Comment by throwanem | Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwanem | Hacker News Reader

Those this way interested might also find rewarding the Illuminatus! trilogy by Shea and Wilson; it pretends no special mystical insight, has served as the foundational myth of approximately zero cults (fewer than Heinlein!), and includes at least one dolphin. Does Castaneda have dolphins? Well, I haven't read him myself, but the closest thing the Internet knows about is a College of Staten Island Dolphin Athletics - I suppose I would've thought they are athletic enough already, but go figure - which apparently boasts a star swimmer sharing the name. So instead of Castaneda having dolphins, we find that the situation is precisely opposite, and indeed the dolphins have Castaneda, which is probably just as well for him, since dolphins are constitutionally immune to bullshit and he will likely have a much less complicated life this time around. And, since Illuminatus! has dolphins, by the transitive relation we know that Illuminatus! is a strict superset of Castaneda, and therefore more worth reading, or at least more worth reading first.

I think our current political culture would be immeasurably improved by everyone reading Illuminatus! and Foucault's Pendulum.

I think that on worldlines where it's even marginally probable that a significant fraction of the population has read either of these books, political cultures such as our own are vastly unlikely to exist in the first place. But no doubt they have their own problems, too.

I'll be reading Illuminatus! since you've related it to Pendulum. I came to Pendulum after seeing it related to Labyrinths (https://www.amazon.com/Labyrinths-Directions-Paperbook-Jorge...) if by any chance you haven't read that you should check it out.

I already added Pendulum to my list based on empath75's mention of it; thanks for mentioning Labyrinths, and I've added that, too.

Exactly, good advice and that's why I'm a proud discordian, next to a faithful roman catholic etc. Or was Illuminatus a subset of discordia? can't remember... If you like Illuminatus, you also might like this: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/bb/

I forget which came first, but I was once deeply annoyed to have an expensive mail-order copy of Principia confiscated by a schoolteacher on suspicion of Satanism, until much later I realized how perfectly apropos that was in every possible way.

It wasn't until a couple of years after, or maybe before, that, that I finally laid hands on Illuminatus!. Only book I ever stole from a library, if you want to call it "stealing" - it'd been there over a decade, never once checked out, and wasn't even in the electronic card catalog; I felt sorry for the poor thing, which seemed desperately lonely, and gave it a good home in place of a neglectful one. Still have it, in fact. Probably still have a copy of Principia, too, but if so, I don't know where in my shelves it is, which should tell you all you need to know about which comes first in my estimation.

(On reflection, I suspect I first found an electronic copy of Principia, rather lacking in illustration being the plain text file it was, then discovered the existence of Illuminatus! and found my copy, and finally sent off for a paper Principia which by that point was amusing but somewhat supernumerary. Do you really call yourself a Discordian in public? Why?)

Oh, man! Illuminatus! trilogy is brilliant. <3

> fewer than Heinlein!

L Ron Hubbard?

Everybody knows Hubbard started a cult. But I'm talking about the "Church of All Worlds", which found its foundation myth in one of Heinlein's rather less good novels that was nonetheless all the rage for a while in the sixties - while it's no longer easily to hand, I have seen a photo of a couple of hippies at Woodstock, one holding a copy of the novel and expounding to the other. (Possibly expounding; they may just both be really high.)

(Ex-CAW member here; have been out of it for more than a decade. Posting anonymously for professional reasons, but I used to be personally well-acquainted with both the founders of Church of All Worlds and Robert Anton Wilson.)

Church of all world still nominally exists, and has been through several incarnations during the 60s. Although its foundational premise was indeed deeply silly, it was self-consciously so: an act of intentional myth-making. It encouraged its members to explore other spiritual paths as well as to create their own; and there were many CAW members who were committed Buddhists, Jews, atheists, etc.; a large majority counted themselves as Discordians. The only principles held as official dogmas were things like "Nature is Good", and "Be Excellent to Each Other" (because why the fuck shouldn't Bill & Ted be part of your mythos?). So it was all in rather good fun.

This is not to say that the organization didn't have its problems. Chiefly, it was frequently subject to nasty internal politicking -- personality-driven power-plays of the sort that are unfortunately quite common in idealistically non-hierarchical organizations. But when measured against typical metrics for cults, eg[1], it fails on every single count.

Anyhow, just a gentle reminder that not every new religious movement is a cult (in the conventional modern pejorative sense of the word).

[edit: fixed link.]

1: http://www.icsahome.com/articles/characteristics

You're not wrong, of course; my use of "cult" here was mainly just a cheesy potshot because I think it's silly and I don't think it thinks it is, at least not the way you describe - but perhaps that's only because I've never seen it save from the outside.

("Nature is Good" strikes me as lacking nuance, though. I see what you're going for, but toothache is natural, too.)

Judging by his written works, Wilson seems like he would've been quite a man to know. I'd like to be able to say I'm not so small a person as to envy you that opportunity just a little, but honesty compels me otherwise. He was kind of a minor hero to me in my youth and early adulthood, seeing as Illuminatus! helped me gain the perspective to get through some very difficult times in my life; if nothing else, I'd have liked the chance to thank him for that.

I agree with you re: the "Nature is Good" dogma. In spirit, it was meant to convey respect for the cycle of life, diversity of the biosphere, etc. Gets seriously problematic if extended to, I dunno, the Polio virus and asteroid impacts. In any case, that particular dogma dates to the the 1960s, when nuance wasn't exactly the flavor of the decade. And arguing about stuff is good, too!

And yep, Wilson was the real deal. His work had also been a huge influence on me at the time that I met him. I still evangelize Quantum Psychology to anyone who I think can handle it.

Thanks for reminding me of that one! I need to dig it out of my bookshelf and read it again - it's been years.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com