Bob Dobbs - jedini živi čovjek na planetu

Tko je Bob Dobbs? Koliko znamo, postoji jedan "pravi" - fikcionalni Bob Dobbs, parodijsko božanstvo Crkve SubGenius, teksaških otkačenih parodičara religijskog fundamentalizma i New Agea, i jedan navodno "lažni" Bob Dobbs, zbiljska osoba iz Toronta koja za sebe tvrdi da utjelovljuje (pravog) Boba Dobbsa, boga Crkve SubGenius. Sami SubGeniji to naravno niječu, jer je njihov Bob Dobbs parodijsko božansko biće s lulom, dok je Kanađanin prevarant koji ne sliči Bobu Dobbsu, ne puši lulu, i uopće nije duhovit. Štoviše, prema njima, taj Kanađanin zapravo je pravim imenom Bob Dean. Kontroverzu oko ljudskog odnosno nadljudskog identiteta Boba Dobbsa vješto koristi sam Bob Dobbs Kanađanin, voditelj radijskih razgovornih emisija u kojima on sa slušateljima  debatira o ezoteričnim temama poput McLuhanove medijske filozofije i skrivenih značenja Joyceova romana Finnegans Wake. Svojom paramedijskom  ekologijom otkriva on prave zakonitosti strukture zbilje, iznoseći između ostaloga, tezu da je 1945. godine svijet nestao te da su on i njegova supruga Connie jedini živi ljudi na svijetu a da su svi ostali tzv. "ljudi" zapravo hologramske utvare nalik onima iz filma Matrix. Da ne bude zabune, film je ne samo nadahnut Dobbsovim idejama, nego je zapravo o njemu. Dobbs se predstavlja kao bivši tajni agent koji sve zna o Kennedyjevu ubojstvu, istraživač je nevidljivih učinaka električnog okoliša i post-satelitskog ljudskog stanja a njegovi uvidi što se razmeću na razmeđi lucidnosti i (marketinškog?) ludila prvenstveno su provokativni a tek u rezervnom slučaju i "razumni", pa su zato i sami medijski događaj, nalik teorijskoj inačici zbunjujuće neobične pop-pjesme. Nekima će njegove ideje osati nerazumljivima bez obzira na to kojom ih se brzinom preslušavalo, a za neke će pak biti male metafizičke epifanije što padaju poput metalizirane kiše koja iz čudnog smjera sapire naš privid da postojimo. Ok, Bob Dobbs je prankster i zapravo ne postoji, ali tko smo mi da to kažemo.

BOB DOBBS. Paramedia Ecologist. Bob Dobbs was born in Paris in 1922 and after World War Two worked with international intelligence agencies for many decades.
He surfaced in 1987 on CKLN-FM in Toronto and began whistleblowing. Two interpretations of Dobbs are circulating in the popular media: one is through the Church of the SubGenius; the other is on two CDs, Bob's Media Ecology and Bob's Media Ecology Squared, put out in 1992 by Time Again Productions, early students of Marshall McLuhan. The best presentation of Dobbs' work is in his book, Phatic Communion with Bob Dobbs. Today, he travels the world explaining his/our victory over the Android Meme, and the tracings of these activities were regularly published in Flipside magazine in the late Nineties.


Jedna od Bobovih baza

Vrlo precizna Bobova putanja

  BOB DOBBS:  NEMAŠ GDJE POBJEĆI, NEMAŠ SE GDJE SAKRITI

Scott Woods: Čini mi se da mnogo toga što ste objavili u Flipside magazinu i što govorite u svojim radio-emisijama – nešto od toga mogu shvatiti, velik dio ne mogu, ali te ideje ipak mi se sviđaju na emocionalnoj razini; volim način kako ih prikazujete. Stoga se pitam zalažete li se za tu vrstu razumijevanja Boba Dobbsa: Boba kao zabave?

