Long Live Anarchy: An Interview With Robert Anton Wilson

  • Posted on: 15 October 2016
  • By: thecollective

From C4SS (Part I & II)

At some point in the late fifties or early sixties, Pacifica Radio’s Charlie Hayden interviewed the inimitable Robert Anton Wilson on all things anarchism. Wilson waxes poetic on anarchism’s foundations and answers some challenging questions from a presumable skeptic in Hayden. While the exact date of the interview is unknown, the early to mid-sixties appear to have been Wilson’s most overtly anarchist period. Wilson references Ralph Borsodi’s “School of Living” in the interview without mentioning anything about his position as editor of SoL’s anarchist publication, “Way Out.” This is a good indication that the interview likely occurred prior to the beginning of Wilson’s tenure there in 1962. I maintain that Wilson seemed to be a lifelong anarchist in spirit, despite explicitly shedding that label in favor of the more ambiguous “libertarian” label in his later years.

I purchased access to an audio version of this interview upon finding it in Pacifica’s archives, and with the help of Wilson scholar Nick Helweg-Larsen, have transcribed Part 1 below. Part 2 of the interview will appear at C4SS in the coming days. Enjoy. –cn
[included below - thecollective]

Hayden: Today we’re talking to Mr. Robert Anton Wilson who happens to be a freelance writer who’s written for such publications as Fact Magazine, The Realist, Jaguar Mazine and Liberation Magazine. Mr. Wilson also happens to be somewhat of a strange political animal in our particular culture, namely, he calls himself an “individualistic anarchist.” Mr. Wilson, can you explain yourself a little bit on what your political viewpoints are?

Wilson: Well, to begin with, an anarchist is a libertarian socialist. Originally all forms of socialism tended to be anti-state as well as anti-capitalism. There came a point in the development of socialism in which the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat was promulgated and the idea that through the political state, socialism would be implemented as a dictatorship and then the state would wither away — which is the orthodox Marxian theory. The anarchists at this point distinguished themselves by strongly opposing this ideology and insisting that socialism could only be implemented outside of the state that anything implemented through the state could never be socialistic nor could it tend toward socialism.

Hayden: You say “implemented outside the state”… today socialism is at least identified in the public’s mind as statism.

Wilson: Yes, according to the anarchists this is a complete misunderstanding of socialism. The anarchists would say that anything implemented through the state is statism and the direct contrary of socialism. Socialism means a system oriented toward society. The state is not society. The state is a mechanism apart from and above society interfering at all times with the natural functioning of society. The anarchists believe that the only way socialism can be implemented is through free and voluntary associations within society not through the Frankenstein monster of a state above society.

Hayden: And what happened within the socialist movement once the anarchists began taking this different viewpoint from the others. I mean was there a large split within the movement at one time in the late 19th century?

Wilson: Well what happened in the first place was that Marx deliberately sabotaged the First International when he found out that there were more anarchists in it than Marxists. He sabotaged it by moving it from Europe to New York where there were at that time much less socialists than there were in Europe and therefore made it an organization without a head so to speak.

Hayden: What do you mean “in New York where there were fewer socialists than there were in Europe?”

Wilson: The International began in Europe and Marx had the headquarters moved to New York so as to prevent the lively anarchist movement in Europe, which was much livelier at that point than the Marxist movement from taking it over as they were obviously about to take it over since there were more of them than Marxists. The Marxists, always hostile to democracy, didn’t want to see the majority taking the movement over.

Hayden: And then what happened?

Wilson: Then in the Second International there was a split and the fight came out in the open and the Marxists, who at that point, were a majority, were able to push the anarchists out of the movement entirely so the so-called Black International was formed out of which the modern anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist movements evolved.

Hayden: About this time, unless I’m mistaken, there were various assassinations attributed to anarchists and there were riots led by anarchists and gradually the word anarchy became somewhat of a dirty word to the press and to the public generally

Wilson: If we must talk about the assassinations, and I guess we must… This always comes up in discussions of anarchism. Let me state first of all as the Encyclopedia Britannica itself points out in the article on anarchism — if you list almost all of the assassinations that have been attributed to anarchists and assume that all of them were performed by anarchists (which is a dubious assumption by the way — many of them were police frame-ups), but on that assumption it still turns out that more anarchists have been murdered by governments than all that can be accused of having murdered governors. The number of anarchists who have been killed by governments on trumped up charges, or sometimes without charges at all, goes way above the number of the governing classes that were killed by anarchists. Now at the time this wave of assassinations went on in the 1880s and 90s and up into the first decade of this century many of the leaders of the anarchist movement strenuously objected to this method and criticized it, said it would not advance anarchism and predicted that it would even lead to the decline of anarchism. It must be understood clearly that the men who committed these assassinations were almost unanimously working men who had never had a normal education. Many of them were completely self-educated, many of them had known intense misery in their lives. For instance Ravachol, the celebrated French anarchist terrorist who threw bombs into restaurants was a completely uneducated working man who had taught himself to read and who was supporting a sister with an illegitimate child on a salary that couldn’t properly support himself as a printer. And Ravachol, in a fury at the poverty of himself and his sister one day decided to take revenge on capitalist society and began his wave of terror.

Hayden: Well, if these assassinations were not the reason for the decline of anarchism as a vibrant, very real political movement, what in your opinion was the reason for the nearly total demise of anarchism from the political scene?

Wilson: There were a number of causes. Anarchism declined rather slowly. In the 1930s anarchism was still a fairly large force. In the Spanish Civil War the communists managed to betray the anarchists with whom they were supposedly fighting side by side with against the fascists. And in the Spanish Civil War a great many of the best minds of anarchism perished frequently, so to speak, shot from behind by the communists instead of in front by the fascists. That was only one cause of course. Anarchism declined, I think, because nothing succeeds like success and it took a long long time. It still isn’t complete for disillusionment with Marxism to set in. Once the Marxists had Soviet Russia, one-sixth of the earth’s surface, it quickly became the dominant form of socialism. Because they actually had something and were doing something. They had their land and their plant and so on. And all the other forms of socialism, not just anarchism, declined because, as I say, nothing succeeds like success. As disillusionment with Marxism increases, one expects to see a gradual revival of anarchist ideology. It’ll take a long time because as soon as they… as soon as the majority of socialists get disillusioned with one Marxist experiment, another one is set up and it takes them about fifteen years or so to get disillusioned with that one. Hope springs eternal within the human breast.

Hayden: Have the anarchists ever had a chance to put any of their theories or ideas into action and if so have they been successful in doing so?

Wilson: There have been numerous successful anarchist experiments. There was one in the Middle Ages even. A town in Bohemia which for seven years had an anarchist regime and held off the entire Prussian army which was attempting to come in and crush them. After seven years they were finally defeated but the system did not collapse from within as all authoritarians would predict. The system of anarchism worked very successfully until the army came in and murdered them all. In America there were several successful anarchist colonies in the nineteenth century. The greatest success to date of anarchism was in the Spanish Revolution in 1936-37. For 18 months the factories of Barcelona were run by anarchist committees without any authoritarian capitalist or communist-type structure. And they actually increased production 19 percent during that period and were actually thriving at the point when Franco’s fascist troops came in and blew the town to hell.

Hayden: Today are there many anarchists left? is there any such thing as anarchist publications? Anywhere in the world do the anarchists have any sort of political foothold and can recognize as any sort of sizeable or even fringe movement?

