What do you think?
Rate this book
Natural Law: or Don't Put a Rubber on Your Willy
Book by Wilson, Robert A.
68 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1987
3 people are currently reading
227 people want to read
About the author
Robert Anton Wilson
118 books1,694 followersRobert Anton Wilson was an American author, futurist, psychologist, and self-described agnostic mystic. Recognized within Discordianism as an Episkopos, pope and saint, Wilson helped publicize Discordianism through his writings and interviews. In 1999 he described his work as an "attempt to break down conditioned associations, to look at the world in a new way, with many models recognized as models or maps, and no one model elevated to the truth". Wilson's goal was "to try to get people into a state of generalized agnosticism, not agnosticism about God alone but agnosticism about everything."
In addition to writing several science-fiction novels, Wilson also wrote non-fiction books on extrasensory perception, mental telepathy, metaphysics, paranormal experiences, conspiracy theory, sex, drugs, and what Wilson called "quantum psychology".
Following a career in journalism and as an editor, notably for Playboy, Wilson emerged as a major countercultural figure in the mid-1970s, comparable to one of his coauthors, Timothy Leary, as well as Terence McKenna.
In addition to writing several science-fiction novels, Wilson also wrote non-fiction books on extrasensory perception, mental telepathy, metaphysics, paranormal experiences, conspiracy theory, sex, drugs, and what Wilson called "quantum psychology".
Following a career in journalism and as an editor, notably for Playboy, Wilson emerged as a major countercultural figure in the mid-1970s, comparable to one of his coauthors, Timothy Leary, as well as Terence McKenna.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
March 16, 2013
I would think this would inspire people to make some interesting comments...
Picked it for its sense of humor, very entertaining! I was surprised to find it's a pretty old book, it says a lot of things that are still true today. Agnostics are sometimes picked on by theists and atheists alike, so its nice to see someone tackle religious pseudo-science that is still today being enforced by dogmatic theists, while not being hostile and equally dogmatic like some atheists tend to be. Wilson isn't afraid to point out that we don't know a lot of things, and that's what this society still lacks today.
Picked it for its sense of humor, very entertaining! I was surprised to find it's a pretty old book, it says a lot of things that are still true today. Agnostics are sometimes picked on by theists and atheists alike, so its nice to see someone tackle religious pseudo-science that is still today being enforced by dogmatic theists, while not being hostile and equally dogmatic like some atheists tend to be. Wilson isn't afraid to point out that we don't know a lot of things, and that's what this society still lacks today.
May 29, 2024
Great collection from RAW
The first half? If the book is his rebuttal to some criticism on an essay about natural law, and it's great as an educational piece alone. Some shorter works follow like transcripts fro. Interviews. All great stuff!
The first half? If the book is his rebuttal to some criticism on an essay about natural law, and it's great as an educational piece alone. Some shorter works follow like transcripts fro. Interviews. All great stuff!
July 21, 2023
Related Pieces:
REVIEW: Prometheus Rising – https://medium.com/@bremeracosta/refl...
ESSAY: Understanding Our Biases –
https://bremeracosta.medium.com/under...
...
“Wilson describes himself as a ‘guerilla ontologist,’ signifying his intent to attack language and knowledge the way terrorists attack their targets: to jump out from the shadows for an unprovoked attack, then slink back and hide behind a hearty belly-laugh.”
— Robert Sheaffer, The Skeptical Inquirer
...
Robert Anton Wilson was a satirist, futurist, agnostic mystic, guerilla ontologist, and Episkopos in Discordianism. He wrote many popular books such as “Cosmic Trigger,” “Prometheus Rising,” “The New Inquisition,” “Quantum Psychology,” “Schrödinger's Cat Trilogy,” and “The Illuminatus! Trilogy.”
The newest edition of Wilson’s “Natural Law, Or Don't Put A Rubber On Your Willy And Other Writings From A Natural Outlaw,” is a collection of ten essays, two interviews, and one short story.
Wilson often used his eclectic knowledge of science, psychology, yoga, the occult, Zen Buddhism, conspiracy theories, and so on, to expose the absurdity of dogmatic beliefs while expanding his philosophy of model agnosticism.
He was a self-described “cosmic schmuck” and “heckler of philosophers,” challenging the epistemological certainty of anyone who dared to study his works (including himself). As he once wrote, “I don't believe anything, but I have many suspicions.”
