Book Club: Angel Tech

[Reginald Ret]

Kai,
You are smart.

[Kai]

Kai,
You are a glutton for tedious punishment.

Fixed, and thanks.

[LMNO]

I'm reading this impartially, and I have to say that it is a fairly good read.

It does expand on the 8-circuit model. And even if it doesn't break new ground, it goes into much more detail.

if you have use (or even interest) in the model, you will find something in the book that might interest you.

I will post quotes/excerpts later.  I just wanted to say that the book has merit, in my eyes.

[Rumckle]

I finished reading this this arvo, so when I get some time to gather my thoughts, I will post them here.

[Telarus]

Antero at Esozone 2008:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5lf9GXn2FA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5Z6FAAwZnU

(they were posted in reverse, for some reason, but the above is the correct order)

[Rumckle]

Firstly, this will contain spoilers (though this isn't a narrative book, so it isn't really spoiling anything). Secondly, I want to say that I didn't read the forward by  RAW (I don't usually read forwards, and when I do it is usually at the end). Also, if you are the author please don't read, I don't want another butthurt author whinging about other peoples opinions on their books.

Well, Angel Tech,
it had it's moments, I guess the best way to quickly summarise my opinion of it is; the first half was interesting and had some cool stuff in it, the second half sucked balls, and made we want to punch Alli in the head.

At first, like most people here, I found the language barrier difficult, I agree with Kai on the way to read it to actually make sense of it. IIRC he kind of addresses it, by saying that you should take these terms as you understand them. However, it seemed that as he continues with this idea of creating your own definitions to these terms (such as energy, soul etc), he tries to address too broad of an audience, and by trying to speak to everyone, he ends up speaking to no-one.

Another problem, language wise, was his mixing of metaphors, I realise that when dealing with these topics metaphors can be a useful tool for discussing the concepts, but Alli seems to go overboard with it. Simultaneous use of the robot metaphor, the school metaphor, the soul/energy metaphor, and the life metaphor, as well as whatever small one off metaphor he used to illustrate a certain point, just got very confusing. It sort of comes back to his attempts to speak to a much broader audience than what should be his aim.

I liked the pictures scattered throughout the book, they, along with the random quotes and little asides, reminded me of the Principia (in a good way). As did his continued use of 23, though later, in Chapter 7, it kinda seems that his use of 23 was actually a refernce to something else

The number "23" connects the DNA code with the I Ching; there are bonding irregularities every 23rd angstrom units and the 23rd hexagram is called Breaking Apart. . .there are 23 chromosomes from each male and female cell. There are numerous other examples using the number 23 to demonstrate synchronicity,

so either he wasn't referencing the Principia, or he completely doesn't understand the law of fives (at risk of sounding like I'm saying "He's Doing It WRONG!!!").

The first half of the book (elementary school), was good. I found (once dealing with the language) that many of his ideas, were pretty useful, and the entire breaking down of the mind into the four areas, interesting (I haven't read Leary's "8 Circuit Model"). The chapters (or grades) seemed to flow on well from each other.

I really didn't like the rest of the book, it just shitted me off with a mix of wishy-washy ideas, contradictions and bad science (I realise that this was written over 20 years ago, so some of the stuff he refers to a "New Physics" has changed, but I still am allowed to get pissed off about it). There are a couple of exceptions to this, not all of the second half of the book was bad. I rather liked the 5th Grade chapter, the Tarot design was interesting (though too short), and the a couple of good points were made in the 8th grade.

I liked the fifth grade, the rituals/meditation part was interesting, and many of the points made about giving into sensory pleasure appealed to the hedonistic part of my personality.

After that we get onto the parts of the book that really pissed me off, I just can't stand people who seem to purposefully misconstrue or misunderstand accepted scientific theory to get people to listen to their own crackpot ideas, and try to people to think of it as science. One example that sticks out is:

DNA receives its instructions from the central nucleus of the atom, whereby it encodes this information for the CNS to delegate the necessary processes for its survival.

I'm not a molecular biologist (so I may be wrong), but the nucleus of an atom can't give out any instructions. Unless it is a metaphor, but even then it doesn't make any sense to me.

The other part that started to bug was he started to contradict himself, which is probably just a sign that he making all this bullshit up. Try this one:

The aura is an electromagnetic field of energy surrounding and permeating all living forms.

Followed, in the next paragraph by:

Nobody actually knows what an aura is

Now, I had no problems taking his "auras" and "spirits" and what not as a metaphor of sorts earlier, but when he starts trying to describe them scientifically, and contradicts himself, I just want him to shut the fuck up.

The tarot section was cool, and it agreed with what I always thought about things like tarot, that they are more effective at giving a look into the readers state of mind, than the person being read. However it would have been nicer if he elaborated on it a bit more.