Wilson: There are many anarchist publications. I do not have with me right now any figures on the number of anarchists in the world. One thing for instance in Spain, you couldn’t say there were any anarchists because anybody known as such would be shot. But one could wager, considering the number of anarchists when Franco took over, probably a considerable portion of the Spanish population are still anarchists. And if they could get out from under the Franco dictatorship they could attempt to implement anarchism once again. Through the rest of the world there are anarchist parties in most of the large nations. In England, there’s a publication called Freedom, which comes out weekly in newspaper form. And they also publish a bi-monthly called Anarchy. In America there’s Views and Comments published by the Libertarian League and there’s also Liberation Magazine which has a very strongly anarchist tending policy. The Catholic Workers Movement is committed to anarchism of the peculiarly Catholic sort. And there’s even the agrarian anarchist movement in this country centered around the School of Living in Ohio.

Hayden: Have there been any movements of social reform that anarchists generally have identified themselves with and have taken an active role in promoting and shaping?

Wilson: First of all there’s the mutual banking idea in the early 19th century. The mutual banking idea was promulgated by two anarchists. Independently of each other, Josiah Warren in America, and completely unknown to Warren and also not knowing about Warren, Proudhon in France, began teaching the same idea. They both originated, independently, just as like Leibniz and Newton invented the calculus, or Darwin and Wallace invented the theory of evolution simultaneously, Warren and Proudhon devoted a great deal of energy to the mutual banking idea and although there are no mutual banks today there are in most parts of the world credit unions which are, from an anarchist point of view, a truncated, I might almost say castrated form of the mutual bank. But the fact that the credit union movement exists and is so widespread is a derivation form the original anarchist mutual banking idea. Also, the anarchists were pioneers of the labor movement at a time when the Marxists were very hostile to labor unions.

Hayden: What were the Marxists saying at the time they were hostile to labor unions?

Wilson: That the proper technique was for the workers to act through the state by voting in a socialist government. And they felt the labor unions could do nothing to improve the condition of the workers. The anarchists, especially in Italy and France were responsible for creating the labor union movement in this country; they played a large part in it also. A third thing which anarchists have contributed which has had a large effect on the modern world is the freeing of education. Long before Neill came along with Summerhill, there were similar schools founded by anarchists. In New Jersey around 1908 there was the Francisco Ferreira School named after the anarchist martyr Francisco Ferreira who had founded similar schools in Spain and was shot by the Spanish government for a crime which he didn’t commit. The Francisco Ferreira School is even more radical than Summerhill and was founded here in America in 1908. Similar experiments in free education were started by anarchists in many other parts of the world.

Hayden: Well today are there any well known anarchists who are making any major contributions in any area at all? Arts, politics, religion, science?

Wilson: To begin with the most famous anarchist around these days, I suppose, is Paul Goodman, who I disagree with on many things. But he has certainly obtained a very considerable influence within the community of the social scientists and the universities. They all pay a lot of attention to him and his ideas are anarchistic and derived largely from Kropotkin. In addition to Mr. Goodman there are Judith Beck and Judy Molina of the Living Theater, both anarchists who have made a contribution the American theater, which I don’t think will be fully appreciated for another fifty or a hundred years. But even today the real hip people realize what a great thing the Becks have done. And besides them of course there’s Dorothy Day of the Catholic Worker Movement, who has probably more than anyone else been the center or the fountainhead of the pacifist protest in America in the last couple of decades.

Printed with the permission of Pacifica Radio Archives.

The following is Part 2 of Pacifica Radio’s “Long Live Anarchy!” interview with Robert Anton Wilson. Part 1’s transcript can be read here. The interview ends abruptly, and unfortunately Pacifica was unable to find additional reels in their archives. –cn


Hayden: How do you answer the charge that anarchism’s an outmoded political belief? That it was a nice theory to attempt to apply to an agrarian society, but in our modern day of technology and industrial society, that anarchism is just simply antiquated?

Wilson: Well, I would reply to that by saying bluntly that it’s just not true. The anarchist idea, I think, is especially well adapted to industrial society. In the first place, as Marx (I always like to quote the enemy when I can), as Marx pointed out, industrial society is creating a sense of solidarity among the working class in a way that didn’t exist under previous systems. Also, the modern tendency of technology as indicated in cybernetics, is towards the destabilization of industry, and towards the self-regulation of the machinery. The whole essence of cybernetics is self-regulating technology which is called homeostasis, or redundancy of control, in the technical engineering language of the cyberneticist. Now this implies, necessarily a decentralization of the human parts of industry. Also, and I am very amused to notice the American Management Association, in their bulletins on cybernetics, are continually forced to use the concept of decentralization. They have even come up with a phrase, “decentralization of authority and centralization of financial control,” which is a flat contradiction.

But it’s the only way they can maintain the concept of centralization of financial control in a cybernetic world. They are trying to hold on to an antiquated way of thinking, which cybernetics is gradually going to force the whole world to abandon. Cybernetics is going to drive the whole world to decentralization which is what the anarchists have always urged.

Hayden: How do you explain the popular misconception, I gather, that anarchists are opposed to all forms of law and order? That anarchy means unrestricted, unrestrained, individual freedom, and actually has become associated (if you read the charges made by such distinguished Americans as Governor Wallace of Alabama, and what have you), that anarchy prevails, which is like saying “pandemonium and holocaust are upon us?” How did this type of idea regarding anarchism evolve? Were there anarchists who indeed were opposed to all forms of law and order or who did go about causing great disruption and problems? I’m thinking specifically of The Haymaker Affair [sic], which I’m only vaguely familiar with, through reading and what have you.

Wilson: Well, to begin with, anarchism is a word which is like a red flag to a bull. The man who coined the word, in the modern world, was Proudhon, and as much as I admire Proudhon, I must say he was overly addicted to the paradox like many great French writers. It’s a peculiar trait of the French to delight in paradox, and Proudhon chose this word anarchism because it was so shocking and paradoxical to the average person who was as then, and still is now, the next thing to saying “I’m a lunatic,” to say “I’m an anarchist.” Proudhon took it, because as I say, he was addicted to paradox.

Most anarchists continue to use the word only out of a sense of solidarity and brotherhood to the great anarchists of the past, many of whom suffered martyrs’ deaths. I’m thinking of Sacco and Vanzetti, and Joe Hill, and Landauer, and so many others, and also in tribute to the great brains of the movement who have contributed, who created so many splendid philosophical treatises, such as Tolstoy, and Benjamin Tucker, and Josiah Warren, and Bakunin, and Proudhon. Since all these men used the word anarchist, it seems to me rather dishonest to abandon the word, if one agrees with their thinking. A few anarchists down through the years have abandoned the word. They have chosen other words, such as libertarian socialist, or mutualist, and at one point, a fellow named [Francis Dashwood] Tandy tried to popularize the term voluntary socialism. I prefer to stick to the word as shocking as it is, in tribute to the great men who have used it in the past. As for The Haymarket affair, that was recognized as a frame-up by Governor [John Peter] Altgeld, who subsequently pardoned the anarchists who remained in prison. He couldn’t pardon the ones who had already been hanged, but Governor Altgeld in his investigation, decided that all of those men had been framed. What happened was that the workers of Chicago were calling a strike, and at a meeting somebody threw a bomb, and several people were arrested who were anarchists, and they were convicted of having thrown the bomb, although subsequent evidence showed that none of them could possibly have had any connection with the making or the throwing of the bomb. Considerable evidence has been developed over the years that it was a police agent provocateur who threw that bomb by the way.