…
Insights from “Natural Law, Or Don't Put A Rubber On Your Willy And Other Writings From A Natural Outlaw”:
1.) In the physical sciences, natural law is a “statistical or mathematical generalization” for which predictions are made (Wilson 37). No experiment can absolutely prove the truth of such laws, but it can refute them. Scientists regard scientific laws with tentative acceptance and skepticism.
2.) Some currently accepted scientific models may later be shown to be incorrect. These models are useful now because they have undergone many rigorous tests over time. Models of reality that can never be tested are seen as meaningless or indeterminate.
3.) Scientific models are based on probabilities in sensory-sensual spacetime. They are not trapped in the Aristotelian absolutes of true and false (Wilson 69).
4.) In politics, natural law is usually a disguise for unproven metaphysical assumptions. It does not hold the same meaning as natural law in science. The term itself is ambiguous.
5.) People often use natural law as a cover for their own prejudices, appealing to a higher power, certain aspects of nature that fit in with their belief systems, or some other Platonic abstraction.
6.) The more dogmatic societies are, the less they want their ideologies to be criticized.
7.) All throughout history, individuals who have gone against the values of powerful groups have been alienated and persecuted, shunned and executed (Wilson 85).
8.) Those who claim to know what natural law is need to have evidentiary support. While their ideas may be possible, they may not be realistic.
9.) Dogmatists consider the qualities that they like in nature as natural and the qualities that they don’t like in nature as unnatural. But they don’t realize that everything in existence is natural. The opposite of nature is non-existence and impossibility (Wilson 93).
10.) Human beings are limited creatures, incapable of comprehending all of nature. Nature is so varied that it is impossible to fully quantify it. Over the centuries, people have learned about some aspects of nature. But what seems true today may be refuted tomorrow. Future discoveries may radically change how people understand natural law.
11.) For centuries, people have been hypnotized into believing in Aristotle’s either/or logic. But that is only one kind of symbolic system. John von Neumann, for example, introduced yes-no-maybe as truth-values. Niels Bohr distinguished between what can be meaningfully said about the universe at a particular time and place from the rest of the universe that humans haven’t experienced (Wilson 122).
12.) When scientists develop a model of the universe, they are a part of that model. The observer and observed are intertwined.
13.) People try to justify their moral systems by talking about the intrinsic qualities of humanity. They use Aristotelian logic to determine whether human beings are good or bad in essence. While they argue that their systems have a logical foundation, often enough, they make metaphysical assumptions that cannot be proven. Their moral systems tell more about their biases than about what is natural and unnatural. They strive for religious certainty rather than scientific probability.
14.) Human beings are social animals. Their nervous systems are interwoven with the universe. They are capable of inventing their own moral rules because they can abstract “higher-order information from sensory information” (Wilson 139). They can reason and intuit and learn from experience. They can cooperate and empathize with those who are suffering.
15.) Because people are highly creative animals that can manipulate information, they can create systems of “reality” from abstractions. These abstractions may not actually have any relevance to experience in spacetime (Wilson 140).
16.) Many people believe the metaphysical assumptions of those around them, taught by their parents, teachers, peers, and so on, even if those assumptions are not based on concrete existential realities.
17.) In many cases, there is not merely one right answer to a moral problem. A lot of issues are complex and uncertain. Yet those who are blinded by ideology are certain that they have the right answer. They have been indoctrinated to think of existence as black and white, good and evil, right and wrong, true and false.
18.) In belief systems all around the world, individuals have entered into contemplative states through such diverse methods as koan practice and ritualistic sex, marijuana consumption and meditation, self-torture and monotonous drum beats, prayer and chanting, yoga and psychedelics (Wilson 158). These mystical experiences have shaken people out of their conditioned mental patterns. For a brief period of time, their egos have melted into oneness, “infinite meaning in infinite flux,” Nietzschean chaos, and so on (Wilson 196). But later on, while describing their profound insights to other people, their minds have already shifted back into ordinary self-centered thinking again.
19.) Beliefs that seem nonsensical and immoral to one group may seem sensical and moral to another. The more dogmatic someone is, the less open they are to receiving novel information. From their perspective, their beliefs are true while other beliefs are false. They believe in the superiority of their religion, political party, country, and so on, while resisting any contradictory information. They have shrunken the universe to fit into fixed categories.
