Talk:Prometheus Rising

Uncited paraphrase

The first paragraph contains a paraphrase of an introduction by Israel Regardie:

Found this on: http://www.eurotrib.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2006/6/25/213810/651

"Imagine trying to make sense of an amalgam of Timothy Leary's eight neurological circuits, Gurdjieff's self-observation exercises, Korzybski's general semantics, Aleister Crowley's magical theorems, the several disciplines of Yoga, Christian Science, relativity and modern quantum mechanics, and many other approaches to understanding the world around us! A man is required with an almost encyclopaedic education, an incredibly flexible mind, insights as sharp as those whom he is trying to synthesise and mirabile dictu, a wonderful sense of humour." --Israel Regardie, Introduction to Prometheus Rising, p17

I dont have the book so I cannot confirm

Mleinart 08:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I do own this book in German translation and can confirm the aforementioned citation from the introduction. --84.62.202.236 17:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

cf.felix I inserted the quote[1], i do however dont know how helpful that is. We might be better off with the recent cover summary. Its not really a book you can summarize in a sentence or two. "Prometheus Rising describes the landscape of human evolution and offers the reader an opportunity to become a conscious participant. In an astoundingly useful road map infused with humor and startling insight, Robert Anton Wilson presents the Eight Circuits of the Brain model as an essential guide for the effort to break free of imprinted and programmed behavior, Bob writes, "We are all giants, raised by pygmies, who have learned to walk with a perpetual mental crouch. Unleashing our full stature–our total brain power–is what this book is all about.” The Robert Anton Wilson Trust Authorized Hilaritas Press Edition"

Style

The article's current style violates Wikipedia:NPOV consistently. Someone who knows the book should fix it. Michaelbusch 17:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is a veritable torrent of undiluted crap. It is unclear to what extent it is salvageable. It violates not only WP:NPOV, but the guidelines on fringe theories and other such matters quite brutally as well. The content needs to be placed in the context of orthodox knowledge of the world (this is an encyclopaedia, after all) by someone who has the time and patience to do so. Rosenkreuz 10:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not an article about any scientific theory or theories. It is an article about a non-fiction book. __meco 10:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of that. Only the article is being used to articulate, in detail, the particular pseudoscientific theory of consciousness which is put forth in the book. Hence, if it wants to describe the contents of the book, it needs to contextualise such contents within the broader picture of established knowledge in the field. Else, the last section about the `eight-fold model' or whatever should just be removed altogether. Rosenkreuz 10:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Then reverting my edit objecting very politely to using Category Pseudoscience is hardly right.--Alf ^melmac 10:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Having gone through the history of the article edit by edit, the whole section about 8-Circuit Model of Consciousness was added in one edit, and as we have an article about that idea, and it being mentioned as the basis of the book in the opening lines, the whole thing could go - if it only the 'improvements' Wilson made to Leary's ideas I would be happier about it but I see no point in it being there in its current format.--Alf ^melmac 15:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I can understand the criticism of the deleted article as being almost the same as the wiki-entry for Timothy Leary's 8-Circuit Model. But it doesn't show manners that some people feel the need to come up with phrases like 'gobbledygook' and 'bullshit' for an article that simply summaries what this book is about. If the removed article is criticized for being unscientific, than this book shouldn't be labeled 'non-fiction' in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.247.77.14 (talk) 14:36, January 17, 2007 (UTC)

• Without disagreeing with arguments re NPOV and style, I believe it is very dangerous to dismiss an article as "undiluted crap" on the basis of it being "fringe theories". Within my lifetime, I have seen the theory of continental drift go from fringe/crap to orthodox science. Moreover, IMO, an encyclopedia should not be limited to current orthodoxy; there are many articles in WP on, e.g., phlogiston theory, Orgone theory, and numerous "alternative" medical practices. I think Wikipedia's most important criterion is notability, and rightly so. As in other articles, a section on "reception" or "controversy" is the best way to express the current orthodox or majority view on the theory behind a book. D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 04:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Law of accelerating returns

Can somebody explain the reason to have mutual "See also"s with Law of accelerating returns? I have read Prometheus Rising but it's been a while; I don't remember any reference to this concept. Brianhe 00:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Since no reply, have deleted the See also. Brianhe 19:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The reference comes from the chapter dealing with the third circuit of consciousness and passing knowledge through generations. I can't remember the exact details right now, but it's elaborated on for a decent few pages. 205.174.160.6 18:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's about exponential growth of knowledge. It's very similar to the technological singularity concept. I don't recall the wording being anything like "accelerating returns."98.162.130.15 (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Online version availability

An anon user left a URL to a PDF-edition of Prometheus Rising which was swiftly removed on grounds of copyright infringement. Since there is a possibility that the publisher has given, or would be willing to give, permission for someone to publish an online version of the book (albeit perhaps not under a free licence), maybe someone could contact New Falcon Publications at info@newfalcon.com to solicit a clarification on this issue.

I can imagine several countries where ownership of this book would be frowned upon by the authorities as subversive (it is a very subversive book, I'm sure many who have in fact read it will agree), hence making an e-book the only realistic opportunity for reading it. __meco 06:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Publisher

I hope this gets to the right section - the discussion page for Prometheus Rising. I just want to say that the book, as well as many earlier books by Robert Anton Wilson, was published by Falcon Press, not New Falcon Press, as is stated currently in the article. I'm not sure what happened to Falcon Press - that would make a good article too, but apparently they were bought out or reorganized to become New Falcon Press. Anyone know what happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TechnoDanny (talk • contribs) 12:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

University Paideia

The article links to University Paideia, which is discussed in the foreword of the book, but is a school that failed back in the 80s. The linked article seems to refer to some other effort by the same name. Either this link needs to be changed/removed or the target article needs to be disambiguated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1009:A:24EC:E581:8C95:E12F (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. The link is removed and the university referenced. Alden Loveshade (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)