Jump to content

Talk:Robert Anton Wilson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe Logic[edit]

Surely the section *Proability Reliance* Which we can probably agree is a a grey face of a title, could be changed and expanded to include Wilson's interesting excursions into epistemology, which he called maybe logic and the seciton could be rettiled Maybe Logic: or, the universe contains a maybe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Praise Eris![edit]

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.

I wonder, why in RAW's list of publications "Principia Discordia" is not mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Principia Discordia was written by Greg Hill (Malaclypse The Younger) and Kerry Thornley (Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst).--Alf melmac 20:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

robert anton wilson only wrote the introduction to the fifth edition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrewCrawshaw (talkcontribs) 15:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Everything we know is wrong! - RAW

Ever thought, how stars (as in suns) separated by huge, vast, immense distances, manage to project themselves to a small arena so they can freely communicate, interact and generally not feel lonely.

Just on the relief effort, you can also travel through RAWs home site to dissolve any credibility issues you may preceive. http://www.rawilson.com/main.shtml Demercurio 04:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Robert Anton Wilson:

"Some believe him to be one of the last surviving futurist thinkers."

-- This strikes me as kind of a big claim. Anything to back it up?

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.

- I believe him to be one of the last surviving futurist thinkers. I am part of "some", therefore this claim is backed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayden7 (talkcontribs) 02:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (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]

I'm afraid there is no support for a statement that "some believe" about anything, or support against it, therefore it is hardly encyclopedic. It is reasonable to believe that there are anywhere from tens of thousands to millions of "futurist thinkers", though few may be famous authors or spokes-people for their "thoughts", or necessarily self-identify via this term. Wilson was certainly a famous published author who still described himself as a futurist in public lectures to the end; and yes, "few" is a question-begging term. (Thank Eris, ALL terms are question-begging to the sufficiently curious mind.)

In any event, RAW is no longer one of the last surviving anythings, more's the pity....Rosencomet 22:46, 4 October 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 erisian 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 and conspiracy; 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.


{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] 05:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 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. by Umberto Eco Also anyone familiar with Neil Wilgus, and his The Illuminoids? --Thaddeus Slamp131.252.130.192 05:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC) 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 Jams 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 (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 think 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)

This is what I got for evedence of leary acclaim. I'm in a major hurry right now, so more later I guess.

Roger Wilco ASAPThaddeus Slamp 01:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.


I'm not Slavic, either.

More synchronicity?



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]

Hi, Binky. Regards your citation, see your user talk page for a couple of comments. Cheers! Drjon 14:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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]

Anyway, that would be ""Original Research" and therefore a violation of Wikidouchia rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2008 (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?[edit]

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

I know its a cardinal rule or something, but sometimes back up is difficult. I Will merely say I'm pretty darned sure that 1 is a real, and a recent pub of Wilsons Thaddeus Slamp 05:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All things exist, all things are true. B.Mearns*, KSC 21:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

This is what I got for evedence of leary acclaim. I'm in a major hurry right now, so more later I guess.


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]

that was deffinetly wilson, but i can't remember the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrewCrawshaw (talkcontribs) 16:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toward a more perfect Wikipedia article[edit]

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

Biographical substance lacking[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

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[edit]

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]

The last sentence of the opening paragraph needs to be finished. Tcdpenn (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slashdot and Doug Rushkoff on RAW[edit]

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/>


Nick Tharcher "

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

People is always needing chains and anchors[edit]

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.

Bob was not destructive. He said he did not want to be taken seriously and said "I happen to think me and my friends rule the world. If someone else wants to think the same about themselves and their friends, well, thats no skin off my nose" (paraphrase, but pretty good 1) from The Illuminati PapersThaddeus Slamp 06:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I think these detractors are mostly spooks in your head. Alexis Montán

There have been alot of scientists/what notloosing their senses of humor lately, but Wilson was always understood and respected amongst the non-material dogmatist scientists, as being a toungue and cheek philosopher of science. The points he made were respected, tho abandoned, like emperor norton. What I mean is Wilson pointed out that skepticism is not dogmatic materialism. Most scientists, or many did not disagree, but were more like "Yeagh; but what can you do?!". The reason is that science doesn't run science. Industry runs science. A scientist is a guy with a semi-cushy job doing something he either usually likes, or does not @ least find too disagreeable, but he and all else knows he's a pawn and a begger, just like most of us most of the time.

