Robert Anton Wilson: Towards Understanding E-Prime

[krakhead]

I'd be very surprised if this hadn't been presented on this forum before. What do you think? Do you think it would help to reduce the number of arguments? I have seen a lot of IS-ness being presented on here, I find it disturbing and it appears, to me, to lead to more arguments.

IS this a better way of communicating?

TOWARD UNDERSTANDING E -PRIME

Robert Anton Wilson



E-PRIME, abolishing all forms of the verb "to be," has its roots in the field of general semantics, as presented by Alfred Korzybski in his 1933 book, Science and Sanity. Korzybski pointed out the pitfalls associated with, and produced by, two usages of "to be": identity and predication. His student D. David Bourland, Jr., observed that even linguistically sensitive people do not seem able to avoid identity and predication uses of "to be" if they continue to use the verb at all. Bourland pioneered in demonstrating that one can indeed write and speak without using any form of "to be," calling this subset of the English language "E-Prime." Many have urged the use of E-Prime in writing scientific and technical papers. Dr. Kellogg exemplifies a prime exponent of this activity. Dr. Albert Ellis has rewritten five of his books in E-Prime, in collaboration with Dr. Robert H. Moore, to improve their clarity and to reap the epistemological benefits of this language revision. Korzybski felt that all humans should receive training in general semantics from grade school on, as "semantic hygiene" against the most prevalent forms of logical error, emotional distortion, and "demonological thinking." E-Prime provides a straightforward training technique for acquiring such semantic hygiene.

To understand E-Prime, consider the human brain as a computer. (Note that I did not say the brain "is" a computer.) As the Prime Law of Computers tells us, GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT (GIGO, for short). The wrong software guarantees wrong answers. Conversely, finding the right software can "miraculously" solve problems that previously appeared intractable.

It seems likely that the principal software used in the human brain consists of words, metaphors, disguised metaphors, and linguistic structures in general. The Sapir-Whorf-Korzybski Hypothesis, in anthropology, holds that a change in language can alter our perception of the cosmos. A revision of language structure, in particular, can alter the brain as dramatically as a psychedelic. In our metaphor, if we change the software, the computer operates in a new way.

Consider the following paired sets of propositions, in which Standard English alternates with English-Prime (E-Prime):

lA. The electron is a wave.
lB. The electron appears as a wave when measured with instrument-l.
2A. The electron is a particle.
2B. The electron appears as a particle when measured with instrument-2.
3A. John is lethargic and unhappy.
3B. John appears lethargic and unhappy in the office.
4A. John is bright and cheerful.
4B. John appears bright and cheerful on holiday at the beach.
5A. This is the knife the first man used to stab the second man.
5B. The first man appeared to stab the second man with what looked like a knife to me.
6A. The car involved in the hit-and-run accident was a blue Ford.
6B. In memory, I think I recall the car involved in the hit-and-run accident as a blue Ford.
7A. This is a fascist idea.
7B. This seems like a fascist idea to me.
8A. Beethoven is better than Mozart.
8B. In my present mixed state of musical education and ignorance, Beethoven seems better to me than Mozart.
9A. That is a sexist movie.
9B. That seems like a sexist movie to me.
10A. The fetus is a person.
10B. In my system of metaphysics, I classify the fetus as a person.

The "A"-type statements (Standard English) all implicitly or explicitly assume the medieval view called "Aristotelian essentialism" or "naive realism." In other words, they assume a world made up of block-like entities with indwelling "essences" or spooks- "ghosts in the machine." The "B"-type statements (E-Prime) recast these sentences into a form isomorphic to modern science by first abolishing the "is" of Aristotelian essence and then reformulating each observation in terms of signals received and interpreted by a body (or instrument) moving in space-time.

Relativity, quantum mechanics, large sections of general physics, perception psychology, sociology, linguistics, modern math, anthropology, ethology, and several other sciences make perfect sense when put into the software of E-Prime. Each of these sciences generates paradoxes, some bordering on "nonsense" or "gibberish," if you try to translate them back into the software of Standard English.

Concretely, "The electron is a wave" employs the Aristotelian "is" and thereby introduces us to the false-to-experience notion that we can know the indwelling "essence" of the electron. "The electron appears as a wave when measured by instrument-1" reports what actually occurred in space-time, namely that the electron when constrained by a certain instrument behaved in a certain way.

Similarly, "The electron is a particle" contains medieval Aristotelian software, but "The electron appears as a particle when measured by instrument-2" contains modern scientific software. Once again, the software determines whether we impose a medieval or modern grid upon our reality-tunnel.

Note that "the electron is a wave" and "the electron is a particle" contradict each other and begin the insidious process by which we move gradually from paradox to nonsense to total gibberish. On the other hand, the modern scientific statements "the electron appears as a wave when measured one way" and "the electron appears as a particle measured another way" do not contradict, but rather complement each other. (Bohr's Principle of Complementarity, which explained this and revolutionized physics, would have appeared obvious to all, and not just to a person of his genius, if physicists had written in E-Prime all along. . . .)

Looking at our next pair, "John is lethargic and unhappy" vs. "John is bright and cheerful,' we see again how medieval software creates metaphysical puzzles and totally imaginary contradictions. Operationalizing the statements, as physicists since Bohr have learned to operationalize, we find that the E-Prime translations do not contain any contradiction, and even give us a clue as to causes of John's changing moods. (Look back if you forgot the translations.)

"The first man stabbed the second man with a knife" lacks the overt "is" of identity but contains Aristotelian software nonetheless. The E-Prime translation not only operationalizes the data, but may fit the facts better-if the incident occurred in a psychology class, which often conduct this experiment. (The first man "stabs," or makes stabbing gestures at, the second man, with a banana, but many students, conditioned by Aristotelian software, nonetheless "see" a knife. You don't need to take drugs to hallucinate; improper language can fill your world with phantoms and spooks of many kinds.)

The reader may employ his or her own ingenuity in analyzing how "is-ness" creates false-to-facts reality-tunnels in the remaining examples, and how E-Prime brings us back to the scientific, the operational, the existential, the phenomenological--to what humans and their instruments actually do in space-time as they create observations, perceptions, thoughts, deductions, and General Theories.

I have found repeatedly that when baffled by a problem in science, in "philosophy," or in daily life, I gain immediate insight by writing down what I know about the enigma in strict E-Prime. Often, solutions appear immediately-just as happens when you throw out the "wrong" software and put the "right" software into your PC. In other cases, I at least get an insight into why the problem remains intractable and where and how future science might go about finding an answer. (This has contributed greatly to my ever-escalating agnosticism about the political, ideological, and religious issues that still generate the most passion on this primitive planet.)

When a proposition resists all efforts to recast it in a form consistent with what we now call E-Prime, many consider it "meaningless." Korzybski, Wittgenstein, the Logical Positivists, and (in his own way) Niels Bohr promoted this view. I happen to agree with that verdict (which condemns 99 percent of theology and 99.999999 percent of metaphysics to the category of Noise rather than Meaning)--but we must save that subject for another article. For now, it suffices to note that those who fervently believe such Aristotelian propositions as "A piece of bread, blessed by a priest, is a person (who died two thousand years ago)," "The flag is a living being," or "The fetus is a human being" do not, in general, appear to make sense by normal twentieth-century scientific standards.

Original web-site (http://www.nobeliefs.com/eprime.htm) - also includes an addendum that I think would be useful to read as well.

Further reading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_Prime)

And, yes, I do see the problem with my quote from RAW in my sig! :D

[tim the enchanter]

FNORD

[lemonique]

Makes sense to 'do away' with is under certain conditions. Reminds me of the 'shoulds' in life....can 'do away' with those most of the time as well. :)

I grasp what this article is telling me, I just haven't had the time to study it fully. Thanks for posting.
I think the English language has quite a bit 'to answer for' IMO.

Lemonique

[anonymousoneuk]

Genius!

Very facinating!

I'm still attempting to mentally digest this, so in the mean time here's a another bump as i don't wish this thread to die...

