If you didn't know
http://www.deepleafproductions.com/wilsonlibrary/index.htm
Thanks Cain. I now know more and continue to understand less.
Thanks for the library link Cain!
Some of us 'students' at the Maybe Logic Academy (http://www.maybelogic.net/) produce a quarterly magazine (http://maybelogic.org/maybequarterly/), and also an ongoing blog called Only Maybe (http://maybelogic.blogspot.com/)
All sorts of useful and relevant links get posted @ OM (http://maybelogic.blogspot.com/)
Although as a newbie I have already come across what looks like some apathy (or even dislike) towards His Serene Absence around here, in which case
"Move on! Nothing to see hear, folks!"
not so much dislike as just "been there, done that a zillion times over".
Well, that and, while he did some good stuff, he also did some not good stuff, and neither of them are sufficient for the amount of adoration he seems to get from some of his more zealous fans.
Welcome, by the way.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on June 02, 2007, 06:42:45 PM
not so much dislike as just "been there, done that a zillion times over".
What, died a zillion times?
Published 32 zillion books?
I'd act impressed, but you obviously don't like hero-worship... 8)
Quote from: Cain on June 02, 2007, 06:45:49 PM
Well, that and, while he did some good stuff, he also did some not good stuff, and neither of them are sufficient for the amount of adoration he seems to get from some of his more zealous fans.
Welcome, by the way.
Ye Goddesses! You ppl seem tough. Of course, I never did some less than good stuff myself, ever, so I suppose I could pass judgement. I just quite liked him, and wanted to study with him - I mean, if I could do a course on "Finnegans Wake" with James Joyce I would have; if Thomas Pynchon would email me to clarify a few things about "Gravity's Rainbow" I'd enjoy it.
I haven't met any zealous fans...and I certainly don't know anybody who adored him...he eats, he shits, he writes, he dies.
but I guess if you have met one of his other fan clubs, who want some fucking guru or something, they obviously never heard his definition of a disciple...
"A disciple is an asshole looking for a human being to attach itself to." RAW
We did try to create an anti-RAW Feelings thread (http://www.maybelogic.net/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=38&func=view&id=3207&catid=2#3207), and one or two quibbles came up, but I guess Antero Alli (another of the tutors) summed it up pretty well:
Being in Bob's company when he said this made it clear to everyone in the room that he was happy being alone with his vision and spiritual authority. And that anyone trying to suck up to him as a guru would achieve nothing less than a zen hotfoot or some related embarassment.
The thing about Bob was how ordinary a guy he really was. Those who never knew Bob -- and most people who have read his books only know of Bob; they never knew him -- seem to have this exaggerated propensity to mythologize the man. Bob was very aware of this and I think it embarassed him. However, when he was onstage performing his lectures (and they were all performances), it was easy to see why many people mythologized him. Audiences always love the performance, not the actual man; that's show biz....
I have no Anti-RAW Feelings since he personally dismantled my guru projections and, in fact (by proxy) taught me how to dismantle these types of projections from those who try it on me. And, I must say, I've gotten pretty good at it...
still, my life partner has no interest in the man or his work, and still has no idea why I find him so amusing and stimulating. I gave up any attempt at a 'hard sell' a long time ago.
And I came here to browse around a Discordian world, not push MLA on anyone.
Be Seeing You! (I'll be the guy you spot rummaging through the archives of old posts, with my notebook, clipboard, camera, dictaphone, and bad attitude.)
we seem to be in agreement. RAW was cool (or, at least, the writing of his that I'm familiar with amused me), but we seem to get alot of dipshits who idolize him and embarass themselves by missing the point so badly and not even knowing it.
welcome to the forums, by the way. check out the "Or Kill Me' and BIP subforums to get a sense of what we're kind of about when we're not flaming each other or jabbering away like idiots about music or politics or something.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on June 04, 2007, 02:15:29 AM
we seem to be in agreement. RAW was cool (or, at least, the writing of his that I'm familiar with amused me), but we seem to get alot of dipshits who idolize him and embarass themselves by missing the point so badly and not even knowing it.
welcome to the forums, by the way. check out the "Or Kill Me' and BIP subforums to get a sense of what we're kind of about when we're not flaming each other or jabbering away like idiots about music or politics or something.
Cheers ECH (as a smartass into Finnegans Wake, I can't help noticing that your initials would come out as Everybody Comes Here). I agree that anyone who thinks of Bob as a conspiracy theorist (for instance) got it incredibly wrong, as he seems (to me) to have used conspiracy theory as a 'teaching tale' about how we form beliefs, etc. And yeah, perhaps in California you have Bob-worshippers...over here in the UK almost no-one heard of him, and I have to describe him as my favourite sci-fi writer, or satirist, or something. Guru doesn't appear on the list! Personally I put him in the same zone as Bill Hicks (big in the UK) and George Carlin (unknown in the UK), or (say) Bucky Fuller or Marshall McLuhan. Big-brained and funny with it.
Thanks for the thread suggestions. It doesn't bother me when people flame away - we have our MLA moments when the magick gang start sending thunderbolts at each other, but generally we prefer a more calm interaction. Whether that means that lurkers then feel terrified to join in (for fear of thunderbolts, or of looking stupid) I have no idea.
As a 'founder member' - there from Day One - I probably draw some heat from people with problems with pecking orders, but if they invent hierarchies in their heads then they really came to the wrong place. My main problems have come from teasing those into magick...they just seem so easy to tease (taking life so seriously, and all)...
Because of my approaching 3 years at the Academy, I declared myself ready to 'graduate' and instead of spending most of my spare time at MLA I wanted to come out and explore (spy, go on a missionary expedition, vision quest, publicity campaign, goof-off, etc) other related places.
As a PKD fan, I already stumbled over the BIP thread...I'll go look at the 'Or Kill Me' when I get a chance.
Thanks!
Quote from: Bogus Magus on June 04, 2007, 11:03:05 AMMy main problems have come from teasing those into magick...they just seem so easy to tease (taking life so seriously, and all)...
we will get along nicely, I think.
ECH,
LOVES fucking with Mhadjickquians
Lately, I've been learning about quantum physics a bit more, and I've noticed that RAW tended to (either accidentally or on purpose, I can't tell) use improper metaphors and/or macro conclusions of micro events to defend his High Weirdness gambits.
Schrodinger's Cat is a perfect example. In a way, RAW misled and misinformed his fan base as to what quantum scientists thought was "really going on", which is a shame.
It's always welcome to hear other peoples' perspectives on things. It's what makes the whole "Discordian" thing so interesting to me, so I'm glad you decided to wander over here and see what it is we're on about. Welcome, pull up a metaphorical chair, and enjoy :mrgreen:
We tend to be skeptical of anyone that comes in waving the RAW flag because we HAVE encountered a rather large number of people that treat the RAW stuff as "gospel" or who have only read, say, Illuminatus! and took it as a conspiracy text. They come here thinking that that's how WE view it, in the process either realizing that there's more to it all (and generally sticking around) or making a hell of a lot of noise trying to tell us why we don't really "SEE it, man!" (sadly, a much more common occurence).
And we do certainly enjoy needling people that take their shit too seriously, from the mahadjiquuaal types to the people that think they know the "One True Discordia" as handed down by whoever. From the look of things, kick back, check out the BIP and the "Or Kill Me" rants, and make yourself comfortable in this little corner of the intertubes - you should get on just fine here 8)
Also, I've seen a lot of "Discordians" get hung up on the Absurdity and Nonsense trip, and just live their life in a bubble of Monty Python re-hashes, making 30-year-old fnord jokes, while the empire burns.
I also wanted to mention and remind all of Cain and TGRR's oft-quoted troofs: That Eris isn't all fluffy, light-hearted paradoxes and puns: She's also a cold-hearted, vicious bitch who revels in war, destruction, death and, well, DISCORD.
Be careful of who you worship. Get a full resume first.
Quote from: That One Guy on June 04, 2007, 02:44:25 PM
We tend to be skeptical of anyone that comes in waving the RAW flag because we HAVE encountered a rather large number of people that treat the RAW stuff as "gospel" or who have only read, say, Illuminatus! and took it as a conspiracy text. They come here thinking that that's how WE view it, in the process either realizing that there's more to it all (and generally sticking around) or making a hell of a lot of noise trying to tell us why we don't really "SEE it, man!" (sadly, a much more common occurence).
Ech! When the magickian editor - who got our magazine started - left on his post 93, because I had broken 'the code of politeness' and said "Fuck You!" to him [let's not go into the subject matter right now] the rest of us determined to keep the magazine going anyway. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
I wrangled one edition, (http://www.maybelogic.org/maybequarterly/05/0501EditorWelcome.htm) and in my intro put:
Robert Anton Wilson got quoted as saying this in an interview:
"I've written about a lot of different subjects! I've got about ten different fan-clubs, depending on which book they've read!"
Some of us have read them all.
So I do understand about those people who think he 'believed' in conspiracies - and prefer kicking them rather swiftly up the arse [sorry, 'ass'].
And yeah, LMNO, I have no idea about the accuracy of Bob's metaphors for Quantum Mechanics - I only ever met one Quantum Physicist and he didn't wanna talk about the 'interpretations' at all. He sneered at me as though I belonged in The 'vague' Arts, and he lived in The 'hard' Sciences... Whatever... :?
Well, I've read all of Bob's books, too. Including the screenplay and the stageplay.
Sorry you had a bad experience w/ quantup physics. It's really pretty interesting.