Bob: Naravno, ali to nije zabava. Uvijek se sjetim što je McLuhan napisao o Joyceu. Rekao je da je Joyce komunicirao prije razumijevanja i onkraj njega; pjesnik komunicira prije razumijevanja i onkraj njega. To je gotovo poput komunikacije između redaka i između ritmova. Ljudi podsvjesno reagiraju na ritam i dobro će se zbog toga osjećati, ili što god već, ili na jake osjećaje, ili strašne osjećaje – postanu GANUTI, a ganuće je više od bilježenja semantičkog značenja. Stoga ne očekujem da me u potpunosti razumijete, i to je u redu, jer jednom ćete razumjeti. Uvijek kažem: vratite se i poslije to pogledajte opet, za dvije godine, i bit ćete zadivljeni onime što ćete tada otkriti.

Scott: To je istina, kad se vratiš i pročitaš to opet, svakako možeš shvatiti više.

Bob: Ako je istina to što govorim, onda vi, kao mlada osoba, ne možete to shvatiti jer nemate iskustvo koje sam ja imao, a zašto biste ga i imali? No imate sreće ako kažete: “Ja reagiram na ovo, vidim da vrijedi obratiti pozornost na to, tijekom vremena.” Kao što sam ja obratio pozornost na Franka Zappu i druge dečke jer su pokušavali nešto reći, a vi to uopće ne možete shvatiti. Samo budite dovoljno pametni da se povremeno vratite na to i podsjetite se da to postoji. Želim da ljudi, ako budu imali sreće, prate ono što radim jer će shvatiti dosljednost u tome kada razumiju više toga o drugim stvarima u svojem životu. Dakle, ne mislim da je ovo zabava; mislim da je to učenje. Ali, ali, evo dobre poante: nema razlike između didaktične poezije i lirske poezije, jer ono što zabavlja većinu i poučava većinu –  postaje isto.

Scott: Spomenuli ste i da razumijevanje Bobove Medijske ekologije uključuje i određenu količinu boli…

Bob: [smije se] Da, učenje je bolno. Hoću reći, ima stara poslovica koja kaže da učite onda kada se smijete, ali zapravo učite onda kada vas boli. Danas imamo toliko stvari koje nam skreću pozornost i stvari koje nam ispunjavaju vrijeme da je bolno sjediti na mjestu, možda se skrivati tjedan dana i pomno nešto iščitavati, pokušavati to shvatiti, zbog mnoštva iskustava koje ste propustili tog tjedna; ako mislite da morate znati što se događa, onda niste u toku. Propustili ste kolektivno iskustvo ljudi koji svaki dan čitaju novine; oni razmatraju sve to, a vi niste dio kolektivnog uma košnice, a jedan dio vašeg mozga, vaše sebstvo, želi biti u toku. Ali bolno je povući se iz toga i raditi vlastitu domaću zadaću, na neki način oživiti izolirano, vizualno iskustvo čitanja knjige. Ja pokušavam preporučiti doista dobro štivo kako bi to vrijedilo. To nije tjelesna muka, ali je na neki način bolno, i to je RAD, poput dizanja utega.

Scott: Bolno je steći svjesnost – želite li to reći? Steći razumijevanje?

Bob: Bolno je naučiti upravljati svojim umom, ili vidjeti kako se on kreće. Vidite, ako se samo izgubite u gomili i činite što već činite, gledate “prave” filmove, sve te pametne stvari, djelujete prema određenom ritmu i tempu koji je ugodan i na koji se naviknete. Uvijek je neugodno izići iz tog ritma i prekinuti svoju rutinu i navike. Cjelokupna se svjesnost sastoji u tome da iz druge perspektive sagledate  ono  što ste učinili, a da biste izišli iz struje, trebate se zaustaviti, a kada se zaustavite, to ne znači da ste dospjeli u zonu više svjesnosti, nego samo to da ste počeli gledati taj drukčiji okoliš iz drukčije perspektive, a tako nastaju novi modeli i novi uvidi, te stječete dojam o širenju  svijesti; ali ne možete ostati na tome mjestu – na kraju ćete morati poći dalje, doživjeti neko drugo područje i iz njega sagledati te dvije prethodne zone.

Stoga u širenju svijesti nema krajnje točke – ne bih ni započinjao o tome, rekao bih samo to da je teško promijeniti svoju rutinu, a da je još teže promijeniti svoju rutinu kada živimo u svijetu koji se mijenja - pa kako možete izvoditi promjene kada se sve uvijek mijenja? Jedan je od načina - STATI; znate na što mislim, na neki način, premda je to danas najteže učiniti.

Scott: Stati?

Bob: Ako vam to uspijeva neko vrijeme, ako to postane navikom, onda nije teško. Ali Bobova medijska ekologija rado se bavi sagledavanjem jedne situacije putem druge. To znači: ako volite ekološke stvari, morate čitati desničarsku i antiekološku literaturu, da vidite o čemu se radi, shvaćate što hoću reći? Jer, ako imate samo jednu perspektivu, postajete zombi. Kako učite sve više i više o tome da je svako gledište zastarjelo, a društvo čak ni ne funkcionira prema tom gledištu, onda shvaćate da morate naučiti živjeti bez gledišta… A to je problem; zato je smiješno imati neko gledište, ukoliko se samoga društva to uopće više ne tiče. A to je STRAŠNO za društvo, jer više nitko neće ovladati situacijom ni provesti stvarne promjene, niti usmjeriti društvo u zdravom smjeru.

Scott: Cijela ta ideja odmaka… da biste nešto razumjeli, je li bolje imati odmak od situacije ili je bolje biti uronjen u nju?

Bob: Da, to je vječna dijalektika; iz nje proizlazi povijest mudrosti. Postojala je “vremenska” škola, u kojoj se, putem filozofije, redovništva i joge, odmičete od te dimenzije i stječete velik odmak – to je jedan put. Drugi put je “prostorna” škola: uronite u društvo, poput lorda Byrona, i uzburkate ga, postanete društveni aktivist i jednostavno sve poremetite, a taj metež opravdate time što on ljude izbacuje iz njihove rutine. Dakle, možete se povući ili se pak uključiti – čini se da je to za ljude vječno pitanje. Na primjer, hoću li ostati ovdje i prihvatiti ovaj intervju – ne želim ga više, dosadno mi je – ili ću potisnuti svoju potrebu da odem i doista se uključiti u nj? To je drama spoznavanja, drama odnosa s drugim. U kojoj vam mjeri obraćam pozornost, dakle nemam odmak i uključen sam u vašu stvarnost, a u kojoj vas mjeri ignoriram? Dakle, vaše pitanje se odnosi na  arhetipsko titranje koje se cijelo vrijeme odvija u svijesti.

Stoga, u Bobovoj medijskoj ekologiji najvažnije je postati svjestan problema, da li poći prvim ili drugim putem. Bobova medijska ekologija kaže: istraži prvi put, a zatim istraži drugi, imajući na umu da je teško učiniti i prvo i drugo, jer vam tehnologija omogućuje izbor. Nekoć niste mogli birati i morali ste odmah odlučiti: pleme ide u rat i što ćete sad vi? Niste mogli slušati ploče, čitati knjige i časopise te se odlučivati pet godina. Ta dilema očito više ne postoji, ali nikad nema savršene situacije i sada imamo nove dileme. Sviđa mi se što Bobova medijska ekologija opisuje naše NOVE dileme, koje se obično ne može opisati starim dijalektičkim pojmovima; htio bih osuvremeniti ljudsko razumijevanje problema, dati ljudima nov način rješavanja tog  starog problema: uključiti se ili ne.

Zato nikad ne čitam vijesti, nisam uključen u vijesti, ali ostajem svjestan, uvijek sam ispred onoga što je u vijestima jer poznajem šira pitanja, bolje poznajem pitanja dileme o kojoj govorimo. Zvučim kao da sam bolje informiran od onih koji svakodnevno čitaju novine [smije se] – dakle, to je strategija.

Scott: Dobro. Kada sam prvi put pročitao članak “Zabava je smeće” (Flipside, lipanj/srpanj 1995.), prvo što sam dobio od tog čitanja bio je dojam da sve što radim u svojem životu – sviram u bendu, pišem o glazbi i slično – da je sve to potpuno nevažno.

Bob: Tako je. Prenio sam vam jednu misao i ona vas TREBA prestrašiti, ja želim da vas ona prestraši na mrtvo ime. To ste i dobili i sada ćete ponovno pročitati taj članak…

Scott: U vezi s tim imam dva pitanja: prvo, je li to normalna reakcija? Drugo, kako da se odjednom prestanem osjećati nevažnim? Kako da to shvatim a da se ne osjećam nevažnim?

Bob: Pa [smije se], ako budete imali sreće, shvatit ćete da pojmovi koje sami definirate jesu nevažni. Ja ugrožavam vaše definicije, vaš rječnik, jer moj rječnik uništava vaš unutarnji rječnik, i onda ostajete bez načina da svojim riječima usmjerite sebe u drugom smjeru. Dakle, isprva biste trebali biti paralizirani, ali ako me budete proučavali, steći ćete nov jezik i nove spoznaje koje će vas motivirati da pođete nekamo, iako ja ne znam kamo ćete poći. Ali ja sam poput nekoga tko zahtijeva da izađete iz društva, [smije se], a to je danas još manje moguće nego što je bilo prije stotinu godina, pa vas taj zahtjev treba šokirati i uzdrmati, navesti vas da se osjećate glupo – da, da se osjećate glupo i deprimirano, jer znam da ovo društvo nudi toliko zabave da nećete ostati ovdje. Da sam to ljudima činio prije stotinu godina, svi bi poludjeli, jer mi tada ne bi mogli pobjeći. No, danas vas ne mogu zaustaviti; ne mogu upravljati vašim reakcijama, pa na neki način moram ostavljati ekstremniji dojam. To katkad ne uspije, ljudi ne reagiraju, ali vi jeste reagirali, i ja doista želim da se osjećate mrtvim...

Scott: Žive li danas svi umjetnici u zabludi?

Bob: Prije svega, danas su umjetnici svi – upravo svi! A znate li zašto? Zato što je umjetnost zastarjela kao pojam. Umjetnik je čovjek koji može zastati, promotriti društveni model, odraziti ga u zrcalu; umjetnik bi imao ulogu navesti  ljude da spoznaju svoju ulogu u društvu. Imao bi ih preplašiti ili ih pak potaknuti. Danas nas toliko potiču informacije i strojevi – filmovi i mediji, svi mediji, oni su poput strojeva, potiču nas poput nekadašnjih umjetnika  – da nam umjetnik više nije potreban; kako nekoga navesti na to da sve to odrazi u zrcalu, na ono što je tradicionalno  činio umjetnik? Nijedan umjetnik nije više kadar za to. Dakle,  danas su svi u ulozi umjetnika. Jer, u biti, umjetnikom je bio onaj koji je  bio izvan društva, koji je bio gotovo egzistencijalan, kadar ne vjerovati u društvo, i koji je poduzimao rizik izlaska iz društva u to nepoznato područje…

Scott: Znači li to stvoriti protu-okoliš?

Bob: Točno. Umjetnik je tradicionalno bio onaj koji ne  prihvaća stvari zdravo za gotovo i koji putem boli, jer je ona posljedica izlaganja takvome životu, dolazi do neke metafore kojom ono što vidi  pokazuje društvu; i tada bi to ljude šokiralo, i oni bi naslutili kako  to izgleda, biti izvan svoje kulture. Rizik u koji se umjetnik upušta, rizik izlaženja – danas SVI dijele taj položaj, jer nema antropomorfnih mjerila za ljude; danas samo strojevi govore strojevima, pa su svi ljudi otuđeni, svi su izvan sustava, poput umjetničkog pogleda, umjetničke svijesti. Dakle, ako su danas svi ljudi umjetnici, onda ne možete govoriti o nekoj pojedinačnoj osobi, o nekom umu koji će prikazati protu-okoliš – on se ne može služiti umjetničkim rječnikom, jer  su svi već u tom položaju. I kakav rječnik ili metaforu tada možete smisliti? Shvaćate li problem?

Scott: Da, da.

Bob: Vi govorite u okvirima određenog rječnika i ne shvaćate da se više ne radi o tome jeste li i dalje umjetnik, jer  SVI su ljudi u položaju umjetnika, nalaze se izvan situacije, svi poduzimaju taj egzistencijalni rizik i ne mogu se više ni na što osloniti. A umjetnik je tradicionalno činio upravo to: napuštao je sigurnost i udobnost,  pretpostavku da ne treba poduzimati rizik, te je na neki način djelovao sa stajališta “ja ne znam”, i tako uviđao pravilnosti. Danas su svi ljudi u tom položaju, već i samo zbog toga što današnji dan neće biti jednak sutrašnjem, i da bi se uopće probudili, ljudi moraju najprije pročitati novine da vide koja pravila  vrijede za taj dan, jer se pravila svakodnevno mijenjaju.

Dakle, budući da svi to doživljavamo, i da je to klišej, kako ćemo u toj situaciji ponuditi dokolicu [slack]? Vidite, nekoć je umjetnik pružao dokolicu ako ju je razumio, imao je perspektivu i prepoznavao jasne pravilnosti; no i to može biti zastrašujuće jer vas se tako stavlja u egzistencijalan položaj. Danas su svi prisiljeni biti egzistencijalnima, i kako da ih onda stavite u nepoznato područje, kako da stvorite  protu-okoliš? U biti, ne možete to učiniti. Dakle, jedini način, jedini umjetnički položaj koji omogućuje uviđanje kulturalnih pravilnosti ostvaruje se samo brzim nizom ersatz-inovacija. A to imamo svaki dan: izmjenjujemo stilove automobila, glazbene stilove, industrijske stilove – sve. Sve su te promjene brzi niz inovacija. Strojevi igraju ulogu umjetnika – čak i prerastaju tu ulogu – i kako da onda antropomorfna osoba sve to sagleda u perspektivi? Prvo, morate imati nešto nalik [Joyceovu] romanu Finnegans Wake, koji se približava problemu, prikazuje vam problem u obliku knjige. To nije knjiga: to su svi mediji, i to vam djelo prikazuje brzi niz inovacija i pomaka.

Scott: Nešto poput “umjetnosti s malim u”?

Bob: Pa, umjetnost s malim u uvijek  je  umjetnost koja nudi opažanje, i to je njezina prava uloga; nova umjetnost uvijek je ružna – umjetnost s malim u. Ono što nam nudi novo opažanje nije tu zato da zaradi novac: umjetnik ima neki problem i pokušava ga shvatiti, pa to naslika, ili već nešto načini, u skladu s tradicijom. To tada mora biti uspješno, ali znamo za bezbrojne ljude koji su bili veliki umjetnici a za koje nitko nije čuo – dakle, umjetnost s malim u ne temelji se na trgovini. Posebno danas, kad je strojevima potreban sadržaj i ta tradicionalna uloga umjetnika – ono što je činio umjetnik s malim u – to je već uključeno u komercijalno čudovište.

Želim istaknuti razliku između umjetnosti s malim u i umjetnosti s velikim u, pri čemu umjetnost s malim u definitivno nije komercijalna – ali ne mogu se osloniti na tradicionalan oblik umjetnosti s malim u, jer ona u svojoj nekomercijalnosti biva prisvojenom, kao što nam dokazuje povijest. Na primjer, dadaisti; mnogo se novca zaradilo na njima, kao što danas vjerojatno tvrtka Rothman’s sponzorira razne alternativce. Hoću reći da smo zapravo nestali; nema umjetničkog načina da se nosimo s time.

Zato tvrdim da sam shvatio kako to možemo učiniti – kako biti umjetnikom s malim u, a kad bih mogao od toga napraviti umjetnost s velikim u – to uopće ne dolazi u obzir; mogao bih to učiniti, ali to ne bi riješilo naš problem.

Scott: Jeste li vi jedini umjetnik s malim u na svijetu?

Bob: Zacijelo bih rekao da jesam. Ja sam najveći umjetnik i jedini umjetnik, jer nitko drugi nije živ, nitko nije u mojem položaju.

