The new Infinite Loops podcast features regular host Jim O'Shaughnessy interviewing Prop Anon/Gabriel Kennedy on Kennedy's Robert Anton Wilson biography, Chapel Perilous: The Life and Thought Crimes of Robert Anton Wilson.
The page I link to has a video of the podcast, useful show notes and, perhaps most usefully to me, a transcript; I find reading a transcript to be much faster than listening to a podcast.
The top of the page also has highlights of the interview, and they are fine, but they aren't MY highlights, which I propose to share with you now.
I was intrigued by Prop's suggestion that right now might be the time RAW comes into his own:
"But Robert Anton Wilson, it's high time for him to be rediscovered, because as you said, he's ahead of the curve man, and he knew that in a way, he accepted that. He swallowed that pill that it might take some time for his stuff to ultimately hit. He hoped that people would get it immediately, but sort of like Philip K. Dick, his contemporary, the irony of Philip K. Dick is he got so famous a year after he died. And then so Bob, it's taken a few more years, but the water is percolating. Orson Welles, one of Bob's favorite artists once said about Ernest Hemingway, that everyone completely forgot about Hemingway for about 10 years after he died, he was completely out of the conversation. But then he noticed after 10 years, there was this explosion of awareness and celebration of Ernest Hemingway.
"And I think the same goes for Bob. Welles said it was about a 10,15 year clip. Bob died in 2007, so it's been 17 years, I think that we're approaching a time of rediscovery of Wilson's work and insight."
The other bit I particularly liked was when Prop talked about how RAW was able to use the good points of Ezra Pound's art and thought and discard the bad, and how this runs counter to the way social media and modern world presses up to put everyone into a binary Good/Bad category:
"Wilson was so great at taking what he wanted and leaving the rest, if you will, and he wasn't afraid to... So, say, take for instance Ezra Pound, right? Ezra Pound, recognized as one of the greatest poets of the 20th century, right? But Ezra Pound is also a fascist, right? I mean, he was probably, to the day he died, a fascist. Maybe not, though, but I'm guessing yes. Not a good look. And also an anti-Semite during many, many years of his career. That needs to be said. But Wilson was very clear, and he wrote about it as well. He was like, "I think that Ezra Pound's poetry is absolutely amazing. And it struck me so well. I've learned so much from it. But I think his political views as a fascist and anti-Semite are absolutely disgusting and horrible.
"We don't live in an age like that right now, right? We live in this constant age of, 'Gotcha,' and, 'You suck,' and, 'You piece of shit!' It could be anybody. Your favorite pop singer from the '80s turns out to also be an anti-Semite or fascist or whatever. Or even worse, you take Diddy, someone who created such funny, fun music, dancing around like a goofball on stage. Little did you know he was having these Diddy parties and really taking advantage of people. And Picasso, et cetera, et cetera. What do you do with that? What do you do with these terrible aspects of people? And are you able to take a jewel that they offer and then kind of see the truth in it and digest it through your own reality tunnel, if you will?"
1 comment:
Regarding Prop's suggestion that RAW's time is here, it reminded me of the moment I was watching Douglas Rushkoff interviewed from his house about his book Survival of the Richest, which I was reading at the moment. It's on C-SPAN Book TV "In Depth" show.
And, at around 1 hr and 37 mins and 20 secs in, he gets asked about books to recommend. And Rushkoff goes off about how important it would be for people today would get a lot out of Cosmic Trigger vol 1 due to RAW's multi-perspectivism (AKA: Model Agnosticism): people who are grabbing onto Q-Anon or Covid conspiracies would benefit from reading about how to not get taken for a ride.
https://www.c-span.org/program/in-depth/douglas-rushkoff/631958
Their machine translation of the bit is here: (their AI hears "Chapel Perilous" and write "Chapelparent.")
I ALREADY TALKED ABOUT ONE. LET'S SEE. THAT IS AN INTERESTING ONE. WITH RESPECT TO THE LAST CONVERSATION WE WERE HAVING, IT WAS A GREAT COUNTERCULTURE WRITER. HE WAS RESPONSIBLE OR PARTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHURCH OF DISCORD. IT WAS THE EARLY 1960'S STYLE OF INTENTIONAL DISINFORMATION TO PROMOTE THAT MEDICAL, HIPPIE PSYCHOLOGY. WHAT HE IS ARGUING IS THAT WE CAN ALL HOLD PERSPECTIVES AT DIFFERENT TIMES AND NOT TAKE ANY ONE OF THEM TOO SERIOUSLY. YOU COULD SEE IT FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE OR LOOK AT IT AS SIMILAR OR AS A NEW AGE FANTASY PERSON OR A PSYCHEDELIC PERSON. THERE ARE DIFFERENT WAYS TO LOOK AT THINGS. IT WOULD HAVE HELPED PEOPLE TODAY COME IN THE WHOLE CONSPIRACY THEORIES, QANON AND PEOPLE LOOKING AT WHAT REALLY HAPPENED. DID THIS HAPPEN? IS IT CONNECTED TO THE COVID VACCINE? TO BE ABLE TO TOLERATE NOT KNOWING, TO BE ABLE TO TOLERATE THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE, IT SHIELDS YOU FROM THE SAME KINDS OF PEOPLE THAT USE SKEPTICAL. -- USE SPECTACLE. I FEEL LIKE A LOT OF THESE POOR KIDS WHO WERE SCOOPED INTO A MEDICAL RIGHT MEDIUM ENDED UP BEING THE VICTIMS OF THEIR IMAGINATION RATHER THAN BEING ABLE TO HARVEST THEIR OWN CREATIVITY. THIS BOOK IS REALLY GOOD FOR WALKING THROUGH CHAPTER PERLOUS. WHAT IS TRUE OR NOT TRUE? HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT?
Post a Comment