I have read a great many books by Colin Wilson. I also feel he is one of the most important thinkers of our time. I have read the entire "outsider" series, along with many novels. I feel that an INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW EXISTENTIALISM may be one of his most important works. I also think he got himself caught in a cul-de-sac since the late 60's. He seems to be caught up in the occult since then. I do believe he is coming out with some new work soon. I only hope it will be a continuation of his earlier thoughts. I am the only person I know who even knows who Colin Wilson is! I would love to exchange thoughts on some of his very interesting ideas.
In response to Gerald James' message...
I agree with you that it would be great if Wilson would take a closer look at eastern philosophies, particularly Zen, as a compliment to his philosophy. I, too, in my brief readings in that area, have often been struck by the similarities between them. I'm not really certain how familiar CW is with Zen, although he seems much more conversant with Western philosophies and religions. I guess the man doesn't have time to read everything! :^)
In response to Rich Rodgers' message...
I too think that INTRO. TO THE NEW EXISTENTIALISM may be his most important philosophical work, although while it is a great summation it is not as eloquent as the "Outsider" books. It is too bad that Wilson has, for the most part, shifted his focus from his earlier philosophical and literary writings in favor of so much work in the occult, although I think it would be a mistake to view this work as being separate from his overall philosophy. Wilson truly does believe that mystical states are a form of peak experience. Books like THE OCCULT and MYSTERIES are just as valuable, I believe, as THE OUTSIDER toward understanding Wilson's project. Not all of these books have been top-notch (I think that he may have written some of them to keep food on his table) but most are well-written and interesting summations.
Since last I have received (from Maurice Bassett) a valuable Colin Wilson "artifact"; an audio tape from a discussion between him and Richard Foreman in a forum called "New York Open". In it he talks about his study of the Sphinx and launches the idea that ancient Egyptians had a different way of perceiving reality from the present one (I guess he means present Western man). Wilson said that it could be compared to looking at a red spot and closing your eyes, you then see a complementary green afterglow. The Egyptians chose to regard the green one as real because it is inside ourselves. Wilson further said that we pinpoint things with language while the Egyptian mode was somewhat like the animal intuition! This is a most interesting and important idea that may prove to be the new direction that Rich Rodgers asks for. By the way I, became a little intrigued by his statement of being the only person who knows who Colin Wilson is. Please elaborate Rich!
I find your comments very intriguing; I assume that the ideas Wilson discussed in the audio tape that you mentioned are the same that he discusses in his latest book, FROM ATLANTIS TO THE SPHINX (unfortunately still not published in the USA). I am not, unfortunately, qualified to discuss the archaeological and anthropological implications of what Wilson is saying, but I can say that the idea that humans once had access to a better means of understanding the world than language is becoming more and more popular nowadays. Anyone who has taken a look at the course of linguistics over the last 40-50 years can see that the problematic relationship between words and objects has assumed the forefront of postmodern and poststructuralist literary and philosophical debate (Wittgenstein, Derrida, etc.). As mentioned earlier in the forum, even some scientists believe that the world that we perceive is more a construction of language than actual physical objects (David Bohm's holographic theory). I've always believed myself that language was a direct result of humanity losing its direct, and animalistic, connection with nature at the moment that we attained consciousness, after which we have always had the false impression that we are separate from the surrounding world. As a result, we have developed intellectual tools such as language in an effort to regain some comprehension of the surrounding world, but language is an imperfect instrument and as a result we always long for that ancient sense of being and belonging that we must have had when we were purely instinctual creatures. This is why virtually all religions have a Fall legend - it is the ancestral memory we all share of a time when ourselves and nature were one and the same, a time for which, I believe, we all long for on a subconscious level. So, at least on a theoretical level, I think that Wilson's ideas are a definite possibility.
For any of you out there who are interested in learning more about current theor ies on the relationship between language and reality, I highly recommend the wri tings of Paul Auster, in particular his outstanding NEW YORK TRILOGY. Auster is one of the best American novelists working today, and his trilogy is a remarkabl e meditation on the relationship between language and reality.
I am a great fan of Colin Wilson's works. I first read 'The Occult' more than ten years back. Since then, I have been reading a lot of his books. I own more than 30 of his books.
I am originally from India and am currently residing in England. I am sure there are many fans of his in this country. I was wondering if we could arrange to meet the writer himself in a group. Colin Wilson resides in Cornwall. It is a beautiful place. We could spend a weekend there and spend time with him (if it is possible).