Astrology, it shits me off, always, lets just leave it at that.

Some of the 8th grade was cool, with the whole "the more I learn, the more I realise I know nothing" thing. Though again, some of his "science" annoyed me, some of this I kind of brushed off as due to recent advances in Quantum Mechanics, but even so, some of it was just as jarring as the other science stuff.

All in all, I found the first half interesting, and somewhat useful, but beyond that, it just annoyed me so much, that if I wasn't reading it on my laptop, I would have thrown it out a window a some point.

[Cain]

I think Alli has actually read the Principia more than a few times (Ratatosk could tell you better, but I know he knew RAW, and has been referenced as a Discordian in certain publications before now).

I still haven't read this, btw.  Which is bad of me.  I might start this morning, see how far I get before my shift requires me to go.

[Triple Zero]

Thanks for your summary, Rumwolf, it makes me wanna pick up reading this book again/further (and perhaps not feel bad about wandering off when I get to the second half .. )

I liked the pictures scattered throughout the book, they, along with the random quotes and little asides, reminded me of the Principia (in a good way). As did his continued use of 23, though later, in Chapter 7, it kinda seems that his use of 23 was actually a refernce to something else

The number "23" connects the DNA code with the I Ching; there are bonding irregularities every 23rd angstrom units and the 23rd hexagram is called Breaking Apart. . .there are 23 chromosomes from each male and female cell. There are numerous other examples using the number 23 to demonstrate synchronicity,

so either he wasn't referencing the Principia, or he completely doesn't understand the law of fives (at risk of sounding like I'm saying "He's Doing It WRONG!!!").

I don't understand, why is this "wrong"?

Both these examples were also mentioned in I!3.

Btw, once thing I just re-realized, probably many of us have realized before. Basically this shows there are synchronicities about the number 23 (remember Jung's description of synchronicity--two events which do not share a direct common cause that are connected because of interpretation by the observer), but we also know that there is nothing very special about 23. However did they pick 23 because it's a somewhat "odd" prime number? Cause if you picked 24 or 25, you'd probably find a lot more occurances, but they would seem less "special" or "significant" because 24 has a great many divisors and 25 is a square. Maybe explains why there is also a lot of 22 synchronicity being discussed (look it up, a lot of crazy conspiracy stuff often linked with 2012 stuff), 22 is not prime, but neither does it "feel" like a very "common" number (possibly cause of 11 being one of it's divisors).

Anyway, enough 23 talk for now

I rather liked the 5th Grade chapter, the Tarot design was interesting (though too short), and the a couple of good points were made in the 8th grade.

Tarot design? Sounds interesting!

After that we get onto the parts of the book that really pissed me off, I just can't stand people who seem to purposefully misconstrue or misunderstand accepted scientific theory to get people to listen to their own crackpot ideas, and try to people to think of it as science. One example that sticks out is:

DNA receives its instructions from the central nucleus of the atom, whereby it encodes this information for the CNS to delegate the necessary processes for its survival.

I'm not a molecular biologist (so I may be wrong), but the nucleus of an atom can't give out any instructions. Unless it is a metaphor, but even then it doesn't make any sense to me.

Maybe he meant nucleus of a cell instead of atom? I dunno if that would make sense in the context, but I remember when I was really young (and already really into science) I often confused "cell", "molecule" and "atom", cause in my naive mind they were all terms for "very tiny unit".

The other part that started to bug was he started to contradict himself, which is probably just a sign that he making all this bullshit up. Try this one:

The aura is an electromagnetic field of energy surrounding and permeating all living forms.

UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG I really, really hate it when they bring electromagnetism into this. I don't mind talk about "energies" and such, I have come to accept that the word "energy" just means an entirely different thing in spirituality than it does in physics. Which is just one of the reasons why I hate when they conflate it. Where "they" = spiritual people, scientists never do this. Actually, to be fair, "proper scientists" never do this, some bad ones do, but they are (in my scientific opinion) wrong. In a similar fashion "proper spiritual people" also never do this, some bad ones do, but they are (in my spiritual opinion) wrong. The difference is, however, that "improper scientists" are way less accepted in the scientific community than "improper spiritual people" are in the spiritual community.