20.) With the collapse of absolute truth, rather than falling into nihilism or despair, Nietzscheans find meaning in chaos. They are aware of their fleeting existence and socio-biological limitations. Yet they can create themselves with every moment. Chaos is filled with infinite possibilities (Wilson 198).
21.) From a young age on, people are not only taught what to think. They are taught how to think as well. They are indoctrinated to value the same ideas as those around them. But as they grow up, they may learn that there is more out there than what they have been told. They may even begin to question the assumptions of their given society. If they question the cherished beliefs of those around them, they will eventually be considered dangerous.
22.) People communicate about reality through the symbolic systems they are familiar with. It is difficult for them to talk about realities that exist outside of these systems.
23.) What is good/bad for some people is not good/bad for all people. Certain groups may benefit from a particular moral system. But that may change later. Authorities use the ideas of good/bad to control others. They don’t want their power to be undermined. Those who question societal institutions are ridiculed, attacked, and silenced. Talking about possibilities outside the dominant systems is like being an extraterrestrial.
24.) Homo sapiens have passed down an “assortment of genetic programs” to their descendants, which informs them about themselves in relation to their environment (Wilson 261). These genetic programs can be beneficial for human survival but they are not perfect. Learning and experience can modify their expression over many generations. Human beings have nervous systems, which helps them to identify what helps/harms them. Good/bad is based on existential realities in spacetime. These models may change over time with more information. Human brains are limited instruments, but they are capable of adaptation and revision.
25.) Every person creates their own universe while the universe creates every person.
Source:
Wilson, Robert Anton. Natural Law, Or, Don’t Put a Rubber on Your Willy. Hilaritas Press. Second Edition. 2022.
REVIEW: Prometheus Rising – https://medium.com/@bremeracosta/refl...
ESSAY: Understanding Our Biases –
https://bremeracosta.medium.com/under...
...
“Wilson describes himself as a ‘guerilla ontologist,’ signifying his intent to attack language and knowledge the way terrorists attack their targets: to jump out from the shadows for an unprovoked attack, then slink back and hide behind a hearty belly-laugh.”
— Robert Sheaffer, The Skeptical Inquirer
...
Robert Anton Wilson was a satirist, futurist, agnostic mystic, guerilla ontologist, and Episkopos in Discordianism. He wrote many popular books such as “Cosmic Trigger,” “Prometheus Rising,” “The New Inquisition,” “Quantum Psychology,” “Schrödinger's Cat Trilogy,” and “The Illuminatus! Trilogy.”
The newest edition of Wilson’s “Natural Law, Or Don't Put A Rubber On Your Willy And Other Writings From A Natural Outlaw,” is a collection of ten essays, two interviews, and one short story.
Wilson often used his eclectic knowledge of science, psychology, yoga, the occult, Zen Buddhism, conspiracy theories, and so on, to expose the absurdity of dogmatic beliefs while expanding his philosophy of model agnosticism.
He was a self-described “cosmic schmuck” and “heckler of philosophers,” challenging the epistemological certainty of anyone who dared to study his works (including himself). As he once wrote, “I don't believe anything, but I have many suspicions.”
…
Insights from “Natural Law, Or Don't Put A Rubber On Your Willy And Other Writings From A Natural Outlaw”:
1.) In the physical sciences, natural law is a “statistical or mathematical generalization” for which predictions are made (Wilson 37). No experiment can absolutely prove the truth of such laws, but it can refute them. Scientists regard scientific laws with tentative acceptance and skepticism.
2.) Some currently accepted scientific models may later be shown to be incorrect. These models are useful now because they have undergone many rigorous tests over time. Models of reality that can never be tested are seen as meaningless or indeterminate.
3.) Scientific models are based on probabilities in sensory-sensual spacetime. They are not trapped in the Aristotelian absolutes of true and false (Wilson 69).
4.) In politics, natural law is usually a disguise for unproven metaphysical assumptions. It does not hold the same meaning as natural law in science. The term itself is ambiguous.
5.) People often use natural law as a cover for their own prejudices, appealing to a higher power, certain aspects of nature that fit in with their belief systems, or some other Platonic abstraction.