Since many years, I had a desire to meet him in person. I am sure he would not like to be disturbed by single people who are enthusiastic about his works. But if 5-15 people form a group and then request for a meeting, chances are that he might just agree. I am sure that most of us who appreciate his works are very serious people with different background and with totally different experiences. It would be very stimulating to exchange notes and compare our experiences in the light of his works. I am sure it would be very exciting indeed.
If anyone is interested, he or she can mail me or can post in this discussion group. If sufficient number of people are interested, we can then try to fix up a time and date for us to visit Cornwall and meet the writer himself.
I am willing to give it my best shot. How about you?
Regards and Best Wishes,
Alpesh Parikh.
In response to the above:
I wish you luck in your effort to get a group of people together to go and see Colin. I would love to join you, although given my financial state it's unlikely that I'll be able to travel to the UK anytime in the immediate future. However, even if you can't get a group of people together at one time, I would still encourage you to contact him and inquire about a visit for yourself. I don't know how things are for him now that he's older, but I know at one time that guests were a frequent and welcome occurrence at Wilson's home. I can provide you with Wilson's postal address, by the way, if you need it.
The discussion on language's relationship to reality is interesting. I'd also like to suggest the resource of Hofstadter's "Godel, Escher, Bach" which is an annoying book to read but when you are done you feel it is quite remarkable. The thoughts of E.F. Shumacher are good in this area, too, in his "Guide for the Perplexed."
An author who is currently expanding my mind greatly is Joseph Campbell. I am reading everything he wrote for the second (and surely not the last) time because of the scope of his knowledge. I have not read "Slouching Toward Bethelhem" by C.W. and can not wait to do so, but in Campbell's "Oriental Mythology" of the "Masks of God" series gives great depth to the meaning of the egyptian role in man's mental evolution.
I wish Campbell had met Wilson, or perhaps they had. My ideal meeting of minds would be Alan Watts, Colin Wilson, and Joseph Campbell-- what a powerhouse!
In response to the above:
I've never made it through Hofstadter's book cover-to-cover, but my mind was definitely blown by what I have read of it. I agree about Joseph Campbell; he had a profound impact on my own intellectual development about two years ago and I still enjoy picking up his books from time to time. If you like Campbell you might like venturing into the work of those who influenced his thought, particularly C.G. Jung. Claude Levi-Strauss and Mircea Eliade, while they are a bit less palatable to read than JC, are also fascinating on myths. Campbell, like Wilson, is a fascinating writer who is looked down on by the majority of serious scholars. A friend of mine who was working on an undergraduate research project on myths was actually told explicitly by her professor that she was not allowed to cite Campbell in her work!
I don't know whether Wilson is familiar with Campbell. Given the scope of his reading, I doubt that he hasn't come across him somewhere along the line. I do recall coming across a brief reference to Campbell in one of his books, perhaps it was THE OCCULT. I also thought that Wilson's recent religious atlas was reminiscent of Campbell's own atlas series that he was working on at the time of his death. An intellectual meeting of the two may well prove fruitful, as Campbell's beliefs about the relationship between myth and perception would tie in nicely with Wilson's beliefs about the need in our lives for the religious sense. However, we do know that Wilson is familiar with Jung (he's written an entire volume on him), and so I think it is safe to say that he's been exposed to similar ideas.
The Colin Wilson discussion has really taken off recently - perhaps in too many directions. Not many threads are taken up and followed to any conclusion, but it may be exactly in CW's vein. His work is so many faceted that it embraces almost all ideas, writers and philosophers.
In a response to my entry of May 16 John Morgan (JM) mentions the "problematic relationship between words and objects", and Gerald James (GJ) takes up the language/reality quandary by referring to Hofstadter's "Gvdel, Escher and Bach".
Colin Wilson (in the audio tape I mentioned) airs his idea that the ancient Egyptians possibly lived in a different reality; somewhat similar to the animals' intuition. He tells how his dog knows when he thinks of going out; refers to Nietzsche remark about the cow's happiness etc. and "flirts" with the idea of skipping language altogether in favour of a more genuine existence. JM adds that the Fall Myth of (almost) all religions reflects a longing for the pre-conceptual era when:.. "ourselves and nature were one and the same". Colin Wilson demonstrates the inadequacy of language by asking his opponent (The playwright Richard Foreman) to describe the difference between an orange and a tangerine. Obviously impossible. This is one extreme: language as a totally artificial superstructure. The opposite is - as JM points out - that language creates the physical world (David Bohm).
Wilson is probably correct about the Egyptians, but I don't think it was from lack of language they looked upon things through different glasses from ours. At this point I'll bring another book and writer into the discussion - "LILA" by Robert M Pirsig. In it he forwards the thesis that the language versus reality is a dead end because it is an offspring of the Mind/Matter schism, which in turn stems from the arch-division of our culture: the Subject/Object division. This primary dualism is not valid according to Pirsig.
The reason I enter this into a Colin Wilson forum is that he (as I see it) hovered on the brink of a similar idea back in the seventies with his "ladder of selves" concept. I do hope someone knows both Wilson and Pirsig. Also I would like GJ to give his account of how Hofstadter's "Gvdel...." (I know his and Dennett's "The Mind's I") relates to the language/reality complex.
Bodvar Skutvik
In response to the above:
Unfortunately I don't know Pirsig (yet) so I can't really comment on what you said about him. However, I find the idea that the word vs. reality problem is an offshoot of the old mind/body problem an interesting one, although I'm not sure I agree with it. The mind and the body are both a natural unit that was, at one time, artificially divided by philosophers, while language clearly IS an artificial invention that is separate from reality. Unfortunately I, and anyone else who has thought about this problem, have no solution to it...for the time being language seems to be the best tool we have for comprehending the world if we wish to continue to exist at a level above the purely instinctual. However, I've always thought that the next step in evolution probably would entail the development of some more direct means of understanding between humans and the surrounding world, which is suggested by Colin Wilson in many of his books as well.
In response to Bodvar Skutvik' May 20th entry:
I think Hofstadter's book points out the inadequacy of language for realty quite well in his exploration of Artificial Intelligence development. I don't understand what more account you're asking for, but the book seems pretty clear.
Zen Buddhism is a discipline often referenced by those I have read who delve into the problem of language (even in Hofstadter's book), and I personally see the problem ending in that discipline simply because it ceases to be a problem there.
An issue I have (but try to ignore, rightly or wrongly), is that once someone becomes "enlightened" (meaning the highest state of consciousness; call it a peak experience or samadhi, or whatnot), it seems that there is an urge to try and maintain that state indefinitely. It is this 'urge' that is the cause of so much trouble in Western thought, in my view, whereas in Zen Buddhism it is acknowledged in the balance of things. To live in the present as much as possible is the main thing-- to live in the middle path. In the Western way, I think Gurdjieff came closest to it....but there was still that nagging 'urge' to 'evolve'.
When I think of this 'urge', this need to explore the pole of the future/the higher/the positive, I don't see how any balance in the universe can be obtained in trying to stay there. I do see the power in it's realization and study, as Wilson has, and many others have. But why does it 'nag' so? What is the meaning of it?
And when I ask that last question, I always feel like I went around in a circle to the beginning.
Gerald James
In response to the above:
Your thoughts were very well put.
I think that it may be a mistake to assume that those who advocate a need for human evolution, mentally and/or physically, believe that this evolution will result in an eternal state of bliss, perfection, or what have you. As Wilson says in a videotaped lecture I own, chances are that when we attain the new plateau of consciousness that there will be a whole host of new problems which will require solving. I think that this is no doubt true, although of course we cannot imagine what those problems might be; it would be like a monkey, whose primary concern is where his next meal is coming from, trying to imagine the problem of import/export deficits.
My one question in relation to this theory is whether or not humans need to do anything at all to advance human evolution. It boils down to whether or not one sees human actions as having any influence on evolution. It's possible that consciousness is the tool by which a species which has reached our level of development evolves further, through mental disciplines, technology, or whatever; by the same token, however, the next step may be an entirely natural process that will occur regardless of what we do to try and hasten its occurrence. I don't think anyone can say with any certainty which case is correct. Wilson certainly falls into the category of the former view, however, and I suppose I lean toward that view as well. Either way I can't see how striving toward greater mental power can be harmful. Whether or not it will bear any fruit, I don't think anyone can say. I do think it is true that such striving can be of benefit to the individual, at the very least (although there are many, such as Krishnamurti, who would say that it is thought itself, and the striving for change, that is the problem).
First in response to Gerald James who says that the language/reality problem finds its solution in Zen Buddhism. Yes, definitely, I believe so myself. The thing is however to convey the idea to the Western mind, otherwise it will remain an exotic exercise for obtaining "altered" states of mind.
John Morgan believes that mind and body was once a unity, but later became divided by philosophers, however he does not see the language/reality division as part of the once whole. He says: "..while language clearly IS an artificial invention separated from reality..". I agree with his first statement, but not with the last. Disregarding body language, the mental math whereby we manipulate concepts-ideas-thoughts by use of syntactic rules takes place in the mind and is thus part of the mind/body setup.
The Mind/Matter fault line underlies absolutely everything in our Western culture and is THE problem that all great thinkers have tried - and are trying - to overcome; not least Colin Wilson himself. His ideas and interests from the Faculty X over the occult, the split brain and now the ancient Egyptians' different reality, are all attempts to span the chasm. So is probably Hofstadter's too, and my urge for Gerald James was to give his account of what H's approach is; there are so many books published today that we need summaries.
Bodvar (Bo) Skutvik
In response to Bo's above message:
I think I should clarify what I mean a bit more. I do believe that, for a long p eriod of time, Western philosophers mistakenly separated the mind and the body, but they did not create the problem. This conception of humanity was made possib le through the development of consciousness itself, which resulted in humans bei ng able to see themselves as being separate from the surrounding world. Language is indeed real in that it allows us to mentally construct objects that do not e xist in the external reality, but there is no direct correspondence between word s and objects. As the postmodernists put it, a word is not a thing, it is merely a guidepost toward the thing. Only Adonai, at the beginning of Genesis, possessed the ability to say "Light," and then there was light.
I very much like to see patterns. It gives me great peace of mind to see the inward look of the Old Testament and the outward of the New; the outward of the occident and the inward of the orient; the seperation of Western thought and the unity of Eastern; and so on and so on.... I have had a vision very much like Frijof Capra describes in the beginning of "The Tao of Physics", seeing dances in dances in dances, and it was and is very comforting.
In the pattern of the Occident there is also a division within a division within a division, and the pattern as I see it currently in history is a desperate look inward to the point of neglect of the outward, namely society. That is, Western man is so caught up with himself, he is neglecting his environment which includes other men. This is the point where responsibility is needed so much. The lack of it is such a sorrow I cannot describe, but every newspaper bursts with it.
So if the current cycle of Western Thought is to be as such, what is to be done to change it, if anything? In China, many dynasties have come and gone since the Tao was 'found', and dealing with the good and the bad resulted in such works as the "Art of War" and the "Book of Changes", and others which deal with responsibility to society. In many of these there is an activist role described, balanced (always the balance!) with the pacifist. I believe this activism is synonymous with the responsibility to harmonize man and society-- a common theme.
It is this activism that Western Man is so far from due to not applying himself in the work of it, or rather thinking much of it and doing little of it. Many of the great minds know this, and Colin Wilson is one of them-- a 'doer'. So I think the problem of language is in it's relationship not to reality, but to action. I don't know how clear that statement is, but it's what I got out of Hofstadter's book and others that talk of the language problem.
I will go and say that possibly language is detrimental to action, but I have not developed this idea further than that. Any comments?
The discussion on language and reality is interesting however I wish to address a more pressing issue raised by Wilson in his works. That is the matter of transformation through practice of certain techniques. Wilson mentions phenomenological exercises in The Mind Parasites but give few clues how to do so. Has anyone tried Wilson's techniques and found them to be effective? My own experience, from practising the "pen trick" in Access to Inner Worlds is that of a calm and clear and gentle focus. I do not know where this technique may take me after much practice. Does anyone else? Clearly, this method is very similar to meditation practice. And yet the slight difference is useful.
I enjoy Wilson immensely. He has one weakness, however, and that is the lack of technique and results. It seems that people ought to be developing increasing powers of mind in increasing numbers with the proliferation of mental development exercises. However, I see little evidence of that around me.
Empirical verification (although not necessarily in a lab) is necessary. Debates about language only serve, as fascinating as they sometimes are, to further the divide between reality and the apprehension of it and intellectual deepening of an ungrounded abscence of vison.
Re John Morgan (25 May)
I seem to remember that Colin Wison once referred to a work by HG Welles called "Mind at the End of its Tether", and here at the language/reality problem we really are at our wits' end. Yet, it is part of our culture's ailment and cannot be sidestepped.
You maintain the reasonable argument that ".. words are not things..". and want to keep this duality apart from the mind/body (my Mind/Matter) dualism, but I can't see the difference; language is subjective, things are objective. It's part of the setup. You say:.. "there is no direct correspondence between words and things". Yes, that's the very problem of the Subject/Object Metaphysics, there is no THEORETICAL "bridge", but this is grossly disproved by experience. We are (if we wish to be logical) doomed to either materialism i.e: mind is a by-product of the brain's workings, or idealism i.e: everything is mind. Both are equally valid from their own point of view.
You trace the origin of the dualism to "..consciousness itself which resulted in humans being able to see themselves as being separate from he surrounding world". Right, but the term 'consciousness' implies awareness, an ability to see the world as it is - objectively. A God's eye view so to say, and I think this is its weak spot.
To Gerald James (26 May)
I think you are on to something terribly important when you speak about our lack of social consideration, but this is - also - part of the Subject/Object setup. In this word view only matter is objective. Society is just an arbitrary assembley of human beings; eternally "unjust", better avoided - at least thwarted - to be "free", and this has grave consequenses.
In response to parker00@Camosun.BC.CA's message:
I don't know much about Wilson's phenomenological exercises myself...to date I've been reading primarily his literary and philosophic stuff, although I know that he used to run workshops based on his own brand of meditation. I don't know that we can fault Wilson for not trying hard enough to put his ideas into practice. The groundswell of popularity in meditation and other mental disciplines that has been developing in the West over the last 30 years is, at least in part, a result of the influence of thinkers like Wilson. Back in the 1950s and '60s, Wilson's ideas had a much larger impact on the "New Age" ideas than most people give him credit for. It's true that not everyone has gone in for these disciplines as of yet, but Wilson never said that the consciousness revolution would take place overnight.
While I agree that discussions of the nature of language tend to be more abstract, I think it would be a mistake to discount them entirely. Wilson has been preoccupied with the problem himself since the "Outsider" books and this concern persists right up to his latest, "From Atlantis to the Sphinx." Language and perception are very much related to one another, and any change in the nature of consciousness will modify this relationship as well.
To let out my 'wierd' ideas, could one say that the internet is an artificial noosphere? Is it the nearest we'll ever get to a real noosphere without evolving? Also, wouldn't a language of combined symbols be better? I have heard this from friends who know chinese and their comments on its combination with english (that it's a good combination with abstract thoughts).
Seeking the balance is still the overall theme here in this recent discussion, but I agree with JBM that striving for greater mental power probably isn't harmful (but there are forms of yoga that have been claimed to drive some inexperienced men mad).
In response to parker00, C.W.'s mental exercises are fun to do, and they are meditation like any other form of focusing the mind. There are dozens of ways to meditate, and whichever works well with a person should be practiced in discipline to acheive the wonderful, indescribable results. It is good to keep a journal to record your 'decent' into yourself, I think, because of all the interesting things you notice on the journey. Meditation is a private thing and needs no language, which is part of the idea that the development of language moves one away from one's self.
CW discussion forum owner John and I had a little disagreement whether the language/things dichotomy belongs to the greater Subject/Object dualism. I maintain that it does; EVERYTHING in our (western) world is either subjective or objective, the fault runs down to the very foundation of our reality.
However, let me complete my line ot thought from the May 28 entry where I ended by saying that consciousness (as awareness) is the duality's weak spot. This may sound ridiculous but follow me: Almost all creatures sleep, consequently they must wake up to a state different from unconsciousness. What reality does - say - a frog wake up to? Of course to a consciousness befitting a frog's nural level, just as humans wake up to a reality, in accordance with our biological complexity. But in no way is our awareness OBJECTIVE in a God's Eye sense. Well, then is objectivity (as a separate reality) suspended, so is subjectivity and their many offshoots: mind/matter, mental/physical, thought/body, word/thing etc. From this tabula rasa a new order must be created, and so has Robert Pirsig done, but that is another story.
So has Colin Wilson also - in a way. All his writing and thinking is about transcending the mind/matter "contingency". For instance his idea about the ancient Egyptians ("From Atlantis to the Sphinx") living in a different reality. Of course they did, they were of a pre subject/object age, along with all other ancient cultures. But there is no way back, my great hope is that Wilson will "discover" Pirsig's way forward.