As we head towards the Omega Point and information spirals out of control, emerging subcultures such as the Cyberpunks, or sudden renaissances, such as the rise of dark goths transmute social groups into mutated forms. As an observer of this emergence, RAW surprisingly refrained from criticising others who fail to look beyond the surface trappings. "I don't like to bum-rap other writers. They have to take enough crap from the envious little shits who write reviews; they don't need my abuse, too. So, without saying anything about what I don't like, the living writers whose work especially interests me at present include Douglas Adams, William Burroughs, who still seems topical no matter how old he gets, Tom Robbins, who writes the best sentences of anybody working in English today, George V. Higgins, who sees humans with a wonderful irony and writes the most realistic dialogue I've ever seen (even better than Joyce or Hemingway), and a lot of scientist-philosophers who seem to me to be giving us wonderful new ideas and perceptions: Rupert Shelldrake, Ralph Abraham, Terrence McKenna, Barbara Marx Hubbard, the fuzzy logic people, Riane Eisler, Nick Herbert, Nichlas Negroponte, Marilyn Ferguson, Peter Rusell, Fred Alan Wolfe . . . and of course, Tim Leary, who is ill, but may have a few unpublished books that might still blow all our minds."

Regarding the subcultures themselves and projection of current trends, RAW suggests that, ".there remain a lot of reactionary forces, on all continents. But I still think that the basic cluster of science, democracy and Welfare Capitalism (or Free Market Socialism - call it what you will) seem stronger than all the other reality-tunnels and will increasingly dominate the next century . . . even more than they have dominated the last two centuries."

In this projected world where fuzzy logic and shifting alliances are "good", RAW's unique brand of cultural antinomianism will continue to play an important role in shattering mainstream idols and agendas.

1997 Update: Three Responses:

When the Australian magazine REVelation published my profile of futurist author Robert Anton Wilson, it prompted some revealing comments from several people quoted in the original printed article.

The self styled 'RAW' has always been a target for controversy. His exploration of subjects that contemporary society finds dangerous or even sometimes frightening has often prompted angry responses from critics. The more mindless responses to RAW's published work have been by Andrea Antonoff, who labelled him as "stupid"; Lou Rollins comment that RAW is "a male feminist . . .a simpering pussy whipped wimp . . ." and most scathingly by CSICOP's (Committee for Scientific Investigation Into Paranormal) Robert Sheaffer, who labelled the views expressed in The New Inquisition (New Falcon Press: 1986) as "malicious, misguided fanaticism."

The REVelation article quoted three major criticisms of Wilson's work which were deemed by its author to be relevant. It's true that those quoted were largely sympathetic to his pioneering work: Robin Robertson of Psychological Perspectives states in the same review that her initial quote was pulled from that "Wilson's a very funny man . . . readers with open minds will like his books."

I subsequently received responses from two other critics quoted. Jay Cornell is a columnist for the respected magazine Gnosis who wrote a review of RAW's Cosmic Trigger II: Down To Earth (New Falcon Publications: 1992). Whilst largely positive, the review contained significant criticisms of the limits of RAW's "reality tunnel" concept ("all views are reality tunnels that exclude other information and keep us all far stupider than we should be") that RAW seemed to take a serious dislike to.

Cornell responds:

"I was surprised that he remembered that review and that it still bothered him so much. As a whole, it is far less negative than your piece implies. My overall opinion as expressed there might be summarized as: 'Here's a good and interesting writer and one I've always liked, but his latest book is a very mixed bag.' I find it hard to see how any reader of that review would call it "vicious", "more glaring" than some other "harsh" criticism he got at another time, or the writing of a "sadist." Hell, I consider myself a fan! I certainly have no wish to "stop" him or his work in any way. Though I admit my libertarian soul wishes he would change his sometimes reflexive leftism/anti-conservatism.

"I was disappointed with only part of Cosmic Trigger II. I tried very hard to explain just what I liked about Wilson's work in general and C.T. II in particular, and exactly what I didn't like in that particular book. I realized at the time that he might take umbrage, but I felt that his own principles were forgotten when he wrote about certain subjects (Catholics, the C.I.A., and conservatives were the three main ones, I believe). It seemed especially glaring to me because in the autobiographical part of the book (the part I liked, and said so!) there were events which clearly formed to his negative feelings about those subjects. It seemed like he was blind to conditioning in himself that he would easily see in someone else. (Not an uncommon fault.)