RAW is totally underrated. Or under discussed at least. He gets lumped in w Leary oft. But Prometheus Rising is far more approachable than Game of Life (Angel Tech may be fave of treatments however...) for eight circuit model. Plus Illuminatus! is fantastic fun. No Pynchon literarily, but good pulpy schlock of parapolitics.
Yano. He was also big Thelemite. And Leary was too. And both were IOT in 90s iirc.
Anyway. Would love to hear yr thoughts on Principia Discordia. I still think about Zenarchy wrt pacifism quite often. I also think RAW secretly grasped Nagarjuna's tetralemma in that book (principia) -- hah.
I think discordianism is cool and interesting, but I think once it manifested and made itself known, it was basically impossible to engage with genuinely after that (because it was already "a thing" if you know what I mean). I don't like the thelema or by proxy the golden dawn stuff for a variety of reasons. I think, not to put myself above them, but I am later in time - that a lot of what that stuff was grasping for was something more in the domain of hands on new psychology rather than "hands on religious practice" (that's basically what ritual magic is). There's also the aspect that I think the "ritual magic" thing generally feels... off, or slightly evil for reasons that are not coincidental or culturally conditioned. There's a Swedenborg and Steiner aspect to the fact (in my view) that the nature of the aesthetics (if they're dark, for example) reflects the actual internal spiritual content.
There were some interesting psychological models borne at that time and prior to it that I find interesting and useful. I suppose I would also say I feel a slight discord (lol) with their work at this time because of my orientation towards technology. If you're familiar with arhiman from Stiener's work, I think that is at least very metaphorically real - so a lot of the impending great technology stuff, I believe he discusses immortality in Prometheus Rising, is viewed through that lens - essentially that a negative aspect of the future will be a kind of cold-ening and drying of the human spirit due to the lens it takes on the material realm from engaging in a certain way with advanced science and technology.
For most of those guys, I kind of file it with something like Terrence McKenna (not totally unrelated, I used to be the maximum level of into him). I can see why they felt that way and why they drew certain conclusions, but we're further down the timeline and thus have a wider view, and can also see how some aspects of those ideas really played out.
I was maximally into Mckenna as well for some time. Along w GD and Crowley and Leary and RAW. Kinda wannabe hippie revivalist one might say. Before it got lame. Womppp :'(
Anyway. There is nevertheless a great deal of interesting psychological and philosophical ideas within such, formative for me at least, even if having moved on. As someone interested in hidden history, everything from masons to rosicrucians to theosophists have been on my radar. But also is kinda like an American counterpart to all those cool sixties french pomo theorists people like to cite. Same zeitgeist in noosphere and all. Altho also moved away from those figures myself somewhat too.
Not too familiar w Steiner. Nor Swedenborg. Recently got the former's Philosophy of Freedom however. And must say I quite adore his (ex-)student Tomberg's Meditations on Tarot as a proper mix of esoteric and perennialist philosophy w rigorous spiritual or mystical theology!
I read the book years ago, and to be honest I can't remember that much of it - it was a grandiose, sprawling mess.
Emperor Norton getting away with lots more because he wasn't serious is a brilliant observation.
(Philip K. Dick made a somewhat related observation when he said that if there was an alien invasion and the aliens all wore funny hats, we wouldn't be able to fight/defeat/stop them.)
(I have also observed that several real-life politicians in the past decade have found out how "clowning" can be an asset. If they don't take you seriously, you can get away with more...)
even at the time (i was much younger) i suspected this was part of the george bush jr. thing. he did a lot of stuff and oversaw a lot of pretty serious geopolitical maneuvers but was largely thought of as a hapless fool just bumbling around, at least in the popular media consciousness. it would have been completely different if he was presented as a stern somber very intelligent guy.
I remember reading Prometheus Rising and reading about reality tunnels. The similarity to the scientific concept of 'no model is true, some models are useful' really struck me.
As with a lot of RAW's stuff, this was mixed up with a lot of stuff of dubious veracity--not that sure about the 16 personality types based on the court cards from the Tarot (though Myers and Briggs would have success with a related scheme later). And the upper four circuits of the eight-circuit model seemed questionable at best. F.M. Esfandiary did not in fact live to 2030.
But...it was without a doubt one of the more thought-provoking things I've read.
