Things that RAW was wrong about

[Salty]

If you look for cake on street pavements long enough, you will eventually find it.

I'm going to try this.
And pass it off as profound wisdom to whomever will buy it first.

[Cain]

Remember, if they doubt you, "what the thinker thinks, the prover proves."

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

If you look for cake on street pavements long enough, you will eventually find it.

I'm going to try this.
And pass it off as profound wisdom to whomever will buy it first.

[Doktor Howl]

If you look for cake on street pavements long enough, you will eventually find it.

If you look for cake IN MY PANCE long enough, you will eventually find it.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

  Thread redeemed!

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

One of the things it took me quite awhile to realize was that RAW often didn't believe half the stuff he wrote. Often he was more interested in the mind set of the believers than the belief.

Also, sometimes I think he just intentionally fucked with his readers.

[Chucklemaster]

One of the things it took me quite awhile to realize was that RAW often didn't believe half the stuff he wrote. Often he was more interested in the mind set of the believers than the belief.

Also, sometimes I think he just intentionally fucked with his readers.

That's my understanding of it.
From what people have told me.
I need to read the RAW books, and I have no excuse for having not read them. 

[Doktor Howl]

One of the things it took me quite awhile to realize was that RAW often didn't believe half the stuff he wrote. Often he was more interested in the mind set of the believers than the belief.

Also, sometimes I think he just intentionally fucked with his readers.

That's my understanding of it.
From what people have told me.
I need to read the RAW books, and I have no excuse for having not read them. 

Actually, what he did was

1.  Popularize the work of others in a fairly effective way (The Cosmic Trigger, etc), and

2.  Write fiction that starts out great, then turns into absolute garbage and gibberish at the end, making you feel you'd wasted great chunks of your irreplaceable time on this Earth.

[Salty]

One of the things it took me quite awhile to realize was that RAW often didn't believe half the stuff he wrote. Often he was more interested in the mind set of the believers than the belief.

Also, sometimes I think he just intentionally fucked with his readers.

That's my understanding of it.
From what people have told me.
I need to read the RAW books, and I have no excuse for having not read them. 

Actually, what he did was

1.  Popularize the work of others in a fairly effective way (The Cosmic Trigger, etc), and

2.  Write fiction that starts out great, then turns into absolute garbage and gibberish at the end, making you feel you'd wasted great chunks of your irreplaceable time on this Earth.

Yup. Pretty much.

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

One of the things it took me quite awhile to realize was that RAW often didn't believe half the stuff he wrote. Often he was more interested in the mind set of the believers than the belief.

Also, sometimes I think he just intentionally fucked with his readers.

He also said some shit that was completely wrong, and probably not on purpose (his statements about feminism come to mind specifically here -- if he understood mainline feminism he would probably count himself as an adherent of it).

In some cases, it's difficult to tell whether he was legitimately wrong or if he was trying to fuck with people, but it doesn't much matter in situations where people cite him as an authority on things where what he wrote was very warped (his descriptions of QM and of information theory come to mind here).

There are also notable instances of what seem to be running feuds. While so far as I can tell his annoyance at James Randi is justified, Carl Sagan often comes off as being primarily in agreement with RAW, and RAW ascribes to him some ideas that in retrospect don't seem to be his -- so RAW's statements about Sagan just generally shouldn't be trusted.

[Cainad (dec.)]

Actually, what he did was

1.  Popularize the work of others in a fairly effective way (The Cosmic Trigger, etc), and

2.  Write fiction that starts out great, then turns into absolute garbage and gibberish at the end, making you feel you'd wasted great chunks of your irreplaceable time on this Earth.

Makes me glad that I read Illuminatus! on a road trip, with my head all full of the funk of jet lag and motel breakfasts. It all seemed to fit in nicely in that context, and it's not like I was spending that time on more productive things.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

One of the things it took me quite awhile to realize was that RAW often didn't believe half the stuff he wrote. Often he was more interested in the mind set of the believers than the belief.

Also, sometimes I think he just intentionally fucked with his readers.

He also said some shit that was completely wrong, and probably not on purpose (his statements about feminism come to mind specifically here -- if he understood mainline feminism he would probably count himself as an adherent of it).

In some cases, it's difficult to tell whether he was legitimately wrong or if he was trying to fuck with people, but it doesn't much matter in situations where people cite him as an authority on things where what he wrote was very warped (his descriptions of QM and of information theory come to mind here).

There are also notable instances of what seem to be running feuds. While so far as I can tell his annoyance at James Randi is justified, Carl Sagan often comes off as being primarily in agreement with RAW, and RAW ascribes to him some ideas that in retrospect don't seem to be his -- so RAW's statements about Sagan just generally shouldn't be trusted.

Agreed. Reading RAW as though he was a scholar is a bad idea. He was an editor for Playboy, that happened to be friends with Discordians and wrote a book that propelled him into the Discordian scene. Some of his books have very interesting ideas, good metaphors etc. but he was a fiction writer that dabbled in pop philosophy, pop psychology and outright bullshit. He wasn't a scientist, he wasn't a scholar. On the fiction side, I agree sorta with Roger. The books start out fantastically, wander around in interesting ways and end like he took a bunch of acid and beat his head against the typewriter. He was a product of his era, when rebelling against the norm was 'cool', even if it made your book as difficult to decipher as a Sumerian codex.

I don't like his work on feminism. I do like Prometheus Rising and Quantum Psychology (more as inspiration than fact). I like his short fiction far more than his novels (Harrow on Howith Hill, for example is great IMO). I think Masks of the Illuminati was far better than Illuminatus Trilogy.  I don't share his love for James Joyce, but I did find that reading it opened a different mindset which was a pretty interesting experiment for myself. I suppose the same is true of Illuminatus, it wasn't the story, as much as the mindset that I enjoyed.

I got to spend some time with him before he died and I have to say he was not a fan of his 'disciples' as all. He once said that a 'disciple was an asshole looking for a human being to attach themselves to'. He often said that he wrote bullshit and I think he really meant it when he said that he didn't believe anything but had suspicions. He was also pretty honest about his goals. A fan once asked him what his current focus was on, thinking that Bob would talk about some grand philosophy or intent, and RAW replied that his focus was on selling some books to make more money.

Much like Crowley, I don't think he had much respect for people that followed and believed what he said... he seemed to have more respect for people that took some of his ideas, ran with them, challenged his statements and argued with him. I eventually stopped hanging out at places where RAWites frequent, simply because they see him as a prophet, rather than a living example of JR Bob Dobbs.

That being said, I still credit him with pulling my ass out of a very bad place when I left the religion I'd been raised in and had no idea what to do next. Well... him or Eris, or both... Maybe

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

His "work" on feminism seems to almost entirely consist of the idea that women should fuck everybody.

[Doktor Howl]

His "work" on feminism seems to almost entirely consist of the idea that women should fuck everybody.

Early case of fat old pagan guy syndrome.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

His "work" on feminism seems to almost entirely consist of the idea that women should fuck everybody.

Early case of fat old pagan guy syndrome.

I REALLY want to write an essay about how polyamorous dudes really need to shut the fuck up about how they're "relationship queer".

NO, DUDE, YOU'RE JUST DOING WHAT MEN IN PATRIARCHAL SOCIETIES HAVE BEEN DOING FROM THE BEGINNING OF TIME, WHICH IS FUCKING A BUNCH OF WOMEN.

JUST TO BE CLEAR:

Dear Mister Straight Guy, when I have a harem of dudes, I am violating society's norms because I am a woman and in our culture, women don't do that. It's sort of like if you decided to be a stay-at-home daddy and homemaker, which I am fully in support of. Way to subvert the dominant paradigm!

Guess what isn't subverting the dominant paradigm? YOU, FUCKING A BUNCH OF CHICKS. I'm not saying you shouldn't do it, as long as everything's consensual and respectful and ethically informed. Have at it, and have fun! But FFS, sticking your dick in the orifices of multiple females DOES NOT make you part of an oppressed minority or a subversive subculture. IT MAKES YOU EXACTLY LIKE THE PATRIARCHY HAS ALWAYS BEEN.