"I think I'm Like most people. I have occasional lucid moments"-Raw-Illuminati Papers (another pretty good paraphrase)Thaddeus Slamp 06:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Put removed link here[edit]

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 (talk) 07:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

2007-01-11 RAW's death[edit]

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 (talk)

Verification needed[edit]

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 (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]


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[edit]

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]

The Sex Magicians[edit]

(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)
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]
The work is cited in Gunn's 'The New Encyclopedia of Science Fiction' (1988), the "Also By This Author" list in all of Wilson's works, and by Wilson in a number of his books. There is a copy in the UCR and the MIT Libraries. The book exists. Drjon 03:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have come to agree. I retract my objectionThaddeus Slamp 05:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A pdf of the text created with RAW's permission has been released since RAW's death. Much of the material in this first novel was later incorporated into _The Schroedinger's Cat_ Trilogy.

Illuminati games[edit]

I've reverted the edit "clarifying" that only one of the SJG "Illuminati" games is a card game. They're both card games. See Illuminati (game) and Illuminati: New World Order. Geoffrey Spear 20:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Which years did RAW live in Ireland? For a while he was writing a lot of essays on Irish events and politics, and seemed to be doing the infamous "more Irish than the Irish" thing that Irish-Americans who move to Ireland seem to do. --FOo 08:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert A. Wilson[edit]

Boundaries of the Mind: The Individual in the Fragile Sciences (2004) was written by Robert A. Wilson from the Dept. Of Philosophy at the University Of Alberta...different Bob Wilson.

http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/~raw/cvnov06.pdf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC). Yeagh; I've seen that mistake before. Our Bob knoew some neurophilosophy, but I don't think he could write a truly ivy league text on the subject. Tho there probably is a conspiracy, Virginia.Thaddeus Slamp 06:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Life Memorial[edit]

Hi, I've created a Second Life Memorial for Robert Anton Wilson.

Would it be appropriate/permissible to mention it along with a SLURL (a locator link which will allow Second Life residents to visit)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TDonaghe (talkcontribs) 03:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Model agnosticism/statistics[edit]

some section of one of the Wilson related articles implies that Wilsons use of the term model agnosicism was a case of neologism. 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]

A comment on my own commentary: What I'm more sure of is that I was just reading a book; (author and title forgotten, I think it was called The Lady's Teacup, or something) about the role of statistics in modern science. If I gathered correctly in my scan of said book, statistical modeling is rampant and established in modern science, and one of the surprises about the much hooplad paradoxes of quantum mechanics, and an aspect that doesn't get discussed, even by RAW, is that statistical modeling as a procedure in modern science, applies to fundamental particles, like photons. The broader idea of the book was that around 1900 or so, science changed as far as what constituted experimental results in many many fields of modern science.

Blog Spam?[edit]

User:AlistairMcMillan has deleted two links to R.U.Sirius's 'blog: Wilson's obituary and A Selection of Obscure Robert Anton Wilson Essays as "Blog Spam". Given that Sirius is notable, I would have thought "Blog Spam" a bit harsh and unsupportable... DrJon 06:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree. R.U. Sirius has collaborated with Wilson on projects and, like Wilson, co-wrote books with Timothy Leary. I don't think these links were meant as spam, but as an improvement to the article. His obituary, as a notable journalist, is a significant one, and the list of essays is a resource that those visiting this article to research R.A.W. might well appreciate. Rosencomet 15:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

final conviction sex magicians exists[edit]


Citations 22, 23, and 24[edit]

I don't know how to do it so someone else should.... but the "Citation Needed"s in the middle paragraph of the Writings section are all rough paraphrases of what he says in "Robert Anton Wilson Explains Everything: Or Old Bob Exposes His Ignorance" an interview that i think is listed on Amazon with a similar title

Added a Short Comment[edit]

I hope no one minds, but I made a small addition to the section about Bob's death. I mentioned that he was obviously touched by the love and support his fans gave him, when he needed help with his health care costs. And then I added an excerpt from a comment that he left on his personal website.[1] It's currently on the front page there under the title 'Note From RAW'. Here it is in its entirety:

"Dear Friends, my God, what can I say. I am dumbfounded, flabbergasted, and totally stunned by the charity and compassion that has poured in here the last three days. To steal from Jack Benny, "I do not deserve this, but I also have severe leg problems and I don't deserve them either."