Peace and Bless

:)

[lurkerskywalker]

I've been browsing this forum and its precesor for quite some time now, and i feel like i've been growing in understanding allong with this community. Lately, the level of the concepts and ideas shared in this virtual place echo in me as very sharp. This thread could be the latest example... Let me come out of my slumber and agree wholeheartedly; some time ago i watched a documentary about some chaos theorist, who insisted in the insanity of our current language system, which functions on large fixed assumptions set on stone, disguising our inevitable ignorance (even to ourselves). Hope you understand as you might have guessed english is not my primary language ^^; The thing this guy proposed was expressing in percents (%) so instead of saying "the rose is red" a more appropiate way would be "the rose is 80% red". I thought of it as a crappy fix, but noted the idea as worth of mention. Not so surprinsingly, yesterday i watched a Terence Mckenna lecture (hope i got the name right) in which he made many points about language beign a key in a possible next step in awareness/consciousness. I think of all this as undeniable. I would even be so bold as to say the human brain does indeed appear to be a sort of computer, and the GIGO reasoning answers many questions regarding social behaviour. Just one last thing: in some languages there is more than one verb to handle the "to be" meanings, like spanish. But the changes this article suggest seem much deeper to me than the distinctions presently found in other languages. Thank you for your time! :)

[anonymousoneuk]

I've been browsing this forum and its precesor for quite some time now, and i feel like i've been growing in understanding allong with this community. Lately, the level of the concepts and ideas shared in this virtual place echo in me as very sharp. This thread could be the latest example... Let me come out of my slumber and agree wholeheartedly; some time ago i watched a documentary about some chaos theorist, who insisted in the insanity of our current language system, which functions on large fixed assumptions set on stone, disguising our inevitable ignorance (even to ourselves). Hope you understand as you might have guessed english is not my primary language ^^; The thing this guy proposed was expressing in percents (%) so instead of saying "the rose is red" a more appropiate way would be "the rose is 80% red". I thought of it as a crappy fix, but noted the idea as worth of mention. Not so surprinsingly, yesterday i watched a Terence Mckenna lecture (hope i got the name right) in which he made many points about language beign a key in a possible next step in awareness/consciousness. I think of all this as undeniable. I would even be so bold as to say the human brain does indeed appear to be a sort of computer, and the GIGO reasoning answers many questions regarding social behaviour. Just one last thing: in some languages there is more than one verb to handle the "to be" meanings, like spanish. But the changes this article suggest seem much deeper to me than the distinctions presently found in other languages. Thank you for your time! :)

Would really really like to know the name of that chaos theorist.

As time goes on, it seems the central issue i'm working around that needs to be worked out, is the nature of reality.

We base things on absolutistic asumptions and judgements, if a mind could process reality objectively, cutting into all of these statements such as "the rose is red", cutting past all of it, what would be a centre of it all...

Choas is clever stuff, the fact of it coming up in this thread after some weeks of my absence, is quite coincidental to me, as some of the things i'm studying right now, have some association with chaos theorey.

Also on my mind has been the nature of both time and language.

Big issues, i'm only just beginning to touch on, but i think are probably some of the most important ones so called "truth seekers" need to be discussing.

We need to study the nature of truth(which ties into the nature of reality and consciousness and minds), before i think we can really seek it, if our language isn't up to it, neither will our minds me.

Peace :)

[lurkerskywalker]

Would really really like to know the name of that chaos theorist.

Im afraid his name seems lost in oblivion for me; i can only recall the following: History channel doc, which wasnt about this guy but he frequently commented every "bite" of info, he looked rather young, was presented as a chaos theorist, and the rose example i'm almost positive was a literal example given by him. Sorry that i couldnt be more precise! :o bb

[amercury]

First off let me say "How dare you!!" (the whole Bjork thing :D ha ha)

But yeah, your post really interests me.
"In the beginning was the word"
I think thought and language begin the process of creation, or perception of reality. I mean there are infinite possibilities in each moment, and we may be blocking out most of them with forms of language that restrict possibility.
I'm going to keep E prime in mind and try to use it in thought and problem solving.
Thanks:)

[adimon]

I tried to condition myself to e-Prime but found I could only take it so far...I think it was the subconscious and id that I couldn't reach.

But I'm all in favour of e-Prime - it should be available in schools.

[Anders Lindman]

I have written about e-prime in another forum some year ago and had forgot about it. Thanks for the reminder. I may try e-prime in some posts. ;)

[anonymousoneuk]

I feel that this stuff is great:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime

I wish to discipline my mind to think and comunicate in E-prime.

[jimmi]

This is one of the best posts I've read here!

FUCK!


I would like to comment on the subject of the thread that I have most recently read and am now replying to through the interactve capability...eeerrrrr.....fuck it.


Thanks, excellent post!
J.

[esse]

[QUOTE=krakhead;326773]Not really! But I was disappointed that few people read and no-one commented when I put this article here (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23213). So now I've tricked you - have a read and tell me what you think :)

I'd be very surprised if this hadn't been presented on this forum before. What do you think? Do you think it would help to reduce the number of arguments? I have seen a lot of IS-ness being presented on here, I find it disturbing and it appears, to me, to lead to more arguments.

IS this a better way of communicating?

TOWARD UNDERSTANDING E -PRIME

Robert Anton Wilson
lA. The electron is a wave.
lB. The electron appears as a wave when measured with instrument-l.
2A. The electron is a particle.
2B. The electron appears as a particle when measured with instrument-2.
3A. John is lethargic and unhappy.
3B. John appears lethargic and unhappy in the office.
4A. John is bright and cheerful.
4B. John appears bright and cheerful on holiday at the beach.
5A. This is the knife the first man used to stab the second man.
5B. The first man appeared to stab the second man with what looked like a knife to me.
6A. The car involved in the hit-and-run accident was a blue Ford.
6B. In memory, I think I recall the car involved in the hit-and-run accident as a blue Ford.
7A. This is a fascist idea.
7B. This seems like a fascist idea to me.
8A. Beethoven is better than Mozart.
8B. In my present mixed state of musical education and ignorance, Beethoven seems better to me than Mozart.
9A. That is a sexist movie.
9B. That seems like a sexist movie to me.
10A. The fetus is a person.
10B. In my system of metaphysics, I classify the fetus as a person.

The "A"-type statements (Standard English) all implicitly or explicitly assume the medieval view called "Aristotelian essentialism" or "naive realism." In other words, they assume a world made up of block-like entities with indwelling "essences" or spooks- "ghosts in the machine." The "B"-type statements (E-Prime) recast these sentences into a form isomorphic to modern science by first abolishing the "is" of Aristotelian essence and then reformulating each observation in terms of signals received and interpreted by a body (or instrument) moving in space-time.

Relativity, quantum mechanics, large sections of general physics, perception psychology, sociology, linguistics, modern math, anthropology, ethology, and several other sciences make perfect sense when put into the software of E-Prime.



Interesting topic Krakhead - This brings to mind Buddhist teachings I have received where we discuss the difference between Relative and Absolute level. Or sometimes known in philosophy as big T -vs. little t truth.

Is there anything that can be said to be truth? This topic, I think - in essence questions the Absolute. Some would call this question Nihilistic. I think there is a very good point here in that Mr Anton Wilson is referencing ( that is is in this instance of which we are speaking...) the vast misuse of the word is. The complete negation of it, I would question however. Perhaps food for thought.

Is does seem to reference the present tense - the NOW if you like, and in that must have some validity as a signifier. So my take on this debate is that it needs further fleshing out. Not that it would need, or may need or that some could consider that it might - but that it does, or is in need of - Something I would try to establish given the chance.

Not saying that the topic itself has no validity, but "to be" "is" "isness" seems to me a desirable state, one we achieve when we are truly in the moment, without the shackles of sleep - the hindrance of thinking - but rather the clarity of awareness.

As far as Bjork goes - well, I like her music, but one must wonder when they see that magazine shoot she did with the Devil Horns, etc - and about that marriage to that freaky Guggenheim guy who came up with the Cremaster Series. You have got to have friends on the inside to get the whole Guggenheim shut down for months so you can make a crazy movie about the Masonry in it... I mean, I wonder...

[supertzar]

It's a good way to begin dismantling the Belief Paradigm. When we are done with preconceived notions, which are enforced by the "to be" construct, reality will open up for us.

Certain other languages must be like this already. Does anyone know if Russian has a "to be" equivalent?

[esse]

"to be" "isness" - The Now - what have these to do with preconceived notions?

[tehuti]

Not really! But I was disappointed that few people read and no-one commented when I put this article here (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23213). So now I've tricked you - have a read and tell me what you think :)

I'd be very surprised if this hadn't been presented on this forum before. What do you think? Do you think it would help to reduce the number of arguments? I have seen a lot of IS-ness being presented on here, I find it disturbing and it appears, to me, to lead to more arguments.

IS this a better way of communicating?

