I am doing a piece on Count Magnus for RENAISSANCE magazine (Nantucket, MA) and am most interested in all of Colin Wilson's sources on Count Magnus in addition to those provided by Count Olaf de la Gardie for the delightful subplot in Wilson's THE SPACE VAMPIRES. I would appreciate contact from anybody who has any reference material on the original Count Magnus who was the subject of the famous M. R. James short story.
Many thanks
Beecher Smith
44 N. Second St., #1000
Memphis, TN 38103-2220
(901) 526-6701
To fellow readers of Colin Wilson:
Some years ago I wandered the libraries of Knoxville, TN, reading books I drew at random from the shelves. Many were of no further interest, but one made an impression on me and I have read it again since: Colin Wilson's "Criminal History of Mankind." It was the first of many Wilson books I went on to read (and continue to read).
The main appeal to me was that human history was following a pattern, an idea that occurred to Wilson after reading Maslow's 'hierarchy of needs' works.
Quite some time after first reading "Criminal History" I again found the idea of human history following a pattern - but this time from an earlier source, and at even greater length. Beginning in the late 1930s/early 1940s a circle of left-leaning armchair (ie unpaid & largely unpublished) philosophers and social thinkers formed around a man named Harold Walsby. His theories came to be known as 'systematic ideology,' an ideology (explanation of ideas, including the idea of ideas itself) that accounts for the systematic development of ideologies. One long-time student of systematic ideology, the late George Walford, wrote an essay comparing the 'ideological series' of systematic ideology with Maslow's hierarchy of needs; the comparison was also made by Dr. Zvi Lamm at the University of Israel [1]. This completed the circle for me, joining Wilson, Maslow and systematic ideology.
I believe Wilson came to many of the same conclusions as did the students of systematic ideology, each unaware of the other. I believe anyone interested in one would find valuable confirmation in the works of the other. I have long intended to write a comparison between Wilson's theory of history and systematic ideology... perhaps some day I will.
Just as you have created a Colin Wilson page, I have created a systematic ideology page (although I am in contact with the remaining students and their descendants, both familial and fraternal) [see URL below]. I understand your motivations... no one else was doing it, so I thought I should!
Best of luck,
- Trevor
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Classroom/3735/ic/ic061402.txt NIAT - an independent archive of systematic ideology
Trevor Blake, P. O. Box 2321, Portland OR 97208-2321 USA
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Classroom/3735/
I am a psychologist (Ph.D., UMich '70) and I am involved in a project analyzing the letters of a serial killer. His letters express the belief that his victims will become his slaves in the hereafter. I'm trying to figure out if this is an original idea or one that he has borrowed somewhere. In my poking about for this answer, someone suggested that Colin Wilson may have reported something like this.
(NOTE: If anyone knows of any reference to this in Wilson's work, or anywhere else for that matter, please contact David.)
My name is Johnny Sxraker, and I'm a philosophy student in Norway. I'm thinking about writing a term paper about philosophical views on evolution, and found one very intriguing story that Colin Wilson wrote about. In "The occult" he mentions a very interesting case of "the flattid bug", a bug which in accordance with a "family" can arrange themselves to form a flower, not elsewhere found in nature, giving them the perfect camouflage. I haven't been able to track down anyone else mentioning this fascinating discovery, so I'm very interested in finding, maybe some more scientific, info about this phenomenon. If anyone has read about this, or similiar events, anywhere else I'd very much like to hear from you!
wilson fans,
I would be interested to know if other readers of Wilson's work have experienced the kind of synchronicity that has often left me befuddled, dazed but always exponentially smarter!!! Specifically, in relation to Wilson's ideas, I have found in Wilson's work, not only my own feeble intellectual inquiries powerfully examined and elucidated at exactly the crucial moment in my research, but I have also derived an inexpressable amount of comfort from his sound analysis of those strange happenings that seem to multiply as one delves deeper into the heart of ideas/mind. I would appreciate reading any responses. Time does not permit me to elaborate on my own personal experiences related to the work of Colin Wilson, but I would be delighted to correspond with anyone interested in his ideas.
I highly recommend the Philosopher's Stone.
I find some of Wilson's writing uplifting. For what it's worth, however, I disagree that Sartre is a philosophical pessimist. More importantly, Wilson's ideas about the evolution of consciousness are untenable and unprovable. What is true is that you can't change consciousness without changing people's material conditions; and you can't do very much at all when you are ill, under pressure, or hungry.
In Britain, at least, only the middle classes can afford to take Wilson seriously. Also, has anyone noticed that hardly any women post to this group? What does this say about Wilson and his ideas? Hope this doesn't offend too much - I'm just trying to keep the message brief!
In response to the above:
I would be interested to hear your take on Sartre.
What you say about his views on evolution is somewhat true...by the same token, there are a lot of people who would agree with his assessment of evolution, or something approximating it. At any rate, I think that the most important aspect of Wilson's concept of evolution is its function as a myth. Counter to the pessimism which dominates our culture's view of the world, Wilson advocates an optimistic one which affirms that our existence is meaningful, by saying that, individually and as a species, we are developing toward something. In this sense it doesn't really matter whether or not his thesis is scientifically demonstrable (although it is certainly not disprovable, either).
About the class issue, I agree. Wilson has tended to overlook political and economic perspectives in his work. His sparse writings on the subject (such as MARX REFUTED, or his essays on Hitler) are, frankly, embarrassing. Wilson is completely dismissive of all Marxist theory, without demonstrating any real understanding of its many manifestations. Can Marx, Lenin, Walter Benjamin, Adorno, Stalin, Sorel, Che Guevara, Baader-Meinhof and Debord all be dismissed as though they were all saying the same thing? However, in Wilson's defense, perhaps it is only through a change in consciousness itself that our social problems can finally be resolved. I'm sure Wilson himself feels this way.