6.) The more dogmatic societies are, the less they want their ideologies to be criticized.
7.) All throughout history, individuals who have gone against the values of powerful groups have been alienated and persecuted, shunned and executed (Wilson 85).
8.) Those who claim to know what natural law is need to have evidentiary support. While their ideas may be possible, they may not be realistic.
9.) Dogmatists consider the qualities that they like in nature as natural and the qualities that they don’t like in nature as unnatural. But they don’t realize that everything in existence is natural. The opposite of nature is non-existence and impossibility (Wilson 93).
10.) Human beings are limited creatures, incapable of comprehending all of nature. Nature is so varied that it is impossible to fully quantify it. Over the centuries, people have learned about some aspects of nature. But what seems true today may be refuted tomorrow. Future discoveries may radically change how people understand natural law.
11.) For centuries, people have been hypnotized into believing in Aristotle’s either/or logic. But that is only one kind of symbolic system. John von Neumann, for example, introduced yes-no-maybe as truth-values. Niels Bohr distinguished between what can be meaningfully said about the universe at a particular time and place from the rest of the universe that humans haven’t experienced (Wilson 122).
12.) When scientists develop a model of the universe, they are a part of that model. The observer and observed are intertwined.
13.) People try to justify their moral systems by talking about the intrinsic qualities of humanity. They use Aristotelian logic to determine whether human beings are good or bad in essence. While they argue that their systems have a logical foundation, often enough, they make metaphysical assumptions that cannot be proven. Their moral systems tell more about their biases than about what is natural and unnatural. They strive for religious certainty rather than scientific probability.
14.) Human beings are social animals. Their nervous systems are interwoven with the universe. They are capable of inventing their own moral rules because they can abstract “higher-order information from sensory information” (Wilson 139). They can reason and intuit and learn from experience. They can cooperate and empathize with those who are suffering.
15.) Because people are highly creative animals that can manipulate information, they can create systems of “reality” from abstractions. These abstractions may not actually have any relevance to experience in spacetime (Wilson 140).
16.) Many people believe the metaphysical assumptions of those around them, taught by their parents, teachers, peers, and so on, even if those assumptions are not based on concrete existential realities.
17.) In many cases, there is not merely one right answer to a moral problem. A lot of issues are complex and uncertain. Yet those who are blinded by ideology are certain that they have the right answer. They have been indoctrinated to think of existence as black and white, good and evil, right and wrong, true and false.
18.) In belief systems all around the world, individuals have entered into contemplative states through such diverse methods as koan practice and ritualistic sex, marijuana consumption and meditation, self-torture and monotonous drum beats, prayer and chanting, yoga and psychedelics (Wilson 158). These mystical experiences have shaken people out of their conditioned mental patterns. For a brief period of time, their egos have melted into oneness, “infinite meaning in infinite flux,” Nietzschean chaos, and so on (Wilson 196). But later on, while describing their profound insights to other people, their minds have already shifted back into ordinary self-centered thinking again.
19.) Beliefs that seem nonsensical and immoral to one group may seem sensical and moral to another. The more dogmatic someone is, the less open they are to receiving novel information. From their perspective, their beliefs are true while other beliefs are false. They believe in the superiority of their religion, political party, country, and so on, while resisting any contradictory information. They have shrunken the universe to fit into fixed categories.
20.) With the collapse of absolute truth, rather than falling into nihilism or despair, Nietzscheans find meaning in chaos. They are aware of their fleeting existence and socio-biological limitations. Yet they can create themselves with every moment. Chaos is filled with infinite possibilities (Wilson 198).
21.) From a young age on, people are not only taught what to think. They are taught how to think as well. They are indoctrinated to value the same ideas as those around them. But as they grow up, they may learn that there is more out there than what they have been told. They may even begin to question the assumptions of their given society. If they question the cherished beliefs of those around them, they will eventually be considered dangerous.
22.) People communicate about reality through the symbolic systems they are familiar with. It is difficult for them to talk about realities that exist outside of these systems.
23.) What is good/bad for some people is not good/bad for all people. Certain groups may benefit from a particular moral system. But that may change later. Authorities use the ideas of good/bad to control others. They don’t want their power to be undermined. Those who question societal institutions are ridiculed, attacked, and silenced. Talking about possibilities outside the dominant systems is like being an extraterrestrial.
