Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea. Blog, Internet resources, online reading groups, articles and interviews, Illuminatus! info.

Monday, April 18, 2022

Prometheus Rising exercise and discussion group, Episode 77, Chapter 14


As I struggle with this new chapter, and I think about the mind, and thinking about the models the mind makes, I wanted to share a parable I read about my favorite book about Buddhism, What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula. It reminded me of some of the statements in Chapter 14 of Prometheus Rising. 

In the Buddha's telling, a man on a journey finds his way blocked by a large body of water. So he gathers wood and other materials, makes a raft, and succeeds in safely crossing over so that he can continue his journey.

The Buddha asked his months, would it be proper for the man to continue his journey by carrying the raft on his head or his back wherever he went? No, the monks answered.

"In the same manner, O bhikkhus, I have taught a doctrine similar to the raft -- it is for crossing over, and not for carrying," the Buddha observes.

I'll have to keep reading this chapter, and see how I can do in discussing it, when it's my turn to blog again. I get one more crack at writing about it before we go on to Chapter 15. In the meantime, I will be re-reading the chapter and working on the exercises. 


Oz Fritz said...

I highly value most of the metaprograms attributed to Buddha.

RAW corresponds the metaprogramming circuit with Gurdjieff's "True Intellectual Center." He also writes that most genuine occult literature consists of methods to "trigger metaprogramming consciousness." Deleuze suggests that creative thought, i.e. metaprogramming consciousness, can get provoked through paradox. Crowley uses paradox extensively and to great effect in The Book of Lies.

One synch with this chapter: before reading it I recorded a video about the first chapter of The Logic of Sense, which Deleuze begins by introducing Lewis Carrolls' Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. I read chapter 14 here a couple of days later and saw: "Alice in Wonderlandis a masterful guide to the metaprogramming circuit (written by one of the founders of mathematical logic) and Aleister Crowley soberly urged its study upon all students of yoga." (p. 209). I mentioned the influence Alice had on RAW and Crowley in my video.

Spookah, I watched the Mishlove video on the Fatima prophecies and enjoyed it. Interesting how the Church has considered Russia a problem for a long time and attempted to magically solve it by consecrating Russia to the BVM. They have the right idea, despite this magick not appearing potent enough to counter this country's unbalanced male aggression.

The question "Who's Zelenka?" persists throughout the latter part of Schrodinger's Cat. Finally, in the penultimate chapter, we find none other than, naturally enough, Hugh Crane (Ukraine) who provides the answer, Jan Zelenka, along with a brief bio of him. In another novel, in a different universe, Zelensky leads Ukraine in their fight for survival.

Spookah said...

@Tom Jackson: “If this begins to sound like nonsense, that is inevitable on this level.” (p.210)

@Oz Fritz: I am glad you enjoyed the New Thinking Allowed discussion. I find it fascinating how many things around us keep on syncing with the PR reading group. I also noted the Alice In Wonderland and nonsense correspondance with your video, which I watched earlier today.

I find that the classic John Lilly quote found on p.205 echoes the Crowley one that opens this chapter. RAW even says it again on the last page, “there are no limits.”

I get a feeling that the most important exercize of this chapter is not to be found at the end, but rather might be the Omniscient Computer one.

P.209: “The self seems to be fixed and firm, but is not; that is, whatever circuit you are operating on at the moment is your “self” at that moment.” This links back to chapter 11, exercize 5, with Da Free John asking “who is the One who is living me now?”

If trying to link this chapter on C7 with the corresponding one on C3, I see that p.209 name-drop Korzybski again, and says that “third-circuit semantic maps are not the territories they represent; that we can always make maps of our maps, revisions of our revisions, meta-selves of our selves.”

The following point made about mind-1, mind-2 etc suggests to me a new depth of understanding for the Burroughs/Gysin quote about the Third Mind that opens chapter 6.

The considerations of exercizes 2 and 3 about reality-tunnels 1200 years in the past and future should probably be done with the “future shock” paragraph in mind. “The process is however accelerating faster as time passes, because the symbolizing faculty is self-augmenting”. (p.76)

The Alvin Toffler connection was then further expanded on in the ‘time-binding dialectic’ chapter, with Korzybski’s PR function (p.92). Perhaps this could mean that, in turn, the meta-programmer is self-augmenting as well. In this case, maybe after mind-1 and mind-2 brought about a Third Mind that is more than the sum of its parts, then a potential ‘fourth mind’ would actually be something like ThirdMind³, and so forth and so on. “There are no limits”.

“Unleashing our full stature – our total brain power – is what this book is all about.” RAW

Spookah said...

By the way, in my previous post I did not mean to imply that a process of Intelligence Increase would necessarily be exponential. As RAW writes on the previously mentioned page 92, “the math, again, was too simple; and everything does not change at the same rate.” Rather that in a more general way, it could be a positive feedback. “It does not return to a steady state, but constantly seeks a new equilibrium at a higher energy level.” (p.89)
Regardless, it makes a lot of sense to me to assume that the C7 metaprogramming circuit would function in a similar way than the C3 time-binding semantic one.

Since Gödel, Escher, Bach is being paid lip service to in chapter 14, I decided to dig up my copy and will attempt reading it (so far, it was mostly gathering dust and making me look smarter than I am).

The famous Achilles-Tortoise dialogues that inhabit the book are inspired by Lewis Carroll, who in 1895 wrote What The Tortoise Said To Achilles, to illustrate “his own new paradox of infinity”.

The ‘Musical Offering’ is the Bach piece that is used as a starting point. Its canonical structure is said to be full of isomorphisms. This calls to mind Finnegans Wake, which is often referenced to in PR. I suspect that this might be an indication as to some of the inner workings of C7, as well as maybe the structure of PR itself.

It is also said that Bach wrote in the margin of the Offering ‘quaerendo invenietis’, which translates as ‘by seeking, you will discover’. A Hermetic statement if there ever was one, which could also apply to PR.

Here is the beautiful soundtrack for an 1982 animated Ukrainian version of Alice Through The Looking Glass: