Talk:Robert Anton Wilson

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Praise Eris!

This article IS a mess! Somewhere Eris smiles. Some thoughts:

References to Winterstar & DisinfoCon - RAW appeared at many, many conferences and gave many, many lectures.

References to publishing in Mondo 2000 - RAW wrote "thousands" (his words) of magazine articles for scores of magazines. See http://www.rawilsonfans.com/writing.html for a small sample.

Discography - with the hundreds of lectures caught on tape and video, this is a very challenging undertaking, see http://www.rawilsonfans.com/bibliography.html for a good start on this.

Pen Names: "Mordecai Malignatus, Mordecai the Foul, Reverend Loveshade" were his Discordian monikers, not necessarily pen names. (There are a few mentions of Mord in the Pricipia.) Known pen names: Simon Moon, Kevin O'Flaherty, Ronald Weston (per private email from RAW to Jesse Walker). Ralph Reid may be another pen name for RAW.

And that is alright that it makes you uncomfortable. Look at why it makes you uncomfortable and see if you can come up with a way that will help you with it. In my point of view, the term 'some' is a pretty good term and, when you look at it, it is true in some sense (there are at least some who say that) and it is false in some sense (there are some who don't believe it). Which makes it both true and false in some sense.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.86.116.133 (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Right. Who are the "some" who believe him to be a "last" futurist? We need some names, here.

...and it's a pretty ridiculous claim in light or Vernor Vinge, Robert Forward, Greg Bear... -- LDC

Perhaps there is a distinction between a futurist thinker and a futurist of which I'm unaware, but there is a large distribution slick magazine for futurists. I think it's considered a valid academic discipline. The others I'm hearing mentioned seem to be science fiction writers, not futurists. Look up the distinction.----

Thaddeus SlampThaddeus Slamp 05:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Thaddeus Slamp 05:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, Wilson's 'futurism' is really happening---Vinge and Forward, Bear, none of their futurist ideas have the same significance as Wilson's, for one fundamental reason.

He addresses real ongoing battles, such as that between the proponents of Chaos and those of Order. Although many regard Illuminatus! as a spoof, it is actually only a half-spoof. Much of its content refers to real entities, such as the Illuminati and the Erisian Liberation Front.

The Illuminatti may be real. They were at one time. The erisean liberation front may be a sub-section of the discordians, but then how real are the discordians? Thaddeus SlampThaddeus Slamp 05:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Thaddeus Slamp 05:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't believe me?

Explain the Earth Liberation Front or the Great Seal of the United States of America, or the AOL symbol, etc.(Eye in the Pyramid).

symbols occultism andconspiracy all appeal to many. What more explanation do you need? Thaddeus SlampThaddeus Slamp 05:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Thaddeus Slamp 05:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the Falun Gong movement vs. the Chinese government, or the natural recurrence of the number 23 (Chromosomes, wave frequency, etc.).

These entities exist memetically, and thereby sustain themselves in the ongoing battle to counterbalance eachother. At the present moment, humanity is experiencing an excess of order, which may or may not culminate in a One World government. Naturally, Chaos proponents are more vicious than ever.

Oh, did I mention that I'm Justified and Ancient myself?

If that means whacked out, I beleive you. -THaddeus SlampThaddeus Slamp 05:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Thaddeus Slamp 05:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this in mind, Mu is the 12th letter of the Greek alphabet. 12*12=144. 144 is the number of Light in many forms of the Hebrew Cabala. Mu Mu therefore equals Light.

J.A.μ.μ.

{Then of course there's the GWB thing...}

What? That George W. Bush is distinguished from his father by a single letter in most cases, that being the letter W, which is the 23rd(!) letter of the English alphabet?

{Well, the GWB-666 thing, too} {And the 'isness' thing described in Quantum Psychology...Googlism is a collection of sentences containing 'is.'