24.) Homo sapiens have passed down an “assortment of genetic programs” to their descendants, which informs them about themselves in relation to their environment (Wilson 261). These genetic programs can be beneficial for human survival but they are not perfect. Learning and experience can modify their expression over many generations. Human beings have nervous systems, which helps them to identify what helps/harms them. Good/bad is based on existential realities in spacetime. These models may change over time with more information. Human brains are limited instruments, but they are capable of adaptation and revision.
25.) Every person creates their own universe while the universe creates every person.
Source:
Wilson, Robert Anton. Natural Law, Or, Don’t Put a Rubber on Your Willy. Hilaritas Press. Second Edition. 2022.
July 28, 2020
Natural Law is an expansion and rebuttal of a magazine article Robert Anton Wilson wrote for the New Libertarian Reader in 1985, in which he debated against the concept of a supposed "Natural Law" guiding the behavior of humans.
Robert Anton Wilson was a prolific author of the counterculture movement of the sixties onward, melding scientific method and rationalism with new age spiritualism and futuristic humanism. With this in mind, Natural Law is a great introduction to anyone who hasn't already found his work through The Illuminatus Trilogy.
In Natural Law, Wilson points out the fallacies of his detractors' arguments by slowly dismantling them through reason and logic, arguing not that he can prove them wrong, but rather that they are unable to prove themselves right. Wilson pays close attention to the phrases and concepts used in the debate, and how they are used to manipulate or hypnotize - and in some cases, self-hypnotize - their intended audience. He also examines the inconsistencies of other religious groups claiming their own origin story of "Natural Law" under the guise of secular spiritualism to support their own dogmatic belief systems. Want to know which religion is okay with buggering camels but not okay with buggering a brother-in-law? Wilson knows.
Catholicism - a common topic for Wilson, who lived in Ireland at one point - gets dragged into the debate due to it's perfect example of dogmatic rule and the involvement of Catholics in the Natural Law debate, so if you are a Catholic who is sensitive about criticisms about the Catholic Church, I still recommend reading this. Just relax a little.
Above all else, Wilson is self-deprecating and ultimately amused by the absurdity of human belief systems, and those of a like mind will enjoy his writings immensely.
Robert Anton Wilson was a prolific author of the counterculture movement of the sixties onward, melding scientific method and rationalism with new age spiritualism and futuristic humanism. With this in mind, Natural Law is a great introduction to anyone who hasn't already found his work through The Illuminatus Trilogy.
In Natural Law, Wilson points out the fallacies of his detractors' arguments by slowly dismantling them through reason and logic, arguing not that he can prove them wrong, but rather that they are unable to prove themselves right. Wilson pays close attention to the phrases and concepts used in the debate, and how they are used to manipulate or hypnotize - and in some cases, self-hypnotize - their intended audience. He also examines the inconsistencies of other religious groups claiming their own origin story of "Natural Law" under the guise of secular spiritualism to support their own dogmatic belief systems. Want to know which religion is okay with buggering camels but not okay with buggering a brother-in-law? Wilson knows.
Catholicism - a common topic for Wilson, who lived in Ireland at one point - gets dragged into the debate due to it's perfect example of dogmatic rule and the involvement of Catholics in the Natural Law debate, so if you are a Catholic who is sensitive about criticisms about the Catholic Church, I still recommend reading this. Just relax a little.
Above all else, Wilson is self-deprecating and ultimately amused by the absurdity of human belief systems, and those of a like mind will enjoy his writings immensely.
July 11, 2024
THE POPULAR AUTHOR ATTACKS ‘NATURAL LAW’ AS ‘PERSONAL PREJUDICE’
Author Robert Anton Wilson begins this 1987 book by recounting, “Three years ago Loompanics published ‘The Myth of Natural Rights’ by L.A. Rollins. In 1985, the ‘New Libertarian’ magazine… published very extensive debate on the very interesting issues Rollins raised. I participated in the debate… [but] the editor … did not print my article as I wrote it; instead he printed the article intercut with a running commentary by himself… attempting to rebut all my major points… I have realized that there seem to be deep religious passions involved in this issue, and that my article … only scratched the surface of the psychology and neurology of the Natural Law cult. I have therefore decided to rewrite my thoughts in more depth and publish them where the Natural Law cultists can only denounce them AFTER they have been read and cannot heckle and distract the reader WHILE they are being read.” (Pg. 1-2)
He continues, “I shall endeavor to show… that the Natural Law metaphysics can accurately be described as a verbal construct that, like a hypnotist’s commands, creates a trance state in which experience is edited out and the verbally-induced hypnotic revery becomes more ‘real’ than sensory-sensual stimuli. In other words, Natural Law appears to be a map that does not correspond to any real territory, but like other Idols it becomes almost ‘real’ when the worshipper stares at it long enough with passionate adoration… I shall also attempt to show that this kind of trance should be considered statistically ‘normal’ because most people most of the time are similarly entranced by word-and-symbol hypnosis and self-hypnosis… Similarly, the Natural Law theorist… tells you about abstractions … and … about these marvelously transcendental entities, he talks… and if the hypnosis works, the abstractions suddenly seem as ‘real’… or even MORE ‘real’ than a ham sandwich and a cup of coffee.” (Pg. 2-3)
He asserts. “if the ‘Natural Law’ cultist does not explicitly invoke ‘God’ and explicitly threaten me with the super-jail called ‘Hell.’ And is not a representative of some Government of other threatening me with the more limited Hells that humans invent can call ‘jails,’ I fail to make any sense whatsoever out of the statement that something you of I … want to do is ‘against the law,’ or that something none of us want to do and find repugnant is made obligatory by law. WHOSE law? If such a ‘law’ is not explicitly attributed to a SPECIFIC ‘God’ or a specific ‘Government,’ then it is not a law in the punitive sense at all. And we have already seen that it is not a law in the metaphoric sense in which the predictions statistically derived from scientific models are loosely called ‘laws.’ So what kind of law is it? And why should we regard it with the ‘spooky’ and CLEARLY RELIGIOUS emotions of ‘deep belief’ and ‘passion’ that Rothbard urges on us?” (Pg. 23-24)
He says, “It still seems to me that Natural Law in the moral sense means something concrete (if dubious) when a ‘god’ is asserted and a priest-caste are located who can interpret the ‘will’ of that ‘god,’ but without such a ‘god’ and such a priest-caste as interpreters, Natural Law becomes a floating abstraction, without content, without threat, without … solid ground to stand on. All the elements in modern Natural Law theory would immediately make some king of sense if one inserted the word ‘God’ in them at blurry and meaningless places in the jargon. It seems that the word is left out because the Natural Law cultists do not want it obvious that they are setting shop as priests; they want us to consider them philosophers.” (Pg. 27)
He observes, “The suspicion that what is called ‘Natural Law’ may consist of personal prejudice with an inflated metaphysical label pinned on it grows more insidious as one contemplates the fantastic amount of disagreement about virtually everything among the various advocates of ‘Natural Law.’” (Pg. 33)
He asserts, “In the area of Natural Law and metaphysical ‘morality’ in general, there is no shred of such agreement about how to ask meaningful questions (questions that can be experimentally or experientially answered) or even about what form a meaningful (answerable) question would have to take. There is no pragmatic agreement about how to get the results you want…. There is, above all, no agreement about what can be known specifically and what can only be guessed at or left unanswered.” (Pg. 34)
He states, “We now see Natural Law as resting on a POSSIBILITY, rather than on the absolute certitude… I do not deny that POSSIBILITY … all I am asking is that somebody should make the possibility into a PROBABILITY… by producing a shred or a hint of an adumbration of a shadow of a ghost or something like scientific or experimental evidence in place of the metaphysical, and meaningless, verbalisms Natural Law cultists habitually use. Until they produce some such sensory-sensual space-time evidence, I still say: NOT PROVEN… they certainly haven’t produced any evidence to justify the pontifical certitude they always seem to profess.” (Pg. 37)
He argues, ‘It appears that the reason that the term ‘Natural Law’ is preferred to ‘Moral Law’ may be that many writers do not want to make it obvious that they speak as priests or theologians and would rather have us think of them as philosophers. But it still seems to me that their dogmas only make sense as religious or moral exhortation and do not make sense in any way if one tries to analyze them as either scientific or philosophic propositions.” (Pg. 42)
He concludes with an example from John Fowles’s novel, ‘The Magus,’ where the mayor of a town is ordered by the Nazis occupying his town to himself execute three Communist partisans, to show his loyalty to the Nazi regime---or else, the Nazis will kill every man in the town. Wilson comments: “Those who are not totally hypnotized… admit they don’t know any ‘correct’ answer. I don’t know the ‘correct’ answer either, and I doubt that there is one. The universe may not contain ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ answers in all cases… That is why it appears a terrible burden to be aware of … what is going on around you, and why most people would prefer to retreat into Ideology, abstraction, myth and self-hypnosis. To come out of our heads… also means to come to our senses, literally… I think this involves waking from hypnosis in a very literal sense. Only one individual can do it at a time, and nobody else can do it for you. You have to do it all alone.” (Pg. 67-68)
This book will appeal to those who dislike Rollins’ essay, or who are seeking critiques of Natural Rights/Natural Law theory.
