robertantonwilson

mms

sometimes
is he still alive- prometheus rising is a fun book.

i've never read the illumanti books
 

DigitalDjigit

Honky Tonk Woman
The Illuminati trilogy is an incredible waste of time. It's mildly entertaining, sure, and it can function as a signpost pointing to some interesting obscure history (knights templar), little known information about historical figures (washington, dillinger) and literature (joyce) but at it's core it's a 1000 page exercise of trying to make you mentally flexible and distrustful of anything that is written.
 

DigitalDjigit

Honky Tonk Woman
The Prometheus Rising is pretty good even if all that exponentially increasing mentality stuff is a little dodgy. It seems so outdated now, 60's stuff that reached a peak with the 90's techboom in California.
 

mms

sometimes
DigitalDjigit said:
The Prometheus Rising is pretty good even if all that exponentially increasing mentality stuff is a little dodgy. It seems so outdated now, 60's stuff that reached a peak with the 90's techboom in California.

hmm i'm not sure it's outdated, maybe the presentation and some of his language but people have defintley developed some of his ideas independently, others quietly become part of the orthodoxy etc, you can see prometheus rising ideas all over culture for better or worse.
 
Last edited:

Eric

Mr Moraigero
I was obsessed iwth the illuminati books as a 14-year-old but on rereading around the age of 20 they were just incredibly irritating.
 

johneffay

Well-known member
mms said:
hmm i'm not sure it's outdated, maybe the presentation and some of his language but people have defintley developed some of his ideas independently, others quietly become part of the orthodoxy etc, you can see prometheus rising ideas all over culture for better or worse.

Yes but, as far as I can see, only the banal non-controversial bits; unless you can think of examples?

Whilst my respect for RAW as a 'great thinker' is pretty limited, I must say that I really like the Illuminatus books (also the Schrodinger's Cat trilogy). I find them a lot less irritating than his more 'serious' stuff, which is nowhere near as objective as he likes to pretend.

The first volume of Cosmic Trigger is a good read if you don't take it too seriously, but it's very telling that he says in either Volume 2 or 3 that he was actually taking a lot more acid during that period than he originally admitted.
 
Last edited:

Grievous Angel

Beast of Burden
RAW's a key figure and something of an icon and therefore a bit of a hate figure for the materialists, who can't bear to have their authority challenged...

I still like Illuminatus, though it's of its time, the Cosmic Triggers are really good, best of the bunch is Quantum Psychology, which "done properly" will really change how you think.
 

johneffay

Well-known member
2stepfan said:
RAW's a key figure and something of an icon and therefore a bit of a hate figure for the materialists, who can't bear to have their authority challenged...
And yet at the beginning of Quantum Psychology, RAW himself says that he is often called a materialist in some sectors because of his insistence on the method of scientific doubt!

The trouble is, that when one applies this method to RAW's own work, one finds that many of the examples he gives do not stand up to scrutiny. The only one I can remember off the top of my head is the Angel of Mons, which crops up in a couple of his books (sorry, I can't remember which ones), which is the story of an angel appearing on a WW1 battlefield and aiding the British army. RAW takes this as true because there were so many witnesses. Unhappily, nobody ever managed to track down any of these witnesses because the tale is an urban myth based on a short story by Arthur Machen. This is generally accepted; even the Fortean Times ran an article to that effect some years ago. There are loads of other examples scattered throughout RAW's work.

This is not to say that I don't find some value in his writings, but some of the claims made for them are very overblown.
 

Grievous Angel

Beast of Burden
johneffay said:
This is not to say that I don't find some value in his writings, but some of the claims made for them are very overblown.
One example drops off, another one comes in... bob's been writing books for a long time and some of the stuff he's written about will get evaluated differently later. He's not trying to get you to "believe" in the angel of mons, he's trying to get you to question your belief in belief itself. RAW's about developing skepticism about reality tunnels, especially your own. Wheras the fundamentalist materialists / dogmatic marxists / economic conservatives can't bear to have their [dominant] paradigm questioned, same as the inquisition in any era.
 

john eden

male pale and stale
Nothing is True: Everything is Permitted. But the bus is still late.