TOWARD UNDERSTANDING E -PRIME

Robert Anton Wilson



E-PRIME, abolishing all forms of the verb "to be," has its roots in the field of general semantics, as presented by Alfred Korzybski in his 1933 book, Science and Sanity. Korzybski pointed out the pitfalls associated with, and produced by, two usages of "to be": identity and predication. His student D. David Bourland, Jr., observed that even linguistically sensitive people do not seem able to avoid identity and predication uses of "to be" if they continue to use the verb at all. Bourland pioneered in demonstrating that one can indeed write and speak without using any form of "to be," calling this subset of the English language "E-Prime." Many have urged the use of E-Prime in writing scientific and technical papers. Dr. Kellogg exemplifies a prime exponent of this activity. Dr. Albert Ellis has rewritten five of his books in E-Prime, in collaboration with Dr. Robert H. Moore, to improve their clarity and to reap the epistemological benefits of this language revision. Korzybski felt that all humans should receive training in general semantics from grade school on, as "semantic hygiene" against the most prevalent forms of logical error, emotional distortion, and "demonological thinking." E-Prime provides a straightforward training technique for acquiring such semantic hygiene.

To understand E-Prime, consider the human brain as a computer. (Note that I did not say the brain "is" a computer.) As the Prime Law of Computers tells us, GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT (GIGO, for short). The wrong software guarantees wrong answers. Conversely, finding the right software can "miraculously" solve problems that previously appeared intractable.

It seems likely that the principal software used in the human brain consists of words, metaphors, disguised metaphors, and linguistic structures in general. The Sapir-Whorf-Korzybski Hypothesis, in anthropology, holds that a change in language can alter our perception of the cosmos. A revision of language structure, in particular, can alter the brain as dramatically as a psychedelic. In our metaphor, if we change the software, the computer operates in a new way.

Consider the following paired sets of propositions, in which Standard English alternates with English-Prime (E-Prime):

lA. The electron is a wave.
lB. The electron appears as a wave when measured with instrument-l.
2A. The electron is a particle.
2B. The electron appears as a particle when measured with instrument-2.
3A. John is lethargic and unhappy.
3B. John appears lethargic and unhappy in the office.
4A. John is bright and cheerful.
4B. John appears bright and cheerful on holiday at the beach.
5A. This is the knife the first man used to stab the second man.
5B. The first man appeared to stab the second man with what looked like a knife to me.
6A. The car involved in the hit-and-run accident was a blue Ford.
6B. In memory, I think I recall the car involved in the hit-and-run accident as a blue Ford.
7A. This is a fascist idea.
7B. This seems like a fascist idea to me.
8A. Beethoven is better than Mozart.
8B. In my present mixed state of musical education and ignorance, Beethoven seems better to me than Mozart.
9A. That is a sexist movie.
9B. That seems like a sexist movie to me.
10A. The fetus is a person.
10B. In my system of metaphysics, I classify the fetus as a person.

The "A"-type statements (Standard English) all implicitly or explicitly assume the medieval view called "Aristotelian essentialism" or "naive realism." In other words, they assume a world made up of block-like entities with indwelling "essences" or spooks- "ghosts in the machine." The "B"-type statements (E-Prime) recast these sentences into a form isomorphic to modern science by first abolishing the "is" of Aristotelian essence and then reformulating each observation in terms of signals received and interpreted by a body (or instrument) moving in space-time.

Relativity, quantum mechanics, large sections of general physics, perception psychology, sociology, linguistics, modern math, anthropology, ethology, and several other sciences make perfect sense when put into the software of E-Prime. Each of these sciences generates paradoxes, some bordering on "nonsense" or "gibberish," if you try to translate them back into the software of Standard English.

Concretely, "The electron is a wave" employs the Aristotelian "is" and thereby introduces us to the false-to-experience notion that we can know the indwelling "essence" of the electron. "The electron appears as a wave when measured by instrument-1" reports what actually occurred in space-time, namely that the electron when constrained by a certain instrument behaved in a certain way.

Similarly, "The electron is a particle" contains medieval Aristotelian software, but "The electron appears as a particle when measured by instrument-2" contains modern scientific software. Once again, the software determines whether we impose a medieval or modern grid upon our reality-tunnel.

Note that "the electron is a wave" and "the electron is a particle" contradict each other and begin the insidious process by which we move gradually from paradox to nonsense to total gibberish. On the other hand, the modern scientific statements "the electron appears as a wave when measured one way" and "the electron appears as a particle measured another way" do not contradict, but rather complement each other. (Bohr's Principle of Complementarity, which explained this and revolutionized physics, would have appeared obvious to all, and not just to a person of his genius, if physicists had written in E-Prime all along. . . .)

Looking at our next pair, "John is lethargic and unhappy" vs. "John is bright and cheerful,' we see again how medieval software creates metaphysical puzzles and totally imaginary contradictions. Operationalizing the statements, as physicists since Bohr have learned to operationalize, we find that the E-Prime translations do not contain any contradiction, and even give us a clue as to causes of John's changing moods. (Look back if you forgot the translations.)

"The first man stabbed the second man with a knife" lacks the overt "is" of identity but contains Aristotelian software nonetheless. The E-Prime translation not only operationalizes the data, but may fit the facts better-if the incident occurred in a psychology class, which often conduct this experiment. (The first man "stabs," or makes stabbing gestures at, the second man, with a banana, but many students, conditioned by Aristotelian software, nonetheless "see" a knife. You don't need to take drugs to hallucinate; improper language can fill your world with phantoms and spooks of many kinds.)

The reader may employ his or her own ingenuity in analyzing how "is-ness" creates false-to-facts reality-tunnels in the remaining examples, and how E-Prime brings us back to the scientific, the operational, the existential, the phenomenological--to what humans and their instruments actually do in space-time as they create observations, perceptions, thoughts, deductions, and General Theories.

I have found repeatedly that when baffled by a problem in science, in "philosophy," or in daily life, I gain immediate insight by writing down what I know about the enigma in strict E-Prime. Often, solutions appear immediately-just as happens when you throw out the "wrong" software and put the "right" software into your PC. In other cases, I at least get an insight into why the problem remains intractable and where and how future science might go about finding an answer. (This has contributed greatly to my ever-escalating agnosticism about the political, ideological, and religious issues that still generate the most passion on this primitive planet.)

When a proposition resists all efforts to recast it in a form consistent with what we now call E-Prime, many consider it "meaningless." Korzybski, Wittgenstein, the Logical Positivists, and (in his own way) Niels Bohr promoted this view. I happen to agree with that verdict (which condemns 99 percent of theology and 99.999999 percent of metaphysics to the category of Noise rather than Meaning)--but we must save that subject for another article. For now, it suffices to note that those who fervently believe such Aristotelian propositions as "A piece of bread, blessed by a priest, is a person (who died two thousand years ago)," "The flag is a living being," or "The fetus is a human being" do not, in general, appear to make sense by normal twentieth-century scientific standards.

Original web-site - also includes an addendum that I think would be useful to read as well.

Further reading

And, yes, I do see the problem with my quote from RAW in my sig!

This seems interesting to me. aha? I've got the hang of e-prime and deconstruction.
The website is fantastic
www.anxietyculture.com

C O N T R O L S Y S T E M S print-friendly version >

The Metaphysical System
How unsuspected metaphysical assumptions control us, and how to undermine this control...

"Metaphysics is about what there really is"
The Bluffer’s Guide to Philosophy

Metaphysical musings about "what things really are" have been called "meaningless" by many modern thinkers. For example, consider these metaphysical statements:

"God is a gas" (Alan Partridge, Radio Norwich DJ)
"Saddam Hussein is evil" (President Fraudulence)
"Modern art is crap" (Phil O. Stein, BBC head)

How do you verify statements about the "true reality" (or "identity", or "essence") of God, Saddam Hussein or modern art? According to some people (eg the Logical Positivists), only verifiable statements have meaning, and metaphysics tends to produce unverifiable statements.

For example, how do you verify that modern art "is" (or isn’t) crap? Until somebody invents a Crap-o-Meter, the "crapness" remains a subjective evaluation – nobody can objectively detect "essence of crap" inside art.

What about "God is a gas"? We can verify gas, but not "God". And even statements such as "nitrogen is a gas" look dubious, since nitrogen "is" a liquid too.

Similarly, the statement "Saddam Hussein is evil" seems unverifiable, and therefore meaningless. So what can we verify? "Saddam gave an order to torture X people on date Y". We could verify that with documentary evidence. Prosecuting people under international law doesn’t require metaphysics.
How Metaphysics Controls Us

For most of us, our habitual language expresses unconscious metaphysical assumptions. And since our language tends to program our beliefs about "reality", we perceive reality in terms of metaphysics. This makes us act stupid.

