This is in response to Nigel's last reply in the "Cain Contra Robert Anton Wilson" thread . . .
I can only speak from personal experience, and cannot speak for others, but personally any material from Illuminatus I've ever "used" were almost always topics I was already interested in BEFORE reading anything Discordian: I had been a JFK assassination buff since my early teens, a friend in high school was a huge John Dillinger nut, I loved Bugs Bunny since I was child... blah blah blah and yadda yadda yadda...
I prefer Bugs Bunny (an Illuminatus Discordian idea) to Mickey Mouse (a PD Discordian idea) simply because Bugs seems more discordian to me... Mickey was sort of a putz, except for very early cartoons like Steamboat Willy... now, do I use Bugs Bunny very often? No. I think I used him once in a blog (From John Dillinger to Bugs Bunny In 5 Easy Steps)... and instead usually use Alfred E Neuman, or my own discordian mascots like Fudgio Montobono or whoever . . .
I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to pick and choose what I want to use from something else without being called a bobbie. If I was parroting EVERY single idea RAW or Illuminatus ever spouted, fine. But to avoid everything someone wrote so to NOT be a bobbie is sort of bobbie behaviour, is it not?
Need I quote the holy words of Vexati0n? "Doing everything exactly opposite from "The Mainstream" is the same thing as doing everything exactly like "The Mainstream." You're still using What Everyone Else is Doing as your primary point of reference. It's the same kind of stupid that is practiced by Satanists who worship the Christian Devil."
Oh, wait . . . I used someone else's words . . . I must be a bobbie.
I was more of a Woody Woodpecker fan. What does that mean?
But more to the point, I completely agree with everything you said. The way I see it, the reading material, wherever it comes from, is a starting point. What is more important, I think, is where we go from that starting point. I believe anything can be a valid reference point, depending on what you are discussing.
I think Woody is discordian. Especially the earlier episodes, before it became so suburban.
I don't disagree with you, I was just commenting on how surprisingly ubiquitous Illuminatus! memes are now that I'm aware of them, and I could see why that would get on someone's nerves.
On the other hand, a lot of the memes collected in the trilogy are just that... collected. Not invented. I think that was deliberate, though what with RAW being dead there's no way to ask him... I think he and Shea set out to concentrate every Discordian meme they were aware of at the time into Illuminatus!. They did a good job of it.
I am also amazed at how some memes spontaneously emerge from isolation, like fascination with Richard Nixon, cones, pork, etc. At the intersection of these memes, you find Discordians.
Please keep in mind that the first edition of the PD was published in 1965*, and I3! was written from 69-71.
There was hardly anything to "collect"; he was creating stuff out of whole cloth.
*A whole five copies, incidentally. The next edition was published in 69, so it could be argued that I3! was written concurrently with PD.
It's true. I'm starting to suspect RAW wrote much more of the PD than I had originally suspected. In fact, I'm beginning to suspect he wrote more of the actual content than Thornley did.
Also, one last thought on the OP: you don't go to a Star Trek convention and expect people to talk about Lord of the Rings... you don't go to the library and expect to find meat, cereal, fruits and vegetables... you don't go to the post office to see a movie...
If you plan to consider yourself a Discordian it would probably be more realistic to realize that some common memes will be present.
Is Eris off limits for Discordians now?
I look forward to future memos about what I should and shouldn't do, think, or talk about, as a Discordian.
Quote from: LMNO on March 26, 2008, 07:14:51 PM
Please keep in mind that the first edition of the PD was published in 1965*, and I3! was written from 69-71.
There was hardly anything to "collect"; he was creating stuff out of whole cloth.
*A whole five copies, incidentally. The next edition was published in 69, so it could be argued that I3! was written concurrently with PD.
He invented the Kennedy assassination? Whoa, man, that's heavy.
No, but seriously. There are obviously a shitload of existing social themes which he exploited/collected in the book. As for writing the PD, I don't think so. It's fairly apparent from reading various forewords, essays, and books that he was friends with Thornley, Hill, and Benares, among others in the scene, in much the same way that so many Beat writers were friends. Of course there's a lot of conceptual crossover and sharing of ideas.
From my conversations with Bob and other old school weirdos, here's what I've put together:
In the mid 1960's Kerry and Greg worked together, they, along with other employees wrote a lot of what became the PD and other books that were never published. RAW, from what I gather, was not directly involved, but did receive a lot of the mailings that Greg and Kerry were doing. Some of those hinted at the Discordian Society as a great secret society at war with the Illuminati. When he worked at Playboy, he and Bob Shea got lots of conspiracy mail from weirdos. These two bizarre sources are where most of the Illuminatus! memes seem to have come from. (with guest pop appearances from Lovecraft, Joyce etc).
Wilson and Shea were friends with Leary... RAW particularly had been fascinated with modifying brain programs since the late 50's and spent a lot of time in the 60's experiences the weird shit that later became Cosmic Trigger (aliens from Sirius etc). Between the ideas Leary had on brain patterns/programs and his personal facination with Joyce, Pound etc, the Bob's decided to write the book using a new pattern of writing... that is they created a new communication model with different rules. The idea being that the could teach brains to think in new patterns... for some people that seems to be what happens. For other people, it doesn't.
At some point, I think during the late 80's, Thornley actually decided that Bob was actually a secret government plant, tasked with making people question conspiracies etc.
I think Thornley had some rather profound mental issues by the end of the 80's.
That is super neat history... I'm glad you know that shit!
I am of the opinion that RAW brought the Illuminati to the table in the entire situation. He and Shea encountered the concept on a regular basis on the Playboy letter section... I believe it says this in the Mord the Foul intro to the Robert Anton Wilson Reader. And, I can name at least 4 parts of the PD that I think there is some evidence to lean toward RAW writing them.
I am of the opinion that the Illuminati R us
with regards the OP - My take is that these things are described as "trappings" and that an apt description. The trappings of discordia, fnord, pineal, 23, 5 etc.. have trapped the ideals that it originally stood for. Whole generations have worn the menu without actually getting what the fuck it was about. So the movement has become stale and trapped in the parody it has become.
The majory of fnord/pineal spouters seem to fall into this latter category. Anyone who uses these memes runs the risk of being labelled 'twat' along with them, simply because it's generally a pretty reliable acid test of character. Sure there are exepctions to this rule - it wouldn't be a rule if there weren't.
I'm sure there's a perfectly nice jewish chap out there somewhere who likes wearing black shirts and jackboots but if I see him coming I'll prolly think 'nazi' just cos the general rule of classification applies. As monkeys we judge on appearances. Old wives say we shouldn't but that's irrelevent - it's what we do regardless.
BAH U R Lame and 2 late, U kno whut???
I kind of think that the only truth in this thread is that each illumination is only applicable to one person. Ever.
Please elaborate.
Concerning the OP, and Discordian memes used by Pinealists:
I've seen quite a few of us so-called "non-Pinealists" use the Law of Fives, Pentabarf, Eristic/Aneristic Illusion, etc quite a lot.
What I think the difference might be is that we often use the terms as a shorthand for what the terms stand for while discussing other things. The pinealists tend to se the meme as being important in and of itself:
That is to say, a Pinealist might spend his time looking for the hidden 5s in any given text, but a NP will use "Law of Fives" as part of a discussion of Astrology.
Quote from: Hoopla on March 27, 2008, 03:23:46 AM
I am of the opinion that RAW brought the Illuminati to the table in the entire situation. He and Shea encountered the concept on a regular basis on the Playboy letter section... I believe it says this in the Mord the Foul intro to the Robert Anton Wilson Reader. And, I can name at least 4 parts of the PD that I think there is some evidence to lean toward RAW writing them.
Well, either RAW was getting the Illuminati mailings from Omar and Mal-2 directly, or they were sending in such things to Playboy... I've never quite figured that part out. And Bob loved nothing more than answering 80% of the questions and then saying "Oh, that's an Illuminati secret which I can't talk about", and then he would always laugh and change the subject. Bastard.
What makes you think they were coming from Mal2 or Omar? I see little evidence of their interest in the Illuminati... check out the 1st Edition of the PD, I don't think there is a single reference in there.
I think the Illuminati letters Playboy was getting were from Birchers, and the like, and RAW and Shea found all the different contradictory theories amusing.
I could be wrong, however.
Quote from: Hoopla on March 27, 2008, 02:47:53 PM
What makes you think they were coming from Mal2 or Omar? I see little evidence of their interest in the Illuminati... check out the 1st Edition of the PD, I don't think there is a single reference in there.
I think the Illuminati letters Playboy was getting were from Birchers, and the like, and RAW and Shea found all the different contradictory theories amusing.
I could be wrong, however.
That's based on a conversation with Bob, where he talked about some short series of jake letters done in the late 60's apparently by the Discordians as a joke. In it, there was talk of the Discordians fighting the Evil Illuminati (where the Illuminati were sort of metaphors for Grayfaced Hunchbrains). So it appears (based on what he said, which could be truth, lie or ... Bob) that he was getting two different streams of information, the Playboy letters wherein serious Illuminati Conspiracy theorists were involved and Discordians who (by coincidance) were using the same meme. Bob had already been investigating the ideas of the Illuminati, which was one of the things that led him to Crowley, which led to the Book of Lies, which led to Bob figuring out "The Final Secret of the Freemasons and the Illuminati" (which Crowley claims was in Book of Lies). That led to the experiments Bob did to himself, documented in Cosmic Trigger. All of that, then contributed to the style of TIT and a lot of the philosophy hidden in the text.