2stepfan said:
RAW's a key figure and something of an icon and therefore a bit of a hate figure for the materialists, who can't bear to have their authority challenged...

I still like Illuminatus, though it's of its time, the Cosmic Triggers are really good, best of the bunch is Quantum Psychology, which "done properly" will really change how you think.

I think the materialist "authority" and the good old scientific method are still in rude health, to be honest. (Hey wow, this computer works and everything, and so does gravity!)

RAW and his fans would very much like to believe that they are outlaw thinkers, who have found out stuff that will shake the very foundations of society, were it not for The Man and his horrid "consensus reality".

There is some value in his writing and there is also a load of hippy wank.

But it has to be said that the stereotype of the RAW-hatin' "materialists" is far less problematic than the stereotype of slavish drug-addled retards who have used RAW's books as a justification for their sloppy thinking.

It's fine for RAW to criticise science, but anyone who criticises RAW, or suggests that his ideas are less than earth-shattering is a stooge for The Man, brainwashed by "consensus reality" and afraid of throwing off those mental chains (whoo whoo whoo).

Plus it has all gotten quite repetitious and boring over the last 20 years, has it not?
 

gek-opel

entered apprentice
@Eric: Yeah for a 14yr old the Illuminati trilogy is a massive blast, I'd forgotten about it entirely till my friend lent me Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco, which reminded me of it in a very naff pseudo-intellectual manner....
 

Martin Dust

Techno Zen Master
john eden said:
Nothing is True: Everything is Permitted. But the bus is still late.



I think the materialist "authority" and the good old scientific method are still in rude health, to be honest. (Hey wow, this computer works and everything, and so does gravity!)

RAW and his fans would very much like to believe that they are outlaw thinkers, who have found out stuff that will shake the very foundations of society, were it not for The Man and his horrid "consensus reality".

There is some value in his writing and there is also a load of hippy wank.

But it has to be said that the stereotype of the RAW-hatin' "materialists" is far less problematic than the stereotype of slavish drug-addled retards who have used RAW's books as a justification for their sloppy thinking.

It's fine for RAW to criticise science, but anyone who criticises RAW, or suggests that his ideas are less than earth-shattering is a stooge for The Man, brainwashed by "consensus reality" and afraid of throwing off those mental chains (whoo whoo whoo).

Plus it has all gotten quite repetitious and boring over the last 20 years, has it not?


Good points John, not that keen on RAW meself. Always thought of him as a lucky dope smoker who rather than just talk about projects he actually managed to write a few books for a change.

I reckon he'd bore you to death if you went "tripping" with him. "Look Bob, I like you and that but for fucks sake you two-bob cunt will you shut the fuck up and make some tea" :) Ken's a big fan tho...
 

john eden

male pale and stale
2stepfan said:
I suspect you haven't actually read the books.

No, you're absolutely right, I have never read Illuminatus, Cosmic Trigger, Quantum Psychology or various essays and interviews. Nor have I listened to him on tape, or been to see him "live" at Camden Town Hall.

The reason for this, is that I felt my "materialist authority" would be challenged too much.

Oh, hang on a minute, I seem to be made entirely of straw... weird or what? :eek:
 

Grievous Angel

Beast of Burden
Stop waving your hands John (though it might be good for the RSI).

He doesn't criticise science, he's a huge supporter of science in opposition to "hippy wank". He does criticise some but not all scientists for not being truly scientific enough (i.e. being so in love with their own theories and paradigms they won't accept conflicting evidence).

Meanwhile there's plenty of fundamentalist materialists (whether communists or arch capitalists) who deny the possibility of anything other than a pure materialist viewpoint. He criticises them and propounds a critical agnosticism as a viable alternative.

So your attempt to polaise the debate into RAW on one side, SCIENCE!!!! on the other, is simply untenable.
 

john eden

male pale and stale
2stepfan said:
Meanwhile there's plenty of fundamentalist materialists (whether communists or arch capitalists) who deny the possibility of anything other than a pure materialist viewpoint. He criticises them and propounds a critical agnosticism as a viable alternative.

Name 5 of them, then, so we can see what they are talking about? Maybe with some quotations thrown in which are directly attacking RAW?
 
Top