Because he was a kind man as well as a funny one, Benny was beloved. I find it hard to believe that I am equally beloved and especially that I deserve such love.

Whoever you are, wherever you are, know that my love is with you.

You have all reminded me that despite George W. Bush and all his cohorts, there is still a lot of beautiful kindness in the world.


Robert Anton Wilson"

What a sweet and humble man.♥

pixiequix 09:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Art from the comic used in Wilson's Meme-Orial (SIC) now available on Web[edit]

Hi -- my myspace profile page -- http://www.myspace.com/icarus_23 -- now has a slide show of selections of the art from the comic that were displayed around the world during RAW's Meme-Orial. It started when Wilson's daughter asked for pictures of him and related to his work for a slde show for her sending off his ashes in a very small boat into the Pacific. I answered, "You want pictures, I've got PICTURES!"

After that, I made the art available for others to display at their events. Noteably (there's that darn word...), the Radio Eris people in Philly printed some out on poster boards that now inhabit their practice room.

More documentation can be found at: http://rawremembered.blogspot.com/

(Now how's THAT for noteability, Greyfaces??? Serves you right for decimating Discordian Works after those folks put such hard time and effort into it!!!! I might just give myself an inverted Barnstar for that!)

(And I'M not going to be the one to put any of this on the main front page...) 03:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


What the fuck happened to his daughter?

His daughter, Patricia Luna Wilson, was murdered at the age of 15. She was robbed of a few dollars, and brutally beaten to death. When her body was found, Bob and Arlen Wilson decided to have their daughter's brain cryogenically frozen. Here's the statement that was released with regards to their decision to preserve her brain:

"We have had the brain of our murdered daughter Patricia Luna Wilson, preserved by the Bay Area Cryonics Society in the hope that future scientific research will allow her to live again through cloning.

We have taken this step as an expression of our belief in life, our reverence for life -- a reverence that Luna manifested every day of her 15 years. Luna loved people and animals; she was a pacifist and a vegetarian. It is our fervent hope that, whether or not cloning eventually succeeds in this case, scientific research will be aided and this will be one contribution to humanity's conquest of death.

More importantly, we support the quest for life extension and scientific immortality because it is a fit memorial to Luna, who so loved life, who was so boundless in joy and affection.

Above all, by this scientific endeavor we express and commemorate our faith in life and our total rejection of death and violence. By this attempt to preserve life, we say "No" to the dealers in death and violence. We say "No" to the governments that use mass murder as policy. We say "No" to an entertainment industry based on the pornography of violence and the prurience of sadism. And we say "No" to the creature who, in his blind ignorance of the value of life, killled Luna to steal a few dollars." [2]

pixiequix 04:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I reverted the change of "lifelong experimenter in drugs" to "lifelong recreational drug user", which had been tagged as a euphemism. These terms do not mean the same thing; when a psychologist who has written books on drug effects is called an "experimenter in drugs", there is no reason to say this is a euphemism for "recreational drug user". If the editor has citations to support that Wilson was also a recreational drug user, and if that fact is generally considered encyclopedic, he/she may add that fact rather than substitute it for the existing statement. There are citations already in the aricle for him as a receipient of medical marijuana for treatment of the symptoms of his illness and the side-effects of the medication he was under for that illness.

I did, however, change "lifelong" to "decades-long', since he was not experimenting with drugs (or using them) in his childhood. Rosencomet 18:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's grand but the article does not cite any experiments either. It mentions only the use of drugs in general (which is normally considered recreational, not experimental) and use of medical cannabis (a separate instance entirely and noted as such). If there were actually decades of experiments, there should be some record of them. — AjaxSmack 07:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Records of his experiments are recorded in the many books he wrote. Whether it's considered recreational or experimental seems to be purely a matter of opinion. Maybe it should say that he considered himself an experimenter, because plenty of people think that all drug use is recreational.