Hayden: How do anarchists generally (seems to me, I have to confess, that I probably hold a number of popular misconceptions regarding anarchy and anarchism), but how can an anarchist who is so totally committed to individual liberty and freedom seek solutions through a political system like socialism? It seems to me that if there was any type of a political or economic philosophy that anarchism could be involved with, it should be a right-wing type of thinking, capitalism or even fascism. Something which did not involve the large concepts of the group working together, and what have you, that socialism involves.

Wilson: Well, here we can get rather deep into anarchist theory which is what I would like to do. I’m afraid once I start getting in deeply, you will interrupt and say it’s getting too abstract. But, well, in the first place, the anarchist movement is part of what I would call the age old movement toward, for want of a better word one has to call it, common decency. If you go back about five thousand years you find the origins of the modern state and the modern class system. And what existed before that, loose tribal confederations, are sometimes called anarchistic. I agree with Benjamin Tucker, that this is an inappropriate use of the word. Tucker said anarchism is liberty possessed by libertarians. These early tribes had liberty in a loose sort of sense, but they were not sophisticated enough to know what they had, and it wasn’t true anarchism. With the invention of the national state which incidentally seems to have come through conquest in every case, the German sociologist Manheimer [sic] pretty thoroughly demonstrated that all the states we have been able to trace to their origins, did arrive through conquest.

We had the beginnings of the class system, in which the great majority toil, not to support themselves, but to support a minority of parasites who live off them. This in its classical form is the slave state as we find it throughout the ancient world. Over the millenniums, this gradually evolves into the feudal state, and later into the capitalist state, but, the basic gimmick remains the same. As for example, the basic gimmick in the land swindle is still the same as it was under the slave state. A small minority own the land. The theory originally given is that they are anointed or chosen by God, and the King rules by divine right. God has elected him to rule. His relatives who are known as the nobility, own the land because they are relatives of the man chosen by God. Everybody else who has been disinherited by God, the rest of us creeps, we don’t own the land.

In order to work the land, to grow crops or whatever else we’re going to do, run a shoe making shop, or whatever, we must purchase that piece of the land on installments from one of the owners. Under feudalism, the lord of the land, the King’s relative, ruled on the basis of this supernaturalistic theory; I don’t think in spite of the hangover of theology into the modern world if anybody got up and pronounced that argument today, that the landlords rule by God’s right, anybody would take it seriously. The reason people continue to pay rent today is that they don’t think about the subject at all. If they did think about it, they’d realize that the only justification the landlord has, is this supernatural theory, and I don’t think they’d stand for it.

Hayden: Well, are anarchists opposed to (there’s an anarchist around New York who has buttons that say “I am an enemy of the state”) … And are the anarchists now, necessarily opposed to the existence of national state and local governments? And how would an anarchist feel towards the beginnings of world government such as the exhibited maybe in a UN with growing power and what have you?

Wilson: An anarchist naturally feels that world government would be just a little bit worse than national government, because [it’d be] more centralized, and even more omnipotent.

Hayden: How would you have international controls enforced, how would you manage to regulate such things as health and disease? How would you settle problems like debates over who gets water from the Colorado River? How would you handle the growing complexities of international trade and commerce if you didn’t have some sort of governmental control that could function on a scale this large?

Wilson: Well the answer to that is that the idea that these things only can be done through governmental control is an error of the human mind similar to the error a long time ago that the earth was flat. This is firmly implanted in everybody’s head. But the anarchist just happens to be the man who challenges it. What the anarchist says, in a nutshell, is anything that can be done through involuntary association can be done through voluntary association if it is worth doing. Now that’s the whole function of the state. The state is not to do those things which are worth doing which can be done through voluntary association. Obviously, you don’t need a state for that. The purpose of the state is to get done those things which aren’t worth doing and couldn’t be done through voluntary association. Namely, to protect the interest of the ruling classes, and to suppress the servile classes.

Hayden: But (you speak in terms of socialism too) most of or many of the concepts inherent in socialism, what I think of as social service programs, don’t they necessarily involve coercion and force, and by this I mean things like medical care for the aged, requiring medical men to take care of poor people who are sick, building codes which make landlords repair a buildings, which control rent, which prevent fire, disasters, and what have you? It seems to me, all sorts of regulations which are in the interest of the individual, necessarily rely on a larger governmental agency forcing unwilling, even unscrupulous people from violating laws that have been passed in the public’s interest. Do you think this could be solved through voluntary associations? What if the landlords had a voluntary association that had more money, and more guns, or what have you than your voluntary association of an anarchist or citizens.

Wilson: Well this gets to the very bedrock of anarchism. To begin with the anarchist says that all forms of coercion, of a left-wing nature, that we have in the modern world, are the result of not really facing up to the nature of the ruling class, and what has to be done about it. These are all half-measures, and the anarchist opposes all these coercive methods because he thinks that they have not faced up to the real issue. Social security, for instance, although I personally wouldn’t want to see it abolished, under the present circumstances, under the present class tyranny, it’s a necessary protection for the victims.

Printed with the permission of Pacifica Radio Archives.



"Wilson: Well, to begin with, an anarchist is a libertarian socialist. Originally all forms of socialism tended to be anti-state as well as anti-capitalism."

Wow. Such a big name, status and stardom, yet so little knowledge anarchist and socialist history.

Well,to begin with, a Libertarian Socialist is not an Anarchist, or,to be generous, is most likely an Anarchist with reservations. Am I the only one in Anarchyland who has never heard of Robert Anton Wilson?

Someone explain to me how anti-capitalist anarchism will work without communism or socialism?

By having no private property would take care of 95% of capitalist influences, the leftover 5% can be allowed to operate sweat shops making uniforms and operating fast food stalls at political rallies ;)

No mode of exchange and production can work through ideological grand abstractions like communism and socialism. Inspired by, yes, but any previous mode which became dominant has never required volumes of generic ideological essays to make it work. Or maybe Christian Protestantism to some extent, but it was never asserted as capitalist dogma.

In other words, you're jumping over many major steps by first pushing some dogmatic parameters, without setting forth PRACTICE and making it take hold into the concrete reality.

Discourse is cheap.

Do you really think people just naturally understand and participate in the various crazy hoops you have to jump through to properly participate in capitalism? The U.S. has existed as a capitalist country for how long now, yet we still have to hire professionals to handle our taxes, make sure our loan paperwork is in order, make sure property titles don't have liens against them, and various other aspects all necessary to participate in the capitalist world. Capitalism is certainly no less complicated than more "ideological" systems. I would argue that capitalism is more complicated than many of the alternatives.
The reason capitalism didn't require "volumes of generic ideological essays" was that, as Wilson states here, it was just an extension of the slave state, turned feudal state, turned capitalist state. All the groundwork was already laid, people were all too familiar with this way of doing things. Communism, socialism, and Anarchism, are proposed different ways of doing things as far as "dominant systems" are concerned. This is why there are so many "essays" written to explain how these systems can work, because they operate on a very different system of values than capitalism or slavery.

No, not "naturally". Capital is a social process. Medieval times merchants, trader and bureaucrats did not require to write essays promoting some idealized practice they would, one day perhaps, realize. Marco Polo did not require essays to legitimate his ambitious merchant travels. This activity was already held in high value in the Republic of Venetia, making its economy and naval fleet the most powerful in Europe at the times.