A lot of western metaphysics derives from Plato and Aristotle. Let’s call this unfortunate Platonic/Aristotelian legacy "essentialism". Essentialism views reality in terms of block-like entities inhabited by "true essences". So, for example, the essence of "evil" inhabits the entity Saddam Hussein. Therefore, Saddam "really is" evil.

Anything that makes us act stupidly without knowing it, controls us. Essentialism makes us act stupidly by the process of GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out). If our incoming perceptions consist of block-entities with "true essences", our resulting thoughts won’t exhibit much complexity, flexibility or subtlety.

For example, if we perceive a human block-entity with a "dumb asshole" essence approaching, we act accordingly (like a monkey smelling an enemy). But if we perceive that this person merely behaved in "asshole" fashion in the past, after having a hard day, we might act more intelligently.

Abandoning the habit of metaphysical essentialism not only raises IQ, it also helps us feel better emotionally. Imagine being surrounded by people who "really are" bastards, bitches, liars, cheats, assholes, etc. Now imagine being surrounded by people who contain no such "bad" essences/identities, but who only behave part-time in ways we dislike.

(Note: as an amateur satirist, I can say that politicians "are" Stupid Assholes without contradicting what I preach in this article).

On a more serious note, many unpleasant "isms" (eg fascism, racism, sexism) arise from the perception that some individuals "really are" just units of a group essence/identity. We could eradicate all such "isms" at the level of perception, given an education which removes metaphysical essentialism from language – something to bear in mind for people who think philosophy "really is" nothing to do with the real world.
How to Undermine Metaphysics

"A change in language can transform our appreciation of the cosmos"
– Benjamin Lee Whorf

Over the last two centuries many strategies have emerged for undermining the metaphysical control system: Existentialism, Pragmatism, Instrumentalism, Deconstruction, General Semantics, Surrealism, etc. You could almost regard it as the major intellectual "conspiracy" of the 20th century.

Many fields besides philosophy have adopted this trend to a greater or lesser degree: modern science, psychology, sociology, anthropology, literature, etc. Unfortunately the fields that need it most – politics and religion/ideology – seem to have ignored it.

Let’s look at two popular strategies, one difficult and one easy: Deconstruction (difficult) and E-Prime (easy).
Deconstruction

In seeking "essential truth", metaphysicians want a solid foundation, a fundamental grounding of "truth" at a central point. With this centre/origin fixed, they also need to define its opposite: the false/peripheral.

Everything then fits into binary opposites, with the first term articulating the fundamental, positive, true, solid "ground" – and the second term representing the negative, false, derivative, deficient, lacking, "dilution" or "corruption":

Being – Non-being
Presence – Absence
Good – Evil
Life – Death
Cause – Effect
Light – Dark
Strong – Weak
Pure – Impure
Simple – Complex
Original – Imitation

In this metaphysical system, the "negative" secondary term comes after the original term. The "primary", the "good", the "true" always comes first. Then the corruption follows. Politically and socially this translates into the belief that:

"Everything is turning to shit"

Like many 21st Century reactionaries, Plato believed in an original "Golden Age", with nothing but degeneration and corruption to expect in the future. You can see how this type of metaphysics might correlate with political conservatism.

A metaphysics of binary opposites limits logical reasoning to either/or choices. Either something "is" strong, or it "is" weak; either it "is" good or it "is" evil, etc. No in-between, no "maybe", no paradox, no irony.

Deconstruction subverts metaphysics by disrupting its foundations and dislodging its certitudes. How? By throwing a Zombie in the works. Zombies don’t fit into the metaphysical either/or categories of "alive or dead". And what about "inside or outside"? The force which controls a Zombie – "is" it inside or outside?

Metaphysical difficulties arise not just with "real" Zombies but also with glazed-eyed consumers in supermarkets (for example). Can you say with certainty whether zombie-like consumers "really are" hypnotised? Do you know anyone who "is" unhypnotised?

Deconstruction derails, destabilises, corrupts and contaminates metaphysical language. And that "really is bad" from the metaphysician’s perspective. But only metaphysics asks what deconstruction "really is".
E-Prime

"Whatever you say a thing is, it isn’t"
– Alfred Korzybski

English Prime, or E-prime for short, arose out of General Semantics. It looks like standard English, but with the words "is", "are", "was", "would be" (and other cognates of "is") removed. Removing the "is" (of identity) from language effectively eradicates metaphysical statements about what things "really are".

For example, the sentence: "Fred is a commie" would appear in E-Prime as something like: "I regard Fred as a commie". E-Prime expresses what we perceive and think about things, rather than what things "really are".

E-Prime makes sense when applied to science – eg the argument over whether an electron "really is" a wave or a particle:

Standard English:
"The electron is a particle"
"The electron is a wave"

E-Prime:
"The electron appears as a particle to instrument A"
"The electron appears as a wave to instrument B"

The two standard English statements contradict, whereas the E-Prime statements seem complementary. E-Prime makes sense of emotional "human" issues too:

"That film is sexist" (standard English)
"That film seems sexist to me" (E-Prime)

With standard English, debates often degenerate into hysterical "Yes, it is!", "No it isn’t!!" type arguments (monkey metaphysics). E-Prime seems to avoid this.

Who knows: in the future, E-Prime might even help prevent a war.

[demiurge]

in every is there is an isn t and viceversa.

[esse]

Well it all sounds very PC - Nothing is - all is subjective... In the relative this is often the case - don't think always.

A language like E-Prime might do away with debate altogether. Is it not another form of Newspeak? I find Robert Anton Wilson to be a very entertaining individual whose theories support nihilism, chaos - isn't that the same as the mystery schools? Goddess Thelema? Praise Bob? It's easy to think he's getting at something when he writes of all this, his school of slack etc - that perhaps he is helping us have a laugh and obviously he knows whats up - funny how he never comes out and directly speaks about it, (and how his more ardent culty followers don't really seem to get into research but rather into slack, partying and nihilism) but rather presents us with a cynicism and nihilism to embrace, a viewpoint that denies any Truth - Absolute or intrinsic thing, and sneers rather it's all a big cosmic joke and yr perceptions are nothing - worthless and need to be noted as such. Undermined perhaps. And what agenda does it serve if we all ascribe to chaos theory? Who can know the secret societies ARE? When all we can do is believe they are. Isn't the denial of the absolute akin to what the satanists do? I'm not Christian, but I do believe in an absolute reality - call it God, call it nature, call it Emptiness. I do believe in the virtues - that evil actions need to be known and noted as such I believe that that emptiness, call it what you will - is the essence of each one of us. Chogyam Trungpa calls it basic goodness.

Indians and Tibetans both say that butter is the essence of milk.

[krakhead]

Well it all sounds very PC - Nothing is - all is subjective... In the relative this is often the case - don't think always.

A language like E-Prime might do away with debate altogether. Is it not another form of Newspeak? I find Robert Anton Wilson to be a very entertaining individual whose theories support nihilism, chaos - isn't that the same as the mystery schools? Goddess Thelema? Praise Bob? It's easy to think he's getting at something when he writes of all this, his school of slack etc - that perhaps he is helping us have a laugh and obviously he knows whats up - funny how he never comes out and directly speaks about it, (and how his more ardent culty followers don't really seem to get into research but rather into slack, partying and nihilism) but rather presents us with a cynicism and nihilism to embrace, a viewpoint that denies any Truth - Absolute or intrinsic thing, and sneers rather it's all a big cosmic joke and yr perceptions are nothing - worthless and need to be noted as such. Undermined perhaps. And what agenda does it serve if we all ascribe to chaos theory? Who can know the secret societies ARE? When all we can do is believe they are. Isn't the denial of the absolute akin to what the satanists do? I'm not Christian, but I do believe in an absolute reality - call it God, call it nature, call it Emptiness. I do believe in the virtues - that evil actions need to be known and noted as such I believe that that emptiness, call it what you will - is the essence of each one of us. Chogyam Trungpa calls it basic goodness.

Indians and Tibetans both say that butter is the essence of milk.


Wow! It appears that you have a very different take on this subject than I do! All this talk of nihilism and sneering - not something I've ever got from RAW or E-Prime. As for your beliefs - have a look here - http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23294

The point of E-Prime for me would be to constantly remind myself that my perception of the world around me can only be considered as just that - MY perception. 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' sort of thing.

My God IS true, yours IS false - where is the TRUTH in that? Can't the only honest statement be - I consider my perception of 'god' to be the true one etc. - and no, I don't feel that if people spoke along these lines more often, there would be less debate, I think it would make debate clearer and more honest. I do, however, feel that it would lead to less ARGUMENTS.

I've been discussing this type of concept with people for many years and it has always appeared to me that the people with very fixed belief systems to be the ones who have a harder time accepting it than those who are more 'agnostic' in their personality.

I'm not saying anyone should give up their view on the world, but the realisation that my view on the world was just that - MY view - helped me immeasurably in my ability to relate to others and become - I feel - a better person.

I hope that the people who posted about their willingness to try out E-Prime will come back to this thread and discuss further the results of their experiments......

[esse]

Krakhead - I raised some questions - and sorry if I went on a bit of a tangent into other stuff about R. Anton's work - I've spent a fair time studying the guy's work and philosophies and find them to be nihilistic - which is not the point of Zen, in fact, is considered a downfall in all Buddhist schools. In yr response you have not answered any of my questions - I'm serious about how this is a language which also has heavy implications philosophically - and how these seem to be coming from a dark place (chaos) If you look into more of Anton's work you will find there is a lot there which is promoting chaos, nihilism and a general cynical and dismissive "belief system". It is quite in line with what the secret societies and Golden Dawn etc teach, and, while I am sure he is well aware of the occult and many things going on on the planet, I have for a long time questioned this and what he's about - and his works seem to me to have mainly promoted a view that - well, it doesn't seem to help - to say the least. The guy can be funny, and is very intelligent, but I've found him full of his own kinds of programming. My view, take from it what you will.
- you only say that you still have reason to like E-Prime and want yr supporters back. I see relevance in things yr saying, I agree there is such a thing as subjectivity in this world - of course, we are all subject to this - and problems like the ones you are describing occur - though I think this is due to people not using logic properly.
Belief should be respected, anyone's beliefs, we are all different and entitled. But belief is quite seperate from that which can be objectively observed - Something all our sciences and much of our signifiers need be based on. What I object to - is that It seems in E-Prime, what is being questioned is not the problem of one mans God or "Belief" over another so much as that there could be any objective reality at all.
"What is that" someone asks - That is the red light you just ran - I mean, is it that the red light is an illusion, is it a. an illusion which we are all experiencing collectively objectively and need to be able to communicate about in this collective objective reality which granted is not the absolute reality - but a relative illusion --- If this is the case, what purpose does E-Prime serve other than as an exercise to cut thru the ego - In this way, it has a positive use, but if it promotes nihilism - and the viewpoint that the objectivity experienced in the relative collective illusion or matirx reality etc is non-existant - that seems to me to be baseless and only promoting a greater confusion, neurosis and mental illness. We do know and see things - our beliefs are not our knowledge. Beliefs should not be pushed on others - but shared and respected... But try to tell the guy ya crashed into that you didn't see the red light ya ran because he only believes it exists... Well, this is the point I'm trying to make...

[krakhead]

Just a quick reply as I'm about to take the dogs out!

I understand where you're coming from with this, RAW apparently used to argue a lot with Illuminatus! co-author Robert Shea, Bob Shea thought that RAW's stand on this would lead to an entirely solipsistic world-view (which I also think sums it up more appropriately than nihilistic).

And if you used a completely pure approach to this then I agree, solipsism beckons! Einstein said (supposedly) "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." (actually, hasn't David Icke used this?). My take has developed to the point where I cannot be sure of other's perceiving anything in the way I do - the repeated, shared experience of universe leads me to be pretty sure there IS a constant universe outside of my perceptions - but if I didn't see the red light - was it really there? "Who is the master who makes the grass green?" ;)

And surely every single person on this planet should be considered to be "full of [their] own kinds of programming"? I think RAW made this very clear in his writings - don't 'believe', test, test again, make up your own mind based on your findings (something I think he got from Crowely)

As for belief systems, can we keep that discussion to the other thread if you want to keep it going (please!? ;) )

And now to jump back a bit to it seeming to you that some of RAW's ideas 'come from a dark place' - wouldn't that fit with what the original article was about - SEEMS TO YOU, your perception, right in some respects, wrong in some respects, meaningless in some respects etc etc.

And as for wanting my supporters back? LOL! Not quite! Just wanted some feedback - positive or negative, to try and fit with the scientific approach I try to bring to matters such as these, get results, alter model to fit with new data - whether you like it or not!

And wouldn't you consider the idea that a lot of the threads on this forum could have stayed out of the rant room and away from personal abuse being thrown back and fore if posters used e-prime to present their ideas?

If I've missed anything or you can't follow my all-over-the-place reply - I'm a bit slow to put things together at times - ask again, I'm enjoying this discussion :)

Right - out with dogs and camera! It's a beautiful day! Let's get out in the sunshine!

[esse]

Hey KH - well I hope yr enjoying it, cool post - yeah - I can see what you mean with regard to keeping threads out of the rant room! LOL

I mean, I get where yr coming from on this - I do see the point yr making, just think that if taken as total - e-prime carries the negative, reductionist assumptions inherently -- used as a guide or an exercise, it is quite fruitful it's just not something I would advocate one changes the language into etc..

I know RAW got a lot of things from Crowley - my feeling on these guys stands,
black magic, secret societies - and the like... I would analyse any schools of thought they come out with by trying to ascertain what in such "belief systems" might aid and abet such agendas. I think that beliefs are very powerful, and my argument is that to rob us of the absolute - is quite a tremendous theft.
These sort of topics (the negation of objectivity, the absolute, or Truth with a capital T in philosophy-speak) are covered in many philosophical schools, buddhism, many western philosophers discussed these topics, existentialism, etc... So it is a huge point of discussion, an axiom - or axis such a belief in there being or not being any absolute - and from such a point, many things follow. In this, it is my opinion that there are certain dangers which come from assuming that the only absolute is that none exists (a fallacy in itself :) - and that such assumption can poison the mind. Christians would call such thinking the denial of God - I suppose, and tag it with all the following associations, I'm not Christian, but I do see that the base of this system of RAW's shares much with that of known schools of black magic - the antichrist, what have you. It is their view that CHAOS is all - and I would call this Nihilistic - the very definition of the word in practice.
Still, it's a easily confusing topic - of course when it comes to the subjectivity of beings and their beliefs there is no debate or doubt - But when it comes to the objectivity of the relative form world - negating this is quite a big thing to do, and I don't think any argument has ever been made which does this successfully. There is too much evidence to the contrary - Einstien's Relativity does not negate this, it is simply pointing out interdependence, and that while things do appear, they are not so fixed as we believe them to be. Still, all of us know that even castles will return to sand, this is part of our objective experience and understanding of the form world... Not, in fact - contrary to his findings. He would point out that the castle was not a solid, but composed of more space than matter - and atoms full of moving electrons, etc - yet he would not say it wasn't there to be observed or negate it's existence.
What I want to re-iterate most here is what my Buddhist Teacher often reminds us of - how we cannot discuss Philosophy if we don't learn to keep seperate the Relative and The Absolute. This is where the confusion comes in.
If we're discussing the Martix - the fact that all is Illusion, we're discussing things at the Absolute level.. This level of reality is outside of time, beyond mortality, outside of the form world - Yet even David Icke goes down the street, knows where the newsagent is and can give directions to it if asked by a passerby on his way to get his morning java... etc. This is in the relative reality - and one's existence does not negate the other. This is where we've learned wrongly to think in positives or negatives, black or white - not to think of the all which comprises both these realities - one is a subset component of the larger - The Absolute which contains all other subsets.
To deny this, the implications are depressing - maddening to say the least.
For Emptiness isn't really empty in the sense we have learned to use the word.
Nothing is an oxymoron.
And ... the infinite IS
Yet, the finite is not rubbed out by this...
Only given so much time...
A gift?

[cheeb]

Robert Anton Wilson On E. Prime:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3436367912799615557

;)

[krakhead]

Robert Anton Wilson On E. Prime:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3436367912799615557

;)

Good vid that. Lovely 'twinkle' to the guy!

[disorder2k8]

Really what the gist is then:

Dont be so minimal to the point it doesnt describe anything useful to your observation.

[krakhead]

Really what the gist is then:

Dont be so minimal to the point it doesnt describe anything useful to your observation.

No NO NO!!! ;)

What this jist 'appears' to you to be! :D

[phaid]

Very basically, substitute the phrase 'to me it seems like....' instead of 'is' in your thinking and you will not come across like you insist that your point of view 'is' correct and unarguable with.

Because, when it comes down to it, what seems to you to 'be' the only point of view, could come across as debatable since all the info you use to make your point has had to be filtered through your own nervous system and no-one else's.

Considering that nobody can be sure what reality 'is' according to someone else, unless they live in that person's head and have had all their life experiences as well, a lot of the time debates and arguments can result in many heated but ultimately meaningless exchanges.

[disorder2k8]

That is a bit too specific anyway, the term gist (or jist) is a vague generalisation. I didnt say 'what the article absolutely is' I said ' what the general idea is' and as its a general idea, it isnt strictly IS. :p So my comment is perfectly rational .. and I win. Im also confused.

[krakhead]

That is a bit too specific anyway, the term gist (or jist) is a vague generalisation. I didnt say 'what the article absolutely is' I said ' what the general idea is' and as its a general idea, it isnt strictly IS. :p So my comment is perfectly rational .. and I win. Im also confused.

I don't think you're getting this! ;)

[disorder2k8]

Nobody ever will.

[krakhead]

Nobody ever will.

I do! :D

[ie11]

ill pm u instead. bytheway i think my original text was bollox.

eprime is good at communicating understandings and lessons learnt in certian contexts and environments

but isnt that good at helping someone to get to those understandings and learn those lessons

[cruise4]

I had a good laugh reading the comments. Good point though.

[clozaril]

to helps others understand from my limited grasp

removing the word is opens up a mental/perceptive area which means things are undecided and not fixed which alters our perception of the world and our experience of reality. removing limits and filters in our minds. instead of a definite it is or it is'nt things could be appear to be might be etc which opens up the world.

by removing the either/or option in language and perception to a possible maybe could be model will bring us closer to experiencing the mystery of reality.

is it korzybski who developed this

hey krak how you doing with the meta-model do you use it at work ? i'm reading bandlers tranceformations at the mo whcih has a good explanation as i found the meta-model a tricky exercise guess it takes practice

[krakhead]

I want to bring attention to this thread again as there are so many new members since I forst posted it :)

[noewhan]

Robert is cool. Some don't trust him.

His 'maybe logic' documentary was interesting.

I like the quantum physics saying / or rule
'Anything that can happen, does happen.'

Bob would prob change that too
'Anything that can happen, most likely happens.'

[thirdwave]

Robert is cool. Some don't trust him.

His 'maybe logic' documentary was interesting.

it honestly seems that those who tell people to think for them selves and not to be spoon fed beliefs, are feared by many who distrust them and even brand them evil workers for the elite.

works the same as drug addicts, they can quite easily swipe a friend while defending their mental requirement.

this is also why they seek gods and perfection, why would they not, if you are going to off load all your work to another, your going to need them to be perfect in order to be content, right?

RAW was most certainly a human being, but a very interesting one.

[supertzar]

I think a person who actually took RAW's message of tireless skepticism to heart would "trust" no one. There appears to me a certain irony at play here.

[thirdwave]

I think a person who actually took RAW's message of tireless skepticism to heart would "trust" no one. There appears to me a certain irony at play here.

scepticism to things we do not know anything really about....

and humour at those who run around like crazy thinking they do.

You only know your own state of being as fact, and very little else in this society.

[supertzar]

scepticism to things we do not know anything really about....

and humour at those who run around like crazy thinking they do.

You only know your own state of being as fact, and very little else in this society.

No! My understanding tells me the message asks what do we really know about anything? For example you might think you know your own state of being, but what if you really do not?

[thirdwave]

No! My understanding tells me the message asks what do we really know about anything? For example you might think you know your own state of being, but what if you really do not?

Maybe I don't... I only have control over how i deal with it and react.

some people think the Jews are the bad guys... others think its the muslims.. others think its just Freemasons... others think its reptilians... others think its Greys... others think none of that is real and its all hoax... others think this ..other think that...

but then again maybe all those things are what we are lead to believe.. and its really the Muslims pretending to be the Jews.... or maybe its the Jews pretending to be the Muslims.... maybe the reptilians are none and they are behind it all?... or maybe it just the Freemasons and the Muslims are here to save us.... maybe the Christians are behind it all?... the UFO thing is just a hoax maybe and fake ETEs will finish us off... or maybe thats just what the CIA want us to think... or maybe the CIA are really covering up Good ETEs who want to help us... or maybe there are both good and bad and there is a fight"

good luck working it out!, im gona go camp out in Wiltshire!

[supertzar]

Maybe I don't... I only have control over how i deal with it and react.



You don't go far enough with it, wavy. This might why it seems ironic to me that you said I don't know where RAW seemed to be coming from. In your present reality tunnel (to use RAW's terminology) you believe you have control over yourself. In another one you might only be automatically carrying out programs created in your mind by others.

[thirdwave]

You don't go far enough with it, wavy. This might why it seems ironic to me that you said I don't know where RAW seemed to be coming from. In your present reality tunnel (to use RAW's terminology) you believe you have control over yourself. In another one you might only be automatically carrying out programs created in your mind by others.

Ok, so why are you not getting his point that it is foolish to hjave set belifes sytems... Hence be locked into a program?

"belief is the death of intelligence"

you miss that quote?

what about this one

"nothing is true, everything is permitted"

It does not sound like he is encouraging people to be locked in any reality tunnels if you ask me... He urges people to see them as all real and to learn to see through many eyes... and not get bogged down to any of them.. but also not to build a brick wall against them..

this is how I read him.

[supertzar]

Ok, so why are you not getting his point that it is foolish to hjave set belifes sytems

I feel shocked that you ask me that. It seems to me I do get it quite well.

[clachan]

I feel shocked that you ask me that. It seems to me I do get it quite well.

It seems.......

[thirdwave]

I feel shocked that you ask me that. It seems to me I do get it quite well.

well then you just plain talking poo poo IMO :)

[supertzar]

It seems.......

clachan gets it. I don't know if clachan knows clachan gets it, but clachan gets it. Thirdwave, not so much. Thirdwave really, really seems to have diarrhea dripping from his mouth. Lol!!!

[thirdwave]

clachan gets it. I don't know if clachan knows clachan gets it, but clachan gets it. Thirdwave, not so much. Thirdwave really, really seems to have diarrhea dripping from his mouth. Lol!!!

lol, well why dont you and clachan have a meeting, while I go and converse with people that are on a more intelligent level :) ?

lets also not forget that clachan is a christian and there for more then likely thinks RAW is a devil worshiper... :)

[supertzar]

Jeez, man. What happened to you? You used to seem so intelligent. An intelligent person would probably have a certain awareness that they are throwing around childish insults like "talking poo" and would not have surprise when the like are reflected back to them from their target.

You are saying this like I don't understand it:

It does not sound like he is encouraging people to be locked in any reality tunnels if you ask me... He urges people to see them as all real and to learn to see through many eyes... and not get bogged down to any of them.. but also not to build a brick wall against them..


What in the world makes you think I don't get this?

[thirdwave]

Jeez, man. What happened to you? You used to seem so intelligent. An intelligent person would probably have a certain awareness that they are throwing around childish insults like "talking poo" and would not have surprise when the like are reflected back to them from their target.

my last post (on topic, i.e. regarding RAW) was the last bit of sense on this thread.

[supertzar]

my last post (on topic, i.e. regarding RAW) was the last bit of sense on this thread.

It seems to make no sense to me for you to say it to me. Read my edited post above and answer please with quotes from me.

[thirdwave]

It seems to make no sense to me for you to say it to me. Read my edited post above and answer please with quotes from me.

I will atempt to clarify things for you...


You said..


You don't go far enough with it, wavy. This might why it seems ironic to me that you said I don't know where RAW seemed to be coming from. In your present reality tunnel (to use RAW's terminology) you believe you have control over yourself.

first of all I have never told you this... this is a guess from you, however I belive I have freedom of choice that I like to miantain as best I can.


In another one you might only be automatically carrying out programs created in your mind by others.
Maybe so.... if so, this is the case with all of us..

I then went on to point out how RAW addresses the very point you aretrying to make..here



Ok, so why are you not getting his point that it is foolish to have set beliefs systems... Hence be locked into a program?

RAW does not tell anyone what it real or not real, he has his opinions and urges others to conclude there own... and highlights the importance of not having a set reality tunnel and to change them and to keep them fresh.

I pointed out quotes he uses like this (that I assume you have read)

"belief is the death of intelligence"

and


"nothing is true, everything is permitted"

So after addressing this, I fail to see what your point is with all this talk of what beliefs I have and reality tunnels...

IMO you sound pretty disinfo as if you have not even read his book, by the way you keep making out he is concluding stuff that he was not.

If I have got you wrong then you need to explain your self better because as far as the last few posts prove, I have understood your point and have pointed out how you are making our RAW is about something he is not.