--Karuna8 15:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Read his books. However, "researcher" might be more accurate than "experimenter". Wilson was more of a journalist than a scientist, IMO. (Which is not to say that he did not conduct experiments. He also conducted experiments in concentration, memory and attention during many of his workshops, some of which are available on tape or CD, and experimented with "mind-machines"; electronic and controlled sensory stimulation devices, studying their effects on mind states, including alleviating jet-lag.) Rosencomet 16:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Research/researcher does sound better. Encyclopedic use of the of the term experiment should rise above the level of a popular euphemism. However, a short explanation of Wilson's research/experimental activities would probably justify either term. — AjaxSmack 19:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
> since he was not experimenting with drugs (or using them) in his childhood.
This is wrong. In the first part of "Robert Anton Wilson Explains Everything: (or Old Bob Exposes His Ignorance)" at around 23:30 he tells he smoked hemp rope with older boys at age 6, 7 or 8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External Reference 2[edit]

The quote in the introduction "My goal is to try to get people into a state of generalized agnosticism, not agnosticism about God alone, but agnosticism about everything."[2] This was linked from wikiquote http://www.rawilsonfans.com/articles/Starship.htm and seems like an appropriate link. --Pballen 13:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Number 23

Some things in found in the number 23 movie that may need editing. For instance i found reference to R.U Sirius and Leary from the doctors name tag Sirius Leary —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starflight Network[edit]

I can find no mention of the "Starflight Network" anywhere, nor is any citation provided. The "Leary Periodic Table", a 24-phase table based on his 8-circuit mind model, is not called the "Periodic Table of Energy" anywhere I can find. Wilson refered to this table in an article called "The Octave of Energy". I don't think the editor who added this material has his facts straight; Wilson's lecture agent from 1982 through 1988 has never heard of the "Starflight Network". An entry refering to them was placed in the article Purple.Rosencomet (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best I can find on RAW's website it says the Starflight Network is mentioned in Prometheus Rising. Here's the link. It seems that the editor mentioned lifted much of the text straight from the websites about page. ZaQ (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox & photo request templates (above)[edit]

Have just added infobox & Wikiicommons pic, so have removed request templates. Wingspeed (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antioch College[edit]

perhaps a mention of Antioch College? The place appears in Illuminatus repeatedly, and supposedly there was some kind of drama concerning his being at odds with Horace Mann's legacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Philospher?[edit]

How is RAW considered a philosopher? Does the academic world consider him one? Are there citations to that effect? Stevewunder (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not uncommon, at least"Robert+Anton+Wilson"+AND+(philosophy+OR+philosopher)&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search"Robert Anton Wilson" AND (philosophy OR philosopher). But I'll leave it to a concerned reference nazi to dig up a source that passes the arbitrary guideline du jour. --Gwern (contribs) 18:21 26 January 2009 (GMT)
Much of the content of his non-fiction books, articles and lectures is philosophy. As an example, I refer you to the book "Natural Law (or don't put a rubber on your willy)". Here's a 'zine describing a talk of his as philosophy: it includes a video, so judge for yourself [3]. I would call most of the content of the film about him, Maybe Logic, philosophy.Rosencomet (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


What can RAW's worldview or philosophy be labeled as? Was he a subjectivist? In Maybe Logic, he bashes objectivists a little bit, but can he really be considered a subjectivist or a promoter of a specific branch of subjectivism? What label(s) would you give his ideas? (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agnostic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An occultist?[edit]

I added a Template and two lists related to occultism, but on second thought removed them. Did RAW ever call himself an occultist, or would he recoil, shake, laugh, or walk away shaking his head if he was called that. Might just as well call him a trampoline expert, I don't know for sure. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added the lists and template again. Sure, I think he would have said one of his shifting identities could be called occultist. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we go according to what he would call himself (guessing at such), or the definition Wikipedia itself uses? According to the definition of occultist, "This is a list of notable people, whether contemporary, historical or legendary, who are or were involved in any of the following practices and traditions:
   * occult science
   * paranormal magic, 'black' or 'white'
   * witchcraft
   * sorcery
   * wizardry
   * astrology
   * alchemy
   * practical mysticism
   * West African Vodun, Haitian Vodou, or Louisiana Voodoo
   * divination and fortune-telling
   * theurgy"

