RAW Resurgence

briandean-raw-disinfo-01
Photo by Brian Dean

RAW resurgence

There’s a wave of interest in Robert Anton Wilson right now – a new biography of Wilson is due in 2017, and a RAW-influenced history of the 20th century was recently published, both of these coming from “mainstream” publishers. This is good to see, of course, although I’m old enough to have witnessed previous RAW resurgences, so I’ll mix a little bit of scepticism with my enthusiasm.

I became fascinated with Robert Anton Wilson’s work in the 1980s, after Bill Nelson (the incomparable British musician) recommended his Secrets of Power recording. I was fortunate enough to see RAW give a couple of hilariously surreal, illuminating talks in London, and I corresponded with him briefly in the mid-1990s – it was a thrill for me when his Trajectories newsletter featured my satirical zine, Anxiety Culture.

I’ve written, previously, about the mutual harmoniousness of RAW’s ideas with current research on cognitive framing, and I’ve described how his notion of “model agnosticism” can be used to open up media criticism and depolarise political debate. There’s so much to say about the side of RAW’s writing which attempted to combat – with optimum semantic leverage – what he saw as the main sources of violence on the planet: dogmatism and closed belief systems, fundamentalism and self-righteous idolatry.

RAW redux

On a weird night in 1990 (or possibly 1991) I took the train straight from my office job in northwest England to see RAW “perform” in central London. There was some sort of Christian demonstration going on in the street outside the venue, and although I couldn’t figure out what they were protesting (it was already dark, and I was in a hurry to get inside), I enjoyed imagining that they’d taken exception to RAW’s joke, On Sodomizing Camels, which compared the Catholic Pope unfavourably to Ayatollah Khomeini.

I think I was the oldest person in the audience that night, although I wasn’t yet thirty. Still in my office suit, I stood out in a crowd of young zippies who looked dressed for a rave. But I felt pretty much at home – these were, I guessed, the people producing (or reading) counterculture magazines such as Evolution/EPi and Head, which occasionally included excerpts from my own obscure zine in addition to material from the likes of Terence McKenna and RAW.

There always seemed to be a buzz surrounding Robert Anton Wilson – he was constantly being “discovered” by delighted new fans among the alienated classes. And, of course, he was just as constantly ignored by the people seen as arbiters of “importance” and “credibility” in our society. For RAW, that meant the New York intelligentsia. In a fascinating interview with Eric Wagner, Wilson said: “the only way to get famous as a writer is to get praised by really important New York reviewers. None of whom have ever admitted I exist… If they ever discover me they’ll come after me with pickaxes and tomahawks.”

Ironies of going “mainstream”

The forthcoming RAW biography, which I mentioned above, is from the respectable publisher, TarcherPenguin, and has the wonderful title, “Chapel Perilous: The Life and Thought Crimes of Robert Anton Wilson”. Its author is Gabriel Kennedy.

My first reaction to hearing about it was to wonder if the publisher is the same “Tarcher” which rejected RAW’s masterpiece, Prometheus Rising. Here’s RAW’s recollection of what happened:

“The first publisher to whom I submitted it, Jeremy Tarcher, held it for a full year of meditation before rejecting it; his only explanation for the rejection concerned the mixture of technologese and ‘counter culture’ slang that has since become my most frequent style in nonfiction. […] A month later, I heard from Tarcher again: he had changed his mind and decided he wanted the book after all. I was in one of my periods of acute poverty then (something that happens periodically to all freelance writers) and it was with great effort that I refrained from telling Mr. Tarcher to go fuck himself. I just told him I had a contract with another publisher.” (From RAW’s preface to the second edition of PR)

The Jeremy Tarcher that RAW refers to here was indeed founder of the group (now a Penguin imprint) publishing the new RAW biography – although Tarcher himself no longer headed the group after 1996, and died in 2015.

Another recent RAW-related book from a mainstream publisher is John Higgs’s Stranger Than We Can Imagine, which is presented as “an alternative history of the 20th century”, and is heavily influenced by Robert Anton Wilson, both in its cast of characters (Emperor Norton, Korzybski, Crowley, etc) and in the treatment of ideas such as “model agnosticism”.

Higgs’s book has a very good section on the relevance of multiple-model agnosticism in a society which currently seems plagued by strident forms of dogmatism and intolerance. I think his readers would benefit from being directed to the mother lode on this topic, namely Bob Wilson. Oddly, though, Higgs doesn’t credit or acknowledge Wilson anywhere in the book (the only mention is a listing for Illuminatus! in the bibliography) – although he does acknowledge his debt to RAW elsewhere:

“RAW was so integral to the thinking that went into the book […] Bob was the scaffolding that this book was built around. It’s tidied away when the thing’s presented to the public, but it couldn’t have been built without him.”

Multiple-model / Frame Semantics

My enthusiasm for RAW’s ideas precedes my interest in the somewhat drier linguistics work of George Lakoff by about 20 years. I owe my appreciation of the importance of Lakoff’s Frame Semantics to those two decades in which I internalised RAW’s multiple-model neurosemantics approach. As a prime example, I would cite Models, Metaphors and Idols, the first chapter in RAW’s book, The New Inquisition. Here, Wilson writes that to want something is, metaphorically, to be empty – “want” and “vacant” coming from the same root – and that talking of desires as “appetites”, etc, expresses the same metaphor.

He then writes about how the structure of language metaphorically programs how we think. For example, consider the convention which makes us say, “it is raining”, even though we no longer believe in rain gods, and would find it difficult to say what the “it” refers to. This is because of an Indo-European language convention that a verb should be preceded by a substantive noun – “that an action must be attributed to some isolated and allegedly reified Actor” (to quote RAW).

This approach to metaphor, not as peripheral or a poetic flourish – but as central to thought, a fundamental mechanism of mind – is very similar to that of Lakoff. RAW talks about the importance of using multiple models, and stresses the dangers of getting stuck with one model, one metaphorical construct, which we mistake for “reality”. His emphasis on this chimes with what I call the “metaphoric pluralism” approach of Lakoff and Mark Johnson, in their groundbreaking work on conceptual metaphor, Metaphors We live By:

“Successful functioning in our daily lives seems to require a constant shifting of metaphors. The use of many metaphors that are inconsistent with one another seems necessary for us if we are to comprehend the details of our daily existence”. (Metaphors We Live By, Lakoff and Johnson – my emphasis)

RAW’s ideas have been around for a while, but the study of conceptual metaphor pioneered by Lakoff is fairly new, and radical, in cognitive linguistics. I encourage people to see the connections – we’re only just starting to see the huge potential of this field.

Brian Dean

Brian Dean

Brian Dean has written columns for the Guardian newspaper, The Idler and Sleaze magazine. His work has also appeared in the Independent, Big Issue, Alternative Press Review, etc. He is author of, and contributor to, a number of books, including Lazy Person’s Guide to Framing: Decoding the News Media (Futura, 2014) and Point Taken: A Brief Thematic Reader (Ed: Elizabeth Penfield, Longman, 2003)
Brian Dean

Latest posts by Brian Dean (see all)