When RAW the Skeptic was around, the Illuminati was a joke. But, when some of the other RAW's were around, he admitted that the series of 'coincidences' were, possibly, far more than coincidence. Be it because of a real Illuminati, real Illumination(ie, the secret being perception modification/changing reality tunnels/bending bars in the BiP) or he once theorized that maybe, just maybe, Crowley or someone like Crowley (Weishaupt?), built a great big puzzle with pieces all over the place and he just happened to put it together.
I think the development of the PD was either intentionally obfuscated by its original authors (we know the bastards spread lies about who wrote it) and further obfuscated by RAW, or that it may provide a good example of synchronicity (or both?).
QuoteThat is to say, a Pinealist might spend his time looking for the hidden 5s in any given text, but a NP will use "Law of Fives" as part of a discussion of Astrology.
I think this may be a useful way of looking at it. Though, I would argue that mosbunal people that play with Discordia, eventually get past the "LAW OF FIVES IS TRUE" stage... at least, if they read anything besides just the PD and TIT. Though if anyone reads TIT and doesn't come away with "Think For Yourself, Schmuck!" as the primary lesson... then I feel truly sorry for them and their inability to process data.
Besides, I am not sure how RAW and Shea could have made the "Discordians" any less definable (not putting spoilers in here due to Nigel still reading the book).
By the way, the "Final Secret" in the Book of Lies was prolonged oral sex, right?
Or was it felching?
It was Crowley's middle name
In the Crowley 101 course on MLA, RAW indicated it was Chapter 69, the "Gift of Tongues", so yeah, basically.
But others have had different opinions . . . what was the one about The Ruby? I seem to recall reading that as a guess by some people . . . or was it Sapphire? I forget.
srsly - middle name.
It was "Shirley" :lulz:
Quote from: LMNO on March 27, 2008, 03:45:26 PM
By the way, the "Final Secret" in the Book of Lies was prolonged oral sex, right?
Or was it felching?
The Final Secret is a secret. Tantric Sex is involved.
Let's say that the Final Secret of the Illuminati, as interpreted by RAW, from Crowley's Book of Lies, (as interpreted by me) appears to be a step by step guide on how to break out of the Black Iron Prison.
I fact, I think its because I interpreted it this way, that I tend to disagree with the "You can't break out" part of the metaphor.
However, lots of introspection still to come ;-)
Quote from: Hoopla on March 27, 2008, 03:52:22 PM
In the Crowley 101 course on MLA, RAW indicated it was Chapter 69, the "Gift of Tongues", so yeah, basically.
But others have had different opinions . . . what was the one about The Ruby? I seem to recall reading that as a guess by some people . . . or was it Sapphire? I forget.
True... in some sense ;-)
Also, if my posts, in any way, sounded as though I felt I was superior or something, please accept my apologies. I was intending only to add more information, not place myself above anyone else. :sad:
For all I know the old man could have been lying through his teeth, just to fuck with me. :gheyforum:
I'd be dissapointed if he wasn't giving you some of the Sacred Bull.
Quote from: Hoopla on March 27, 2008, 05:19:19 PM
I'd be dissapointed if he wasn't giving you some of the Sacred Bull.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
RAW tended to know a fair bit about almost everything, and keep it all straight in his head (I have a hard time remembering what I ate yesterday and then if it was lunch or dinner myself) however he was also quite known for a fair amount of bullshit, I bet if someone called him out on it, he would smile and say "Thats what YOU know!" When dealing with the 'Occult' (the hidden) there are rarely any 'correct' answers about anything. So you can kind of make shit up as you go along. The more you do it in a consistent manner the more people quote you on it. After enough time, what is truth and what is false is dependant on what was recorded, and 'weight' is given to people who are consistently quoted. RAW and the Illuminantus Trilogy have put their mark on things, but also skewed things in a similar but different direction. Not to say others haven't done the same throughout the years, and in part we all are kind of required to do so at some point or so I would believe, no?
The BIP while not the PD, is a reinterpretation for the modern culture of Discordianism, and a nice piece of work. Heavily influenced by Dicks Exegesis and Valis (after reading BIP I spent a week trudging through Valis once again, a better work than Illuminantus, if albeit crazy) and its definately a more pro-active almost radical stance to the former PD. Something which is kind of important every now and then, perhaps a form of rising of the house of podge (or would that be hodge, it would be all in the interpretation I would think). Its really kind of the new skew on things, and the modern variant for people to align themselves with (or against).
PSB
Just so you know, we stole the BIP term from PKD, but any other connection is purely coincidence.
I tried to buy my husband some Dick for his birthday, but he preferred Morrow and Bataille. Maybe next time.