The essays came much later, during the Enlightement era where their practice got heavily legimitated by the subversive thinkers of the new liberal capitalist age. At a time where capitalism had become such as huge force as to be able to overthrow the old world.

They were just doing it, and were doing it because it was giving them power, privilege and status, and making their lineage go up the social ladder. Artists in urban areas are doing the exact same things today, as producers of cultural symbols. The hipster artist family in my poor neighborhood is to some extent as socially-privileged as some wealthy uptown family, if not comparatively MORE. I've seen a plethora of self-appointed anarchists who enthusiastically let themselves into this game, being already capitalists in Red and/or Black clothing.

Just look around you... people fighting to become winners, behaving as if sitting on mountains made of prestige, trends, sex partners, good jobs, nice apartments and other social signifiers of status. There is no external capitalism, as the Left tends to project; it is part of us. We must expose and divorce from all those who reproduce this tendency at accumulation and consolidation of power and privilege.

Anti-capitalists care about developing means of living beyond this dogma. Hundreds of anticapitalists protests and May Days won't achieve that.

You can't fight capitalism without developing OPEN networks and infrastructures of mutual aid and free sharing. All else is doomed to be recuperated by capital. This is the common principle that makes ancaps and contemporary Leftists equally inauthentic in their respective claims, as none are caring to build that.

wilson, like nietzsche, understands that "we're trapped in linguistic constructs" (semantic realities). wilson recommends that we remove all dependencies on 'being' from our speech and writing. see 'Freeing Your Mind'

"Wherefore art thoust empirical 'I' ?"
"Hark, thoust just said it !"

holy shit, is this is the shortest emile comment?

have we just witnessed history?

That's a good application of a Taoist-Heraclitian world view into language. He gives science too much credit. Science mostly sucks and is a tool for the analytical knowledge building IS. Empiricism is where it's at.

Yeah a word like 'is' foments confusion between the sensory receptive organs and our perception retentive memory by denying the metaphorical origins of pre-historical languages emerging out of infancy and unconsciousness of 'being'. The glaring evidence is in a newlyborns non-linguistic early life, there is no 'is' only experience and a developement of an empirical 'I'. Identity and mass cultural mindset require an 'is' to attain power and authority. e.g. There 'is' a god. In the past tense, There 'was' an evil devil. In the future tense, There 'will' be a heaven on earth.

PS some RAW quotes-----

Belief is the death of intelligence.
Only the madman is absolutely sure.
It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea.

you say;

Identity and mass cultural mindset require an 'is' to attain power and authority.

sapir says;

“The fact of the matter is that the ‘real world’ is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group . . . We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation.” – Edward Sapir

people without 'is' in their language-and-grammar architecture do not have hierarchical authority in their cultures. in other words, the will to "attain power and authority (over others)" comes from the "belief in being" as in;

“Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts. ... This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.” – Vatican Archives

the belief in 'being' which has us see ourselves and others as "independent beings who are fully and solely responsible for 'our own intelligence and purpose driven and directed actions'" is the source of believing in 'morally judging our self and others and 'rewarding and punishing' ourselves and others. such binary moral judging beliefs are nowhere to be seen in peoples whose languages do not employ the abstract concepts of 'being' and 'fixed identity' and neither have peoples who have no 'is' in their language come up with 'science', which puts reason into an unnatural primacy over intuition. i.e. as Whorf says;

"It is sometimes stated that Newtonian space, time, and matter are sensed by everyone intuitively, whereupon relativity is cited as showing how mathematical analysis can prove intuition wrong. This, besides being unfair to intuition, is an attempt to answer offhand question put at the outset of this paper, to answer which this research was undertaken. Presentation of the findings now nears its end, and I think the answer is clear. The offhand answer, laying the blame upon intuition for our slowness in discovering mysteries of the Cosmos, such as relativity, is the wrong one. The right answer is: Newtonian space, time, and matter are no intuitions. They are receipts from culture and language. That is where Newton got them.” – Benjamin Whorf, ‘The Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior to Language’

how about, instead of;

Identity and mass cultural mindset require an 'is' to attain power and authority.


"power and authority OVER OTHERS" derives from a belief in 'is' which puts one in denial of the relational interdependence of our actual, physical experience.

[ecosystemic] collectives that wouldn't even be viable without mutual aid are not going to commit suicide by seeking "power and authority over" one another. that is unique to humans, and only to those that believe themselves to be independent 'beings' [thanks to their mental conditioning from 'is' being used as a conceptual foundation in their language-and-grammar] rather than relational forms within an interdependent relational matrix.

Yes OK instead of "Identity and mass,,,,,,,,,,,", how about
"power and authority Over,,,,,,,,,"
I'm hesitantly agreeable to you emile.

and know that if you were hitler, beezlebub, osama bin ladin or donald trump, i would have no hesitation in overtly agreeing with you if what you said resonated with me.

I find this approach to language very interesting, do you have any authors to recommend me down these lines of thought?

No specific authors, but Emile Benveniste is the man, we're all in the process of arriving at similar conclusions from different trajectories, and expelling the notion Chompsky and his type of linguists push that there exists an innate reflexive language gene.

in addition to sapir and whorf, there is F. David Peat, a colleague and co-author with David Bohm. Bohm wrote 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order' which shows how a language architecture can orient to the 'explicate order' and in the process wallpaper over the deeper 'implicate order', so that a more competent 'relational' language was needed to get down to 'the real stuff' (implicate order). F. David Peat, in 'Blackfoot Physics' covers Bohm's ideas on how language influences what we take to be 'reality' and how the Algonquin language family fits to a tee, the Rheomode language that he (Bohm) started to design as a language that would avoid getting totally hung up on 'explicate order' and be able to get down to 'implicate order' level.

The key aspect for such a language is that it must have a grammatical architecture that avoids placing any hard dependencies on 'being', 'identity' and 'time' [i.e. 'time' as a linear past-present-future containing frame, rather than as 'relative time'; 'earlier and later' in a transforming relational continuum].

Nietzsche also goes to the heart of the matter, pointing out that noun-and-verb Indo-European/scientific language-and-grammar systematically reduces relational activity within the transforming relational continuum to the combination of 'being' plus 'being-driven action' as in 'lightning flashed'. in transforming relational continuum, the human is an emergent relational feature that does stuff so that the animating source is immanent in the transforming relational continuum, but language allows us to pick out the human and semantically endow him with fixed identity being, constructing dynamics that jumpstart from him, although the physical reality is that, as Emerson says, the animating source (immanent in the transforming relational continuum) "not only inhabits the organism but creates it". In other words, the explicate order is in terms of the relational forms and what they appear to do while the implicate order lies in the nonlocal, non-visible, non-material relational transformation that is going on beneath it. the child soldier's action in shooting people in the cafe is the 'explicate order' while the implicate order lies in the nonlocal, non-visible, non-material relational dynamic that not only inhabits the child-soldier but creates him; i.e. the child-soldier transmits influences from the transforming relational continuum he is included in, ... his actions do not fully and solely jumpstart from him, as noun-and-verb language-and-grammar depict. as emerson elaborates, it is the ecosystemic relational complex that gives rise to the pear tree that produces pears, thus tracing back the source of pears to the pear-tree does not go back far enough (it is only the explicate order) and the implicate order lies in the relationally complex ecosystemic dynamic [which is non-local, non-visible and non-material] that gives rise to explicit material dynamics that are local, visible, material.

this looks like an excerpt from "maybe logic," a doc made shortly before RAW's death. worth a watch if you can find it.