Author Robert Anton Wilson begins this 1987 book by recounting, “Three years ago Loompanics published ‘The Myth of Natural Rights’ by L.A. Rollins. In 1985, the ‘New Libertarian’ magazine… published very extensive debate on the very interesting issues Rollins raised. I participated in the debate… [but] the editor … did not print my article as I wrote it; instead he printed the article intercut with a running commentary by himself… attempting to rebut all my major points… I have realized that there seem to be deep religious passions involved in this issue, and that my article … only scratched the surface of the psychology and neurology of the Natural Law cult. I have therefore decided to rewrite my thoughts in more depth and publish them where the Natural Law cultists can only denounce them AFTER they have been read and cannot heckle and distract the reader WHILE they are being read.” (Pg. 1-2)
He continues, “I shall endeavor to show… that the Natural Law metaphysics can accurately be described as a verbal construct that, like a hypnotist’s commands, creates a trance state in which experience is edited out and the verbally-induced hypnotic revery becomes more ‘real’ than sensory-sensual stimuli. In other words, Natural Law appears to be a map that does not correspond to any real territory, but like other Idols it becomes almost ‘real’ when the worshipper stares at it long enough with passionate adoration… I shall also attempt to show that this kind of trance should be considered statistically ‘normal’ because most people most of the time are similarly entranced by word-and-symbol hypnosis and self-hypnosis… Similarly, the Natural Law theorist… tells you about abstractions … and … about these marvelously transcendental entities, he talks… and if the hypnosis works, the abstractions suddenly seem as ‘real’… or even MORE ‘real’ than a ham sandwich and a cup of coffee.” (Pg. 2-3)
He asserts. “if the ‘Natural Law’ cultist does not explicitly invoke ‘God’ and explicitly threaten me with the super-jail called ‘Hell.’ And is not a representative of some Government of other threatening me with the more limited Hells that humans invent can call ‘jails,’ I fail to make any sense whatsoever out of the statement that something you of I … want to do is ‘against the law,’ or that something none of us want to do and find repugnant is made obligatory by law. WHOSE law? If such a ‘law’ is not explicitly attributed to a SPECIFIC ‘God’ or a specific ‘Government,’ then it is not a law in the punitive sense at all. And we have already seen that it is not a law in the metaphoric sense in which the predictions statistically derived from scientific models are loosely called ‘laws.’ So what kind of law is it? And why should we regard it with the ‘spooky’ and CLEARLY RELIGIOUS emotions of ‘deep belief’ and ‘passion’ that Rothbard urges on us?” (Pg. 23-24)
He says, “It still seems to me that Natural Law in the moral sense means something concrete (if dubious) when a ‘god’ is asserted and a priest-caste are located who can interpret the ‘will’ of that ‘god,’ but without such a ‘god’ and such a priest-caste as interpreters, Natural Law becomes a floating abstraction, without content, without threat, without … solid ground to stand on. All the elements in modern Natural Law theory would immediately make some king of sense if one inserted the word ‘God’ in them at blurry and meaningless places in the jargon. It seems that the word is left out because the Natural Law cultists do not want it obvious that they are setting shop as priests; they want us to consider them philosophers.” (Pg. 27)
He observes, “The suspicion that what is called ‘Natural Law’ may consist of personal prejudice with an inflated metaphysical label pinned on it grows more insidious as one contemplates the fantastic amount of disagreement about virtually everything among the various advocates of ‘Natural Law.’” (Pg. 33)
He asserts, “In the area of Natural Law and metaphysical ‘morality’ in general, there is no shred of such agreement about how to ask meaningful questions (questions that can be experimentally or experientially answered) or even about what form a meaningful (answerable) question would have to take. There is no pragmatic agreement about how to get the results you want…. There is, above all, no agreement about what can be known specifically and what can only be guessed at or left unanswered.” (Pg. 34)