An example is a little book I read about Feng Shui. As I'm decorating my new place, I don't mind a littlebit of spiritual advice. I just want to know about the bits of Feng Shui that can be interpreted entirely metaphorically. If you decorate a room so that a "dragon" can rest its tail comfortably, for a certain explanation of a "dragon"'s tastes and comfort zones, I find it not too hard to believe that you can end up with a room that is pleasantly decorated for a human (note that I do not presuppose that this dragon actually exists, or that it actually comes to my room, invisible or otherwise). With their ideas of "energy flows" through a room (enters through the doorways, whooshes about like a river with the furniture as rocks, you're supposed to make it move somewhat freely, it should also "rest", like a whirlpool, where you also rest like the couch or your desk, and it shouldnt enter and leave a room in a straight stream without whirling around a bit everywhere) it's even easier to imagine, cause it kind of mimics the way people would move through a room, or where there focus would rest.
So, metaphorically, that all checks out, more or less. Where it misses something, you use common sense (which would be the baseline you were gonna use anyway without Feng Shui) and where it requires some superfluous detail that isnt gonna do much, it provides a nice consistency and "flavour" to make choices for things that wouldnt matter anyway.

Uhhhm sorry for my rambling apology for taking an interest in Feng Shui . My point was going to be that this little book, which is full of shit and totally not about the things I just explained above, talked about how influences from people that lived there create "sticky" energy in a house, now I can sort of get that, it's a bit of a stretch, but especially when you leave the furniture and junk and stuff in I can translate the metaphor (and getting rid of that would cound as "cleansing" energy, or "cleaning" as the mundane call it).

BUT THEN THE BITCH SAID THIS STICKY ENERGY IS ELECTROMAGNETIC IN NATURE

AND THAT WAS WHEN I RRRRAAAAH AND THREW THE BOOK AWAY

Nobody actually knows what an aura is

Now, I had no problems taking his "auras" and "spirits" and what not as a metaphor of sorts earlier, but when he starts trying to describe them scientifically, and contradicts himself, I just want him to shut the fuck up.

YES THIS PISSES ME OFF GREATLY AS WELL.

The tarot section was cool, and it agreed with what I always thought about things like tarot, that they are more effective at giving a look into the readers state of mind, than the person being read. However it would have been nicer if he elaborated on it a bit more.

A friend of mine (actually talking about the I-Ching, but if you sub "76 cards" for "64 hexagrams", the principle is equivalent), it's like playing a chord (with different harmonics, like on a guitar) and seeing which bits of that chord "resonate" in the person's mind.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

My initial reaction to Angel Tech was about like that... I loved the first 2/3 of the book and then thought he'd lost his mind.However, after getting to know him, reading some of his other stuff and his online classes about the 8 circuit model, Angel Tech and Paratheatrics, so here's my current opinion:

He's a Discordian, no doubt. He intentionally mixes useful information with little bits of bullshit, like the 23 comment from above. He has some bizarre models of reality he likes to use, which often involve hippie bullshit words. Of course, since he came form the Hippie generation and the book was written in 1980,

"so the vibe was a lot different man, it was like, the vocabulary ya know?"
     \


Also, some of the crazy stuff is specifically in Leary's model. His concept of 'higher intelligence' at the 7th or Neurogenetic circuit was specifically about "DNA Intelligence". So while his 6th circuit was about programming the 'programs' that run in the brain "metaprogramming" thought/belief/perception, Leary's 7th circuit was specifically about programming changes within DNA. His model stated that we could 'interact' with evolution and direct it for our DNA, and yes he felt that atomic intelligence informed Neurogenetic intelligence which informed Neuroelectric intelligence which was the basis for Neurosomatic intelligence... in some sense (One can never really tell if he's being seriously serious, being metaphorical or tripping his balls off). So Alli sticks with the Model because it's the model he's using. RAW did similar in Prometheus Rising. Personally, I think Leary was using "intelligence" more like we use "emergence" or he was on too many drugs... the weird thing, of course, though is that the South American Indians who take Yopo and Auyahuasa often describe a model of reality that is similar, with "the smallest worlds" giving their information to make up larger ones which make up larger ones etc up to ours.

A lot of the the psychedelic philosophers felt that their tripping was a communication between them and the mushroom/leaf/vine which is a very old animistic model of reality... some anthropologists consider it the earliest building block of religion. Some anthropologists say that those anthropologists spent too much of their college days following the Greatful Dead.

Overall, the first 2/3rds of the book have been really helpful to me, the last third gives me LULZ. 

[Rumckle]

I don't understand, why is this "wrong"?

Both these examples were also mentioned in I!3.

It just seemed like it was purposefully finding something that is 23 just to make some point. Whereas (from my interpretation), the Lo5s is more a comment about peoples ability to see coincidences and links everywhere if they want.

I dunno, it just kinda bugged me.

I haven't finished I!3 yet  should really get around to it.

Maybe he meant nucleus of a cell instead of atom? I dunno if that would make sense in the context, but I remember when I was really young (and already really into science) I often confused "cell", "molecule" and "atom", cause in my naive mind they were all terms for "very tiny unit".