, Wilson definitely qualifies. He was a practitioner of, and an authority on, several of the above practices. I have often seen him publicly participate in the rituals of some of these disciplines. But I don't know if he'd call himself an occultist without being handed this definition. "Involved in"? He also designed and led rituals, although knowing him, he might argue whether he "believed" in the paths they spring from. "Conditional belief", perhaps... take as needed. I don't think he would distinguish between a Harner shamanic visionquest, an Anodea Judith guided chakra meditation, a Selena Fox Wiccan mystery play, or a mind game by Masters & Houston - and for our purposes, perhaps there is no distinction.

But he certainly was an occult writer. His novels all incorporated several of the above paths, and his book Cosmic Trigger is an excellent introductory reference on some. Rosencomet (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminatus! and other book sections[edit]

Seems to me to be a huge amount of material on Illuminatus!, so I gave it its own section. The plot summary seems long on the page, and covers only a tiny portion of the total multi-topic plot. Maybe it can be shortened, with links to the Illuminatus article. The Historical trilogy, or Sch. Cat trilogy, isn't even mentioned in the article, and they may deserve their own section right after the Illuminatus section. Also, many of RAW's reoccurring characters come from The Sex Magicians, written before Ill. with Shea, and perhaps more of a mention of this would be appropriate. I'll work on some of those edits and sections, and see what other editors think. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, here lies wisdom, says the gophers neighbor: Take a peek at the wonderful (IMHO) summary of the Illuminatus! trilogy on the List of Discordian works. Can we just steal it, borrow it, or pay the page in golden coconuts to let the page use it as a paragraph? This would then form a core to work a couple of other paragraphs around, and the RAW page would float nearer to the sun before landing. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might be worth mentioning the planned but never written Historical Chronicle v4, "The World Turned Upside Down," and "Bride of Illuminiatus!" (w/Shea) which was excerpted in Trajectories 14. Taken in whole, Wilson's fiction makes up a multi-generational tale a'la Michener. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quackenbush23 (talkcontribs) 00:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Paideia University in California,[4] an unaccredited institution that has since closed". Has it always been so?[edit]

I'm a complete wiki and RAW-newbie that just wanted to point out RAW's own opinion on the matter, where this article has concluded otherwise. RAW, Prometheus Rising; Preface to the second edition, p 11, l 2-15: "It actually began as a Ph.D. dissertation called "The Evolution of Neuro-Sociological Circuits: A Contribution to the Sociobiology of Consciousness," which I wrote in 1978-79 for an alternative university called Paideia. At that time, Paideia ranked as State Approved, the highest rating given to the alternative universities in California, where we have alternatives to everything and the state feels required to classify the alternatives on a scale of "experimental" to totally bonkers. Alas, Paideia, having achieved relative respectability as an "alternative," later joined with a much more radical and Utopian outfit, Hawthorn University, and lost its top rank among counter-culture educational contraptions in California, falling from Approved to Authorized, a much lower rating."

This is just to show or give an indication for what history this Paideia University might have had, and to perhaps give the readers a more proper/balanced perspective on the University of which RAW got his P.hD if there is anything to this statement of RAW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I realize that Wilson was very in favor of personal freedom but I don't really think the libertarian tag is appropriate. In the US, libertarian definitely connotes "a believer in free-market capitalism." I've read about halfway through Prometheus and looked at several of his writings on the web - I can cite specifics if needed but basically, it seems like he definitely had some problems with American style free marketism. Libertarians, in general, seem to be over eager to claim people as part of their ideological heritage when really those people's views only partly (or in some cases, not at all) sync up with theirs. Even if Wilson self-identified as a libertarian, it's at least worth looking into what he actually meant (that word has meant different things at different times, obviously) or qualifying that statement.

Consider these: "the dingbat politics of businessmen" "the monopolization of land [...] by these land-lords" the way he bemoans Adlai Stevenson/George MgGovern's losses to their conservative opponents who used lower-level circuits "Every time the interest rate went up, so did the suicide rate; when the interest rate went down, so did suicide. This can hardly be called a 'coincidence.'" "Reagan conservatives [and] John Birchers [....] will always revere those Higher in the pecking order; and [...] will always have some reason to persecute - peck at - the poor [....] they will say and even believe, that they are being 'robbed' by the poor on Welfare - who get about 4% of the tax dollar." A Reagan conservative has almost come to mean the same thing as a libertarian.

Wilson obviously does not like orthodox Communism - but who honestly will defend that anymore? Just because he is not a devout Stalinist does not somehow make him a pure free market man. The quotes above don't "prove" anything but I think they merit a deeper look, especially with the overrepresentation and overeagerness of libertarians on the internet. And, there's more where those came from, and this is just one of his many books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarianism is a political position, which advocates the least government involvement possible. I thought Wilson was an anarchist, making him an extreme libertarian, since anarchists believe a society can function without a state. Capitalism and communism are views about the organization of the economy, not political positions per se. Wilson explicitly calls himself and anarchist and a libertarian numerous times. It would be odd though if he believed society could function well without a state but did not believe in free markets... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Anton Wilson atheist not an agnostic[edit]

In the article there really is no evidence given that Robert Anton Wilson is an agnostic, did he in his own words actually ever admit being an agnostic? This does not seem to be recorded. Over reading some of his books he seems to make many atheistic quotes, many of his comments were actually militant atheist based he seem to poke fun of the idea of God on many occasions that isnt what agnostics do. He sounds very much like a militant atheist to me he also wrote a number of books mocking the paranormal. Can anyone confirm this. Can someone please add some kind of documentation to the article showing Robert Anton Wilson views regarding God, i looked on the net already and all i see is atheist quotes nothing from an agnostic point of view. (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He referred to himself as agnostic and that's cited in the article. Yworo (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is the mistake, in his own words he never once called himself an agnostic. He was an atheist. I read his books, no mention of himself being an agnostic. He was a militant atheist. The article is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you will need to be able to cite a reliable source that backs up that claim. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have also read some of his books (including Prometheus Rising), and my clear perception is that he is no atheist. He may mock many facets of "religious" dogma and living, but his irony and ridicule of people practicing religion would only by the most superficial reader (pick either meaning of that term) be mistaken for a rejection of the complex underlying ideas of many religious systems, which he had studied extensively and was obviously fascinated with beyond the option of distancing himself categorically from them. __meco (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go onto a search engine and type in "Robert Anton Wilson atheist" a tonne of links come up, one link being an interview where Robert Anton Wilson defends atheism. As mentioned R.A.W was an atheist. It's not a big issue hes dead now so it is silly to fuss over his beliefs, but if you want the truth, he was not an agnostic. If you read R.A.W's books he does not mention once the word "agnosticism" he never labelled himself one, according to the wikipedia article near the start there is a supposed quote where he said he wants people to be agnostic about everything, the source is given but when you try and track down that source it does not exist. (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson also defends relgious freedom. agnosticism is practical not essential. he did not believe in god, because he did not "believe" 100% in anything, if that makes him an atheist in your eyes then so be it; that is the limitations of dualistic thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S: agnosticism, though rooted in theology, was not a theological choice, or so it seems to me, for robert anton wilson, it seems a more practical choice that related to everything he experienced. to make him antheist or theist seems to put him in a catogory, that (and again this comes from my reading of him) he thought was redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My friend Bob was definitely an agnostic. He was also a Pagan, and publicly said he thought everyone was born a Pagan, but many were talked out of it along the way. Wilson believed in the multiple reality model as firmly as a Christian believes in the Bible... by which I mean only sometimes, usually when its most inconvenient, humans being the contrary animals they are. Wilson not only advised others to be agnostic about everything, he lived by that credo. He said Convictions Breed Convicts. He considered atheism to be as superstitious as any other certainty, and therefore wrong-headed or just plain stupid. However, an atheist has as much right to his brand of fantasy as any Catholic, Protestant or Jew. Not subscribing to any particular religion, he felt free to participate in any religion's rituals or ideology he wished as the spirit moved him; he was part of hundreds of Pagan rites, was married in a Buddhist wedding, celebrated traditional Christian holidays with gusto (and often drunken debauchery), and attended both Masses and Black Masses at one time or another. He had no problem donning the mantle of an Earth Religion adherent, a pantheist, a follower of the spirit of Christ, or a deterministic believer in a cause & effect clockwork universe at any time and according to WHAT WORKS for that moment and that purpose. Fundamentalists of any stripe would say if he doesn't have only one belief system he has none at all; he would say he has ALL of them, and proudly blow them a raspberry. Rosencomet (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Stroll" means what?[edit]

In the lead paragraph, with regard to Discordianism it states: "Wilson helped publicize the group through his writings, interviews, and strolls."