RAW’s philosophical inquiry and his interest in ‘conspiracy theory’ was, in effect, delving into the nature of ‘Non-Aristotelian logic’, ... ‘logic of the included middle’ aka ‘quantum logic’.

There are two approaches one can take in such inquiry that correspond to (a) particle theory and (b) wave theory [in the Einsteinian sense where particles are made of wave-behaviour rather than being ‘things-in-themselves’]. RAW opted for (a), the dualist view where one holds on to the ‘reality’ of particles or individual things-in-themselves so that one can ultimately explain all dynamics in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’. This approach leads to probabilistic treatments, as in the theory we know as ‘Darwinism’ wherein we suppose that the ‘inhabitants’ of nature (particle-based material things-in-themselves) and the ‘habitat’ are mutually exclusive so that the process of ‘reproduction with random chance variation’ produces an endless stream of ‘trial organisms’, most of which don’t fare well in the habitat and thus don’t persist, while the ones that are a good fit for the environment persist and thus the evolution of new forms is by a process of ‘natural selection’ in a dualist inhabitant-habitat probabilistic match-up.

Have you ever seen such a determined resistance to the intuitive notion that the inhabitants are outside-inwardly inductively actualized and shaped by the habitat? How is it that in several phyla, ‘winged versions’ of organisms suddenly, without warning, appeared, with an architecture which was perfectly matched to the aeronautical properties of the fluid atmosphere? Why did males and females pop out at the same time, and likewise bees and flowers, and why are there so many examples of ‘irreducible complexity’ wherein all participants in an ecosystem must be present at the same time for the system to ‘work’ and sustain the diversity of participants? That is, the (a) thing-in-itself based theory would have it that it is the intelligence and purpose of the diverse things-in-themselves participants is the source of their coordinated actions of mutual support that makes the system viable, when intuition is screaming out that it is the mutually supporting relations that are shaping the form and behaviour of the ecosystem participants, as in the (b) wave theory.

It is not as if there is no support in ‘the data’ (observations and experiences) for the understanding that “epigenetic inductive influence actualizes, orchestrates and shapes genetic expression [material entities and their behaviours]”, in which case we don’t need the tall tales of probabilistic theory that supports conspiracy theory such as Darwinism (which RAW mocks, by the way, comparing it to Creationism). That is, there is this big ambiguous cloud of probability that serves as a smokescreen between “the behaviours of things in themselves” and the newly emergent inhabitant that is well matched to the habitat, and this theory (Darwinism) asks us to believe that the disparate particles and parts conspire to construct the new forms WITHOUT ANY OUTSIDE-INWARD INDUCTIVE INFLUENCE FROM HABITAT TO INHABITANT AS WOULD BE THE CASE IN AN INHABITANT-HABITAT NON-DUALITY.

The point is that ‘conspiracy theory’ is a theory that arises from our insistence that ‘what happens in the world’ is due to the one-sided process of ‘the actions of independent things-in-themselves’ and ‘what independent things-in-themselves do’, and our thinking on this follows through to our relational social dynamics, the ideal case of which is written up in the formal documents founding the United States which include statements affirming the basic operative units are logically equal (formless) independent-thing-in-themselves participants. Many would agree that ‘the US is a force in the world’, but so is a gathering form in a relational social complex before it has been named and defined and given the right to inflect verbs as if it is endowed with God-like powers of its own jumpstart development and behaviour [and intelligence and purpose].

Immediately before it gets named and defined it is relational feature within the relational suprasystem it is included in, and there was no need to attribute to it, its own independent intelligence and purpose. Here we see the point made by systems sciences that every system is included in a relational suprasystem [like the universities that have sprouted up within the relational social dynamic of the more general community dynamic] wherein the system is inductively actualized to serve some need/function within the relational suprasystem. While it is possible to understand the university in terms of its internal components and processes and the ‘intelligence and purpose’ that conspires to animate it as a unit; i.e. as in (a) particle theory, ... it is more general to understand it by grounding such ‘analytical inquiry’ in what Ackoff calls ‘synthetical inquiry’ that acknowledges the epigenetic inductive influence of the relational community dynamic that is actualizing, orchestrating and shaping the ‘genetic expression’ that we label and define as ‘the university’. If the inductive influence in the relational suprasystem is not sustained, the system will wither and die.

Nevertheless, there is a tendency to portray the university SIMPLY as an independently-existing thing-in-itself and to explain it in terms of its internal components and processes, attributing its hanging together and operating as a unit (machine) to the intelligence and common purpose of its constituents/participants.

The same ontological ambiguity applies in the case of sovereigntism; i.e. should we go with (a) particle theory wherein the system is understood in terms of the dynamics of its internal parts and processes?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” – US Declaration of Independence

Clearly, as with the storm-cell Katrina in the relational suprasystem of the atmosphere, there are ‘inputs’ and ‘outputs’ going on between the inhabitant/system and the habitat/relational-suprasystem, and the question of whether to go with (a) particle theory or (b) wave theory is the question of non-dualism [non-Aristotelian logic] versus dualism [Aristotelian logic]; i.e. whether the system IS the relational activity wherein epigenetic inductive influence is actualizing, orchestrating and shaping the ‘genetic expression’; i.e. the development and behaviour of the system or whether the system is an ‘independent thing-in-itself’ understandable fully and solely in terms of its internal constituents and processes and their intelligence and common purpose. This particulate package view is evidently, in itself, a conspiracy theory, the grand conspiracy theory underlying the Newtonian worldview of Western civilization, that is based on confusing the semantic realities we construct with noun-and-verb language-and-grammar for ‘reality’ [these (a) particle theory semantic realities are nothing like the physical reality of our actual experience].

If we were to remove from existence, all other people and countries apart from the US, would the US remain the same independent thing-in-itself, or is its ‘meaning’ dependent on the relational suprasystem it is included in, as in an ‘inhabitant-habitat non-duality’?

That is, are nations really ‘independent things-in-themselves’ as in our dualist semantic constructions and (a) particle theory depictions, or is this over-simplification? Or, are nations relational features within a transforming relational continuum, as in the inhabitant-habitat non-dualist (b) wave theory view?

If we revisit the classic double slit theory manifesting ‘quantum behaviour’, we see all of the same choices and configuration options surfacing as we do in our macro experience. The popular and orthodox interpretation is that physical reality seems to precipitate out of a cloud of probabilities and statistics, as a kind of ‘conspiracy theory’ similar to Darwinism. In the popular orthodox quantum theory, there is no acknowledgement of any epigenetic inductive influence that is actualizing, orchestrating and shaping ‘genetic expression’ aka ‘system development and behaviour’.

But there could be, as there is division among physicists as to whether subatomic phenomena are not more ‘deterministic’ [as in epigenetically induced] and not in need of probability clouds.

Physicist-theoreticians who remain outside of the social consensus that determines the orthodox theory are mainly ignored; i.e. Mach had to, in his words “quit the Church of Physics” and Schroedinger, who believed that wave theory should prevail over particle theory propped up by probability clouds maintained, until his death in 1961;

“Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements of quantum physics held today (1950s), I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody.” (Schrödinger E, ‘The Interpretation of Quantum Physics’). … “I don’t like it, and I’m sorry I ever had anything to do with it.” (Erwin Schroedinger speaking about the probability-based interpretation of Quantum Physics which was legitimized by concensus).

The alternative to the orthodox interpretation does away with dependency on probabilistic coincidence corresponding to ‘conspiracy theory’. De Broglie’s ‘pilot wave’ theory brings back into play inductive form and behaviour shaping influence wherein wave dynamics are not only the source of behavioural activity seen as ‘particles’, but inductively shape the movement/behaviour of those ‘particles’; e.g. see; https://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/ Have We Been Interpreting Quantum Mechanics Wrong This Whole Time?)

So, RAW’s philosophical interest in ‘conspiracy theory’ has a lot of arms and legs to it. Many of his positions on such matters can be heard in his audio interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y29V_a9i1aY&t=3234s ‘Politics and Conspiracy’, an excerpt from which is appended below.

RAW supports the United States founding documents as a sound philosophical basis but finds fault in how politicians progressively departed from it (although not in the case of the first three presidents). This view seems common in ‘libertarian’ politics. RAW quotes Nietzsche;

“The state is the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it lies, too; and this lie creeps from its mouth: `I, the state, am the people.'... Everything about it is false; it bites with stolen teeth.” – Nietzsche

Nietzsche clearly takes the (b) wave theory route in that he assumes that things unfold according to an exosmosis-endosmosis non-duality as did Lamarck. In other words, the epigenetic inductive influence [excitational influence of ‘field’ or ‘les fluides incontenables’] actualizes ‘genetic expression’. In this view, the sprouting plant would be seen as a fountain that was inductively actualized by the combined electromagnetic/thermal and gravity fields; i.e. we could not explain the form and behaviour of the sprouting plant and blossoming flower in terms of its internal contents and processes. Stem-cell research and regeneration of a newt’s eyes and tails, and partly lost (by injury) organs where they are ‘made whole’ again, have been adding support for the understanding of dynamics wherein outside-inward inductive influence (field) is in a natural primacy over inside-outward assertive action (material/particle dynamics). Nietzsche’s latter works all support this (b) wave theory view of dynamics. It is essentially acknowledging that nature’s dynamics are not determined by the actions of the ‘inhabitants’ of the natural ‘habitat’. It is an agreement with Mach on inhabitant-habitat non-duality; i.e.

“The dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants” – Mach’s principle

The dynamics of convection cells in fluid-flow involves a relational topology that recapitulates Mach’s principle. Emerson also opted for this (b) wave theory understanding of dynamics, stating in ‘The Method of Nature’ that man (natural form in general) is inductively actualized as an agent of transformation or ‘vent’ that transmits influence from the non-local to the local, and not as an independent doer-of-deeds.

Acknowledging the primary role of inductive influence in actualizing genetic expression removes the need for a probabilistic cloud and/or conspiracy theory as a support to prop-up the over-simplistic (a) particle theory as a way of explaining what makes things come out the way they do.

The Nietzschean/Machian/Lamarckian (b) topology of “epigenetic influence inductively actualizing, orchestrating and shaping genetic expression” resolves the ‘Uncertainty Principle’ in a Heraclitean manner; i.e. the position of the storm-cell Katrina and the motion of Katrina, can each be separately measured with precision, but the cannot both, at the same time, be precisely measured since Katrina’s motion is the transformation of the operating space she is moving within [inhabitant-habitat non-duality as in Mach’s principle]. In Heraclitean terms;

“No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.” – Heraclitus

In other words;

“Katrina never moves forward into the same atmosphere twice, for its not the same atmosphere and she’s not the same Katrina”

‘Conspiracy theory’ is one way of dealing with complex ‘genetic expression’ seen through dualist lenses as if perpetrated by ‘independent things-in-themselves’ and thus avoiding any invocation of ‘epigenetic inductive influence’ and ‘non-duality’

For example, if a newt is attacked by a cat and its eye is partially destroyed, the eye will be regenerated and made whole again. Explaining this with the orthodox (a) particle theory understanding constrains the explanation to one-sided, inside-outward genetic expression. This implies a ‘conspiracy’ on the part of the internal components [and thus their ‘intelligence’ and ‘common purpose’] to achieve the regeneration.

If, in explaining this regeneration, one were ‘allowed’ to employ the non-orthodox (b) wave theory understanding, we could use Lamarck’s outside-inward inductive influence mode of understanding; i.e ‘interference in the relational influence field’ inductively furnishes the blueprint for the regenerative genetic expression.

“Ainsi les fluides incontenables tracent d’abord les premiers traits de la plus simple organisation, et ensuite les fluides contenables, par leurs mouvemens et leurs autres influences la développent, et avec le temps et toutes les circonstances favorables la compliquent et la perfectionnent. » -- Lamarck, ‘Recherches sur l’Organisation des Corps Vivants’

There is a general principle in this mode of understanding. It asserts that relations are the basis of things; i.e. that the local, visible, material aspect is secondary appearance that is inductively, outside-inwardly actualized, orchestrated and shaped by non-local, non-visible, non-material ‘field’ influence. As Schroedinger puts it;

“What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of [relational] space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances).” – Erwin Schroedinger”

But, if we do not allow ourselves to understand that “epigenetic inductive influence actualizes genetic expression” and stay with the orthodox “genetically driven only” mode of understanding, we end up with having to explain ALL PHENOMENA in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’.

One might intuit that the behaviour of sunflowers, in orienting themselves so that when we say ‘they follow the sun’, derives from epigenetic inductive influence, but the (a) particle mode of understanding does not allow that; i.e. one is required to constrain one’s explanations to one-sided, all inside-outward asserting ‘genetic expression’, hence, science says;

“Young sunflowers use their internal circadian clock, acting on growth hormones, to follow the Sun during the day. Heliotropism, the solar tracking movement, is driven by uneven patterns of elongation on the east and west sides of the stem. By following the Sun, plants grow faster and put on more biomass.”

This behaviour is presented as ‘intention-driven’ rather than as ‘situation-induced’; i.e. it imputes ‘intention’ to the organism, or is it just a ‘coincidence’ that this ‘plant behaviour’ is ‘beneficial to the plant’? Whether such things are coincidences or there is some other more determinative explanation is the question that crops up in ‘conspiracy theories’. Why do tornadoes so often wipe out trailer parks? Do tornadoes have something against trailer parks? Or could it be that certain terrain geometries induce organized swirling, as riverbed geometries do with respect to whirlpools in riverflow?

Of course, once we name a thing, we affirm its independent existence and persisting identity. And once we do this, we use the name as a subject and have it inflect verbs so that it is no longer a relational form in a transforming relational continuum, but is instead intellectually (semantically) understood as a ‘thing-in-itself’ that is ‘doing stuff’ [“Katrina is growing larger and stronger”, ... “Katrina is devastating New Orleans”] By the time we are talking like this [employing subject-verb-predicate constructs], we have forgotten that Katrina is, as Schroedinger suggested is the case for all material entities; ... variations in the structure of relational space. Or, as Emerson puts it; ‘vents that transmit influences from the non-local to the local’.