He states, “We now see Natural Law as resting on a POSSIBILITY, rather than on the absolute certitude… I do not deny that POSSIBILITY … all I am asking is that somebody should make the possibility into a PROBABILITY… by producing a shred or a hint of an adumbration of a shadow of a ghost or something like scientific or experimental evidence in place of the metaphysical, and meaningless, verbalisms Natural Law cultists habitually use. Until they produce some such sensory-sensual space-time evidence, I still say: NOT PROVEN… they certainly haven’t produced any evidence to justify the pontifical certitude they always seem to profess.” (Pg. 37)
He argues, ‘It appears that the reason that the term ‘Natural Law’ is preferred to ‘Moral Law’ may be that many writers do not want to make it obvious that they speak as priests or theologians and would rather have us think of them as philosophers. But it still seems to me that their dogmas only make sense as religious or moral exhortation and do not make sense in any way if one tries to analyze them as either scientific or philosophic propositions.” (Pg. 42)
He concludes with an example from John Fowles’s novel, ‘The Magus,’ where the mayor of a town is ordered by the Nazis occupying his town to himself execute three Communist partisans, to show his loyalty to the Nazi regime---or else, the Nazis will kill every man in the town. Wilson comments: “Those who are not totally hypnotized… admit they don’t know any ‘correct’ answer. I don’t know the ‘correct’ answer either, and I doubt that there is one. The universe may not contain ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ answers in all cases… That is why it appears a terrible burden to be aware of … what is going on around you, and why most people would prefer to retreat into Ideology, abstraction, myth and self-hypnosis. To come out of our heads… also means to come to our senses, literally… I think this involves waking from hypnosis in a very literal sense. Only one individual can do it at a time, and nobody else can do it for you. You have to do it all alone.” (Pg. 67-68)
This book will appeal to those who dislike Rollins’ essay, or who are seeking critiques of Natural Rights/Natural Law theory.
November 12, 2019
I've always enjoyed Wilson's attitude towards ideologues in general, and this small (68p.) book is no exception. In this one, he argues against those who claim, for whatever reason, that some behaviors violate "Natural Law," such as the Catholic Church's admonition that his subtitle--putting a rubber on your willy--is a violation against God's law.
A fun and engaging read, especially if you're one of those folks who relies on evidence--measurable, replicable evidence--above anything else.
A fun and engaging read, especially if you're one of those folks who relies on evidence--measurable, replicable evidence--above anything else.
September 29, 2018
There isn't enough stars in the rating system for an author this good.
April 6, 2020
This little gem opened a door to Cosmic Trigger and other mind altering R.A.W. treasures.
May 1, 2020
RAW expounding on the fallacies which live under the guise of 'Natural Law'; an older philosophy not applicable to the age we now live in. As always Wilson does nor hold back any punches.
August 28, 2021
The version I read was actually the forthcoming Hilaritas Press book, which includes the title essay and other material. It is excellent.
November 13, 2018
This is one of those Wilson book that starts slow and then BOOM!
This book is about reality and perception. We are the ones who make the rules for our own specific realty. We set the mantras for our success or failure. We are the zen master who makes the grass green.
Fantastic point in a long winded essay. Worth a read.
This book is about reality and perception. We are the ones who make the rules for our own specific realty. We set the mantras for our success or failure. We are the zen master who makes the grass green.
Fantastic point in a long winded essay. Worth a read.
June 15, 2007
Good read
RAW RIP!
RAW RIP!
July 9, 2008
Review forthcoming...
May 25, 2013
I ABSOLUTELY found the content, in ESSENCE, NATURALLY compelling. I am CERTAIN it has woken me from my COSMIC SHMUCKNESS, if just for a day.
October 8, 2014
Wilson effectively, and entertainingly, attacks "Natural Law" and other Absolute metaphysical systems of morality.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews