The tale of the Evolver tribe?
posted by Steve Fly Agaric | April 8, 2010
- Login or register to post comments
- Print this page
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Propeller
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
IcerocketBuckminster Fuller.
I view part of the problem of evolving social groups into higher dimensions of creativity and communication, to be...to raise some critiq'.... a lack of Quality Critters, or individuals who can be identified as corner stone’s of the movement and embody a particular contribution to a paradigm shift, (Such as dear Bucky) who alone somewhat gathers the tribes with his comprehensive reach into design science and 21st century nano-cogno-bio-neuro science, reproducible experiments, inventions, entirely new methodologies qualify Buckminster Fuller as a concrete critter in the Hierarchy of humanitarian superhero’s, so who’s next?
Maybe if ZGT and Venus and Evolver and RS had such a visible and working hierarchy of values (made whole in some individuals) we could study and compare and 'lift up' to the light of present day debate, I feel the gathering of the tribes would be closer to realizing its full potential. Maybe they have and I am missing them, RS resonates with Allen Ginsberg to me.
I am biased and sparked up to blog this idea due to my study of Robert Anton Wilson’s 'the tale of the tribe' when pushing the reader toward this proposed method of choosing a GANG of intellectual master-builders, who can anchor the social-network and it’s goals and clearly defined objectives in history, and support the kinds of social movements we are discussing by casting a new web back and out through human history, science, literature, engineering, computer science and Magick, as I said, anchoring the comprehensive content in just a few carefully chosen paradigm shifters.
I nominate Buckminster Fuller as maybe the first Evolver 'Cornerstone figure' or whatever you wish to call these people, if we think this idea worth adopting, and strongly urge all evolvers and social networkers to read him, and strive to become as smart as him. Many here are already reaching his visionary brilliance and going beyond. And I am late to the evolver party here and I see the BFI is already linked into the fold which is great, I imagine an EVOLVER world Game model, and maybe a EVOLVER glossary based on many Buckminster Fullerisms’. Define the terms of communication.
In the context of Evolver and the questions confronting it and all the other social movements in orbit I hope that more attention can be paid to Dr. Robert Anton Wilson, and in particular the GANG of characters he devised, who together, I feel, provide precisely the hierarchy of value’s WE are looking for. Maybe I am coming on a bit strong here saying this, but if you really think deeply about it I think the results will help build a framework (a critical framework) by which to compare, distinguish and value the torrent of information flooding the superhighways.
I feel ever so slightly awkward proposing these quality critters here, as something Evolver should look into, stepping into a new pond and all that, and outside of the ‘Maybelogic Academy’ itself I have found little positive feedback on this list so far, I suppose Bob left us a real humdinger' to bamboozle us into thikning differently? http://www.maybelogic.net/
I perceive this list as a list of characters that RAW felt shaped and are shaping the social cybernetic system now widely called the World Wide Web. Maybe evolvers can also untangle the threads and branches that lead to ‘shamanic’ states, scholar activism, global ecology and information technology and Novely Wave (Timewave 2012). The singularity?
RAW wrote diamonds about 2012 & Terence and Dennis Mckenna, in his book Cosmic Trigger I, still one of the best bridges between the psychedelic community and the socio-cybernetic I guess. The list:
Bucky Fuller
Marshall McLhuan
Orson Welles
Claude Shannon
James Joyce
Norbert Weiner
Ezra Pound
Alfred Korzybski
William Butler Yeats
Ernest Fenollosa
Friederich Nietzsche
Giambattista Vico
Giordano Bruno
(Wiki google em')
I figure each of these characters is responsible for a paradigm shift, generally called Internet. I also figure that uncle Bob left this work incomplete so that networks like evolver might put-it-back-together-again, like Humpty Dumpty. Or, put something together. MAKE IT KNU. Yes, I do think Crowley, Reich, Gurdjieff, Leary, and Mckenna deserve a place on a new evolved quality critter Tree. But...who else? And can we build a GANG of female paradigm shifters too? Sincerely, fly agaric 23.
http://acrillic.blogspot.com/
http://tsogblogsphere.blogspot.com/
http://electronicdrugs.blogspot.com/
Comments
You said Buckminster! Ha!
— Apr 11, 2010
Come here in May.b
http://www.elvinhome.org/index.php
That little picture online is 60' in diameter! And when you fill it up with real drummers, dancers, and fire? Shift happens in the nano-moment. It's very RAW! Herb. And all Rites are always reversed.
In with Bucky
— Apr 11, 2010
Might we be able to wittle down Bucky's works to one or two critical pieces, from the stand point of evolver? It seems the geodesics and practical structural apps, are widespread so what source text from Bucky might you guide a novice toward?
I found Critical Path to contain a very accurate review of the BIG picture, or a model of a (Big Picture Model)...planetary ecology etc. (In retrospect, when you consider the 30 years of LAWCAP piracy since its creation, many principles such as Lawcap) may link with objectives of Zeistgiester crew, and provide plenty to anchor solid criticism at other projects, the Venus project, and other groups that propose a BIG Picture, a geopolitical ' ecological model.
In RAW's writing about Bucky and his ideas I noticed they often sit alongside Alfred Korzybski and his research based scientific method of 'neuro semantics' and I rekon that Bucky perfected the foundations of a new language, of synergy plus--somewhat including Korzybski's General Semantics--I guess, and so further developed and deployed by RAW, Leary, Bandler, Hyatt and others, thousands of others?
....In response to adding Roger Penrose and John Conway (both of the top shelf math persuasion) I might ask what their great contributions are to our tale? specifically, and why not Kurt Godel, or even M. C Escher (as we have not a pianter in our tribe yet) or Beethoven (no musician either) or Douglas Hofstadter and Ray Kurzweil? how do we value the greatness and magnitude of these contribution's? Who makes the measuring sticks and comparative data?
I hope such a question may provoke some critical thinking, although I hope not to get into a 'top-trumps' type argument.
I sincerely hope each individual can invest time and effort to produce their own tree's and models from which to develop a hierarchy of values, and hopefully with the network and allaround-the-world-humanity as it's guiding principle.
I would be fascinated to hear a critiq' of Robert Anton Wilson concerning his raps and writs on Claude Shannon: the father of information theory...or one of them. Great feedback, thanks.
Game of Lyf
— Apr 12, 2010
You make a strong and convincing case for adopting Penrose, Conway and Searle, as 'quality critters,' and I think Searle's distinctions in his models of consciousness like you say, make a good place to begin to look at Kurzweil, Hofstadter and the likes of Daniel Dennet, without throwing out the shamanic model, the (non-local, correlation without connection) model. Maybe Searle is closer to a Unity between the hard physics and math' geometry of consciousness with the seemingly more mysterious and 'archetypal' states of consciousness, states that take on a more Jungian' symbolic, cultural socio-linguistic form.
Maybe Searle will help us to define that thought-slogan that Dr. Wilson left us with: Language vs. The Equation? This brings Carl Jung and Wolfgang Pauli into the picture, I guess, and their 'synchronicity' principle that seems to me to be precisely this UNITY between language and the equation. Like Kurt Godel and William S. Burroughs rolled up into one Bugodel. Carl Jung is another quality critter, for me, but I have already digressed from the information theorists by bringing 'Jung' up.
I think that Godel's 'incompleteness theorem' like Werner Heisenberg's 'uncertainty principle' stand as the breed of principle that would qualify, if one were to pursue the game of quality trumps as 'cornerstone principles' of any realistic 21st' century theory of consciousness and/or history, and/or Economics (if you consider the retreat of business technology into the invisible realms of the imagination as having Economic repercussions?)
Also Claude Shannon, Von Neumann and Norbert Weiner certainly have Economic overtones when considered under the light of John Von Neumann's joint paper with Oskar Morgenstern 'The Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour' (1944). Here we have information theory and information entropy and WAR games, and Economics defined, in part, using math equations, I view this as an example of the 'equation' held up to the light and compared with the 'language' or the abstractions and feathery airy qualities of expressing information. James Joyce, Ezra Pound, W.B Yeats and Marshal McLuhan for example fall on the 'language' side of this 'language vs. the equation, equation. Shannon's MINIMAX theorem seems an extension of Von Neumann's GAME Theory, and considering our new DIGITAL environment in 2010, Shannon's MAXIM might be seen as at least one limit (chanel capacity) to our consciousness capacity, Hubble's 'RED-Shift' maybe another.
Perhaps John Searle provides such a metting point? RAW certainly does, by mixing the likes of Einstein and James Joyce together, in both fiction and nonfiction RAW's species of socio-cybernetics arguably contain a higher information content, and usefulness to us in the 21st century, than any other single individual from history. This is part of my contension concerning 'the tale of the tribe' a comprehensive 'tree' of paradigm shifters who still today contain the potential for surprises and new information.
Another standard or 'value' inherent within Robert Anton Wilson's 'tale of the tribe' might be called the heretic factor, or the tendency of the 12 characters to have been somewhat heretical, anarchistic and at the least eccentric. Shannon, Weiner and Von Neumann were no strangers to the authorities, as I presume Kurzweil, Hofstadter, Searle and most-but-not-all of the the physics, math' University crowd are.
Dr. Wilson himself and his GANG of TTOTT revolutionaries exhibit that extra and imporatnt principle of 'thinking for yourself, and questioning authority' for me, thinking about this today; this heretical factor and the focused brevity to be strong enough to stand up to brutal and oppresive forces and shout 'NO' in their face, hints at how we can move beyond language into Novelty. Bucky Fuller's distinction between 'Livingry' and 'Killingry' for example might help evaluate the critters who built computers and/or the Hydrogen Bomb. Usually I have found Institutions and Nation States hide 'killingry' behind closed doors, except for when the dynamite dude 'Nobel' and his prizes pop up once a year.
Possibly another way of 'valuating' quality critters is a measurement of Novelty, but how do you measure that? How to build a hierarchy or a 'time-wave tree' of individuals and their Novel inventions, to be studied alongside the existing time-wave of Novel 'events' and their historical context?
I look forward to hearing feedback on these points and to hear more about Alhambra, Escher and the Penrose math. I will go away and look into Searle a little more, thankyou for all the useful info'--Steve fly.
A Gang of luverly Gorillas
— Apr 13, 2010
"A science of the Ontological Objective" sounds sneaky, and I am reminded of the term: 'Guerrilla Ontology'; a well know Rawism, as a possible description of the New evolving cyber-activist philosophy, whatchamacallit'.
I, and many others romance this term without the underlying philosophical background that RAW had. John Searle seems a kindred spirit with RAW in the search for "A science of the Ontological Objective" some might suggest that 'Fuzzylogic' or 'Maybelogic' as defined by RAW are components of this New Science?, which brings us back to Giambattista Vico and his 'Science New', and Pound's 'Make it KNU' and Joyce's 'Nat Language' etc...
I agree that any group of quality critters must be presented 'warts and all' like any well balanced biography or documentary. The 'fallability' of the human nervous system is another tenet of RAW's philosophy, summed up in his Buckyesque slogan: "Universe is non-simultaneously apprehended."
I would hazard a guess that 'non-simultaneously apprehended' is an awkward, english cybernetic term, but one that helps translate the central tenets of Daoism, some forms of Buddhism and Confucian philosophy? Everything that Dr. Wilson wrote, since his early essay 'The Tao of Joyce' in the late 1950's, has a similar 'West-East, science-mysticism, Hardware-Software' synthesis at play, within the Jokes and Epiphanies.
For many Westerners on the path to spiritual discovery, an anchoring in cybernetic philosophy and possibly 'science fiction literature' with a RAW glossing, may help nurture relations between the 'Spiritualists' and the 'Materialists', to use two clunky terms. I am drifting away a little, once more from the discussion of a group of 'quality critters'.
The provocative question's of 'Language vs. The Equation and 'language as class warfare' put by RAW, have an affinity with Giambattista Vico and his New Science etymologically, 'Language as class warfare' being a central idea of Vico's, not only does Bob show how all members of his WWW 'tribe' reflect Vico's philosophy, but how such works as 'The New Science' can help social movements and open source philosophy of mind engage with nature, language and the other, I guess....
How do we define a bad myth? is it by its presentation and style of delivery, or it's closeness to the scientific description of 'things' of history and of culture, or it's closeness to the inner realms of psychological experience and interactive processing? For me Pound and Joyce proivide two great towers of literature that help all-around-the-world-humanity decipher this question, and many more on the topic of 'Reality' (Ontology) 'language' 'History' 'consciousness' and poetry, poetry, poetry.
William Butler Yeats, as above and Giordano Bruno as below.
Bruno maybe one of the great great great great great great godfathers of the world wide web, from the perspective of his 'decentralized' philosophy and 'every women and everyman is a star (net) terminal' type thinking. Please forgive my butchery of some of these ideas, I am going for speed of delivery of data here. RAW cites Paul Levinson as a cybernetic philosopher who has made the connection between Giordano Bruno and 'Global Internet'. Paul has a great book called 'The plot to Save Socrates' with audio excerpts, that I feel are relative here.
What do you think of the very general idea that Unified Field Theory, and TOE in physics require the ontological status of conspiracy theory, to propose such a thing? I feel 'conspiracy theory' is a part of the socio-cybernetic revolution as described by our man Bob. And I feel just so happens to keep in step with the 'heretical factor' 'Novelty Theory' and the fact that Surprise = Information. Nature as a Novelty conserving engine may tend to Love and like a good conspiracy, a good connection, an interactive process that leads to more connections, and emergent properties beyond the predictive apparatus and the initial input energy. Enter 'synchronicity' and 'conspiracy' enter a world where nothing is true and everything is permitted. But please...exit through the gift shop.
I'll compile a list of prime texts I feel relative to this 'Quality Critter' baseball team. Once more, thankyou for your patience and feedback. --Fly Agaric 23 MPHDJ.
Acryllic Figa
Thanks for posting the 'real
— Apr 15, 2010
Thanks for posting the 'real deal' Stein, not much argument just a sense of awe and a little panic at my own mistakes, and mixing the terms 'objective' and 'subjective' can lead to some seriously flawed thinking.
E-Sam wrote: "This is my last comment on this thread -- I won't have a whole lot of time to post the next few days, as I will be traveling. Maybe you should write another blog posting on some of your ideas.
http://tsogblogsphere.blogspot.com/
http://acrillic.blogspot.com/2010/03/constructivist-synchronicity-steve-...
My reply to the question of limits is best delt with, I think, by Dr. John Lilly, on the province of the mind:
"In the province of the mind what one believes to be true, either is true or becomes true within certain limits. These limits are to be found experimentally and experientially. When so found these limits turn out to be further beliefs to be transcended. In the province of the mind there are no limits. However, in the province of the body there are definite limits not to be transcended."
I agree strongly with the notion that belief is the death of intelligence. I might also quote a little from the MLA web site here, that adds to May B. Day's description of E-Prime, and the 'Korzybski Fenollosa Pound' synergy.
(My writing on this thread is not in E-prime. Sometime in the near future I wish to re-edit some of the ideas and strive for a operationalist view and precision.)
From the MLA:
"Courses are grounded in the philosophy and perspective of maybe logic, an approach which emphasizes the fallibility and relativity of perception and tends to approach information and observations with questions, probabilities and multiple perspectives rather than absolute truths. This "model agnosticism" informs all MLA courses by maintaining an experimental attitude towards any particular paradigm, theory or model of reality."
