a base level (and the additional facet that these gods may have insights or information which our ordinary conscious minds may not). I have zero (0) evidence to support this (non-ordinary)
manipulative ability, however, and i presume it is a function of imagination only (which, in an ordinary sense, is capable of being used to very interesting effects).
1 B) In a dimension observable by ordinary human beings?
obviously not, by my assessment. only entertained as figments/fictions.
1BA) If so, in what state of consciousness?
for those who are not ordinary beings, gods and the like may be encountered within a state of conciousness that is internally-oriented, providing to something with these names whatever qualities that consciousness designates. I have no reason to think that any consistency need be obtained between Lovecraft's fiction and the entities by names reflected from that fiction,
or from one human to another.
I presume that humans rationalize the (often massive, even psychotic) differences by ignoring them. for this reason Jehovah worshippers ignore the stories about that god decimating hordes of people, being responsible for what would be regarded as atrocious behaviour (because it exists on a different moral level), and Cthulhu worshippers may ignore Lovecraft's explanations or exposition of these mythos by primarily ignoring the expression of Lovecraft or his characters on these points. Satanists ignore the 'evil' aspects of Satan attributed to Hir by Christians and Muslims, typically, or explain these descriptions away as 'biased misrepresentations'.
I do have reason to think that the types of names he used might be more like 'baby language' (see Neal Stephenson's "Snow Crash" and the phenomenon of glossolalia!) and therefore keyed to a deeper part of the mind, more primitive, and thus more conducive to your aims of depth mystical refinement, interaction with deeper aspects of consciousness, more Id-oriented, more childish or child-like aspects, etc. I would also suggest that to the ordinary person this will require familiarity with, or ability to enter into, trance states or non-ordinary states unless someone was less stable of mind already, and therefore susceptible to problems with engagement of spirits/gods. many will never seek that level of (personal) interaction and that's probably completely unnecessary to their development. seems the same with gods of all sorts.
2) If so, how can you justify this when those entities were clearly invented by a 20th century weird tale author?
by my assessment, all internal intelligences are the product of imagination ultimately. they begin as placeholder figments without invested consciousness so as to bolster them in any manner. for the arising of a personal aspect to them some kind of allotment must be invested such that this infuses them with an ability to act, speak, etc.
3) Are they not from this universe?
by my language there is only one 'universe' and all things we know are 'in it'. they may not reside within our current familiar sector of subjective experience, however.
4) What is belief?
belief is the cementation of cognitive trajectories toward particular conceptual paths. it is an emotional requirement of logic, or consistency one naturally discovers about oneself such that it reflects on a tendency, to think in particular ways, answer questions in particular ways, or otherwise assume things during the course of experience and behaviour.
5) Who would argue {against the assertion that} belief influences our reality?
in the sense that we are describing some
non-ordinary type of influence, i would be happy to argue against that. every influence i have seen belief have on experience is explainable through ordinary means, acting through imagination or upon perception such that 'our reality' (a confusing phrase) is changed and the reality beyond perception is seen in a different light.
6) What will become the stimulus that indicates a need to rely upon others (as for knowledge, assessments about what is accurate, etc.)?
when something functional that i wish to achieve is impeded or breaks down. if i don't have the capacity to fix it myself, then i will seek external expertise. when my knowledge system fails me, then i may seek 'peer review' on what i have ascertained so as to regain my footing and resume a proper orientation.
7) What will these alien Gods get from our liberation?
insofar as they are 'alien' only by virtue of being distanced from our conscious mind (thus comparable to 'reptilian aliens from other planets' which i regard as entirely fictional), and thus not external but internal intelligences and a part of us, with our development they will
also prosper. our liberation may make them unnecessary and dissolve back into the soup of consciousness our organism facilitates. if we are considering this as a holistic phenomenon, and we can ascertain that we are benefitted as a whole by our interactions with them, however large a part they may play in our experience, then we may say that they benefit also from our activities. they may be said to be 'pleased', they may be more thoroughly accepted, transformed by assimilation into an integrated and aware entirety, etc.
you wrote:
I do have a primary paradigm. That's the one this forum encounters every night. I'm open minded about possibilities... what may exist given the right circumstances.to which i responded:
perhaps this is your response to the above:
I understand you therefore to be winnowing portions of what
i would describe as 'the universe' into categories of your preference, and attempting to enhance and diminish certain sectors of those by your choices and actions. I'm not sure if any of your responses here addresses my question about "the {paradigm} this forum encounters every night", however.
it sounds quite reasonable to me as i have 1) recharacterized it ('winnowing portions or sectors of the universe') and 2) corrected it (referring to U:B being too distant from our current state and U:C being a bridge or alternative), yes. if i have corrupted it beyond your meaning, then i cannot understand its original and would need a restatement or elaboration from you in order for it to seem reasonable to me.
I'd not describe it as a 'neutralizing force' so much as a 'bridging set of circumstances on the way to an ideal target'. to me all of this sounds quite ordinary and doable, yes.
I am familiar with the topical foci to which you have referred, made a decent study of alchemical process at least on a metaphorical level, and am convinced there is room to think that death may not be required in order to enter U:B.
your constant loyalty and welcoming attitude are refreshing and fortifying. they stand in stark contrast to what i have witnessed in your relationships with others whose associates have found it necessary to eject me from their presence in a comparable manner. perhaps needless to say, i am acquainted with the process of expulsion, excommunication, and exclusion. when it
doesn't occur, i am more surprised, depending on the angle of my approach to social groups. those which i have a vested interest in remaining part of course i lay as low as i am able and this, due to my egotistic and inspired manner, isn't always very low.
thank you very much for your attention and fraternity. it's appreciated.