[supertzar]

I think you totally misunderstood me. I'll get back to this later. Have to go now.

[supertzar]

I belive I have freedom of choice...

This pretty much sums it up. You have let your intelligence die without even realizing it.

pretty disinfo

Uhhh...that would look more like this...

http://www.mediabistro.com/agencyspy/original/Elisabeth%20Hasselbeck.jpg

:D

[thirdwave]

This pretty much sums it up. You have let your intelligence die without even realizing it.



Uhhh...that would look more like this...

http://www.mediabistro.com/agencyspy/original/Elisabeth%20Hasselbeck.jpg

:D

you don't really have a point any more do you?

:)

Are you talking about me, or RAW?

[supertzar]

It seems to me you think that using more words equals better. I tend to think ideas seem best expressed in the fewest words possible. Read my words carefully and you may begin to understand what I wish to communicate to you, thirdwave.

[thirdwave]

It seems to me you think that using more words equals better. I tend to think ideas are best expressed in the fewest words possible. Read my words carefully and you may begin to understand what I wish to communicate to you, thirdwave.

lol I would rather spend my time on others things thanks very much :).

Aloof people are not smart in my eyes.

[krakhead]

I think you totally misunderstood me.

Then shouldn't you alter the way you are trying to communicate? Communication errors are, as I understand it, largely due to the person trying to communicate something, NOT the receiver.

You should try a different tack :)

(hint: use smaller words and shorter sentences - TW's a rocker, therefore is a sandwich short of a picnic! ;) Joke TW! Joke! :D)

[thirdwave]

oh you are right :)

but the sandwiches nowadays are full of crap anyway :)

[supertzar]

It seems tedious, but I will spell it out.

ST: You don't go far enough with it, wavy. This might why it seems ironic to me that you said I don't know where RAW seemed to be coming from. In your present reality tunnel (to use RAW's terminology) you believe you have control over yourself.

TW: first of all I have never told you this... this is a guess from you, however I belive I have freedom of choice that I like to miantain as best I can.

Two problems with this.

One: you did in fact say "I only have control over how i deal with [my state of being] and react." This directly contradicts what you said about never telling me this.

Two: you are proclaiming what you believe i.e. describing your belief system or "B.S." in the same post where you seem to harp on the concept of belief being the death of intelligence (an idea I personally feel quite comfortable with.) Irony abounds!

TW: IMO you sound pretty disinfo as if you have not even read his book, by the way you keep making out he is concluding stuff that he was not.

I read Cosmic Trigger back in '92 when you were probably still playing Super Nintendo. It seemed to be a watershed moment inasmuch as it changed my outlook and spurred me on to greater understanding. I've read the Trilogy and Wilhelm Reich in Hell and as much of the Historical Illuminatus Chronicles as I had interest in. I've studied RAW related works like Angel Tech and Info-Psychology. I think I have somewhat of a grasp on where RAW seems to be coming from.

It seems that you object to me commenting on RAW's hypocrisy when it comes to his constant railing against the reality of ritual abuse. From interviews I have read with him it seems to be quite a B.S. of his that "Ritual abuse does not exist outside of the Catholic Church" and that the McMartin Preschool case was a hysterical witch hunt with no basis in fact. To respond to your objection I did look for these RAW quotes that I posted on the old board, but so far have not found them. I don't have all the time in the world to "prove" that RAW's B.S. was along the lines of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation. However, I have found a quote from Everything is Under Control that sums up his B.S. nicely:

Robert Anton Wilson from Everything is Under Control

Corey Hammond

Dr. Corey Hammond, a leading practitioner of recovered memory therapy, believes that his work proves the existence of an international Satanic cult of Nazis and C.IA. agents who have engaged in Satanic abuse of children for over 50 years. The purpose of the ritual abuse, Dr. Hammond says, is the creation of robotic humans, who are "programmed" to behave in specific ways when specific commands are given. In his own words, the Nazi-CIA group (which also includes NASA) hopes to create "tens of thousands of mental robots who will do pornography, prostitution, smuggle drugs, engage in international arms smuggling. Eventually, those at the top of the satanic cult want to create a satanic order that will rule the world."

Dr. Hammond has even classified various types of "programs" which have been implanted in the victims of this cult: Alpha represents general obedience programming; Beta concerns performing oral sex and running child prostitution rings; Delta is the program that creates assassins; Omega are self-destruct programs which cause victims to kill themselves if a therapist almost recovers their other deep-buried satanic programs; Zeta concerns the production of snuff films; etc.

Dr Hammond is a licensed psychologist in Utah, founder and director of the Sex and Marital Therapy Clinic at the University of Utah, has served as both president and vice-president of the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis, and serves as abstracts editor the American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis. He says he goes in fear of his life because of the revelations he has made. His theories have been accepted as literally true by countless Feminists and Fundamentalists.

[thirdwave]

It seems tedious, but I will spell it out.

oh please do! :)




Two problems with this.

One: you did in fact say "I only have control over how i deal with [my state of being] and react." This directly contradicts what you said about never telling me this.

Ahhh I think you clearly need me to speak slower and more detailed for you...

What I mean is I have control over how I react to what I'm thinking....

for example we can all be manipulated to feeling insecure.... how we deal with that and react to it is a control we all have... being manipulated is not the same as not thinking for your self.

Unless you are saying that we are simply not conscious at all, in which case I will point out again how I think you are talking shit.

or is this when you offer more aloof illusions ?



Two: you are proclaiming what you believe i.e. describing your belief system or "B.S." in the same post where you seem to harp on the concept of belief being the death of intelligence (an idea I personally feel quite comfortable with.) Irony abounds!


*sign*

Ok, here goes...

Now, you seem to have failed to grasp several things here.

Ok, First of all just because belief is the death of intelligence... it does not mean it is never used.... Humans are not perfect and are not beings of endless intelligence.. we are here to learn.... though do have that capability.

There for it is quite un avoidable to not believe in anything what's so ever. (is that not simply in the context of common sense? )

But the quote points out that limiting your beliefs and holding off on building your "Reality tunnel" is healthy and helps create intelligence...

I hope this makes it clearer for you.

Also I did not claim that I was a perfect human who is an example of such quotes being fruitful, I am pointing out what inspires me and brings me closer.

RAW was an ocultist, in magic orders and stuff, part of what they do is to help exercise such quotes... because they are hard to live.

Hence why humans are targeted with religion and so forth...

In RAWs books he offers tips on how people can not become dogmatic, and to always remain open to all perspectives..., hence not have a narrow mind.

He offers no set belief system at all. And in fact has also said anyone that takes every word he says in word for word, is crazy, as they are just his views and opinions.




[B]I read Cosmic Trigger back in '92 when you were probably still playing Super Nintendo.

lol, tuck the ego away old chap. Means nothing, you could have read 20 books before I lived, unless you understand them then it does not matter.


It seemed to be a watershed moment inasmuch as it changed my outlook and spurred me on to greater understanding. I've read the Trilogy and Wilhelm Reich in Hell and as much of the Historical Illuminatus Chronicles as I had interest in. I've studied RAW related works like Angel Tech and Info-Psychology. I think I have somewhat of a grasp on where RAW seems to be coming from.

Strange... It does not seem like it... and you have shown very little to back up this aloof view of him.

It seems that you object to me commenting on RAW's hypocrisy when it comes to his constant railing against the reality of ritual abuse.

No, You are the objector on this thread, not me... I am challanging your objections... lets get that straight

From interviews I have read with him it seems to be quite a B.S. of his that "Ritual abuse does not exist outside of the Catholic Church" and that the McMartin Preschool case was a hysterical witch hunt with no basis in fact.

Maybe he was wrong?

To respond to your objection I did look for these RAW quotes that I posted on the old board, but so far have not found them. I don't have all the time in the world to "prove" that RAW's B.S. was along the lines of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation. However, I have found a quote from Everything is Under Control that sums up his B.S. nicely:

RAW promoted the works of Crowley alot, and Crowley was one of the first to point out the human sacrifices and cannibalism within some ancient Jewish groups...


Robert Anton Wilson from Everything is Under Control

Corey Hammond

Dr. Corey Hammond, a leading practitioner of recovered memory therapy, believes that his work proves the existence of an international Satanic cult of Nazis and C.IA. agents who have engaged in Satanic abuse of children for over 50 years. The purpose of the ritual abuse, Dr. Hammond says, is the creation of robotic humans, who are "programmed" to behave in specific ways when specific commands are given. In his own words, the Nazi-CIA group (which also includes NASA) hopes to create "tens of thousands of mental robots who will do pornography, prostitution, smuggle drugs, engage in international arms smuggling. Eventually, those at the top of the satanic cult want to create a satanic order that will rule the world."

