Nice primer for what this guy's all about.

Another reality-bending RAW book. If you read the Cosmic Trigger series or Prometheus Rising and looking to read more non-fiction by him in the same style, this is definitely a great choice.

A cute, lighthearted book for those who loved the Illuminatus Trilogy and want it to go on. Borrow it from a library or a friend, unless you're a die-hard RAW fan.

I read this years ago and can't remember much about it, other than it was the first I'd ever heard of Finnegan's Wake.

im really enjoying his clear statements that promote the importance of gaining intelligence. I also like that he changes ideas around each 30 pages or something. its nice to be fucked with and prodded at while being educated in a distant but such personal form.

Hard to explain this one. I really liked it, and I thought he brought up alot of great points - I enjoyed the format and his writing style and found it funny and interesting. Pretty ahead of his time about social justice issues and reminds me of what right wing/libertarian used to be before the new wave took it over (as of 2022). People who like conspiracy and essays will like this book, but it's not as conspiratorial as I thought it would be and he uses the Illuminati just as a medium to explain his thoughts. More of a author and thinker than an actual nutcase.

Awesome, as always. Another view on all those ideas of RAW

True RAW material.

Smart funny and controversial even today. A ton of good "articles" or however you would refer to the sections in this book, a few great ones, and just a few I flat out didn't get and just found the language over complicated. Inspires you laying out many other great authors, books, schools of thought, and more.

This was one of the stupidest books I ever read.

****An Apology ***
(a la Socrates; a Defence; and a preliminary apology to Bob for having the pretense to write such a thing).

**Integral Theory & Ken Wilber is where I'm coming from, since I find that body of work most comphrehensive. seemingly absurd terms might very well be technical terms from that work.

R.A.W's 8 circuit model of consciousness, transmitted to him by none other then Timothy Leary, needs defending for a few reasons. 1) technical philosophers & scientists will at once see its limitations, assuming they can even accept the basic premise of epistemological pluralism. 2) there are some reasons for the limitations, aesthetic & historical, which means we can forgive these gentlemen for their shortsightedness (god knows WE aren't shortsighted, so let us hand down forgiveness like the saints we are). overall I think the model offers something that the more comprehensive, detailed cartographies of Integral Theory usually can't.

what limitations? the model is phenomenological. Leary observed the primates around him; the behavioural-social patterns that were most prevalent, robotic, and problematic (prepersonal to early-personal development). he looked at the raw data of psychedelic experiences and what they illuminated. he did, however, use important findings from Freud and the transactional analysts to make sense out of early stages of development.

what's missing? the crucial distinction between stages/states/lines/quadrants. are the "circuits" states of consciousness or stages? how do they develop? the lack of clarification serves to confuse sooner or later. multiple intelligences i.e. relatively independent lines of development are not made distinct, they're jumbled all together into a simple progression up stages (or states). that's why I say it was phenomenological, it looked at immediate data rather then long term trends shown by developmental psychology. it's all too simplistic. are states of illumination always temporary? is that what higher intelligence is, a temporary disorienting glimpse at our cells enjoying sensation? can't we aspire to anything more?

one meta-problem with the model is that it lacks a "holonic logic" for guidance. "what the shit is that", you sensibly ask? holonic refers to how wholes exist in our world: always as parts of other wholes, integrating the parts yet transcending them. without this holonic logic, bob can't make sense out of how the so called circuits transcend the robotic tendencies of what came before them. we can't make sense out of development, what stunts it, what makes states into stable stages. without these tedious nerdy technicalities we find ourselves in a mire of pre-trans fallacies and/or simple hierarchy schemes (which is what the 8 circuit model amounts to, ultimately, without such integral qualifications).

coming from this [circuit 3 anal retentiveness] integral viewpoint, I'd have to say the quadrants would do the model much good. you get these seemingly materialistic neologisms from Leary/R.A.W all the time: neurologic, mind as biocomputer, circuits, imprints, left-right brain metaphors, physics analogies... it's all so uncomfortably close to a reductive flatland systems theory. left quadrant collapse to right quadrant does not serve to clarify things. I know Leary wanted to teach the world the mutual implication of internal & external. he was a panpsychist on the mind-body issue. but exterior holism is still reductionism, as Wilber pointed out to me ad nauseum. is all the subjective and intersubjective development really an epiphenomenon or result of physiological and/or technological development? Leary and Roberto were visionaries in my mind: these ideas weren't "beyond" them. they must of decided to leave things ambiguous? or perhaps they didn't see the distinctions so clearly, leaving it for others to define. the only way I could see them butting heads with the integral model is that the relativistic pluralism got them a little too excited, i.e. mean green meme. perhaps integral theory is just too stuffy and square in presentation? this brings me to 2)...a real defence of the model

2) the first point to be made is that Leary and Robert were pioneers in this still emerging field(s) of altered states, transpersonal development, prepersonal and intellectual pathology... ya know, the good stuff. that means a) they suffer the limitations put on all pioneers of new territory and b) they left the details for future researchers to outline. as pioneers they were coining goofy neologisms all the time because there was so much new territory to classify. the first phase of philosophy-science is often classificatory, a la Aristotle. after such poking in the dark can come the developmental reconstructions, the applications & predictions, etc... all that we expect of very scientific, technical theory.

these theories were made in the 60s and 70s, right at the beginning of the green meme explosion, the pluralist expansion of consciousness that so shook the culture of the west. the 8 circuit model uses the major insights of its time (new physics, cybernetics, sociobiology, psychedelic therapy) and integrates them in a way that sheds light on so much. we must keep in mind Wilber wasn't even near his fourth iteration of the integral model when Leary & Wilson were playing with these ideas; it took Wilber several decades to have the model SES and Integral Spirituality outline. The 8 circuit model is a playful recapitulation of the chakra system: it received the wisdom of the past, attempted to integrate it with newer contemporary insights, and transmitted a novel set of signals worth absorbing. this is progress; and they did it without boring everybody to death.

that's the historical point to be made, what's the aesthetic point you ask? (stop asking questions, it's dangerous on the Planet of Apes). the aesthetic point is that Leary and Wilson weren't pure theoreticians. they sacrificed a degree of precision and comprehensiveness for the sake of art: they wanted to make you think, share the newest ideas, yet do it all in the context of an artistic expression. it was a stylistic idea, and keeping in mind that McLuhan was among Leary's great influences, perhaps they knew this presentation would appeal to the widest audience possible. that's why I said it offers something the integral model just can't usually: an entertaining, aesthetically diverse experience. integral is for integral awareness seeking an integral framework. this model is more democratic I would say, although it mainly suggests a green meme perspective on development towards the higher stages. the green meme looking up, if you will, and trying to describe the view (while pleasurably disorienting the inflexible symbol mechanisms of the more primitive logical mind). these guys *performed* philosophy, they tried to inspire novelty in the mind through an adventure up & down the spiral of development. I was inspired and continue to be.

but why blather about all this on a review of The Illuminati Papers? this has been the first Robert Anton Wilson book I've read in a long time...I know he wants me to challenge him as well as think with him... I apologize for the apology, lastly; I hope it has disinformed you as planned.

Illuminatus theory...