What is a "stroll"? I can find no reference anywhere to what this could possibly mean. It can refer to a street or walkway, or the action of taking a leisurely walk, neither which make sense in context. --TricksterWolf (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the term's meaning is unclear, but RAW did hand out flyers/papers about Discordianism at a Billy Graham event once, and made a stamp advertising Illuminatus! that he used to stamp "around town," so to speak. Though I don't think either of these should be mentioned. It seems "interviews" and "writings" are sufficient. Wiki.correct.1 (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article of noted psychedelic interviewer and long-time friend of RAW is being chopped up (it was deleted and redirected, but that has been prevented for now), and my efforts to provide citations and reinstate valid data have been hampered by IMO ridiculous accusations of COI simply because David was a speaker over ten years ago at an event I am involved in, and I cited that appearance under Lecture Venues. ALL my entries, not just that one, are being challenged. I can certainly use some help with the article in general. If you are familiar with and interested in an article about David Jay Brown (and have the time), I would appreciate your attention.Rosencomet (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Wilson Libertarian socialist[edit]

Anton Wilson, after writing an extensive article critical of capitalism, he ends it in this way in which he self-describes himself as a "libertarian socialist": "I ask only one thing of skeptics: don’t bring up Soviet Russia, please. That horrible example of State Capitalism has nothing to do with what I, and other libertarian socialists, would offer as an alternative to the present system." "Is Capitalism a Revealed Religion?" From the Realist issue number 27 — June, 1961. Also many statements againts capitalism can be found in his most importat works such as Prometheus rising if anyone has doubts but someone who has really read Anton Wilson will be aware of such statements but also i will have to point out that the very influential thinker in him, Wilhelm Reich, is a libertarian marxist. Anyway i have only included RAW in the category of "libertarian socialists". --Eduen (talk) 09:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template discussion[edit]

There are two topics Wilson related to this page at the talk page of RAWilson's template, relating to the inclusion of influences on the template as well as the notability of his wife and daughter. Randy Kryn 16:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update needed[edit]

In § Plays and screenplays:

Wilson's book Cosmic Trigger I: The Final Secret of the Illuminati had been adapted as a theatrical stage play by Daisy Eris Campbell,[21] daughter of Ken Campbell, the British theatre maverick who staged Illuminatus! at the Royal National Theatre in 1977. The new play is scheduled to open on 23 November 2014 in Liverpool before transferring to London and Brighton.[22] Some of the costs are to be met through crowdfunding.[23]

"Is scheduled to open", "are to be met": obviously this needs updating. (Besides changing "had been adapted" to "has been adapted", which I'm about to do.) --Thnidu (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Robert Anton Wilson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Robert Anton Wilson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert Anton Wilson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert Anton Wilson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More cites needed for Quantum Psychology[edit]

A seven-day prod had been removed in an instant article erasure and redirect to this page, but the article has been replaced. A couple of good cites would improve the page, the subject is pioneering and notable, and that the book is written is e-prime seems notable as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Quantum Psycology has now been nominated for deletion. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


This article is one of the few eligible for Category:American SubGenii due to the documented and sourced content herein. Elizium23 (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Any information on his family? What were his parents jobs? Did he have any brothers or sisters? Etc. -- (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eight-circuit model of consciousness undergoing extensive reduction and discussion[edit]

From its long-term text to its present state which has removed the main descriptors, the page and an attempt to save it is being discussed on its talk page (now the merging it to the Leary page has been raised). Please come by to lend some knowledge about Wilson and/or Leary (whose careers and importance are also being commented upon and denigrated within the discussion) and the importance of the model. Thanks. This started when Leary was removed from Category:American consciousness researchers and theorists, which seems to me to fit him to a "T". Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]