Robert Anton Wilson

Post questions or suggestions here.
User avatar
vicdan
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:48 am
Location: Western MA, USA
Contact:

Re: Robert Anton Wilson

Post by vicdan »

David Quinn wrote:
vicdan wrote: I am a committed pragmatist (instrumentalism comes as a part of that package, pretty much).
Instrumentalism is such a vague and useless philosophy. It basically boils down to the assertion that "truth is what works".

This means that even Christians are instrumentalists.
pragmatism more generally, and instrumentalism more specifically, boil down to the assertion that truth is what works epistemically; i.e. what allows us to make accurate predictions.

Your idiotic refusal to familiarize yourself with modern philosophy bites you in the ass yet again. :)
Last edited by vicdan on Thu Jan 15, 2009 12:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Forethought Venus Wednesday
User avatar
vicdan
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:48 am
Location: Western MA, USA
Contact:

Re: Robert Anton Wilson

Post by vicdan »

Ataraxia wrote:
vicdan wrote:And the difference is?..
I'm not very good with language so I'll let Kierkegaard say it.
The positiveness of historical knowledge is illusory, since it is approximation-knowledge; the speculative result is delusion. For all this positive knowledge fails to express the situation of the knowing subject in existence. It concerns rather a fictitious objective subject, and to confuse oneself with such a subject is to be duped. Every subject is an existing subject, which should receive an essential expression in all his knowledge. Particularly, it must be expressed through the prevention of an illusory finality, whether in perceptual certainty, or in historical knowledge, or in illusory speculative results. In historical knowledge, the subject learns a great deal about the world, but nothing about himself. He moves constantly in a sphere of approximation-knowledge, in his supposed positivity deluding himself with the semblance of certainty; but certainty can only be had in the infinite, where he cannot as an existing subject remain, but only repeatedly arrive. Nothing historical can become infinitely certain for me except the fact that of my own existence (which again cannot become infinitely certain for any other individual, who has infinite certainty of only his own existence), and this is not something historical.
I don't see how this in any way explicates your vaguely implies difference between 'existence' and 'the world'.

This passage BTW is useless here, because I explicitly renounced any claims to certainty. It's the illusion of certainty ('positive knowledge' as he calls it) that Kierkgaard argues against; though he argues mostly against the illusion of certainty in historical knowledge, the same argument can be applied to all forms of knowledge about the perceptible world.

If anything, this passage should be directed to QRS, because they are the ones who claim to be able to attain certainty about the 'ultimate reality'.
Forethought Venus Wednesday
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Robert Anton Wilson

Post by David Quinn »

vicdan wrote:
David Quinn wrote:
vicdan wrote: I am a committed pragmatist (instrumentalism comes as a part of that package, pretty much).
Instrumentalism is such a vague and useless philosophy. It basically boils down to the assertion that "truth is what works".

This means that even Christians are instrumentalists.
pragmatism more generally, and instrumentalism more specifically, boil down to the assertion that truth is what works epistemically; i.e. what allows us to make accurate predictions.

Your idiotic refusal to familiarize yourself with modern philosophy bites you in the ass yet again. :)
"If I can love God more and more, and do His bidding with a glad heart, then He will reward me with His love. I will find peace within myself".

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Robert Anton Wilson

Post by David Quinn »

vicdan wrote:This passage BTW is useless here, because I explicitly renounced any claims to certainty. It's the illusion of certainty ('positive knowledge' as he calls it) that Kierkgaard argues against; though he argues mostly against the illusion of certainty in historical knowledge, the same argument can be applied to all forms of knowledge about the perceptible world.

It could if you're looking for an easy cop-out. Generally speaking, people aren't willing to properly distinguish between what can be known with certainty and what can't. Such a process is too intense for them on an existential level. So they either seek refuge in the mindlessness of religion, or throw up their arms and collapse into the easy "nothing can be known with certainty" mindset. Either way, it is a lazy man's form of certainty.

And funnily enough, they are two of the illusions of certainty that Kierkegaard speaks against.

If anything, this passage should be directed to QRS, because they are the ones who claim to be able to attain certainty about the 'ultimate reality'.
"but certainty can only be had in the infinite ....."

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Robert Anton Wilson

Post by David Quinn »

vicdan wrote:And yes, I consider faith to be the greatest evil which plagues mankind. Our propensity to believe because we wish to believe, rather than because evidence justifies such belief, is amazing and pervasive, and I think it underlies most forms of evil and corruption, either moral or intellectual.
I find this quite amusing because I consider you to be a person whose entire existence is one of faith. You have faith in Quine, for example, and in your numerous little scripts, such as "all knowledge is provisional", and in the idea that science is the only valid means of gaining knowledge, etc, etc. You take all these things on faith.

The very fact that you no longer experience any inner conflict is a sign that you are deeply immersed in faith. That you believe this to have been progress is yet another article of faith.

I have yet to observe any aspect of your thinking which isn't propped up by faith.

-
User avatar
vicdan
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:48 am
Location: Western MA, USA
Contact:

Re: Robert Anton Wilson

Post by vicdan »

David Quinn wrote:
vicdan wrote:If anything, this passage should be directed to QRS, because they are the ones who claim to be able to attain certainty about the 'ultimate reality'.
"but certainty can only be had in the infinite ....."-
... "where he cannot as an existing subject remain, but only repeatedly arrive". Kierkgaard didn't think you could attain knowledge of the infinite in any but most momentary sense. I don't think the concept is even meaningful, of coruse, but the point is that you are quoting Kierkgaard out of context to support your faith.
I find this quite amusing because I consider you to be a person whose entire existence is one of faith. You have faith in Quine, for example, and in your numerous little scripts, such as "all knowledge is provisional", and in the idea that science is the only valid means of gaining knowledge, etc, etc. You take all these things on faith.
Right, and it was with faith that i made you and Rowden look like intellectual douchebags in the radio interview. Because faith makes for such a potent argument. :)
The very fact that you no longer experience any inner conflict is a sign that you are deeply immersed in faith.
And of course you take this claim as an article of faith. :D
Forethought Venus Wednesday
Ataraxia
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 11:41 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Robert Anton Wilson

Post by Ataraxia »

vicdan wrote:
This passage BTW is useless here, because I explicitly renounced any claims to certainty.
Yesterday you seemed certain Noumena don't exist.This is why I'm trying to understand what you do believe.

It seems to me at least, on the one hand you (and Quine) believe in physical objects--science/empiricism depends on this after all--but yet to you said objects don't objectively exist.

You don't want to distinguish betwen the empirical world and 'being' as,say, Heiddegger and Satre does.

So again I ask,what then do you imagine is at the end of your microscope? I'm genuinely interested.

To save you the trouble of more inquiry, I don't current believe anything--I have no 'ism' at this point in time,although I'm working on that.
User avatar
Loki
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:47 am

Re: Robert Anton Wilson

Post by Loki »

Ataxaria, your style of hardly using the space bar is as bizarre as it is annoying.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Robert Anton Wilson

Post by David Quinn »

vicdan wrote:
David Quinn wrote:
vicdan wrote:If anything, this passage should be directed to QRS, because they are the ones who claim to be able to attain certainty about the 'ultimate reality'.
"but certainty can only be had in the infinite ....."-
...
"where he cannot as an existing subject remain, but only repeatedly arrive". Kierkgaard didn't think you could attain knowledge of the infinite in any but most momentary sense.

You cannot know you have "arrived" without having knowledge of the destination.

Understanding, the only kind that really counts, is indeed a living thing in the moment which cannot be possesed. It isn't something that can be frozen into theory. Kierkegaard rightly points out such frozen knowledge - the kind of knowledge you favour, Victor - boils down to being an illusion of certainty.

