Comments on: Question Authority! (for only $80)

By: Occult Investigator

Occult Investigator — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:52:07 +0000

maybe youre right then that its his readers who set him up that way. im willing perhaps to concede that notion. ive been trying to find it for a couple days now, but i had this excellent quote i wanted to post. it was about him, and leary and joyce, and how they are all irish, and as such, they subscribe to the notion where you can have a fight with somebody, and then go and buy them a drink. thats how i feel as well. when i criticize him, or point things out to people who are into him, im not saying i hate him. rather im getting painted into a defensive corner over a couple points that im trying to make - things that have always bothered me about him

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:07:40 +0000

“but then for some reason, he becomes this sacred cow that nobody is allowed to touch. and i think thats bullshit”

I think those that have read Wilson can do this at times, as any group of “followers” do to their “leader”, but he himself, in his writing and his interviews, has espoused exactly the opposite approach.

“…then I switched to Damned Old Crank, which seems to suit my case better than either of the previous labels. Besides, once my hair turned snowy white, some people wanted to promote me to a Sage, and I had to block that. It’s more dangerous to a writer than booze.”

What I’ve always taken from Wilson is his insistence on not taking anyone else’s word on anything, even his, and researching your own experiences. I’m not trying to be contrary, but I don’t see how you can say he doesn’t criticize himself or sets himself up as a sacred cow… his books are constantly re-interpreting and criticizing earlier experiences and providing multiple possible interpretations of what he’s gone through. His writing process is that of being his own critic.

Now, does he come off as “superior” to those fundamentalists who only allow one possible interpretation for life, an experience or anything? I think you could make that case, but is saying you’re “superior” or more broad thinking than dogmatists who don’t allow for any other possible interpretations of life really an issue here? I mean honestly, is that even a question, whether dogmatism or open mindedness is a better approach to life?

And I don’t really see any evidence that he sets himself beyond criticism…

By: alistair

alistair — Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:30:10 +0000

i believe that there is a position some take that if they study enough and practice enough,then they become beyond criticism.maybe that`s where r.a.w. got to in his life.i know he`s had a lot of pain,physically and otherwise.it would be nice to think that he could accept the criticism as part of the process of debate.but then maybe he wouldn`t be r.a.w. and we wouldn`t have his ideas.let`s face it,when we are centered and at peace we don`t have time for tilting at windmills so much.anger and resentment can be a great incubator for the creative.
most physicists aren`t as insightfully critical of the field and so,as a layman,i learn very little from them.
most theologians are the same way.

By: Occult Investigator

Occult Investigator — Mon, 13 Jun 2005 15:40:53 +0000

thats cool. to each his own. i still think what im saying is valid. ive read plenty of wilson as well. and while i sometimes find him annoying and arrogant and tripping over himself, i think theres definitely worth in what he does. i also agree that as writers and teachers, its amazing that people can make money and support themselves. ive done both and both are thankless jobs for the most part, and if you can figure out a way to support yourself with it, then by all means do. that of course doesnt mean i shouldnt analyze or criticize them for it. i just think that RAW tries to get into this place where he vehemently criticizes everybody else - but then for some reason, he becomes this sacred cow that nobody is allowed to touch. and i think thats bullshit

By: Rob

Rob — Mon, 13 Jun 2005 15:33:44 +0000

I think there’s always a chance that people who throw themselves into any countercultural or fringe movement do so to fulfill a certain sense of faux elitist superiority. I think I read somewhere that organizations like that attract both the best and the worst in society… the unsuccessful malcontent who can’t hack it, and the pretty well educated/experienced who sees the flaws/potential in the system.

Sure, there are going to be those who slavishly adopt a new, more “advanced” hierarchy, but in my reading of Wilson, that’s never been his point.

As far as the $$ aspect goes, it seems to me that the online courses are using the education model, and I don’t fault any teacher for getting paid. As far as Wilson personally, I don’t believe he runs the ‘Academy’ himself, though he does teach some of the courses, and given his medical problems and the $$ that treatment probably entails, I don’t fault him a bit for making a few bucks teaching folks over the net.

“and invite them to go out and claim authority over other people.”

I personally didn’t get that impression, but again, I’ve read a lot of Wilson, so maybe I just have a better idea where this is coming from… I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to say that fundamentalist materialists and fundamental religious folks are, effectively, the ‘authority’ in this country, and this course seems to be engendered to teach you to defend yourself from and question these authorities… if the course is any thing like his books, the point would certainly be made to question all authorities… I’ve never read Wilson advocate a blind obedience to any structure…

I really enjoy the site. Keep up the great work. [I just think you're a bit off the mark on this one...]

By: alistair

alistair — Sun, 12 Jun 2005 18:40:43 +0000

z,yes buhhdists in the west do tend to a bit “better” than everyone else.sitting in a quiet room for a bit is good for you,but hours and hours seems like an obsession.everything that we do as humans is ego driven.acceptance of our humanity lets the pressure of.we are all human no matter what we believe.it is the great commonality.anyone who takes thier religion,philosophy,law or favorite team too seriously takes themselves away from center and runs the risk of getting people`s backs up.
r.a.w. is interested in ordaining everyone and thier cat pope.that`s just funny.it ridicules the catholic game.he is trying to survive online so selling courses is one way of keeping the doors open.some find value in these discourses.maybe his prices are a little high.i bought his maybe logic dvd and found it entertaining,ironic and slightly sad considering r.a.w.`s health,but he has his humour and that counts for everything.

By: Z.

Z. — Sun, 12 Jun 2005 08:17:46 +0000

The band TOOL used to have a Timothy Leary clip in one of their songs, “Third Eye”, on some live recordings, and I knew some people who were really, really into this. They’d memorize Leary’s entire speech about how you should “think for yourself, question authority”. Of course, when I pointed out that they weren’t exactly doing that when sheepishly mouthing the words along with him, they just looked at me cockeyed and said, huh? Oh, and there are those people who go on and on about “losing” their fucking egos, and still, they’re some of the most egocentric people I know - even if they listen to “spiritual” stuff like TOOL and recite their lyrics daily. OK, I’m vented.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Sun, 12 Jun 2005 02:02:41 +0000

If you live in a place where you’re assaulted by moralistic Christians trying to convert you, then I seriously don’t see anything wrong with wrecking their shit. Keep in mind it said “bible thumpers”, that means people on your ass about it.

Still, you don’t need to pay $80 to learn how to do that.

By: alistair

alistair — Sat, 11 Jun 2005 22:36:24 +0000

bob has that perverse dislike for church and state and science that i so admire.his methods may be in question but his heart`s in the right place.