Dr. Hammond has even classified various types of "programs" which have been implanted in the victims of this cult: Alpha represents general obedience programming; Beta concerns performing oral sex and running child prostitution rings; Delta is the program that creates assassins; Omega are self-destruct programs which cause victims to kill themselves if a therapist almost recovers their other deep-buried satanic programs; Zeta concerns the production of snuff films; etc.

Dr Hammond is a licensed psychologist in Utah, founder and director of the Sex and Marital Therapy Clinic at the University of Utah, has served as both president and vice-president of the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis, and serves as abstracts editor the American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis. He says he goes in fear of his life because of the revelations he has made. His theories have been accepted as literally true by countless Feminists and Fundamentalists.

Ok..... And?

[supertzar]

To me it seems ironic that you have this condescending attitude where you think you have a better understanding than me. I wouldn't think to argue about something like that, but you keep saying things like talking shit, do I need to speak slower, "aloof" people are not smart(!,) I don't get it and things like that. This seems to have been going on for a while, not just in this thread. It seems ironic because frankly my statements appear go right over your head.

You don't want to acknowledge my point about RAW's hypocrisy. I don't have a problem with someone being wrong, but for RAW to base his work on destroying the concept of rigid belief systems and then to go around railing against the reality of ritual abuse is hypocritical and from my personal knowledge of people with multiple personality programming it seems highly destructive. Do you not agree that he denigrates the very concept of ritual abuse-based mind control programming in the quote from Everything is Under Control?

[thirdwave]

To me it seems ironic that you have this condescending attitude where you think you have a better understanding than me.

The attitude is there because its a reality.

You do it to your self.



I wouldn't think to argue about something like that, but you keep saying things like talking shit, do I need to speak slower, "aloof" people are not smart(!,) I don't get it and things like that.
You have also had your own tone used in the convo, Just because mine is backed up with being right it does not make it any more rude.


This seems to have been going on for a while, not just in this thread. It seems ironic because frankly my statements appear go right over your head.

no, not at all, you are the one with the problem with RAW, and so far all you have managed to state is a couple of theories that he was not convinced by... and TBH he might even be right!


You don't want to acknowledge my point about RAW's hypocrisy.

thats because you change it to suit your new argument...

You have implied that RAW is a misleader... I have pointed out why I think that's not true.

I don't have a problem with someone being wrong, but for RAW to base his work on destroying the concept of rigid belief systems and then to go around railing against the reality of ritual abuse is hypocritical and from my personal knowledge of people with multiple personality programming it seems highly destructive.

Well that's your own opinion, and I disagree.

And also there we see blatant disinfo from you and projecting something that is not there.

He has not denied that ritual abuse goes on ... EVER... your little passage was not just about ritual abuse now was it... it seems you have taken it out of context to make it look like he was ignorant to ritual abuse...

in fact he has gone into how it can be done to program people in the book Promethius rising.

You are making false accusations... to make your points.

For me you do not appear to know where the guy is coming from...


Do you not agree that he denigrates the very concept of ritual abuse-based mind control programming in the quote from Everything is Under Control?

No I dont, I think RAW understood that most conspiracies even when true to a degree are over hyped with idiots who believe what ever they want to believe, to form the enemy they want to create.... and RAW laughed at how people will cherry pick their sources to suit them..

I do not believe he denied that ritualistic mind control goes on to some degree.. and he certainly did not deny how the mind can be programmed to be what ever the programmer wants it to be.

Even if over time he turns out to have missed certain truths... it would be for every 20 he got right...

and his works do not require people to stab in the dark anyway....

[supertzar]

Blah blah blah. I'm going to stop using e-prime and simply state that you are full of shit. RAW did state that ritual abuse does not exist outside the Catholic church and those were his exact words as quoted in an interview I posted on the old forum. Look it up for yourself if you want to know. The quote I posted from Everything is Under Control shows his snide attitude about the milieu of trauma-based mind control. "His theories have been accepted as literally true by countless Feminists and Fundamentalists." I understand the implications of that snide little put-down at the end. You don't want to understand - fine. Don't be so stupid as to tell me I don't know where RAW was coming from. That tells me that you don't understand it because I certainly do. You are telling me about the death of intelligence as if I don't know. I guess you have explained why, but it's bullshit so just fuck off already.

[krakhead]

Blah blah blah. I'm going to stop using e-prime and simply state that you are full of shit.

LMAO! I knew I liked you for a reason! :D

Add:- But in no way to I think that insulting my good friend TW was a good thing, just the wording of your insult.

[supertzar]

LMAO! I knew I liked you for a reason! :D

Thanks, krakkers. Looking back on my posts I slipped a few times and used 'were' and 'are' and things like that. I think it is a great tool to practice precision in communication. It also seems harder to be insulting without the word 'is.' "You seem like a dumbass" doesn't have quite the sting as the 'are' version of the sentence. Another excellent contribution from RAW, whose philosophies I tend to like immensely and whose attitudes on ritual abuse I despise.

[krakhead]

"You appear to me to be, in my current state of education and ignorance, a dumbass."

Nah, not quite got that snappiness to it has it? :D

And I agree that e-prime has it's place - I think that if it were used on this forum more often there would be less arguing, but using it when hanging out with friends may not make you very popular! :D

[thirdwave]

Blah blah blah. I'm going to stop using e-prime and simply state that you are full of shit. RAW did state that ritual abuse does not exist outside the Catholic church and those were his exact words as quoted in an interview I posted on the old forum.
Look it up for yourself if you want to know.

Well, I dont really want to know as I think tis you that is puking up the turd balls...

For a start if he did state that it did not exist outside the catholic church, then it does not mean he does not think it happened now does it?, it would mean that's where he thinks it goes on!... his opinion.

I think going by how you have taken stuff out of context, you are more than likely talking bollocks anyway...

The quote I posted from Everything is Under Control shows his snide attitude about the milieu of trauma-based mind control. "His theories have been accepted as literally true by countless Feminists and Fundamentalists."

So what?

can you prove the theory he was talking about to be factual anyway?, can you prove the person he is talking about to be %100 trust worthy?

Are you saying that the guy he is talking about should be trusted by everyone as a man with the un smeared truth?... or should a bunch of people who think his accusations suit their cause eat it all no questions...

My word you talk shit... and still make your point very vague... so far all I have got is because you think he does not think ritual abuse happens much outside the catholic chruch and because he mocked some guys story because people eat it word for word... you have some issue...?

Is there anything else that should make us give a shit?

You are slightly twisting his point to suet yours here anyway... for a start you just copied this from his website as its listed here, probably the extent of what you know.

http://www.rawilson.com/undercontrol.html

I would guess you are a bullshitter and just flicked through a couple books... going by your vague and pointless rambling here.


and again I say even if he was mocking the whole idea and is wrong then it does not make him some kind of demon! :rolleyes:

its his opinion. Like it or lump it!


I understand the implications of that snide little put-down at the end. You don't want to understand - fine. Don't be so stupid as to tell me I don't know where RAW was coming from.

You don't get the point, right or wrong about his view on the claims put aside, you don't even get his point... what was on the page before?.. and after?


That tells me that you don't understand it because I certainly do.

LOL, the Irony...

what are your views on chaos magic out of interest?

You are telling me about the death of intelligence as if I don't know. I guess you have explained why, but it's bullshit so just fuck off already.

Maybe later, :)

I will make a deal with you, you grow your brain sell a friend and I will gladly fuck my self as a celebration !

you might even get to re read a RAW book and know what he is talking about!.

[supertzar]

I can't read all that bullshit. Bleh.

[krakhead]

I will make a deal with you, you grow your brain sell a friend and I will gladly fuck my self as a celebration !


http://blogs.fairplex.com/blog/fairblog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/winner.jpg

Lol! Can anyone say - 'differing reality tunnels'? (to stay within the œuvre of the thread like :D)

[thirdwave]

I can't read all that bullshit. Bleh.

reading is good for you, don't quit because its tough.

Maybe this is why you cant grasp RAW....

keep trying!

[supertzar]

My brain probably is growing from the supps I take, but I am not really in a position to sell any of my friends so you'll have to just go fuck yourself for the fun of it, wavy.

[thirdwave]

Seeing as you clearly have no point and are just puking for the sake of it.. lets focus on the real stuff...

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41e62sqgJ8L._SL500_AA240_.jpg

http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/webpics/Robert_Anton_Wilson.jpg