I was reading in Loren Coleman's chapter of "The SYNC Book 2" that he fancies himself as a bit of a fire-starter -
" I see my role as my name informs,as a "Coal"man ("Coleman"), one of those who lit the fires on the hills along the ley lines as a "perceiver" ...I shall give you the facts,no matter how grounded or beguiling, and you can come to your own conclusions "
And check out this great piece of synchromysticism between Mark LeClair,Myself,Loren Coleman and a few others in this post -
You mentioned "the map is not the territory" on the last Always Record, and something you said struck very clear to me: "you can say 'this is the one map, this is it' and the territory will change itself to render that map completely obsolete". This is something I've been noticing the more that I think about the way I think. I notice that the way I thought of something before no longer applies because it has changed completely since I last thought about it, and the neurons in my brain are occupying much less space than the universe itself so it cannot contain real-time information on things without referring back to the object of observation consistently. I find that my mental structures have a half-life. This opens up Schrodinger's Cat and Schrodinger's Friend:
"The results of the Schrodinger's Cat test result in a dead cat observed by the scientist. His friend is also aware of the experiment taking place but has not heard the results yet. The information on the cat remains a quantum probability in his universe until the scientist calls him and tells him the results."
This is a bit off topic, but I've wanted to ask you this for a while. On one episode of Always Record (I can't remember which) you mentioned that in RAW's book, Coincidance, that Wilson gets certain details wrong about Finnegans Wake, but that he does this intentionally. I find this fascinating. Can you get into detail about what you discovered, or have you written about it elsewhere?
Great insights into the Wake on AR. I also blog on the Wake and it's great to occasionally hear from another Wake freak.
I've read Coincidance many, many times, and you should too. In fact, this whole blog is a essentially a sequel to Coincidance. As far as the "intentional mistake" RAW makes, all I know is this: I have owned seven copies of that book, and given away six to other people (maybe I should stop doing that) and every copy included what I believe is an "intentional mistake". It might have been the error of the publisher, but I don't think so (it's there in the latest edition). I can't divulge the "mistake", sorry, but if you are even the slightest bit curious, you are on the right track. I promise to confirm my suspicions if you forward me your insight.
That's just the thing. I've thoroughly studied RAW's essays on the Wake in Coincidance and never noticed any "mistakes." I don't doubt, though, that he would include such a thing in order to unlock a mystery of the Wake. That's why I'm so curious. I love his exploration of the "impossible" sync loops that Joyce incorporates into his work. Is it to be found there? Any hints?
It might be considered a typographical error, but I haven't seen it corrected in any of the different editions I have had over the years. I don't think it unlocks a deeper part of the mystery, but it should confirm an accurate reading. I tend to believe this was intentional.
I listened to episode 32 of "Always Record" and thought it was a good one...and I even got a mention,but I think Alan missed my point about Loren Coleman,his book and his blog. Anyway,I heard you say that you wished you had a Django - the D is silent sync. Well I posted one that might bring a smile to your face,or just piss you off even more.-)
I was reading in Loren Coleman's chapter of
ReplyDelete"The SYNC Book 2" that he fancies himself as a bit of a fire-starter -
" I see my role as my name informs,as a "Coal"man ("Coleman"),
one of those who lit the fires on the hills along the ley lines as a
"perceiver" ...I shall give you the facts,no matter how grounded or beguiling,
and you can come to your own conclusions "
And check out this great piece of synchromysticism between Mark LeClair,Myself,Loren Coleman and a few others in this post -
http://brizdazz.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/coleman-sync.html
Watch the clip of "The Last Boy Scout" and keep an eye out for the footballer's name .-)
You mentioned "the map is not the territory" on the last Always Record, and something you said struck very clear to me: "you can say 'this is the one map, this is it' and the territory will change itself to render that map completely obsolete". This is something I've been noticing the more that I think about the way I think. I notice that the way I thought of something before no longer applies because it has changed completely since I last thought about it, and the neurons in my brain are occupying much less space than the universe itself so it cannot contain real-time information on things without referring back to the object of observation consistently. I find that my mental structures have a half-life. This opens up Schrodinger's Cat and Schrodinger's Friend:
ReplyDelete"The results of the Schrodinger's Cat test result in a dead cat observed by the scientist. His friend is also aware of the experiment taking place but has not heard the results yet. The information on the cat remains a quantum probability in his universe until the scientist calls him and tells him the results."
This is a bit off topic, but I've wanted to ask you this for a while. On one episode of Always Record (I can't remember which) you mentioned that in RAW's book, Coincidance, that Wilson gets certain details wrong about Finnegans Wake, but that he does this intentionally. I find this fascinating. Can you get into detail about what you discovered, or have you written about it elsewhere?
ReplyDeleteGreat insights into the Wake on AR. I also blog on the Wake and it's great to occasionally hear from another Wake freak.
I've read Coincidance many, many times, and you should too. In fact, this whole blog is a essentially a sequel to Coincidance. As far as the "intentional mistake" RAW makes, all I know is this: I have owned seven copies of that book, and given away six to other people (maybe I should stop doing that) and every copy included what I believe is an "intentional mistake". It might have been the error of the publisher, but I don't think so (it's there in the latest edition). I can't divulge the "mistake", sorry, but if you are even the slightest bit curious, you are on the right track. I promise to confirm my suspicions if you forward me your insight.
ReplyDeleteThat's just the thing. I've thoroughly studied RAW's essays on the Wake in Coincidance and never noticed any "mistakes." I don't doubt, though, that he would include such a thing in order to unlock a mystery of the Wake. That's why I'm so curious. I love his exploration of the "impossible" sync loops that Joyce incorporates into his work. Is it to be found there? Any hints?
ReplyDeleteIt might be considered a typographical error, but I haven't seen it corrected in any of the different editions I have had over the years. I don't think it unlocks a deeper part of the mystery, but it should confirm an accurate reading. I tend to believe this was intentional.
ReplyDeleteI'll look again. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteLook at the diagrams in Part Four.
ReplyDeleteI listened to episode 32 of "Always Record" and thought it was a good one...and I even got a mention,but I think Alan missed my point about Loren Coleman,his book and his blog.
ReplyDeleteAnyway,I heard you say that you wished you had a Django - the D is silent sync.
Well I posted one that might bring a smile to your face,or just piss you off even more.-)
http://brizdazz.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/the-d-is-silentanother-coldman-sync.html
The delta for chevron substitution?
ReplyDelete