One thing I always liked about Bob is that he never took himself too seriously. --Thaddeus Slamp131.252.130.192 05:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

131.252.130.192 05:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

131.252.130.192 05:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Interestingly, I believe that at one point there was a science fiction novel of sorts written of the Rosicrucian Order... Though pretty documentedly the Order existed in real life long before this science fiction novel was published (it was a Renaissance tome, their equivalent to utopian science fiction if I remember)...[reply]

I'll have to research this again, as my memory on the matter is sketchy, but I'm sure that someone wrote a novel on the Rosicrucians (who was a Rosicrucian) and spoke of them in a very positive light, describing their enemies and such as well...

Well, this just sounds very resonant with RA Wilson's whole Illuminatus! thing... He's obviously a huge Libertarian, and considering that it's happened in the past, what do you think of the possibility that the J.A.M.M is real, and Wilson is a member?

Currently the davinci code is all the rage, and anyone heard of Facault's pendulum. Also anyone familiar with Neil Wilgus, and his The Illuminoids? --Thaddeus Slamp131.252.130.192 05:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC) 131.252.130.192 05:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems as though there are far too many JAMM and *LF (generally KLF or ELF) groups for them ALL to have been formed just in lieu of his books. They can't be that goddam popular, can they?

One thing's for sure, the Illuminati, at least metaphorically, exist, and their symbolism is all over the place. Chances are, the JAMM exists in some form in reality as well.

--The Jamm are real metaphorically. Prison culture=Jamm. It's spelled out in illuminatus, tho not obviously to all neophytes. Someone might pretend it's real for them, think Harry Coin Thaddeus Slamp 05:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We now know that the Rosicrucian Brotherhood really did exist. Thomas Jefferson was a member, actually... (It exists today as well, but perhaps not in its original form. I have a couple copies of the Rosicrucian Digest...)

What proof have you? I hope they do. Science seems to be getting out of hand, and the origonal rosicrucian leafletts promised that science was being watched over. Appearantly they thought it had gone to far, at the stage we would refer to as it's birth. --Thaddeus SlampThaddeus Slamp 05:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Thaddeus Slamp 05:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My favourite RA Wilson quote:

“The Fundamentalist Christians have told me that I am a slave of Satan and should have the demons expelled with an exorcism. The Fundamentalist Materialists inform me that I am a liar, a charlatan, fraud and scoundrel. Aside from this minor difference, the letters are astoundingly similar. Both groups share in the same crusading zeal and the same total lack of humor, charity, and common human decency. These intolerable cults have served to confirm me in my agnosticism by presenting further evidence to support my contention that when dogmas enter the brain, all intellectual activity ceases.”

-Robert Anton Wilson, Cosmic Trigger

The infamous 'Eye in the Triangle' seems to have a deep connection with the Sirius star system (a trinary star system, as believed by the Dogons and later confirmed by science in 1995). The pentagram also bears connection to Sirius (it was a symbol for Sirius in Ancient Egypt, as well as in several other cultures).

The pentagram consists of five triangles, typically with either 3 points pointing up or 2 points pointing down. 2-3-5. I actually have a theory that much of the 23-5 archetype that arises all over the place has to do with fractal patterns. Carbon-based organisms tend to include pentagram-based formations (apples, starfish, human hands, flowers, etc.), and this has to do with the Golden Mean, which directly relates to the pentagram geometrically, and is the rate of exponential growth in most carbon-based organic systems, as well as several non-organic (in the sense of non-carbon-based) systems, such as the Stock Market.

Therefore 23 and 5 showing up all over the place directly relates to the Pentagram, which also directly relates to the Holy Chaos, which portays a pentagram in opposition to an apple. The inner pentagon of a pentagram can be seen in crystals, and the outer star formation in carbon-based organisms like the Apple.

23 and 5 perhaps have so much synchronicity surrounding them because of a sort of Pythagorean ratio that shows up in all systems based on Phi (1.6180339).

Obviously, the Pythagoreans were obsessed with the pentagram and Phi (tatooed the pentagram on their palms and did a secret vesica pisces handshake).

Pythagoras' name means literally 'I am the Serpent', and in his esoteric religion, he apparently spoke of Sirius as being in some way sacred.

Get this: the eye in the pyramid was thought to have been adopted by Pythagoras as a symbol whilst travelling through Egypt, learning the secret alchemies of Thoth.

Thoth was the Egyptian god of wisdom, and was sometimes metaphorically called 'The Serpent of Wisdom'. It is thought by some that Thoth and the Mayan god Kukulcan are actually the same entity...

The Eye in the Pyramid archetype actualy may have originated with the Triple-Goddess symbolism associated with Sirius. Sirius was referred to by some ancient sects as 'The Mother Star'... The Greek word for this Great Mother was either written as a single letter, Mu, or as two succeeding letters, MU MU. Mu Mu also denotes Light, which was said to emanate magnificently from SIRIUS (and it does, of course, in comparison to other stars besides the Sun).

Light was/is known as the Menstruum of the Red Dragon to alchemists and high-level Freemasons. This relates to the ISIS myths.

Believe it or not, the ancient Egyptians referred to ISIS as actually being Sirius at one point in their history, and related Orion to her husband, Osiris. She was said to be the 'Bringer of Light'...

Which is interesting, because the Eye of Horus, deeply associated with ISIS, was one version of the Eye in the Triangle archetype... And, to the Freemasons at the turn of the 19th century, the Eye in the Pyramid was called 'The Eye of Lucifer'. Lucifer means 'light bearer'... Light is the Menstruum of the Red Dragon. The Red Dragonn is ISIS. Red as a colour has also been associated with Sirius for thousands upon thousands of years because Sirius appears red when it is close to the horizon...

- Khranus

From Robert Anton Wilson: Ideas R.A.W. entertained many ideas that many would reject. A few are:

Economic abundance not through anarcho-primitivism but though technological means "The RICH Economy"1 Men's Rights "Androphobia: The only respectable bigotry"2

1) I don't think it is informative to say that many have rejected a given idea. It would be more informative if we know that this "many" refers to a particular group, groups or the mainstream.

Indeed -:) I think that it would behoove a lot here to learn one of RAW's ways of reducing such semantic pollution: the word sombunall, as a contraction of Some-but-not-all. Being that, if I am to talk about a group of people or a group of things, all I or anyone can ever say with any fairness and precision is about some-but-not-all of the group. For example, sombunall of Canadians are passive-aggressive; sombunall of USAers love guns, and so forth. I hope this helps.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.86.116.133 (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC). 2) I don't think saying that these ideas have been rejected by mainstream thinkers is correct. In fact, the second one, Men's Rights has certainly not been rejected by most people. Most people, in my own estimation, are at least in favor of equal rights for men (that is, equal to women's rights). And if you read the article, RAW was arguing that men should have equal rights and respect. To the extent that this position has been rejected it is on the basis of whether the bigotry exists not whether it should. The first article is a bit more dubious in that it, as presented, would likely be rejected by the mainstream as it is utopian. I don't think it would be rejected, however, because of a mainstream preference for anarcho-primitivism as the heading seems to suggest.[reply]

I think it would be appropriate to remove this section and replace it with a sentence or two relating RAW's tendency toward utopian and idealistic libertarian political thought. - Archibaldtort

Did RAW in fact call himself the first to introduce Model Agnosticism to the social sciences? Where? Also, the article calls him a better advocate of Leary's model than Leary. That certainly fits my experience, but it doesn't seem NPOV. I seem to recall that Leary received positive scientific attention at one point.

I'm not absolutely positive, but I think it absurd to thingk that The Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality was not respected by more than a few. --Thaddeus SlampThaddeus Slamp 05:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Thaddeus Slamp 05:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a good source for this perception? Dan 06:25, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

With regard to Wilson being a more convincing proponent of Leary's ideas than Leary was, according to this interview http://www.rawilsonfans.com/articles/DOUBT.htm it was actually Leary that said this.

"Kinney: It seemed to me - maybe this was mainly in the '70s - that you were a better spreader of Leary's ideas than he was.

Wilson: He said that too, which was one of the most flattering things I ever heard. I don't know, I guess I reached a different audience than he did, that's all."

Wilson is being humble. He's a far clearer and more convincing writer than Leary in my opinion, even if Leary is more original.

--- Maybe RAW's major influences should be mentioned. My impression is that he's more of a synthesizer than an originator. Leary is already mentioned. But why not mention Alfred Korzybski, Buckminster Fuller, Paul Watslavick, and so on?

In terms of foundational influences, RAW has always to my personal knowledge, cited KF&J as basic to the way he practically percieves, organizes and transmits information. Korzybski for the theory of quantumlinguistics, Joyce for the quantumpoetry and Bucky for quantumdesign.

Hail Eris.

Kai

I'm not Slavic, either.

More synchronicity?

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1687552

(audio)

Your comments are appreciated, but please sign your comments using ~~~~. Cheers! 23skidoo 19:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed sentence concerning the amazing randi for 3 reasons. 1st and shakiest is that it tends to promote a non neutral pov. 2nd is relevence i.e. that sentence may be ok for the wiki entry on randi but it doesn't have much if anything to do with RAW. 3rd it is simply not true. A cursory reading of the cosmic triggers, the new inquisition,etc will clearly demonstrate that what he objects to is the fundamentalist position that states no other world veiws ever have any relevance. In other words he is objecting to fundamentilism and the refusal by Randi et. al. in applying scientific methadologies when investigating "weirdness". The criticism is for technique not reallity tunnel. Murph 07:22, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think it's wrong to call RAW a libertarian in the US sense of the word. Here's an excerpt from an interview (http://www.deepleafproductions.com/utopialibrary/text/raw-inter-utopia.html):

"I tend to shy away from the word anarchist, because most people think it means bomb throwing. And a lot of people who consider themselves anarchists seem to think that too. But I can’t use libertarian, because the people who got their grip on that word are even less rational by my standards. I guess "decentralist" is the word I’d have to pick out for myself."

Maybe someone more familiar with him could take a look at this.

Not only have I been reading his work for the last 30 years, I've recently been reviewing his published works as well, and I've been unable to find anywhere RAW uses the pseudonym "Loveshade". Can anybody supply a citation? Otherwise, this reference should go. Drjon 09:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

Has anyone thought of actually RAW personally, and just asking him to clarify? An interview process is not that difficult, and most individuals in RAW's position relish any and all opportunities to talk about themselves and their ideas. Might as well do it while he's still alive, right? KevinHFeeley 18:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Too late now, as of the 11th --Thaddeus SlampThaddeus Slamp 05:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Thaddeus Slamp 05:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

should be easy for anyone with time enough;

Robert Anton Wilson c/o Permanent Press <<<< this address has been "RETURNED TO SENDER" as of fall 2005 PO Box 700305 San Jose, CA 95170

This should be clarified. I've changed the link to "libertarian socialist" in the meantime. It seems to me that's what he means when he says he would like to use the term libertarian if it weren't for "the people who got their grip on that word". Sarge Baldy 16:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would, unfortunately, violate WP:NOR. (Conducting an interview for Wikipedia purposes, that is.) --Geoffrey Spear 15:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail to the Universe?

This title gives no matches at Amazon... does it even exist?

Amazon is hardly a complete reference guide to what's out there. His book Natural Law or Never Put a Rubber on Your Willy isn't listed either, but I have a copy. The book has a 2005 date next to it, but maybe it's not out yet. 23skidoo 2 July 2005 15:05 (UTC)

It's a new book, not out yet. Check the New Falcon Publications site...they publish Wilson's stuff. http://www.newfalcon.com/books/email_to_universe.htm It does exist, according to the library of congress. --Thaddeus Slamp

MJ

Fellatio

I remember reading an interview years ago with either Wilson or Shea (possibly in Playboy itself) in he said, presumably with tongue in cheek, that the sole purpose of fiction was to provide descriptions of fellatio. Anyone know what the source is, and which of them said it? Hayford Peirce 00:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've a topic to bring up/ don't yet know the propper protocalls. I suppose I'll have to read up soon, but here goes: some section of one of the wilson related articles implies that Wilsons use of the term model agnosicism was a case of neologiwm. Geurilla Ontology is neologistic, but hardly so w/ model agnosticism, which really is part of the vocabulary of modern science. It has to do with statistical modeling in the realm of theory testing. It seems to be even more widely applied by scientists than Wilson implied.Thaddeus Slamp 05:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Thaddeus Slamp 05:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toward a more perfect Wikipedia article

This article needs a clearer lead. See: Wikipedia:Lead section. – Autodidact 00:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical substance lacking

There is not much provided yet concerning Wilson's youth, education, career (other than a limited content concerning some of his best-known books, his having edited the Playboy "Forum"), and things like this. Not much of a picture of the man is presented yet. Recently someone wrote a RAW biography. Tho, I've not yet read it, I think it might prove usefulThaddeus Slamp 05:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Thaddeus Slamp 05:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the kind of employment he has had, we can assume he was educated (college, university) — though this may be incorrect and he may be an autodidact. That's the trouble with the article: it begs too many assumptions (or speculations).

??????????????? Joel Russ 01:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson holds a PhD in psychology from Hawthorn University. Unfortunately, I don't see a really good place to insert this bit on information as the article as it's written other than to add a section about his education, which seems like it could use a whole lot more than this one tidbit. --Geoffrey Spear 02:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Geoffrey. I guess I see what you mean – in the sense that his general early-life bio lacks information past the age of 13! Those early years (say up to age 25 or 30, perhaps) need to be filled in.

On the other hand, putting in (in those first few sentences at the top of the article) the part about his earning a PhD from Hawthorn might encourage other people who have access to some info to post what they have. Joel Russ 15:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone said in the comments on this post that RAW's daughter was murdered 30 years ago? Is that relevant? If nothing else it might help explain his financial troubles, if his kids are not alive to support him.

If the origonal Cosmic Trigger(Volume 1: The Final Secret of the Illuminatti), and also The Illuminatti Papers article entitled "10 Good Reasons to Get Up in the Morning" are not lies (why would a father lie about such?) then his daughter WAS killed by a gang.Thaddeus Slamp 05:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Thaddeus Slamp 05:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this reads much like Original research

You need some other sources to backup your statements per WP:V which applies to all Wikipedia articles and is non negotiable. It requires citations from multiple, reliable, unbiased, verifiable sources.

Consult WP:CITE. A citation is in the body of the article refering to a particular claim. Multiple links bunched at the bottom are not considered citations. You might also consult WP:EL for what type of external links are considered accepable. Also WP:OR. NLOleson 14:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC) This user was found to be a sock of Mattisse[reply]

Writing: "citation needed" on Illuminatus!

What kind of citation is required to demonstrate that the Illuminatus trilogy is Wilson's best-known work? Pretty much every time he's referred to in print, it's as "the author of Illuminatus". How does one demonstrate which exact work of a writer is the "best-known" one?

For what it's worth, Wilson claimed in "Robert Anton Wilson Explains Everything" that royalties from Illuminatus constitute the lion's share of his income. Pearce.duncan 05:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a citation needed tag there is silly and pointlessly contentious. For both of the reasons you name (there's not really a way to "cite" how well known a book is, and it IS the best known of his books), I'm removing the tag. MrBook 21:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A mess

This article is all over the place! There's lots of stuff lumped together under writings that aren't even writings. I'd also like to do a par on politics, drawn from the chapter in "email to the universe", but it'll take a while to whittle it down to a paragraph. Donnacha 19:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. You could almost rearrange the paragraphs randomly and have an article just as readable as the current one. I've never done this before, but I'm going to suggest nominating this article for Cleanup. I would myself, but a) I've never done that before and would like one more concurrent opinion, and b) there's probably a wave of people coming here right now, so might be best to let the rush sibside before moving towards any huge changes. Fractalchez 21:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A mess, just the way Wilson would like it! predictiblity is useless information, Wilson claims.....Wilson provides a classic example in Prometheus Rising where the poem:

Roses are Red,

Violets are Blue,

Sugar is sweet,

And so are you.

is used to highlight, that by reading this predictable poem, we basically recite it and get nothing out of it (well you did the first time you heard it).

then he used this variation of the poem or something like it anyway,

Roses are red,

Violets are blue,

Dung stinks,

and so you do.

an old playground taunt that we've heard, but we probably find it has more entertainment value that the first poem

Wilson claims it also contains more information because of the slight unpredictablity

then he used a third variation

Roses are red,

Violets are blue,

you think this poem will rhyme,

but it ain't gonna.

The unpredictable nature of the poem normally instigates laughter, and there seems to be more information in this poem than the first, maybe it has a greater insight into the nature of humans, maybe you disagree.

Using this premise, should we be writing all wiki's in this fashion....?

errmmm just pullin legs, yes it does need a good cleaup. Most of us here are left brain rationalists and the majority rules :),

Just a final thought maybe we could have a rational version and the discordian version in tribute to RAW, he would sure enjoy the curio, and the honor.

Long live RAW. Demercurio 04:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slashdot and Doug Rushkoff on RAW

Slashdot and Douglas Rushkoff's blog have now also posted appeals for help on behalf of RAW. -- noosphere 14:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RAW is basically dying right now. Is a {{current}} too morbid? - David Gerard 10:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. He's apparently been in this condition for quite some time now - wasn't the first blog post to mention this back in April? --Gwern (contribs) 14:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However there should be some mention of this - because hes requesting donations it seems, and wiki mention of this might help. - I saw this post on a forum:

"We are sad to announce that Robert Anton Wilson's health continues to deteriorate, and ongoing medical costs have depleted his resources. (For those of you who believe that being a "successful" author means that you make a lot of money from your work...well, that's rarely the case.)

During October, New Falcon Publications will be donating 7% of all online orders to Bob's fund. We hope that you will help, too.

Any donations can be made to Bob directly to the Paypal account, olgaceline@gmail.com.

You can also send a check payable to Robert Anton Wilson to: Dennis Berry c/o Futique Trust P.O. Box 3561 Santa Cruz, CA 95063

If you'd like more information, go to: <http://www.rushkoff.com/2006/10/robert-anton-wilson-needs-our-help.php>

or Bob's website: <http://www.rawilson.com/>

Warmly,

Nick Tharcher "

--83.131.144.156 17:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC) (user aryah, forgot to log in)[reply]

People is always needing chains and anchors

The mess of this page points just to the core of the whole situation: when a thinker works around free -unsystematic- lines, it produces a lot of tension and discomfort. Some people is even asking for commentators with enough academic credentials to judge RAW's stature... That would be a sort of oxymoron, as RAW has been working all his life toward a different direction. You are not going to find backup from the place that you have always tried to destroy. The best policy to judge RAW presence as a thinker is... to study his work. I encourage the detractors to do their job on the proper grounds of through examination of the attacked man's work. Therefore, the critic will acquire the sense that now it lacks. Alexis Montán

Hear-hear! 9-} Icarus 23 16:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put removed link here

http://search.freefind.co/find.html?id=11183588&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=robert+anton+wilson Timmy12 21:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Three Rocencomet links are left in article. Timmy12 21:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:EL Links to search engine results. should normally be avoided. The above is a particulary poor link, full of links to adverts for various tapes and books, you need to get down to item 7 to find a pertinant item. Due to the amount of advertising on the page we are getting very close to Links intended to promote a site, especially if that site's primary purpose is to advertise or sell products or services another no-no for WP:EL. I'd say ths was perhaphs a case of over citing.

As to whether Starwood should even get a mention here. The appropriate policy is WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Is it undue weight to link to just one of the many places where Wilson has talked. The fact that Wilson does not mention Starwood on his website http://www.rawilson.com/ would suggest it is undue weight. I think a good third party source would really be needed to establish that apearance at Starwood is worthy of note. --Salix alba (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Anton Wilson appeared at a minimum of 5 Starwoods and more WinterStars, sometimes with co-author of Illuminatus Robert Shea. They were his first, and for several years his ONLY, major appearances in the American Neo-Pagan community. He was the key-note speaker at the first event of the Association for Consciousness Exploration's headquarters in 1984, and appeared as a solo speaker hosted by them several times at Case Western Reserve University, their event Opening Inner Doorways, and elsewhere. ACE featured him with Timothy Leary in 1989 for their first (possibly only) dual appearance on stage. Wilson's first 8 commercially-available recordings were live appearances at Starwood or WinterStar. ACE served as his American booking agent for five years while he lived in Ireland, introducing him to Circle Sanctuary, the Whole Life Expo, Esalen, Interface, the Ojai Institute, the New York Open Center, and many universities and well-known organizations. I doubt he has appeared more times for any other organization. Starwood 1995, his last one, was attended by over 1200 people, and he appeared at WinterStar as recently as 1999 even though he had to do it in a wheelchair. I'm sure Wilson considers these appearances "worthy of note". They constituted both his biggest and most diverse live audiences for several years, and were the star features of all of his American tours in the eighties. Rosencomet 18:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm prepered to be convinced on this one. Third party cites or somthing Robert has said about starwood would make it more convincing. We do need to keep WP:VAIN in mind which is why outside views are important. --Salix alba (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(1/11/07) I deleted the link to Hakim Bey as that is the pen name of Peter Lamborn Wilson, NOT Robert Anton Wilson. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 171.66.178.166 (talk) 07:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

2007-01-11 RAW's death

RAW is dead. does anyone want to update the article pls? should also be noted at "recent deaths". i'm too clueless so ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.202.50.242 (talk)

Verification needed

I'm not going to be suspicious enough about this to revert the article, but ... has anyone been able to verify news of Wilson's death? The link to his personal blog is persuasive, but I checked Google News, and the single source that mentions it merely quotes Wilson's blog in full. Boing Boing does the same, and the many blog/journal posts on the subject all trace back to the single source of Wilson's blog.

I just find it painfully ironic that the death of a man who made such a point to criticize our unwavering faith in people who proclaim themselves authorities on the matter in question is sourced from ... a single person who proclaims himself an authority on the matter. --Baxil 05:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it. The mere fact that RAW has an entry in Wikipedia is ironic, given the aristotlean-one-point-of-view-one-truth way of presenting information that Wikipedia is. It is all very, very silly -:) More accurate statements regarding his death would be, I think "RAW seems to be dead to me." --Anon.

You clearly have badly misinterpreted NPOV. It's not Single Point of View, that there is one truth which the article should present (which is more characteristic of works like Encyclopedia Britannica), but a Neutral one, which describes neutrally the major POVs on the subject, backed up by citations and quotations and that sort of thing. I find ironic your "aristotlean-one-point-of-view-one-truth" way of characterizing all 1,580,188 articles and the NPOV policy. Better would be to say, "Wikipedia seems to me to have a "aristotlean-one-point-of-view-one-truth" way of doing things." --Gwern (contribs) 20:33 13 January 2007 (GMT)

I'm sorry, but I don't think I can let you get away with your claim about Wikipedia's size. Clearly Wikipedia is an unreliable source of information unless backed up by neutral print sources; and since my [Google News search] indicates this number has never appeared in any Internet versions of print articles about the subject, the lack of citations invalidates your entire post as well as most of the rest of this thread. ;-) Baxil 23:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am reading a notion in the article of changing the 'is' to 'was' changes the feel of the article. Read the first sentence. RAW is still an essayist, futurist, etc. Just because he dies doesn't mean he stops being that -:) Perhaps all the 'was' should be changed back to is and, with the death notice at the beginning (dob to dod), we will trust others to know that he is dead? Just a note -:) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.86.116.133 (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

First, RAW's death has been reported by multiple sources, including this AP wire story quoting his daughter, which is sufficiently verifiable for Wikipedia purposes; and second, articles about deceased persons should be edited to use the past tense, regardless of one's notions of language and "feel", because it would otherwise be confusing and appear poorly written. --MCB 22:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite convinced he's dead at this point. But at the time I wrote my original comment, it had been nearly 24 hours since RAW's death and no news story had yet appeared anywhere (which in itself is a little suspicious, in these days of the 24-hour news cycle). That was the only reason I spoke up. Baxil 23:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obituary

RU Sirius, an associate of Mr Wilson's, has written a detailed obituary on his web site 10zenmonkeys.com. --gleep 06:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also on RAW's official website. Sadly, however, there appears to be no major media coverage that I can find. --23skidoo 13:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illness and cause of death

Is it my imagination, or is this article missing details regarding the nature of RAW's illness and cause of death? The reference to hospice care suggests cancer, but hospices aren't exclusively for people with cancer. 23skidoo 13:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no mention of James Joyce. Shouldn't there be? RAW was one of the nation's, if not the world's, foremost Joyce scholars. Hail Eris. L0b0t 14:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright for timeline

Someone help me understand the copyright concern for the bio from http://www.rawilsonfans.com/articles/biography.htm? If I have permission of the author (Michael "RMJON23" Johnson) does that make it OK (It's my website and he's an email away)? Please explain? I'd like to use that as a base for getting this thing going. It needs A LOT of work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.154.180 (talk • contribs)

Read Wikipedia:Copyrights. Your permission does not sound like permission to publish it under a GFDL license (which is required for Wikipedia content; or at least a GFDL-compatible license like public domain or some of the Creative Commons licenses). It'd be nice if Johnson agreed, but generally just taking anonymous editors's words that the author agreed, really! is not a sure basis to build on. To do it all proper-like, have Johson email OTRS (see m:OTRS and Wikipedia:OTRS for details) with some sort of statement that he releases that page under the GFDL or whatever license he likes (so long as it is GFDL-compatible.) --Gwern (contribs) 16:33 12 January 2007 (GMT)

I will get to work on the CR issues right away. -QB

http://www.rawilsonfans.com/articles/biography.htm copyright released. -QB

I have pasted this biography in and begun editing it for flow and making it more of a biography than a timeline. I realize it requires much work on citation and reference but I hope that we can work on that as we go and that it will not simply be deleted again, but rather continuously improved.

Great! Always nice to see copyright issues resolved so nicely. --Gwern (contribs) 22:58 12 January 2007 (GMT)

Unfortunately all my additions were reverted again. I give up. Even the changes I made to correct errors (RAW did not "found" the Maybe Logic Academy, Lance Bauscher did). I do not understand the power structure of Wikipedia, but it's clear that someone is not very interested in my contribution. -QB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quackenbush23 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

QB: I'm sorry, this was entirely my mistake. I had seen that biography page yesterday before the GFDL notice was added, and when I saw the material today in our article, I immediately and falsely assumed it was a copyright violation. I should have checked this Talk page first. Please feel free to revert back to your version or combine the two versions. Cheers, AxelBoldt 01:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sex Magicians

(I moved this from the "Works by..." section of the article. --MCB 22:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I do not believe that The Sex magicians is a real title by RAW. I am nervous enough that I may not be doing this right just by adding this note, however, that I dare not erase it. I think Colin Wilson wrote something by that name. I invite the author of the section to show documentation. (Comment by Thaddeus Slamp)

I've searched Worldcat and the Library of Congress's online indices, and I can't find anything close to that which is by RAW. Now, this doesn't provethat he didn't write such a thing (they could be incomplete and simply not mentioning it, my searches could've been flawed, etc.), but I would support removing it in the absence of any solid documentation. --Gwern (contribs) 23:41 14 January 2007 (GMT)

here's your evidence http://www.rawilsonfans.com/images/book-covers/fiction/photos/photo_1.html This book is extremely rare. I know of only two copies in existence.Quackenbush23 22:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)QB[reply]