I don't think the concept is even meaningful, of coruse, but the point is that you are quoting Kierkgaard out of context to support your faith.
You haven't even the slightest understanding of Kierkegaard. He is wholly beyond your world-view.

vicdan wrote:
I find this quite amusing because I consider you to be a person whose entire existence is one of faith. You have faith in Quine, for example, and in your numerous little scripts, such as "all knowledge is provisional", and in the idea that science is the only valid means of gaining knowledge, etc, etc. You take all these things on faith.
Right, and it was with faith that i made you and Rowden look like intellectual douchebags in the radio interview. Because faith makes for such a potent argument. :)

It certainly lays the platform for being single-minded and aggressive towards others, and can make one feel as though one is an untouchable king. Whether that translates into the creation of meaningful intellectual argument is another matter.

No, you display all the hallmarks of a rigid man of faith.

-
User avatar
Shahrazad
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm

Re: Robert Anton Wilson

Post by Shahrazad »

You convinced me, David -- Victor and QRS are all men of faith. People without any faith at all look a lot more like me: uncertain about mostly everything. You guys just couldn't stand having doubts.
Sharly_Li
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:16 pm
Location: Down Under

Re: Robert Anton Wilson

Post by Sharly_Li »

Heh, well then. Just to help not let things get too off track, thought i d share this piece from Robert Anton Wilson's 'Prometheus Rising' :-)



William James, father of American psychology, tells of meeting an old lady who told him the Earth rested on the back of a huge turtle. "But, my dear lady," Professor James asked, as politely as possible, "what holds up the turtle?" "Ah," she said, "that's easy. He is standing on the back of another turtle." "Oh, I see," said Professor James, still being polite. "But would you be so good as to tell me what holds up the second turtle?" "It's no use, Professor," said the old lady, realizing he was trying to lead her into a logical trap. "It's turtles-turtles-turtles, all the way!"

Don't be too quick to laugh at this little old lady. All human minds work on fundamentally similar principles. Her universe was a little bit weirder than most but it was built up on the same mental principles as every other universe people have believed in.

As Dr. Leonard Orr has noted, the human mind behaves as if it were divided into two parts, the Thinker and the Prover. The Thinker can think about virtually anything. History shows that it can think the earth is suspended on the backs of infinite turtles or that the Earth is hollow, or that the Earth is floating in space, comparative religion and philosophy show that the Thinker can regard itself as mortal, as immortal, as both mortal and immortal (the reincarnation model) or even as non- existent (Buddhism). It can think itself into living in a Christian universe, a Marxist universe, a scientific-relativistic universe, or a Nazi universe—among many possibilities. As psychiatrists and psychologists have often observed (much to the chagrin of their medical colleagues), the Thinker can think itself sick, and can even think itself well again.

The Prover is a much simpler mechanism. It operates on one law only: Whatever the Thinker thinks, the Prover proves. To cite a notorious example which unleashed incredible horrors earlier in this century, if the Thinker thinks that all Jews are rich, the Prover will prove it. It will find evidence that the poorest Jew in the most run-down ghetto has hidden money somewhere. Similarly, Feminists are able to believe that all men, including the starving wretches who live and sleep on the streets, are exploiting all women, including the Queen of England.

If the Thinker thinks that the sun moves around the earth, the Prover will obligingly organize all perceptions to fit that thought; if the Thinker changes its mind and decides the earth moves around the sun, the Prover will reorganize the evidence. If the Thinker thinks "holy water" from Lourdes will cure its lumbago, the Prover will skillfully orchestrate all signals from the glands, muscles, organs etc. until they have organized them- selves into good health again.

Of course, it is fairly easy to see that other people's minds operate this way; it is comparatively much harder to become aware that one's own mind is working that way also. It is believed, for instance, that some men are more "objective" than others. (One seldom hears this about women...) Businessmen are allegedly hard-nosed, pragmatic and "objective" in this sense. A brief examination of the dingbat politics most businessmen endorse will quickly correct that impression.

Scientists, however, are still believed to be objective. No study of the lives of the great scientists will confirm this. They were as passionate, and hence as prejudiced, as any assembly of great painters or great musicians. It was not just the Church but also the established astronomers of the time who condemned Galileo. The majority of physicists rejected Einstein's Special Relativity Theory in 1905. Einstein himself would not accept anything in quantum theory after 1920 no matter how many experiments supported it. Edison's commitment to direct current (DC) electrical generators led him to insist alternating current (AC) generators were unsafe for years after their safety had been proven to everyone else.'

Science achieves, or approximates, objectivity not because the individual scientist is immune from the psychological laws that govern the rest of us, but because scientific method—a group creation—eventually overrides individual prejudices, in the long run.

To take a notorious example from the 1960s, there was a point when three research groups had "proven" that LSD causes chromosome damage, while three other groups had "proven" that LSD has no effect on the chromosomes. In each case, the Prover had proved what the Thinker thought. Right now, there are, in physics, 7 experiments that confirm a very controversial concept known as Bell's Theorem, and two experiments that refute Bell's Theorem. In the area of extra-sensory perception, the results are uniform after more than a century: everybody who sets out to prove that ESP exists succeeds, and everybody who sets out to prove that ESP does not exist also succeeds. "Truth" or relative truth emerges only after decades of experiments by thousands of groups all over the world.

In the long run, we are hopefully approximating closer and closer to "objective Truth" over the centuries. In the short run, Orr's law always holds: Whatever the Thinker thinks, the Prover will prove.' And if the Thinker thinks passionately enough, the Prover will prove the thought so conclusively that you will never talk a person out of such a belief, even if it is something as remarkable as the notion that there is a gaseous vertebrate of astronomical heft ("GOD") who will spend all eternity torturing people who do not believe in his religion.

EXERCIZES

Sad as it is to say, you never understand anything by merely reading a book about it. That's why every science course includes laboratory experiments, and why every consciousness- liberation movement demands practice of yogas, meditations, confrontation techniques, etc. in which the ideas are tested in the laboratory of your own nervous system.

The reader will absolutely not understand this book unless he or she does the exercizes given at the end of each chapter.

To explore the Thinker and the Prover, try the following:

1. Visualize a quarter vividly, and imagine vividly that you are going to find the quarter on the street. Then, look for the quarter every time you take a walk, meanwhile continuing to visualize it.See how long it takes you to find the quarter.

2. Explain the above experiment by the hypothesis of "selective attention" that is, believe there are lots of lost quarters everywhere and you were bound to find one by continually look- ing. Go looking for a second quarter.

3. Explain the experiment by the alternative "mystical" hypothesis that "mind controls everything." Believe that you made the quarter manifest in this universe. Go looking for a second quarter.

4. Compare the time it takes to find the second quarter using the first hypothesis (attention) with the time it takes using the second hypothesis (mind-over-matter).

5. With your own ingenuity, invent similar experiments and each time compare the two theories—"selective attention" (coincidence) vs. "mind controls everything" (psychokinesis).

6. Avoid coming to any strong conclusions prematurely. At the end of a month, re-read this chapter, think it over again, and still postpone coming to any dogmatic conclusion. Believe it possible that you do not know everything yet, and that you might have something still to learn.

7. Convince yourself (if you are not already convinced) that you are ugly, unattractive and dull. Go to a party in that frame of mind. Observe how people treat you.

8. Convince yourself (if you are not already convinced) that you are handsome, irresistible and witty. Go to a party in that frame of mind. Observe how people treat you.

9. This is the hardest of all exercizes and comes in two parts. First, observe closely and dispassionately two dear friends and two relative strangers. Try to figure out what their Thinkers think, and how their Provers methodically set about proving it. Second, apply the same exercize to yourself.

If you think you have learned the lessons of these exercizes in less than six months, you haven't really been working at them. With real work, in six months you should be just beginning to realize how little you know about everything.

10. Believe it possible that you can float off the ground and fly by merely willing it. See what happens. If this exercize proves as disappointing to you as it has to me, try number 11 below, which is never disappointing.

11. Believe that you can exceed all your previous ambitions
and hopes in all areas of your life. "Believe" or "convince yourself mean to do what an actor does: pretend until the pretense begins to feel real. Or, as Jazz musicians say: "Fake it until you make it."
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: Robert Anton Wilson

Post by guest_of_logic »

David Quinn wrote:No, you display all the hallmarks of a rigid man of faith.
I like it when things that I say are demonstrated even further than I originally demonstrated them. See if you can work out which part of that post I'm referring to.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5740
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Robert Anton Wilson

Post by Dan Rowden »

Shahrazad wrote:You convinced me, David -- Victor and QRS are all men of faith. People without any faith at all look a lot more like me: uncertain about mostly everything. You guys just couldn't stand having doubts.
I rather doubt that.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Robert Anton Wilson

Post by David Quinn »

Shahrazad wrote:You convinced me, David -- Victor and QRS are all men of faith. People without any faith at all look a lot more like me: uncertain about mostly everything. You guys just couldn't stand having doubts.
It is only through facing doubts squarely that one can reach genuine certainty. Lazily putting up with them is simply that - laziness.

-
User avatar
vicdan
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:48 am
Location: Western MA, USA
Contact:

Re: Robert Anton Wilson

Post by vicdan »

Ataraxia wrote:Yesterday you seemed certain Noumena don't exist.This is why I'm trying to understand what you do believe.
Then ask me -- because you clearly have no clue. At no point did i claim that noumena don't exist. In fact, i would go so far as to say that so claim "noumena don't exist" is a category error.
It seems to me at least, on the one hand you (and Quine) believe in physical objects--science/empiricism depends on this after all--but yet to you said objects don't objectively exist.
No, I didn't. Try again. :)

Boy, you are in totally wrong plane of thought here. You are thinking within the wrong paradigm.
So again I ask,what then do you imagine is at the end of your microscope? I'm genuinely interested.
There are instrumental perceptions. They are theory laden. We have theories which correlate our current observations with future observations -- i.e. theories with predictive power. When i speak of existence, it's purely in linguistic sense. All we have is perception. This is not to say that things exist or don't exist, but rather than that's the wrong way to approach the issue. Things are perceived, and we build predictive models of future perceptions using past perceptions. To speak of existence is only meaningful inasmuch as we speak about perceptions and predictions of perceptions; speaking of existence apart from perception is referentially incoherent.

So what you see at the end of a microscope is inputs for predicting future perceptions -- say, if you see a malignant bacterium in a tissue sample, you might predict that the same donor is about to get sick, i.e. about to be observed as exhibiting certain symptoms which in turn can be used to predict future, even worse, symptoms, etc. This is what the observation means. The predictions are the content of theories and observations.

That's why i said that you are in the wrong plane of thought. You are still trying to think noumenally, trying to separate existence from observation.
Forethought Venus Wednesday
User avatar
vicdan
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:48 am
Location: Western MA, USA
Contact:

Re: Robert Anton Wilson

Post by vicdan »

David Quinn wrote:You haven't even the slightest understanding of Kierkegaard. He is wholly beyond your world-view.
he is beneath my worldview. I have about as much interest in religious existentialism as in poking my eye with a sharp stick. Most existentialism is so much whining anyway, and the religious varieties of it are outright pitiful. However, unlike your abject ignorance of modern philosophy, I have some passing familiarity with Kierkegaard's thought. i studied it in college, you see. (queue complaints about academia)
vicdan wrote:No, you display all the hallmarks of a rigid man of faith.
With one teeny tiny exception -- you utterly fail to show which beliefs I hold without rational justification.
Forethought Venus Wednesday
User avatar
vicdan
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:48 am
Location: Western MA, USA
Contact:

Re: Robert Anton Wilson

Post by vicdan »

Shahrazad wrote:You convinced me, David -- Victor and QRS are all men of faith. People without any faith at all look a lot more like me: uncertain about mostly everything. You guys just couldn't stand having doubts.
Except that I explicitly renounce any claims to certainty of course. other than that, i am totally certain of my beliefs. :)
Forethought Venus Wednesday
User avatar
Shahrazad
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm

Re: Robert Anton Wilson

Post by Shahrazad »

Dan,
Sher: You guys just couldn't stand having doubts.

Dan: I rather doubt that.
No, you don't. You know I am wrong.

-
User avatar
Shahrazad
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm

Re: Robert Anton Wilson

Post by Shahrazad »

David,
It is only through facing doubts squarely that one can reach genuine certainty.
Right, and you believe that you can and have reached it. A true man of faith. Jesus would be proud of you.

Lazily putting up with them is simply that - laziness.
I hope I didn't give you the impression that I'm not lazy. Not being so ends up causing wasted resources.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Robert Anton Wilson

Post by David Quinn »

Shahrazad wrote:
Lazily putting up with [doubts] is simply that - laziness.
I hope I didn't give you the impression that I'm not lazy. Not being so ends up causing wasted resources.

And by the same token, nothing is achieved.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Robert Anton Wilson

Post by David Quinn »

vicdan wrote:
Shahrazad wrote:You convinced me, David -- Victor and QRS are all men of faith. People without any faith at all look a lot more like me: uncertain about mostly everything. You guys just couldn't stand having doubts.
Except that I explicitly renounce any claims to certainty of course.

Are you saying that you don't really know what "instrumentalism" is?

What is the worth of your "explicitly renouncing claims to certainty" when implicit claims to certainty underlie your every post?

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Robert Anton Wilson

Post by David Quinn »

vicdan wrote:
David Quinn wrote:No, you display all the hallmarks of a rigid man of faith.
With one teeny tiny exception -- you utterly fail to show which beliefs I hold without rational justification.
Where does one start? The belief that the "scientific method is the only valid means of gaining meaningful knowledge" is the first that springs to mind. Pure faith, that one.

-
User avatar
Shahrazad
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm

Re: Robert Anton Wilson

Post by Shahrazad »

David: Lazily putting up with [doubts] is simply that - laziness.

Shah: I hope I didn't give you the impression that I'm not lazy. Not being so ends up causing wasted resources.

David: And by the same token, nothing is achieved.


Oh, but I do achieve quite a lot; it's just that I look for the easiest, shortest way to do so. Of course, those things whose cost exceeds the benefit don't get done at all, but only irrational people would do them anyway.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Robert Anton Wilson

Post by David Quinn »

vicdan wrote:There are instrumental perceptions. They are theory laden. We have theories which correlate our current observations with future observations -- i.e. theories with predictive power. When i speak of existence, it's purely in linguistic sense. All we have is perception. This is not to say that things exist or don't exist, but rather than that's the wrong way to approach the issue. Things are perceived, and we build predictive models of future perceptions using past perceptions. To speak of existence is only meaningful inasmuch as we speak about perceptions and predictions of perceptions; speaking of existence apart from perception is referentially incoherent.

So what you see at the end of a microscope is inputs for predicting future perceptions -- say, if you see a malignant bacterium in a tissue sample, you might predict that the same donor is about to get sick, i.e. about to be observed as exhibiting certain symptoms which in turn can be used to predict future, even worse, symptoms, etc. This is what the observation means. The predictions are the content of theories and observations.

That's why i said that you are in the wrong plane of thought. You are still trying to think noumenally, trying to separate existence from observation.
"I perceive God in the world around me. If I pray to Him and do His bidding with a glad heart, He will reward me with His love, and I will feel peace within myself."

Instrumentalism at work.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Robert Anton Wilson

Post by David Quinn »

Shahrazad wrote:
David: Lazily putting up with [doubts] is simply that - laziness.

Shah: I hope I didn't give you the impression that I'm not lazy. Not being so ends up causing wasted resources.

David: And by the same token, nothing is achieved.

Oh, but I do achieve quite a lot; it's just that I look for the easiest, shortest way to do so.
And the shortest, easiest way to deal with doubts is to simply put up with them. And the shortest, easiest way to be content with this is to push the doubts into the background. And the shortest, easiest way to gain a feeling that one has some wisdom is to make a virtue out of this.

-
Locked