Natural Law: or don't put a rubber on your Willy -- by R. A. Wislon

[BaalChatzaf]

Before reading this book, I recommend that the reader take a pee.

You can find the text at

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/robert-anton-wilson-natural-law-or-don-t-put-a-rubber-on-your-willy

Here is just a sample:

Ohm’s “law” (so-called) holds that E=IR or voltage equals current times resistance. This must be considered a statistical statement, and I came to understand that very keenly while working for five years as a technical laboratory aide in an engineering firm. According to Ohm’s law, if current is 2 amperes and resistance is 5 ohms, then voltage will be 2 x 5 or 10 volts. It seldom is, exactly. More often it is something like 9.9 volts or 10.1 volts, but I have seen it wander as far as 10.8 volts. The explanations are “instrument error,” “human error” and the fact that conditions in a real laboratory are never those of the Ideal (Platonic) Laboratory, just as a real chair is never exactly the Ideal Platonic chair and real horseshit isn’t Ideal Platonic Horseshit. (For those who did not have the dubious benefit of education in classical philosophy, it should be explained that, according to Plato, every chair we encounter in sensory-sensual experience “is” an imperfect copy of the Ideal Chair somewhere outside space-time. From this I long ago deduced that every horse encountered and endured in space-time is also an imperfect copy of the Ideal Platonic Horse and all the horseshit I have ever stepped in is just an imperfect copy of Ideal Platonic Horseshit. I’m sure some Platonists have thought of this before me, and not only believe in the Ideal Platonic Horseshit but have religious ecstasies in which they can actually smell it.

And so on....

R. A. Wilson is the author of the satirical science fiction trilogy:

The Illuminatus! Trilogy: The Eye in the Pyramid, The Golden Apple, Leviathan

Ba'al Chatzaf

[George H. Smith]

Wilson's article was aptly named, for he was being a real prick. From reading his comments about me, you wouldn't know that all I wrote was a short review of Rollins's monograph on natural rights. That's why I didn't go into any detail.

Then there is his comment that I supposedly cited "Aristotle and Aquinas as if he were addressing an audience of the 13th Century monks and those Mighty Names would settle the issue once and for all." In fact I mentioned Aquinas briefly and in passing, because Rollins had treated the Is-Ought problem as if Hume had discovered it, whereas it had also been discussed by earlier philosophers, such as Aquinas. That was all I said.

I don't think I've ever encountered a more dishonest interlocutor than Wilson. And he treated Rothbard in a similar manner.

Ghs

[BaalChatzaf]

Wilson's article was aptly named, for he was being a real prick. From reading his comments about me, you wouldn't know that all I wrote was a short review of Rollins's monograph on natural rights. That's why I didn't go into any detail.

Then there is his comment that I supposedly cited "Aristotle and Aquinas as if he were addressing an audience of the 13th Century monks and those Mighty Names would settle the issue once and for all." In fact I mentioned Aquinas briefly and in passing, because Rollins had treated the Is-Ought problem as if Hume had discovered it, whereas it had also been discussed by earlier philosophers, such as Aquinas. That was all I said.

I don't think I've ever encountered a more dishonest interlocutor than Wilson. And he treated Rothbard in a similar manner.

Ghs

I'll be darned. I did not know it was -you- that he was referring to.

I though his remarks about Platonic Horseshit were hillarious.

I can understand your annoyance, however I thought his position on Natural Law was on point. Surely his jibes of the Host (Bread become Christ in the Flesh) was correct.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

Wilson's article was aptly named, for he was being a real prick. From reading his comments about me, you wouldn't know that all I wrote was a short review of Rollins's monograph on natural rights. That's why I didn't go into any detail.

Then there is his comment that I supposedly cited "Aristotle and Aquinas as if he were addressing an audience of the 13th Century monks and those Mighty Names would settle the issue once and for all." In fact I mentioned Aquinas briefly and in passing, because Rollins had treated the Is-Ought problem as if Hume had discovered it, whereas it had also been discussed by earlier philosophers, such as Aquinas. That was all I said.

I don't think I've ever encountered a more dishonest interlocutor than Wilson. And he treated Rothbard in a similar manner.

Ghs

I'll be darned. I did not know it was -you- that he was referring to.

I though his remarks about Platonic Horseshit were hilarious.

I can understand your annoyance, however I thought his position on Natural Law was on point. Surely his jibes of the Host (Bread become Christ in the Flesh) was correct. As to rights being an inherent part of "essential man" I have to say I have my doubts. I have become quite expert in reading various scans of the human body, particularly the brain and nervous system and I must say I have not detect anything that looks like a Right or a Mind. All I see are bones and other squishy stuff.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[George H. Smith]

Wilson's article was aptly named, for he was being a real prick. From reading his comments about me, you wouldn't know that all I wrote was a short review of Rollins's monograph on natural rights. That's why I didn't go into any detail.

Then there is his comment that I supposedly cited "Aristotle and Aquinas as if he were addressing an audience of the 13th Century monks and those Mighty Names would settle the issue once and for all." In fact I mentioned Aquinas briefly and in passing, because Rollins had treated the Is-Ought problem as if Hume had discovered it, whereas it had also been discussed by earlier philosophers, such as Aquinas. That was all I said.

I don't think I've ever encountered a more dishonest interlocutor than Wilson. And he treated Rothbard in a similar manner.

Ghs

I'll be darned. I did not know it was -you- that he was referring to.

I though his remarks about Platonic Horseshit were hillarious.

I can understand your annoyance, however I thought his position on Natural Law was on point. Surely his jibes of the Host (Bread become Christ in the Flesh) was correct.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Much of what Wilson wrote had nothing to do with the topic at hand. I don't think he understood the difference between philosophy and science fiction. Wilson's primary concern seemed to be to show how clever he was. That's fine, but it's no excuse for woeful ignorance.

Wilson showed up for a lecture when I had a suite of offices on Sunset Blvd. (in the early 1980s) for my Forum for Philosophical Studies. (I think the lecture he attended was the one given by Ray Bradbury.)I talked to Wilson briefly, and he seemed like an okay guy.

Ghs

[BaalChatzaf]

Much of what Wilson wrote had nothing to do with the topic at hand. I don't think he understood the difference between philosophy and science fiction. Wilson's primary concern seemed to be to show how clever he was. That's fine, but it's no excuse for woeful ignorance.

Wilson showed up for a lecture when I had a suite of offices on Sunset Blvd. (in the early 1980s) for my Forum for Philosophical Studies. (I think the lecture he attended was the one given by Ray Bradbury.)I talked to Wilson briefly, and he seemed like an okay guy.

Ghs

I don't know George. Most of Wilson's barbs at "Natural Law" seem well aimed to me.

Ba'al Chatzaf