| |
|
From my point of view, RAW is merely giving HIS perspective on information that has been knocking around the world since time immemorial. I mean, this is basic Mystery School information - and in my opinion the more versions of it out there, the better. At the base level, RAW, Grant Morrison, Philip K. Dick, Plato, Carlos Castaneda, Georges Gurdjieff, Wilhelm Reich, Helena Blavatsky, Aleister Crowley, Alice Bailey, Patanjali, Douglas Adams, Boris Moravieff and the Wachowski Brothers - all are saying the SAME THING -
People are trapped by their perceptions. They see what they have been taught to see. There are ways for you to use the tool you've been given, (the mind/body complex), to widen that perception. Parts of the process are gonna suck (chapel perilous, initiation, etc.) - but it appears that at least some of that difficulty causes brainstate changes which are important if you are interested.
The difference comes in the form, (the way one explores the information, and what one does with it afterwards), but the substance appears to be the same. And it is DEFINITELY in the form of RAWs writings - where his own Reality Tunnel interferes with the message he's trying to communicate - that there is room for criticism. He even does it himself - in the preface to the 2000 edition of Sex, Drugs and Magic - where he admits that some of the case studies he presented were partially fabricated. He also admits that he was wrong in his belief that our society would never allow the marketing of an aphrodisiac - as Viagra has proven ;-)
As has been said, RAW seems to be the AC/DC of the counter-culture/philosophy world - he's written the same book MANY times, each time saying the same thing, to make certain that his ideas on the subject are available to everyone regardless of taste. He might be more inclined to move on to a different topic if it looked like anyone was paying attention - although I prefer his reaction to, say, that of Bill Hicks, who in his frustration merely berated his audience for being too stupid and sleepy to see what was going on.
And, as far as his predictions regarding a utopian future, it appears to me that his major miscalculation was in regards to human socialization rather than technological capability. People interested should check out The Hunt For Zero Point by the aviation editor for Jane's Defense weekly. That at least makes a VERY VERY strong argument for the fact that the pie-in-the-sky science discussed in the late 50s was actually real, but has for one reason or another been kept from the general public. So, making predictions based on what science was saying at the time seems to me not to be optimistic rather than merely informed.
I for one am excited about being able to interact directly with him. I would love to have been able to do the same thing with Douglas Adams before he died, or Tolkien, or Crowley - or any number of thoughtful, entertaining people that are no longer accessible. I would have certainly paid $125 to get a chance to take a lecture series from any of those guys. The chance to personally pick Wilson's brains regarding the VERY TOPICS we have discussed here - "Why do you think so much of what you have taught for so long is still considered Fringe?" - etc., seems worth the price o' admission. |
|
|