R.A. Wilson’s inquiry into conspiracy theory quickly disposes of one particular type of ‘conspiracy theory’ that ‘blames’ categories of things for being the determinative causal source of phenomana; e.g. the theory that secret societies such as Masons are in control of society. He points out that experience shows that particular Masons are very diverse and different individuals and that it is unrealistic to impute large scale conspiratorial coordination to them. He makes the same point with respect to the category ‘Jew’ in regard to Hitler’s conspiracy theory that the secret background coordination of Jews was having a powerful controlling influence on the German social dynamic. RAW also put ‘femininism’ in this same ‘dangerous’ conspiracy theory category.

Insight can also be gained from looking in on the conspiracy theory that Wilson is most confident of, that he assigns a probability of being true of 95%

“On a scale of 1 to 10, I would put around 9.5, the closest to absolute truth in my system of thought, that the government of the United States and most other governments, ... quite a few other governments, are largely controlled by the rich and that democratic elections do not change anything because you’re offered always a choice between two people, or as I say these days, my latest terminology, ‘two lying bastards’, both of whom are in the bag to the same major corporations so it doesn’t matter which one of them you vote for, the major corporations are going to be running the government.” – Robert Anton Wilson

This ‘conspiracy theory’ would resonate with many of us, but we might be put off somewhat by the sense of its ‘over-simplicity’. In fact, elsewhere in this same interview with Wilson, he objects to conspiracy theories based on ‘fungible categorizations’, which is how he describes the type that Hitler used to blame the Jews for causing problems in Germany. This ‘fungibility’ implies that all Jews are contributors. As mentioned, Wilson puts ‘feminism’ in this same class in that it indicts the category of ‘male’ as contributing to political, social and economic inequalities impacting women.

In applying cause-effect models and searching for the operative causal agents, which is what ‘conspiracy theories’ are all about, there is always the risk of stopping the drilling down beyond where one first strikes paydirt; i.e. the search for who killed the people in the café may lead to the child-soldier, but the child-soldier may simply be a ‘vent’ for inductive influence from social-relational tensions that are blowing off steam through the child-soldier. That is, we may stop at symptoms without getting all the way to source [the ultimate source may be ‘indefinitely deferred’]. If we drill deeper into a corporation that is aggressively lobbying government officials and paying bribes to get favours that will improve their profit line, we may find that their shareholders include union pension funds. Union workers whose economic sustainability is fragile and uncertain, worried about their retirement, may invest in companies whose CEOs not only exploit workers as manipulation-prone expense line items but who are paid hundreds of times more than their average employees. In this case, there is ‘leakage’ or ‘interdependence’ between the observing subject and the observed object dynamics [the object dynamics that the observing subject is looking out at are simultaneously influenced by the observing subject’s dynamics; i.e. there is an ‘observer effect’].

So, Wilson’s most probable ‘conspiracy theory’ is one that ‘blames’ the observed fact that nothing improves for those of us at the bottom BECAUSE “we only get to vote for one of; ‘two lying bastards’, both of whom are in the bag to the same major corporations so it doesn’t matter which one of them you vote for, the major corporations are going to be running the government.”. That is true, and so it is true that the child-soldier is the cause of the shooting deaths of the people in the café, but if one continues and drills down a bit deeper, it is no longer so simple because the people in the cafe are part of the community whose dysfunctional dynamics are spawning child-soldiers that are terrorizing the people. Again, there is a suggestion of inhabitant-habitat non-duality as in Mach’s principle (relativity) although the conspiracy theory implies a dualist hard split between ‘them and us’ geometry.

As Wilson says, Aristotelian logic is too simple for our real-life situations, yet he is using it in the us-versus-them formulation of the conspiracy of the rich to lock ‘us’ into an unfair system of government that ‘they’ get to manipulate.

Aristotelian logic says that that ‘we are all born equal and independent’, yet “It takes a whole community to raise a child-soldier”. Or, as Mach’s principle says; “the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat”. These experience-based intuitions imply an inhabitant-habitat non-duality that is beyond the capability of simple Aristotelian logic. As we know, some communities cultivate disparate [e.g. rich and poor] conditions in the common living space so severe, that some young ones that develop within the space can vent a lot of relational tensions that impact members of the community that sit above all the problems [and feel that they themselves are ‘above’ the rest. The latter, when impacted/injured by the venting of those who are most oppressed by the relational tensions associated with imbalance, feel that they are in no way co-contributors to the violence that they become the recipients of [which is the back-reflecting of their own unbalanced assertive actions].

[N.B. In the relational space of our actual experience, the APPARENT inside-outward asserting of expanding convection cells back-reflects so as to outside-inwardly impose hexagonal shape on expanding cells. There are not two movements here but one non-dual relational dynamic that is circular and harmonic. The animating influence does not belong to either the inside-outward asserting action or the outside-inward resisting influence, but to the thermal field that is the source of pressure imbalance. Without the relational property of space as captured in non-Euclidian geometry, this non-dual dynamic would be impossible; i.e. inside-outward asserting influence cannot source hexagonal forms; back-reflecting influence, as is possible in a relational space, is required.

As in the case of a field of sunflowers whose coordinated movements that follow the sun are said, by modern biologists, to be driven by ‘producer-product teleology’ managed by the plant’s inbuilt intelligence and intention By following the Sun, plants grow faster and put on more biomass.” , so it is that the conspiracy theory arises in the case of the bees construction of hexagonal cells, which is a mathematical optimum for storage cells that minimizes labour and material requirements (shared walls) and minimizes waste space [there is 37% space wastage in packed spherical storage cells. That is, it is presumed by biological science that these hexagonal cells are intention-driven constructions. The alternative this avoids is, as Einstein would put it, that ”space is a participant in physical phenomena” in that the geometry is situationally induced by the fact that ‘pushing from inside-outward associates with a simultaneous backward-reflecting outside-inward influence’. As with the storm-cell in the flow, convergence into a sink and divergence as out from a source are simultaneous aspects of a source-sink non-dual relational (circular/harmonic) activity that shows up [appears] as a local thing-in-itself aka ‘a cell’.

One may ask oneself whether ‘conspiracy theories’ are not the artefact of our refusing to acknowledge that “space is a participant in physical phenomena”; i.e. that epigenetic inductive influence actualizes, orchestrates and shapes ‘genetic expression’. We actually experience ‘rising to the occasion’, the ‘occasion’ being the unfolding relational dynamic in which we are situationally included, which inductively (outside-inwardly) actualizes, orchestrates and shapes our creative potentials. When we are intention-driven mode, we are ‘in our head’ (our behaviour is not being shaped by the unfolding situation we experience inclusion in, but by mental models that are logical and thus inherently subjective and incomplete).

Conspiracy theories assume intelligence-directed, intention-driven causation. They are a technique for avoiding any acknowledgement of outside-inward epigenetic inductive influence as being the author of genetic expression; i.e. orthodox science constrains the animating source of the world dynamic to local, material things-in-themselves and what these things do. As with the random chance variations that Darwinism depends on, conspiracy theories arise when we try to explain phenomena by attributing them to causal agents in an absolute space and absolute time [non-participating] operating theatre. This is the source of logical explanations that are inherently subjective and incomplete, and thus there are a diverse multiplicity of them, as started RAW thinking from being in possession of eight different sets of encyclopedias which gave multiple different explanations of the same phenomena; i.e. how much of what we read can be deemed true?. The man who reads one scholarly explanation is confident he ‘knows what he is talking about’ and he may be getting it from a random newspaper, media report or interrogation of the internet where one connects with all kinds of different quality sources of information.

Of particular note in RAW’s conspiracy theory inquiry are his remarks on ‘history’.

“You pick up any book of history and you find they’re talking about conspiracies in ancient Rome, conspiracies in Renaissance Italy, conspiracies within the British government in the Elizabethan age. History is largely a history of conspiracies.”

As Howard Zinn has pointed out in ‘A People’s History of the United States’, histories, like logic itself, are inherently subjective and incomplete. If we listen to the history of a company we have worked for, we may find that the attributions of who contributed most to the success or failure varied according to the differing perspectives of those assessing it. Furthermore, the histories of an organization, such as a nation, emphasis the inside-outward ‘genetic expression’ or internal intelligence and intention drive within the organization or nation, ... almost ignoring the outside-inward epigenetic influence that is actualizes ‘genetic expression’ [i.e. replacing the relational space that is a participant in physical phenomena with non-participating Euclidian space; i.e. avoiding relativity and its implications of inhabitant-habitat non-duality].

Nietzsche comments on this habit, which comes bundled into noun-and-verb language-and-grammar’ of denying situationally induced actualization and instead constraining the portrait of reality to intention-driven actualization, a constraining that seems to lead directly to the fabrication of ‘conspiracy theories’;

“In its origin language belongs in the age of the most rudimentary form of psychology. We enter a realm of crude fetishism when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language, in plain talk, the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere it sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things — only thereby does it first create the concept of “thing.” Everywhere “being” is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego. In the beginning there is that great calamity of an error that the will is something which is effective, that will is a faculty. Today we know that it is only a word.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

* * *

An excerpt from RAW’s thoughts on ‘conspiracy theory’ follows.

My conclusion is this;

RAW’s excellent ideas and insights make an important contribution to sorting out ‘how the world works at the socio-political-economic level. The study of conspiracy theories (rather than the conspiracy theories themselves) informs us as to how people popularly interpret what they observe, experience and ‘hear’ or ‘see’ in the constraining terms of ‘independently-existing things and what things do’. Wilson’s wife collected encyclopedia sets so they had eight different sets they could consult to look up the same topic, and found there were multiple different [inherently subjective and incomplete logical] explanations of the same phenomena. People who only have one set of encyclopedias [or reference sources] tend to insist they know the truth about a particular subject. Comparing the multiple, mutually contradicting rational theories is where the value lies, for RAW [he cites Oglesby; “a multitude of conspiracies contend in the night”].

The point that this comment aims to share here, in case anyone reading this has an interest in the logic-theoretical underpinnings of political thought, is that RAW’s choice of the (a) mode of understanding and his support for the philosophical foundation rendered in the US Founding Documents; e.g;

“Declaration of Independence” -- “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

shuts out philosophical investigation that would make use of the (b) wave theory option which sheds a very different light on logical ambiguity (von Neumann’s ‘Maybe’ zone).

It would be possible to review all those phenomena that RAW reviewed in his ‘Politics and Conspiracy Theory interview’, using the (b) wave theory option (as has been partially attempted above), which would, in effect, replace the inherent probabilistic randomness and conspiracy theory ‘prop’ used to develop twenty pound theories from ten pound axioms [axioms that constrain the sourcing of dynamics to the actions of independent things-in-themselves].

One might say that Libertarianism splits off from Anarchism where the reality of (a) particle theory splits off from the reality of (b) wave theory; i.e. by belief in a 'Declaration of Independence'

* * *

Excerpt from Robert Anton Wilson’s audio interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y29V_a9i1aY&t=3234s ‘Politics and Conspiracy’

. . .

[Still, the conspiracy theory seems to be the thing that you’re best known for.]

... Alas!....

[How is it that conspiracy theory intrigues you so much?]

Well, it’s like internet, it forces you to consider alternatives. .. ... conspiracy theorist and accept it as well. You can spend the rest of your life spreading that conspiracy theory and annoying everybody who doesn’t believe in it and pounding on the table ..”by god, look at this, ... look at this document right here” ... and all that stuff. But by and large, on internet, if you go into alt.conspiracy, you’ll find 80 different conspiracies fighting it out among one another and you’re forced to start thinking, ‘do any of these make any sense? Is there one that makes more sense than the others? Are some them partly true? Are some of them mostly false? You’ve gotta start thinking in non-Aristotelian categories, not just quick true/false, but how much of this is true, like ‘Holy Blood, Holy Grail’, which was a best seller about 20 years ago. I was really shocked when a friend of mine said that he found three things in it that were not true so he knew the whole book was a hoax. My attitude towards that book was like my attitude towards everything else, how much of it is true? Is it true, is it all true, is it all false? ... that seems like childish questions to me, so I said, how much of it can be proven to be true and how much of it is just guesswork or bluff by the authors? It’s about the Priory of Sion, an affinity group or conspiracy, whichever words you prefer, of French aristocrats and bankers. Such an organization does exist. Whether their explanation of what this organization is up to is true or false; that, I think, is debatable, but I think they proved the organization exists, and the Church of Mary Magdalen, which is an essential part of their conspiracy theory, .. that exists. I’ve even spoken to somebody who’s been there. I haven’t been there myself yet so that’s hearsay, but still, he’s a guy I trust.

[So, obviously, there are things in the book that can be shown to be true]

Yeah, and there are some things in the book that can be pretty clearly proven to be untrue, and then there’s the large class that clearly belongs in what Von Neumann calls the ‘maybe’ state, in between true and false, you just don’t have enough evidence to make a judgement.

[So, is that sort of the nut or crux about conspiracy theory for you is that it helps keep the mind open?]

First of all, I think a lot of conspiracies do go on. I agree with historian Carl Oglesby; “a multitude of conspiracies contend in the night”. I think its normal mammalian behaviour. On the other hand, conspiracy buffs tend to be somewhere between mildly paranoid and full-flown clinical paranoid and I don’t trust many of them very much. I think the only conspiracy theorists I really take seriously are Buckminster Fuller, Noam Chomsky and Carl Oglesby and all the rest of them seem in varying degrees of paranoia.

[But you don’t feel the whole field is simply paranoid fantasy?]

Absolutely not. The idea that conspiracy does not occur is like saying snow never happens. It’s contradicted by all the facts of history. You pick up any book of history and you find they’re talking about conspiracies in ancient Rome, conspiracies in Renaissance Italy, conspiracies within the British government in the Elizabethan age. History is largely a history of conspiracies. To claim conspiracies don’t exist is ... It’s an article of faith like the Darwinian idea that there’s no intelligence anywhere and everything happened by accident, or the Christian idea that a guy named Yahweh built the whole universe while living on a cloud a few miles above Israel and sending fire and brimstone down on everybody who infuriated him, ... or seriously vexed him, I should say.


[What other cases (conspiracy theories) can you come up with that you feel are probably true?]

On a scale of 1 to 10, I would put around 9.5, the closest to absolute truth in my system of thought, that the government of the United States and most other governments, ... quite a few other governments, are largely controlled by the rich and that democratic elections do not change anything because you’re offered always a choice between two people, or as I say these days, my latest terminology, ‘two lying bastards’, both of whom are in the bag to the same major corporations so it doesn’t matter which one of them you vote for, the major corporations are going to be running the government.”

And its definitely conspiracy if one considers how christianity has monopolized 'time' by giving it a beginning and an end as a genesis and apocalypse, thereby ensnaring the potentiality for the empirical 'I' to attain its most intuitive self-awareness.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Enter the code without spaces.