Yeah, but even then, it doesn't really make sense for the nucleus of a cell to give information to the DNA. I guess it could be a metaphor for they way life builds up, but mixing up science terms to make a metaphor sound credible and scientific is just annoying.

UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG I really, really hate it when they bring electromagnetism into this.

Yep.

A friend of mine (actually talking about the I-Ching, but if you sub "76 cards" for "64 hexagrams", the principle is equivalent), it's like playing a chord (with different harmonics, like on a guitar) and seeing which bits of that chord "resonate" in the person's mind.

Yeah, that's what I think, about Tarot in general, and the whole DIY aspect makes even better at that, IMO.

[Rumckle]

He's a Discordian, no doubt. He intentionally mixes useful information with little bits of bullshit, like the 23 comment from above. He has some bizarre models of reality he likes to use, which often involve hippie bullshit words. Of course, since he came form the Hippie generation and the book was written in 1980,

"so the vibe was a lot different man, it was like, the vocabulary ya know?"
     \

true that.

I definitely see him as, at least associating with Discordians, but, I think, and this is another reason (along with the bad science) that the second half of the book wasn't as enjoyable for me. Most of the Discordianesque stuff was in the first half, and wasn't as present toward the end.

Also, some of the crazy stuff is specifically in Leary's model. His concept of 'higher intelligence' at the 7th or Neurogenetic circuit was specifically about "DNA Intelligence". So while his 6th circuit was about programming the 'programs' that run in the brain "metaprogramming" thought/belief/perception, Leary's 7th circuit was specifically about programming changes within DNA. His model stated that we could 'interact' with evolution and direct it for our DNA, and yes he felt that atomic intelligence informed Neurogenetic intelligence which informed Neuroelectric intelligence which was the basis for Neurosomatic intelligence... in some sense (One can never really tell if he's being seriously serious, being metaphorical or tripping his balls off). So Alli sticks with the Model because it's the model he's using. RAW did similar in Prometheus Rising. Personally, I think Leary was using "intelligence" more like we use "emergence" or he was on too many drugs... the weird thing, of course, though is that the South American Indians who take Yopo and Auyahuasa often describe a model of reality that is similar, with "the smallest worlds" giving their information to make up larger ones which make up larger ones etc up to ours.

uhuh, I'm not very familiar with Leary's 8 circuits, but Alli is using, so I reserve the right to call him an idiot based on it.

[fomenter]

  i haven't read the book since the 1980s when it was written but i do remember very well the type of newage crap being generated at that time, and i remember this book being light years better than the Chrystal crunching Oder therapy channeling/walk-in crap being produced by the truck load back then, this book was a niche product to grab new agers using the language of the time and connecting them to models and ideas that had some grounding and that they would never have seen otherwise (Leary raw etc).
the publisher falcon press seemed to do a lot of that covering the same ground from a bunch of different models from different authors at around the same time (Hyatt Raw Alli etc)

[Kai]

Since some of you brought up the Tarot, I thought I'd run with the idea for a bit, since it was one of the most powerful bits of the second half of the book (and I admit, I was able to get around the aura's part and get something out of the chakras reality selection stuff, but the astrology was what REALLY pissed me off).

The way I see it, Alli is presenting Tarot as a way to crystalize the different parts of ones self, the aspects or primeval archetypes that make up ones whole person, as a way to become closer to and understand those parts. This fits in well with the 6th circuit summary of "I am many". The making of a tarot deck forces me to put a name and a symbol on those aspects, which gives me a great and powerful connection and awareness of them.

I actually started making my own deck based on the 22 card system he presented. As he suggested, I used personal words and symbols, like The Axon, The Void, Recursion, The Progenitor. I knew when a particular word and symbol clicked as the basis for a card because there was a very strong emotional connection to that idea. So far I have those four cards, and each of them have distinct meanings and emotional reactions. The Void, which stands for the zero card, is particularly powerful for me. It represents the unknown, the hidden potential in myself, unlocked creativity. In my theology, The Void is the name I give to the potential state of energy before the emergence of matter, and the "before the beginning" of the universe. The symbol is a simple black on white enso, a broken circle. The emotional reaction I have is usually that of great overwhelming power, and I usually tear up just from looking at it; The Void is both terrifying and liberating.

[LMNO]

You gonna do an Emergence Tarot?

That would be cool.


LMNO
-still reading AT; will comment when done.

[Kai]

You gonna do an Emergence Tarot?

That would be cool.


LMNO
-still reading AT; will comment when done.

Well, its going to have Sustaining stuff in it, just simply because those are the most powerful symbols I have. Emergence, The Process of Sustaining and Religious Naturalism in general all have major impacts on me, as does biology and other sciences, so symbols will end up coming out of those connections. The Axon, for example, is straight out of a mental map I have of a neuron action potential.