RAW is totally underrated. Or under discussed at least. He gets lumped in w Leary oft. But Prometheus Rising is far more approachable than Game of Life (Angel Tech may be fave of treatments however...) for eight circuit model. Plus Illuminatus! is fantastic fun. No Pynchon literarily, but good pulpy schlock of parapolitics.
Yano. He was also big Thelemite. And Leary was too. And both were IOT in 90s iirc.
Anyway. Would love to hear yr thoughts on Principia Discordia. I still think about Zenarchy wrt pacifism quite often. I also think RAW secretly grasped Nagarjuna's tetralemma in that book (principia) -- hah.
I think discordianism is cool and interesting, but I think once it manifested and made itself known, it was basically impossible to engage with genuinely after that (because it was already "a thing" if you know what I mean). I don't like the thelema or by proxy the golden dawn stuff for a variety of reasons. I think, not to put myself above them, but I am later in time - that a lot of what that stuff was grasping for was something more in the domain of hands on new psychology rather than "hands on religious practice" (that's basically what ritual magic is). There's also the aspect that I think the "ritual magic" thing generally feels... off, or slightly evil for reasons that are not coincidental or culturally conditioned. There's a Swedenborg and Steiner aspect to the fact (in my view) that the nature of the aesthetics (if they're dark, for example) reflects the actual internal spiritual content.
There were some interesting psychological models borne at that time and prior to it that I find interesting and useful. I suppose I would also say I feel a slight discord (lol) with their work at this time because of my orientation towards technology. If you're familiar with arhiman from Stiener's work, I think that is at least very metaphorically real - so a lot of the impending great technology stuff, I believe he discusses immortality in Prometheus Rising, is viewed through that lens - essentially that a negative aspect of the future will be a kind of cold-ening and drying of the human spirit due to the lens it takes on the material realm from engaging in a certain way with advanced science and technology.
For most of those guys, I kind of file it with something like Terrence McKenna (not totally unrelated, I used to be the maximum level of into him). I can see why they felt that way and why they drew certain conclusions, but we're further down the timeline and thus have a wider view, and can also see how some aspects of those ideas really played out.
I was maximally into Mckenna as well for some time. Along w GD and Crowley and Leary and RAW. Kinda wannabe hippie revivalist one might say. Before it got lame. Womppp :'(
Anyway. There is nevertheless a great deal of interesting psychological and philosophical ideas within such, formative for me at least, even if having moved on. As someone interested in hidden history, everything from masons to rosicrucians to theosophists have been on my radar. But also is kinda like an American counterpart to all those cool sixties french pomo theorists people like to cite. Same zeitgeist in noosphere and all. Altho also moved away from those figures myself somewhat too.
Not too familiar w Steiner. Nor Swedenborg. Recently got the former's Philosophy of Freedom however. And must say I quite adore his (ex-)student Tomberg's Meditations on Tarot as a proper mix of esoteric and perennialist philosophy w rigorous spiritual or mystical theology!
I read the book years ago, and to be honest I can't remember that much of it - it was a grandiose, sprawling mess.
Emperor Norton getting away with lots more because he wasn't serious is a brilliant observation.
(Philip K. Dick made a somewhat related observation when he said that if there was an alien invasion and the aliens all wore funny hats, we wouldn't be able to fight/defeat/stop them.)
(I have also observed that several real-life politicians in the past decade have found out how "clowning" can be an asset. If they don't take you seriously, you can get away with more...)
even at the time (i was much younger) i suspected this was part of the george bush jr. thing. he did a lot of stuff and oversaw a lot of pretty serious geopolitical maneuvers but was largely thought of as a hapless fool just bumbling around, at least in the popular media consciousness. it would have been completely different if he was presented as a stern somber very intelligent guy.
I remember reading Prometheus Rising and reading about reality tunnels. The similarity to the scientific concept of 'no model is true, some models are useful' really struck me.
As with a lot of RAW's stuff, this was mixed up with a lot of stuff of dubious veracity--not that sure about the 16 personality types based on the court cards from the Tarot (though Myers and Briggs would have success with a related scheme later). And the upper four circuits of the eight-circuit model seemed questionable at best. F.M. Esfandiary did not in fact live to 2030.
But...it was without a doubt one of the more thought-provoking things I've read.
Religion is not cerebral. It’s mystical scaredy-cat nonsense.