As far as the lack of female participation here on the board, I would hesitate before drawing any conclusion from this about Wilson, as you will find that just about every discussion group, newsgroup and mailing list on the internet is overwhelmingly male. I have heard from a few very enthusiastic female Wilson readers in personal correspondence, although it is true that the majority has been from men.
Although Wilson seems to have grown concerned about this issue, as, a few years ago, he had intended to write an appendix of sorts to THE OUTSIDER entitled THE FEMALE OUTSIDER, although he never finished it (a lengthy outline of the book is available as a pamphlet from Abraxas).
I never take offense to intelligently made comments, and I don't think anyone else who reads these pages does, either.
I agree with the notion that Sartre was not a pessimistic philosopher. He is almost as misunderstood as Nietzsche is. I hope the next century reveals some more optimism in existential thought.
But I disagree that an increase in consciousness depends on socioeconomic factors. Certainly, it is influenced by them (as much as it is influenced by all factors of life), but anyone can come upon an increase of consciousness in any condition. The need for a dogmatic pathway is, I believe, just a groove that western thought and religion has created. If anything, 'higher' socioeconomic factors tell people NOT to raise their consciousness.
Gerald James
In response to Dr. Harper's note of the 24th March: It's not clear what would constitute a proof about Wilson's ideas about the evolution of consciousness. But then, neither is it evident that they are untenable: this would require them to be disproved. Has this been done? Furthermore, it may be the case that you can't change consciousness without changing people's material conditions, but the reverse seems equally likely. People's consciousness has been changed under the most apparently unlikely material circumstances, and hardship may even encourage this process (cf. Victor Frankl on inmates of concentration camps, Arthur Koestler's semi-autobiographical 'Darkness at Noon', etc.) I hardly need add that this is not intended to be a rationale for encouraging solitary imprisonment, industrialised mass murder or economic hardship; rather to suggest that 'changing (one's) consciousness' is not exclusively a political term, and is not generally so used in either CW's work or the correspondence on these pages -- for better or worse, the primary interest of mystics is usually not politics, and it may be that the senses of this expression are being confused. With respect, the observation that 'in Britain only the middle classes can afford to take Wilson seriously' comes across as at best questionable and at worst (though it is obvious that the author didn't intend it that way) even patronising; the issues CW writes about are not class issues but existence issues, open to anyone who is intellectually curious, of whatever age, gender, class or origin, can read, and has access to a public library. That people are sometimes hindered from doing so by social or economic deprivation, or being ill, under pressure or hungry is undesirable and something that should be addressed in the political domain, but not a reason for abandoning or ignoring curiosity about questions such as those that CW raises. Not sure what point is being made by the observation that 'hardly any women post to this group'. That women spend less time on the internet than men? That women are less interested in CW's ideas than men, or have less time, or think it less worthwhile, to discuss them? That something is true or interesting only if some women believe it to be so? Not an argument for stopping looking at the ideas, though perhaps one for bringing them to a wider audience.
Regards,
Jonathan Smith
In researching for my senior paper on Dostoevsky and Nietzsche, I have come accross an excellent book (although outdated) on the "outsider's" or "stranger's" solitude and inward loneliness. It is called The Seventh Solitude by Ralph Harper, Johns Hopkins Press, 1965. I thought Wilson fans might appreciate this book, although beware of the information passed about Nietzsche especially-- the translations available at the time of Nietzsche are dubious if not blatently incorrect. Anyhow, I am parrelleling the ideas of Nietzsche's overman with Dostoevsky's characters (Raskolnikov "If Napoleon were in my position, would he even hesitate to kill this old crone?", as well as Stavrogin in Demons and the Underground Man.) Feel free, anyone, to ask me to elaborate and e-mail me if you want me to send you what I have so far.
I noticed that not one of you in the Jan-March postings mentioned the Outsider. It may well be blatently obvious that you have read the Outsider-- but Id like to know who has read the other books of the trilogy. I.e. The Stature of Man, Religion and the Rebel, etc. Its been three years (trying to show my way out of the fly bottle) since I've read the trilogy books. Colin Wilson has had one of the most important influences on my life.
Many people say that Wilson asked a question (and what a brilliantly written question his was) but did not answer it-- that he leaves the problem open in The Outsider. On the contrary, he did give an answer which he was satisfied with, namely that of the occult and paranormal activities. This solution does not suit everyone (of course, neither is alcoholism and suicide which Im sure some of us are familiar). My view is that the problem does not have to be put in absolutistic and metaphysical (Platonic, even) terms. There may not be a truth or "the answer" because it is a question based on a brilliant person finding associations with heros of good books. The problem is man made- created, not found. Coming from an existentialistic point of view, I see that Colin Wilson has replaced the "God" with "Man" or "Truth." It is placing things beyond man's reach-- placing the 'essence' above and before the 'existence'. And isn't the end all of man to create? This is not to discount the power or importance of the Outsider at all. I simply want to make wilsons outsider and the truth attainable.: If Trevor Blake or David Van Nuys reads this: I am interested in your general topics of study, as I am studying criminology. To J.R. Williams, Its good you are having an existential crisis-- allow me to give you my insights if you e-mail me directly. And, by the way, to Stephan Harper: I am a woman. I think society teaches women to be pusillanimous but there are a few (well only one that I know of) women who are strong enough to read Wilson and not crumble under his dangerous weight.
C. Wuthrich
In response to the above:
I particularly liked your comments regarding Wilson's "solution" to the Outsider problem. My own conclusion is similar to yours (although I didn't express it as well in my own message), and in this sense I see Wilson continuing Nietzsche's project: namely, that the Outsider must create his/her own myth to live by. For Wilson, for whom the religious instinct is quite strong, the answer was occultism. I have mixed feelings about his enthusiastic embracing of the occult: on one hand, he opened my mind (along with Jung and Joseph Campbell) to a lot of ideas and concepts that my Westernized, skeptic brain had not considered before, and I feel that I now understand the religious impulse in a way I could not have before. But on the other hand, Wilson's own attitude to the occult confuses me. He often treats it as if magic were just as valid as science, and seems to believe that it is only scientific skepticism that prevents scientists from acknowleding this. For myself, I remain unconvinced that Einstein and Crowley can exist in the same universe as anything but antagonists. They are competing myths. I may be misreading Wilson but that's how it seems to me thus far.
Wilson fans are not only widely scattered, but most likely from a wide variety of philosophies-- although all are very intellegent indeed. There are those interested in the higher stature of man like the 'overman'; those interested in the cognitive science of Darwinian evidence for the higher man; those interested in the criminal art forms of Wilson's interest; those attatched to the occult and/or paranormalism, etc. Of the latter, I, too am an avid skeptic of paranormal activity. Wilson, more than anyone has given a good reason (or account-- to hell with reason) to explore these areas. There are some people who have an authentic need to grasp the metaphysical, "higher" forces that are associated with god and religion. Indeed, humans have a need to 'know' the 'truth' and to explain phenomenon in terms of anthropormorphological explainations (like God as a "creator" or "designer" of physical activity). Humans have a need to quell loneliness (and there may be some evolutionary evidence for this), and invent someone--anyone-- to be there when they need him. As Nietzsche says, God is only needed when people are in hardship. And, as exemplified by Dostoevsky, humans have a need to be a martyr, or to "sacrifice" themselves in hopes that "God will see and know everything" and "god will reward for sacrifices." Wilson is intellegent enough to see that Christianity is dead, paradoxical, "God will see and know everything" and "god will reward for sacrifices." Wilson is intellegent enough to see that Christianity is dead, paradoxical, and worthless, but he cannot let go of the psychological needs impelling him to some form of religion-- paranormal and supernatural beliefs. I respect that highly, as it is extremely difficult to let go or push away god or any form of god.
I would add to your excellent list of qualities found in Wilson readers (quite true!) those who go against the grain of super-specialization in today's intellectual disciplines and cross boundaries. And synthesize. Also those who are willing to rise above the swamp of pessimism we are in and believe in the human potential for greatness.
I disagree somewhat with your assessment of the religious impulse, however. While God may be dead (by which Nietzsche meant the INSTITUTION of God, not the need for a god itself), there is still much to be learned about the human condition from the traditional religions, even Christianity. Wilson has named a number of religious thinkers, both old (such as St. Augustine) and new (Teilhard de Chardin) as inspirational. I myself am endlessly fascinated not only by the Bible but by the "forgotten" branches of Christianity like Gnosticism. One should not understand the religious impulse as a regressive feeling but rather as an expression of aspects of our nature which no other discipline - not art, philosophy, psychology, politics or science - has yet succeeded in supplanting.
Yes, I believe people still do seperate the human potential into two distinctions. 1) The downfall of man (i.e. from Schopenhauer's influence and Spengler's Decline of the West), and 2) the optimists.
1) I, too, see not much greatness coming from humans now days. For example, if you turn on the radio, all you hear from popular stations are kurt cobain wanna-bes. I think Kurt was excellent in admitting to be who he was and nothing more. Strong people can truly accept who they are-- and Kurt was authentic in not putting on pretenses, not dressing up for concerts, not taking his egoism too far. And one of my favorite quotes from him is "I wish I were like you/ Eas-ily amused." On the other hand, he started this "lazy singing" fad that is so popular among young bands. No one has any skill; the have no talent, they can't sing, they can't come up with lyrics, they have no training in music theory or poetry or instrument lessons (although the latter may a sign of true passion to learn the instrument-- as my friend says, "Every good guitar player I know taught themselves.") What ever happened to the creativity of Pink Floyd, the skill and complicity of Led Zep, the poetry of The Doors?
I think Wilson, too, said that no one is creative anymore. I.e. playwrights and poets from the ancient Greek times use to write hundreds and hundreds of pieces of work. No one does that anymore (except wilson himself, of course). People's minds have been replaced by television, and everyone is interested in learning computers rather than philosophy. I just read in my cognitive psychology book that the "simple act of recognition happens in one second. The signal can cross a synapse in one millisecond. Therefore, only a thousand neurons in one second can be fired." Even though this is an enormous amount of firings-- it is a finite and limited number. Children fill their neurons with novel information and their thousand neuron firings are completely filled. The firings from adults, however, are made mostly from habit. Some people simply do not have common sense because their brains are wired in stupid habits and they cannot get out of the habits in order to think of things in new paradigms. Also, children must store new and novel info before any more can be acquired. This may be the reason why children simply cannot understand something more complex such as philosophical ideas. The herd, too, since they fill their brains with daytime television, do not have the background info stored enough to understand concepts which Outsiders know. Well, that may be some biological reasons for the stupidity and decline of man.
There may be some inevitable evidence from physics, too, from a notion called entropy. Previously, the conservation of energy had answered the question of whether human life would maintain itself, by postulating an equilibrating tendency in heat and energy flow. Entropy, on the other hand, is the gravely pessimistic view that heat is constantly dissipated, that the universe is running down. This is the antithesis to the Darwinian optimism that the human race becomes stronger through natural selection.
2) However, there is a flip side. The next generation, in all their ability to admit their laziness can authentically accept themselves as human beings. Because people are taught to be more critical of authority, they may be critical of religion and reject God (as evidence, look how many more agnostic people there are. And how many pusillanimous lazy "religious" people who believe just for the sake of believing). If people reject God, then it follows that people must turn to themselves. They must rely on themselves to be creative, they must take responsibility for their own improvement, they must give credit to themselves for human achievements. Perhaps there is some hope of ridding essences beyond one's control, in favor of things in reach of humans themselves. In, my opinion, this is the first step in improving man's lot.
These are two extreme views on the fate of mankind, and most people synthasize and find happy mediums. I totally agree with your comments on religion. The older institutions hold enormously important facts about human psychology and history. Do you know about Zoroastrianism-- Zoroaster was the leader of the first monotheistic religions. Zoroaster's followers preached to the Jews about 'only one god' and hence the jews rid their religion of the many gods it had and stuck with one 'all-seeing all-knowing god.' Nietzsche studied this religion, and a different language derivation of "Zoroaster" is "Zarathustra."
I think you're right that the two antagonists in the human worldview remain the pessimists and the optimists. Just as debates rage in physics which are, in essence, just rehashes of the old free will vs. predestination arguments from theology. And, as most good scientists will attest, in the end it is one's worldview which will determine the basis of the conclusions one draws from supposedly objective science. And I would argue (like Wilson) that it is this effort to view the world "objectively" through the lens of science and reason alone that has led to this culture of pessimism and mediocrity. After all, when you're faced with the plain facts of existence in the rationalistic sense it's difficult to perceive any meaning in human life. As Wilson himself said somewhere, "Any system of values must ultimately be mystical," and I tend to agree. Without meaning, people cannot integrate themselves into the world, and as meaning has no "objective" existence, total rationality is destructive to life.
I also must say that I disagree that the rejection of god by the average individual is a sign of human progress. It indicates a decline in power on the part of the institutionalized religions, but I think the hunger for the religious is just as great as ever. Fewer people may base their lives on the Bible today, but then they just throw themselves into money, or sex, or Dianetics, or Communism, or their nation, or Seinfeld, or whatever other idol strikes their fancy. People aren't turning toward themselves, they're turning toward the shoddy new gods of today which offer instant gratification but do not offer the structure and myth provided by the "classical" religions. Even those who turn to themselves are in a sense constructing a new god or a new myth to give their lives meaning. Even Nietzsche needed to invent the superman! In other words, I really don't think it's possible to escape the mythological component to our lives, any more than it is possible to communicate without some form of language.
I am enjoying the recent discussion of CW's ideas and tangents and agree with all said. I, myself, think CW's 'practicing' religion is occultism by default-- it is the only thing that interests him enough to 'stick with'. Even though I believe it to be a poor path to enlightenment, I must remember to "[let] others find their own path, for what path could be better?"
Zoroaster, however, preached about two gods, a good and an evil (he was the ultimate predecesor of Descartes). It was he, Zarathustra, who was chosen by Nietzsche to use as a vehicle to right his own wrong and recombine these destructive morals (good and evil) back into the one, because Nietzsche believed in one taking responsibility for one's actions and criticizing oneself toward truth.
I don't see a decline of man, though, just an age of anxiety as the 'death of God' takes shape and people slowly (too slowly for my tastes) recognize that myths/religions are metaphorical and not literal and they are alone responsible for life. But not just for their own life, also for the life of the entire universe (which IS their own life really). The first step toward that mighty goal is coming about in the realization of the biosphere or Gaia of this planet.
Gerald James
As one of those 'rare' females with an interest in Colin Wilson's work, I wanted to add a few of my own colours to the fascinating ideas exchanged on jbm's discussion pages. In contrast to most of the other readers, I am not a literary fundi, or an academic - I am a professional artist, and have been interested in Colin Wilson's ideas for the last twenty years. It was his 'Outsider' which gave me the recognition and thus the strength, to transform my life - i.e. to renounce virtually everything I had been 'taught' in order to follow my own path. It seems to me that the essence of Colin's philosophy - in fact of any philosophy - is that it should enable one to live better, and it is 'intentionality' APPLIED to my day to day existence which has transformed my living for the better, and therefore the living of all others in my sphere of influence. There are many people who are far more intelligent and erudite than myself who have much to expound on various philosophies and to add in the way of commentary to everything which has already been said, and yet who seem to live lives in contradiction to their 'beliefs'. It is amazing to me that a person can spend an hour or so talking about raised consciousness and awareness and yet be completely oblivious of his actual surroundings at that time. Or that someone can know and understand 'intentionality' and 'metavalues' and yet behave physically or emotionally as if they are dissociated from their minds. Colin Wilson (along with Gurdjieff and Krishnamurti) is a 'real' role model because he lives his ideas, not simply preaches them. My favourite book at the moment is William Anderson's "The Face of Glory: Creativity, Consciousness and Civilization". In it he states that "The constant factor in the origins of civilizations is the presence in societies of men and women who have achieved the inner transformation and who have through their example or through their own works brought about a significantly deeper transformation of art, thought and the interpretation of knowledge for their own and succeeding generations." (my italics)
Is it possible that there are so few women (consciously) interested in Colin's philosophy because females are supposedly biologically more practical while men are more analytical? For my own part, I struggle to find the time to sit down and share my ideas via this computer as much as I would like to. Having 'intended' myself to this most beautiful part of the world, (Knysna on the Garden Route of Southern Coast of Africa) the forested mountains and endless bare beaches and ocean continually call me to experience them, music wants me to attend to it, people in my life never cease to show me new ways of seeing, there is shopping to do, meals to cook, dishes to wash, and let's not forget the books to read, the drawings to draw and the paintings to paint! These days I see less and less reason to analyse what, how and why we are all thinking the way we do, whilst I become more conscious of what an enormous difference my conscious intending makes to the quality of my moment to moment existence.
On the point made about consciousness being dependent on socio-economic conditions - our own Nelson Mandela stands as an example which refutes that contention. However, my own conclusion is that what is essential for the raising of consciousness is TIME for contemplation. Mandela had plenty of this whilst in jail on Robben Island and it gave him the space to become a truly transformed being. All those billions of unfortunate people who spend all their time worrying about the bottom few 'needs' on Maslow's Heirarchy Pyramid have very little chance of developing their intellectual curiosity. And all those people who fill their time with images and sounds on the TV screen are in the same position, to my mind. And yet I have this vague theory that all those lazy brains are not actually needed for the evolution of humanity since computers have taken over the capacity for storing information, analysing it and 'creating' from it. And soon all this information, and more, will be stored on molecules once they have perfected nanotechnological techniques. The molecules can be launched into space in cloned billions where they can float amongst the stars indefinitely until the next Big Bang happens..... Humiliating, isn't it! (And I have also been wondering if religion, the arts, philosophy, and all the other abstracts, should in fact be called 'distracts' because they have been invented to keep our minds off what the universe is REALLY doing in the way of evolution.)
I totally agree with Ms Wuthrich that "the end of all man is to create". Like Colin Wilson, William Anderson puts much store in the faculty of human imagination, calling it an "expansion of awareness into worlds that are pre-existent and already coordinated." ......"creativity is an unveiling, a remembering of what is already latent and waiting to be given, a Platonic anamnesis. Thus the appreciation of the audience or the readership is fundamentally an appreciation at being reminded of the existence of those worlds in their own inner natures. For the creator and the audience to enter into those worlds or to be reminded of them is a recovery of freedom, a release from darkness or a return from exile." (By the way, Trevor, you would I think find Anderson's ideas on repeating patterns in history very interesting.)
I believe that at the end of creativity is the unity of all, godness, the unfathomable, or whatever one calls it - the place where we all want to be as one. But we have that place within ourselves if only we 'intended' to see it instead of still being in the church-conditioned state of believing that it is outside us. Although of course this makes it very much easier to shift responsibility for making our own choices!
IIs there really any difference between the creative power given to Einstein with that given to Crowley? As I see it, the difference was in the personal application of that power. Einstein used it to grow beyond his ego, Crowley used it to grow further into his ego. We learn from both.
Finally, I'd like to inform everyone if they have not yet heard of him to look into what Fred Alan Wolf has to say. He is a quantum physicist and he has just written 'The Spiritual Univers: How Quantum Physics proves the Existence of the Soul." The closed minded will say it is more NewAge hype, but if you approach it with an open mind you may find like me that a whole lot more mindstrings which were floating about in search of sense suddenly connect. With all of Colin Wilson's ideas already in focus, put Wolf's behind them like a different coloured filter lens - again, there are no answers, but suggestions which further increase awe and wonder of the miracle of mind. (I found him and many links, including a 35 minute audio interview, through amazon.com.)
Happy living!
Joanne Taylor
I see, as you and Wilson contend, that viewing the world through the lens of science has de-valued the world. Pure rationality and objectivity means splitting dividing our perspective and ignoring the other side-- the side of life we use to find meaning and importance. Placing such an importance on reason can lead to pessimism and mediocrity. As Dostoevsky puts it, people will always strike against that pure reason, against the somewhat arbitrary and absurd notion that 2+2=4 because they do not want to be treated as mechanical piano keys. But I don't see that pessimism and nihilism is the only reaction against pure reason. Science and objectivity is only one excercise among human beings, and I suppose the people who fall into nihilism forget the fact that they are human and have needs other than "finding the objective truth."
Let me put it another way, people think that if someone is not mystical, spiritual or able to put their faith in something transendental (even like "soul" or emotion), then they think the only alternitive is to be materialistic. This dualism is fundementally confused and I am having the hardest time figuring out how to explain it. Decartes held a powerful paradigm.
Nietzsche did NOT "invent the overman" as his mystical counterpart. The overman is first and foremost a human being-- an achievable ideal, not an idol. He is attainable and real-- not a transendental figure placed before and above the individual.
Perhaps people will idolize superficial things for a while, but sooner or later the people will start turning towards themselves. this is not to say that they are idolizizing themselves or making themselves god. Exactly the opposite. After 4000 years of worshiping mysticism and groveling in an other-worldliness attitude, I would hope people will start taking responsibility for their lives. This change in society will not happen soon, and not gradually either. I suspect a big revolution in a change of attitude is on its way.
Cinn
being verynew to this www net-surfing buisness(and not really knowing what the fuss was all about)i was pleasantly suprised to find a site dedicated to my favourite writer ,i first came across his work (mysteries) about five years ago and have continued to read it and everything else i could find of his,for about three of those years it was not very easy as i was living in poland but find them i did.at the risk of sounding melodramatic i can say that he gave me a whole new perspective on life.being at first primarily interested in the occult side of things i was introduced to a wider scope of thougth,e.g at the momment i am working through some of T.lethbridges work and can highly recommend "GOGMAGOG"and "WITCHES A ANCIENT RELIGON" i look forward to reading and recommending more .the main theme of wilsons books the quest (for want of a better descrition) for faculty X has held me in some fasination for a long time now and ihave not come across such a theory that strikes such a note in its readers(i have been force feeding most of my family and friends,and such a response is common place) .his style of writing is only to be comended i think,although at times (more recent works) he seems to be going through the motions i.e sphinks to atlantis,and although a beatifully put together book"star-seekers" this and his way of at times drumming his point home with a hammer, which while never having put me off has with others are the only slight complaints.i feel i could rattle on for hours on this but i will restrain myself for now,just to leave with a couple of questions i hope someone out there could help me with.1."alien dawn" is it any good? 2.i read somewhere once that early on in his career after the success of "outsider" his reputation was harmed in some way can anyone enligten me on this?.i think that'll do for now only to recommend getting "afterlife" if any one has'nt read it.
I apologize for implying that Cinnamon Wuthrich, or anyone else for that matter, might be crushed "under the dangerous weight of Wilson's ideas". This certainly wasn't intended. I have to admit that my previous message was rather hastily written.
I feel I have to respond, however, to some of the points Cinnamon Wuthrich raises.
First, which is more worrying: the possibility that "people's minds have been replaced by TV" and that the "herd" is dumbing down, or the expression (by an obviously intelligent person) of fascistic nonsense?
Also, I don't agree that people are no longer creative. They just create in a different way. As Brian Eno points out, artistic talent no longer depends primarily on executive skills. Ideas have become more important. This shift is part of the evolution of the arts.
If you want to pick on rock music, what about the British band Wire? In my opinion, their later work (especially The Ideal Copy and A Bell Is A Cup Until It Is Struck) constitutes the most underrated art of our century.
As a writer and literary historian, I am most interested in Wilson's aesthetics. Too few critics are interested in the existential issues raised in literary works. I think Wilson is right to say that there is little optimism in twentieth-century art, and to worry about this. I don't believe, however, that "pessimistic art is a contradiction in terms". In that case, we must discount most of our great art from Beowulf to Francis Bacon.
Stephen Harper
I think if one wants a good grasp upon directions of creativity, then the study of mythology is a MUST. I know of no other scholar more 'in tune' with the tide of creativity than Joseph Campbell. His work, I believe, will grow more and more popular as time goes on while hopefully spawning increased study (hints of which I see already in the form of a growing new interest in Jungian study).
The 'four horsemen' heralding the new mythology I see as: Blake, Nietzsche, Jung, and Campbell, with many, many sidekicks along the way. This is of course biased to the Western side, but it is most interesting to see that all these men recognized the Orient (with Nietzsche dutifully going for the Occident's jugular to keep things focused on truths). Much more study is needed to remove the faults of both the East and the West, so that they can combine in a beneficial union for mankind. This is where I wish Colin Wilson would turn his great attention to, because I think the creative direction of the world is in need of help from the great minds due to the state of our planet. The earth is fast coming into disrepair and creativity needs to become more responsible for assisting its survival. I believe it fills that role anyway, but not in a finely tuned manner. Hopefully the next wave of myth will bring its lens upon the state of the planet and its survival. (Then again! Isn't it interesting the themes of the current science fiction movies and the appeal of 'Titanic'?)
Gerald James
Just a quick note in response to Steve D's question: is "Alien Dawn" any good? The book hasn't been published yet but will be coming out at the end of May: published by Virgin in the U.K. and Fromm International in the U.S. As well, Colin's book "The Books in my Life", which was published in Japan this past year, will be issued in an English language edition this year by Hampton Roads in Virginia. A welcome return to literary criticism! Colin will also be appearing in October/November this year in Toronto at the Harbourfront Authors Festival, in New York at the Open Centre, and in Virginia at the 1998 Fortfest.
Hello All
I would like to strongly recommend the book FROM ATLANTIS TO THE SPHINX. I am very interested in Colin's way of thinking and would like to write to others with the same interests.
email me at (hurcombe@one-name.org)
Sue
Colin Wilson wrote "Human consciousness operates at far too low a pressure for efficiency." This I believe is true. He also writes "Twentieth-century science, philosophy, politics, literature - even music - has been constructed upon a weltanschauung that leaves half of human nature out of account." (He should have added occultism to that list. Religion is a part of it all, also, though certainly not a twentieth-century construction, but still existing and carrying on). These tools mankind has made to utilize his consciousness are necessary but are misused! It is like a carpenter trying to apply his skill to a piece of wood, but uses a wet noodle instead of a good saw! What a woeful history we have of crazed megalomaniacs and the like whom have made ripples in the cosmic sea that are difficult to still and silence. However, what is done is done. The here-and-now is the thing we can work on. This is the call to harsh truth and responsibility (begun by Nietzsche for this century, but not taking hold yet till the next). Colin Wilson saw part of this in what he calls the "new existentialism". I call it wholly "reality science". This wonderful period of time we live in is finally allowing the means (global connection and information access) for us to study what reality truly is. This, incredibly, has never been possible in the past.
Gerald James
I've been reading Colin Wilson's work since the early 1970's and have often returned to it. I find his energy somehow gives me energy too in thinking. Can anyone tell me what Wilson's most recent publication has been? Sometimes his works take a while to get to New Zealand.
Also, has anyone else, like me, appreciated a lot the work that he has done on wine and music, where the ideas are still strong but the whole thing is more understated and personal? I don't take so much to his work on murder and crime but I can usually see what where he is heading.
Richard Lawrence
Dear Bodvar; I recently came across your letter to J.B.Morgan, and there is one thing in your letter that caught my attention, that "you out-grew Wilson's ideas, or thoughts". I would like to use this as a subject for 'Discussion'. I "think", I do understand what you mean. And to put it in another way, you maybe, let say, not as 'enthusiastic' as you used to be.! You probably, grew "too familiar" with 'them' : At first, one was running wild, so to speak, trying hard to catch up with "his" thrilling ideas, thoughts, and marvelous deep insights; enchanted by "his" knowledge, capacity, elegance, etc. etc. And then, as it happen, one suddenly seems to Understand "him"; enlightened for a while and speaks incessantly about "him" in every chance and all arenas -this could run for years. But then, eventually, one seems to slow down until one almost stops, or barely moving -figuratively speaking-, and, somehow, looses interest.
( Speaking for myself, I really don't know how I can 'out-grow' something like "The Human Existence".! with all its implications..! Of course, there is one way out, and not by leaving it -'death' and 'the beyond' is still "within". I sort of outgrow it, say by "absorbing" the 'human dilemma', and the 'paradox' that engulfs it, and not anymore, being confused or entangled by 'them'...etc.)
But this -loosing interest- usually happens to all of us -human beings- in all aspects and directions of life, even in ones most "dearest" aspect of life -surviving. This is called -in Wilson's terms- (add to Glossary!) "The Planaria-Worm Symptom".(see, "Mysteries", -part two- towards the end of chapter( 4) -"Descent into the Unconscious"; also, "New Pathways in psychology", -part three- towards the end of chapter "Where Now?"; also, "Frankenstein's Castle: the right brain door to wisdom", chapter "Clues" -the 'double ambiguity' planaria).
( Scientists set an experiment to know how a flatworm can "learn" -in this case, to "survive"-, which developed to an attempt to "save" energy -or to the "this I can do with only half the effort"; and, ended up disastrously, on the side of the flatworm, -boredom.!) This is only One part of the experiment. It is a very interesting subject, full of "implications" -anyone knows about it, will know what I mean. One of its immediate 'implication!' is that: "one has to gain IT the HARD way" -whatever "it" may be. (And it may follow that one should go through the "proper learning" process...etc.) But then, somehow, and half way through, one may "looses" interest in the subject in hand altogether, and suddenly, we are hit with "boredom". Another One, is that "Boredom Kills". ( In his argument, "Wilson" accuses the "instinct" -and its ally, the Robot- for this whole mess, with its short-sightedness. And I cannot but agree with him.! As for the Robot, 'he' is not, after all, a surviving tool, or even cares if one lives or dies.)
[ Unfortunately, we -humans- are plagued with the "planaria symptom"; it is still imprinted on the "human condition" that we live at this stage of evolution. But this is not to say that we "cannot" outgrow it..etc.]
However, apart from "working hard for our gainings", and "going through the proper channel(s) of learning", i.e. using the Left Brain, to avoid disastrous consequences, I believe, there also seems a certain "high-amount of energy" to be maintained or deployed at 'all times', that we should not run below it. It would be too dangerous to go below that level -it brings with it all kind of ailments.! ( But as Wilson once wrote: "...Or perhaps he is not lazy: only afraid of emptying the machine. If so, the fear is unnecessary. IT IS MAGICAL, AND CANNOT BE EMPTIED".) [F.C. :the right brain door to..,] So there is no fear of running out of "energy"; or even destroying oneself in the process, if all "wisely" employed -in an "impeccable" manner..!
I said that I can understand what happened to 'Mr. Bodvar', because I happened to go through these phases of "somehow loosing interest in Colin Wilson's ideas"; not really the 'ideas', but rather "talking" all the time about them: At first you are enthralled and keep on bringing "them" to witness, so to speak, your argument(s); but then, you almost see the 'same' people again and again, and they are the ones who, eventually, will grow fed-up with "them" -or with any intellectual or serious argument, or "action", for that matter. (People likes to talk -and do- other things of their immediate "trivial" interests; and this is one of the reasons why -so far- We had lost the War -Against Sleep.) As Gurdjieff once said to Ouspensky: you will find that "No One is really interested in your Evolutionary findings or Knowledge"...(Or something like this) [ In Search Of The Miraculous (RKP.1950) ]. ( And it may take a while for someone to find out that this is "true".) So, it is not You; it is these people that you meet. At least this what happened with me.!
For instance, the reason that until weeks ago, I was in a "rusty" state of mind, is that, for long time now, I really gave up talking about Wilson's, and Others', IDEAS, because, again, NOT many people are really interested in Ideas, or "Knowledge", in general. ( For the last ten years or so -and probably my whoIe life- I was in a hibernation state of mind, and was, almost, talking with my- self all that time. (With respect to those whom I talked IDEAS, with.) But, now, with the "forum", and things like this, and day after day, I sort of 'cleansing the doors of my mind' -"and my hands too"! (*) [ It is amazing how one can create an imaginary audience while "writing" -and even argue with them- through which, and for some years, I "really" found some solace.]
P.S. Dear Mr. Bodvar: It is possible that nothing of the sort had happened with you, so anyway, it was nice talking to you..! And to Colin Wilson's Fans.!
(*) I actually bought this machine only a month ago, or so, and, still, trying to know all about it (not really ALL..! ), not mentioning, "typing without mistakes"...looking for vocabulary, etc. Thanks god they have a spelling Dictionary.
well; until next time;
All the best;
Sincerely;
Hosam Al Soloh.
What a pleasure to have found this place of intelligent discourse about Colin Wilson. For years I have wandered around trying to find someone who has read even one of Wilson's books. We are indeed widely scattered. I have read many of his books, including the Outsider, Religion and the Rebel, Frankenstein's Castle, The Occult, Mysteries, Beyond the Outsider, and The Strength to Dream. I started with the Outsider, over a decade ago, and was immediately fascinated with this man's thinking. It seemed he was onto some of the most fundamental problems confronting modern man. (Unfortunately, he chose to exclude women from the account, but that is secondary to the main points in his book.)
Over the years I decided, though, that Wilson tends to oversimplify things at times. For example, his repeated assertion that man can develop the ability to have peak experiences at will, to have every moment be a peak experience, is patently absurd. We know the peaks only by reference to the valleys; our highs necessitate lows. Assuming it were even possible to have continuous peak experiences, what meaning would there be to peak experiences if they occurred all day long? They would cease to be peaks altogether! Wilson is right to criticize the pessimism of contemporary society, but he swings to the opposite extreme with a fatuous optimism that takes too little account of the circumstances which oppress people. Toward the end of Beyond the Outsider he talks about the uneasy connection between men of genius and fascism. I speculate that Wilson, like other geniuses, tends to reject materialistic-oriented philosophies out of hand because they suggest that man is formed by material conditions, rather than self made. But the genius is by definition the person with an abnormal ability to rise about material conditions. So naturally the genius would reject any doctrine giving material conditions paramount importance. I say this not as a Marxist but as someone who sees a lot of truth in Marx that Wilson, apparently, has ignored. Jonathan Smith challenges the point of Harper, who argued people are sometimes hindered from considering Wilson's ideas by social or economic deprivation. Smith writes that these points are appropriately left to "the political domain." I would suggest that the political domain is inseparable from the philosophical and psychological domain. Virtually everything is political, or at least has political implications. Material conditions bear very much on human freedom. They may not be determinative, but neither is individual self-will wholly determinative. There is a dynamic there.
John Morgan mentions an essay by Wilson called Marx Refuted. Can anyone tell me where this may be found?
In any case, despite my criticisms, I'm still a Wilson reader. He has a remarkable insight into the problems of the Outsider, even though his optimism seems at times fatuous and his lack of political perspective unfortunate.
Geoffrey H. Smith
Feeling dwarfed by more erudite contributors, I humbly begin.
I came across The Outsider only a few weeks ago in a second hand bookstore. (It's amusing to find how many Colin Wilson fans were born when one of his books seemed to fall into their laps.) I had never heard of Colin Wilson or his novel, but I was attracted by its title and started reading as soon as I got home.
My reaction to the novel could be described as crushed under its weight, but I hope it would not be. Reading The Outsider, I was overcome by a sense of relief to find that someone had put into words feelings that I have experienced countless times. My sense of relief was so overwhelming in fact that I became absolutely paralyzed. For the following week, I drifted through the drudgery of habitual existence in a cloud of thought, unable to disconnect myself from the ideas formulated in The Outsider. I became gripped by the idea that I must write to Colin Wilson. (Still possessed by the idea, I would greatly appreciate knowing his address, as I am sure someone must know of it.)
Reading this discussion, I was once again overcome with a joyful realization - I was not alone. After finishing the novel I became increasingly distraught because no one, absolutely no one, knew of Colin Wilson or understood what I was talking about. My friends actually became worried that I was in a state of crisis because they could not understand the depth of emotion I was experiencing in the wake of my introduction to Colin Wilson. However, an exceptional teacher of mine became concerned with my apparent inability to move on from this novel and suggested I read a book of his, which he graciously allowed me to borrow. This book is "Contingency, irony, and solidarity" by Richard Rorty and I would be very interested to hear if anyone has read it. So far, I have only read its introduction and am not yet sure what to make of it.
In reading this discussion, I was amazed by others who had had similar experiences after reading The Outsider. One said, "Then one day, quite by accident, I received a copy of 'The Outsider.' Imagine my surprise when all of my favourite authors were discussed in detail and a common thread exposed. I remember my excitement. It felt as though this book was written specifically for me (of course, it is this feeling that soon leads to mental problems . . ." This struck me intensely because it parallels my feelings exactly. From the moment I began to read until the moment I finished, I had the eery feeling that somehow this novel had been written by an unknown presence peering into my brain. Shortly after purchasing The Outsider, I had purchased two more books - one by Tolstoy and another entitled 'The Divided Self.' Imagine my surprise to find both discussed in the chapter I had just begun in The Outsider. Another strangeness was the in depth discussion of Vincent van Gogh. Being the only artist to be discussed at length in the novel, I was slightly disturbed as I looked around my bedroom at the dozen or so van Gogh's that adorn my walls. Conversations I had with people, other books I was reading and even dreams that I had were somehow integrated into The Outsider and this "synchronicity" was alarming. These feelings of paranoia, combined with my sense of being utterly alone in the joy of Colin Wilson, left me somewhat disturbed. However, this page has done much to relieve any stresses I might have had.
There was a passage from Camus' 'The Myth of Sisyphus' which I found running through my head often while I read The Outsider. "At the final stage you teach me that this wondrous and multi-coloured universe can be reduced to the atom and that the atom itself can be reduced to the electron. All this is good and I wait for you to continue. But you tell me of an invisible planetary system in which electrons gravitate around a nucleus. You explain this world to me with an image. I realize then that you have been reduced to poetry: I shall never know. Have I the time to become indignant?"
My name is Hadley Hart (yes, that is a female name) and although I do have access to a computer, it is not personal access and I would be greatly obliged if anyone were interested in writing to me at my postal address about Wilson, Camus, de Beauvoir, Yeats, Blake, Kafka etc. at: 4444 44 B Aveneu, Delta, B.C., V4k 1H1.