A new post from Brian Dean, "‘Physics as Metaphor’ & RAW." It begins:
"Here’s a book that Robert Anton Wilson cites intriguingly: Physics as Metaphor, by Roger Jones (1982). And what an unexpectedly wide, deep and luxuriant read. Bob W. references it several times, and it’s on at least one of his book lists (’50 books from the library of Robert Anton Wilson’, RE/Search #18). I said 'unexpectedly' as I haven’t seen it mentioned before in the wider Wilson world. Hence this post, and a query."
As is usual with Brian, the accompanying artwork is arresting, and as is usual with me, I've nicked one.
3 comments:
Many thanks for the mention, Tom. I would describe my post as covering some aspects of RAW's "guerilla ontology" - aspects that don't often get discussed/investigated (that I can see) in commentary on Wilson. Such as whether "space and time" ["are"] "really real" (to use RAW's words), and on how we can even think about that if we want to avoid both the materialist-/-idealist EITHER/OR and the hopelessly unsatisfactory Cartesian-type dualist compromise, etc. Discussed via themes raised by Jones's book (which Bob recommended).
The RAW thought is strong with this one, this Brian Dean. Let us pay attention.
I've often thought about the politics of Roger Jones's Physics As Metaphor. Most people think metaphors are what poets and novelists play around with. Judging a book by its title/cover: who the eff is this freak trying to say something that's so far removed from poetry - Physics - has anything to do with metaphors?
And especially: those scientists working within the field. I wonder how many don't like the non-physics importation of the term "metaphor" as being central to what they're doing? They're hardcore physical scientists! Oh yes, this Jones character says what we do has something metaphorical about it....but we have MATH! We use measurement and equipment. We're SERIOUS.
Poetry is soft; Physics is hard. Right?
Poetry is for dreamy Humanities types. Physics is for serious, logical, critical thinkers. right?
When Physics As Metaphor seems one of the great bridges-between-disciplines books.
One of the reasons it doesn't often come up in *this* way (it does often come up implicitly/obliquely whenever we talk of RAW's Maybe Logic and non-Aristotelian semantics, etc) has, I think, to do with the "four and only four theories" that RAW identifies in philosophy on the relationship of "mind" and "matter" (as described in my post). Conventional notions reinforced by everyday language structure tend to land us in options 1-3. RAW's preferred option 4 ("the metaphorical way") has to become more explicit for the non-big-headed "aha" moments.
Post a Comment