Nah, I was teaching juggling, and often used to talk about inertia and momentum, and friction and gravity, etc - as part of the spiel (you have to adapt your teaching methods to people's learning methods).
The guy enjoyed the class, and was giving me a lift home, and he mentioned my use of (Newtonian) physics in my descriptions.
I pointed out that I got some people to mimic me (monkey learning) and for others I analyzed it as rhythm (musicians, etc) and for some I did it in patterns in the air (dancers and artists) but I had got him to juggle by talking physics (without knowing he did it for a living). I taught by 'feel'. Whatever works.
THEN he said he was a quantum physicist, and (having read Wu-Li Masters, and Tao of Physics and Cosmic Trigger, etc) I tried to pick his brains, and he went "oh no, we don't do all that metaphysics and philosophy". No biggie.
Ah. You were talking to what I call, "a self-important douchebag."
It happens.
Interesting point raised here re quantum physics and hokey things like metaphysics and philosophy. Does quantum physics find a place alongside philosophy, more in the minds, rather than being a complimentary pairing as such?
What I mean is do scientists working in this area tend naturally towards asking the other kind of philosophical questions, as well as the scientific ones?
Reason I'm asking is cos I read hawkins brief history years ago and he was talking about 'god' by about page 7 if I remember.
Was wondering if this is a trend or just one freak?
I hear a few quantumn physicists get into Taoism, and I know of at least one who is into Tantra.
As far as my main source goes, he's an Athiest who leans a bit Agnostic, and has no stomach for metaphysics, and sees philosophy on a very pragmatic level (i.e. no Trancententalism or Existentialism).
Personally, I don't think a knowledge of Quantum Physics would really bend anyone's mind in any particular philisophical direction, as long as you refuse to say the phrase, "god did it". Just because you're figuring out the fundamental building blocks of the universe, and just because things start happening beyond the realm of human experience when they get really small, doesn't have to affect your feelings of spirituality, God, Magick, or the lack of the same.
It does, however, make it very hard to "prove" in any sort of scientific way.
Quote from: Cain on June 05, 2007, 06:10:10 PM
I hear a few quantumn physicists get into Taoism, and I know of at least one who is into Tantra.
You might like Niels Bohr's coat-of-arms (http://home.att.net/~numericana/answer/symbol.htm#taiji)
(http://img453.imageshack.us/img453/6797/bohrcoatofarmsji3.jpg)
Uh, and oh, the Latin
Contraria sunt complementa = opposites are complementary
If you like The Copenhagen Interpretation (http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/Complementarity/CompCopen.html), of course.
if you dont mind me commenting, i dont see why not?
Taoism and Tantra has nothing to do with invisible god or fictional characters. their very down to earth, and i would see very important for an individual to build themselves.
of course skeptisim should be maintained at all cost, but taoism and tantras are philosophies and methods which i personaly feel are important for the development of the mind.
so far ive only read the Tao Te Ching, but even that changed me alot
Quote from: rivetrenuck on June 07, 2007, 05:49:24 PM
if you dont mind me commenting, i dont see why not?
Taoism and Tantra has nothing to do with invisible god or fictional characters. their very down to earth, and i would see very important for an individual to build themselves.
of course skeptisim should be maintained at all cost, but taoism and tantras are philosophies and methods which i personaly feel are important for the development of the mind.
so far ive only read the Tao Te Ching, but even that changed me alot
This is a suggestion, but before you make sweeping statements about Taoism and Hinduism, it might be a good idea to do more than read one book of vague and paradoxical poems from a centuries-old dead Chinese guy.
Quote from: LMNO on June 07, 2007, 05:52:51 PM
Quote from: rivetrenuck on June 07, 2007, 05:49:24 PM
if you dont mind me commenting, i dont see why not?
Taoism and Tantra has nothing to do with invisible god or fictional characters. their very down to earth, and i would see very important for an individual to build themselves.
of course skeptisim should be maintained at all cost, but taoism and tantras are philosophies and methods which i personaly feel are important for the development of the mind.
so far ive only read the Tao Te Ching, but even that changed me alot
This is a suggestion, but before you make sweeping statements about Taoism and Hinduism, it might be a good idea to do more than read one book of vague and paradoxical poems from a centuries-old dead Chinese guy.
Yeah, I was gonna say, Lie-tse and Chung-tse are both central texts of taoism, and they go on and on about immortals and mythical creatures at times, and they were supposed to be Lao-tse's diciples.
That is, if you buy into the idea that Lao-tse was a real person in the first place.
Lu-Tze would pwn Lao-Tze any day of the week.
Cao Cao would fucking anybody!
...cept maybe Zhuge Liang - he'd nevar catch that bastard
Quote from: Cain on June 07, 2007, 06:17:59 PM
Lu-Tze would pwn Lao-Tze any day of the week.
NEVAR FORGET RULE NUMBER ONE!
WRINKLY OLD GUYS: D/N/T