Scott: Zato što ste izvan svega toga?

Bob: Da! Ja sam i više od umjetnika s malim u – to vam je poput pete stranice u biografiji od deset stranica, ako shvaćate što hoću reći? [smije se]. Hoću reći, osim što sam umjetnik s malim u, ja mogu govoriti o mrtvima, mogu skladati intergalaktički, mogu liječiti AIDS – zahvaljujući Connie što se toga tiče – mogu sve to, ali imam i pristup zapanjujućim zbiljama, pa me se čak ne može ni definirati, ne mogu biti čak ni umjetnik s malim u. Ako je to najširi pojam u vašem razumijevanju i vašem rječniku, onda sam ja najveći, a i još mnogo toga [smije se]. Jer, ohrabrit ću vas da se razvijate i u drugim smjerovima, a ne samo da budete umjetnik. Znam da vi, kao dijete Zapada, držite da je vrhunac antropomorfnog ugleda biti umjetnikom00 – jer dakako nećete biti redovnik; to je vrhunski stupanj uma, svojevrstan kompleks superiornosti. No ja uvijek pokušavam reći: hej, ima i boljih stvari prema kojima možete težiti ako imate hrabrosti, ako ste ISTINSKI umjetnici; ne morate biti dio svijeta umjetnosti. Možete povremeno gostovati u njemu, ali nema tu ničega, pa se u njemu možete zabaviti jednom tjedno, samo ako ste svjesni da to nije ono što biste doista trebali činiti, barem ne cijelo vrijeme.

Scott: Mogu li kao glazbenik išta reći publici? Dobro, znam da nema publike, ali…

Bob: Jedino što je racionalno je baviti se drugim stvarima, koje nisu glazba, zato da biste zaradili novac za važne stvari. Jer, danas je sve sredstvo za zarađivanje novca. Zato ne smijete zamjerati ljudima zbog načina kako zarađuju novac, ali uvijek kažem: nemojte se time previše baviti i tako zanemariti život. Glazba je dio života, ali morate raditi i nešto drugo, prekinuti s tom opsesijom. Predlažem da svoje vrijeme posvetite tome da se NE specijalizirate. No to ne znači da trebate proučavati razne vrste glazbe; to mora biti nešto čemu ste posve neskloni, npr. matematika ili nešto slično. Možda čak ni to… možda trebate izići u bar za homoseksualce ako niste homoseksualac.

Scott: Nije li to svojevrstan diletantizam?

Bob: Danas ljudi većinom jesu diletanti – prisiljeni su to biti. Vidite, ljudska bića su nevjerojatno inteligentna i agilna, a svi umjetnici su superbića u usporedbi s ljudima od prije 100, 200 ili 500 godina, samo zato što to zahtijeva okolina. To je kao da ležite u kadi: temperatura vode raste za jedan stupanj svakih pola sata, ali vaše se tijelo  prilagođava i vi to ne primjećujete, pa se na kraju skuhate na smrt. Upravo smo to i učinili: ubili smo se jer smo se prilagodili nevjerojatnim zahtjevima koji nam se postavljaju. Zato kažem upravo suprotno: ne budite diletant, ali to  ne možete postići na neki poznati način. Jedini način da  ne budete diletantom bio bi da komunicirate s Bobovom crkvom ili da proučavate ono što proučava Bob. Budući da ja nudim mnoštvo stvari, to može izgledati kao diletantizam, ali ja kažem da je to hvalevrijedan diletantizam, koji bi vas trebao navesti da shvatite kako ste uvjetovani da budete diletant i da se tome trebate oduprijeti.

Scott: Postoje li ikakvi tabui s obzirom na zabavu?

Bob: Pa, zašto bi postojali? Potrebno nam je što više sadržaja, jer se emitira toliko emisija. Vidite, mi zapravo nismo preopterećeni informacijama jer će uvijek milijuni ljudi gledati NEŠTO, ali to ne možete kontrolirati, ukoliko je riječ o novcu. Bogatiji smo nego što možemo izmjeriti; svi smo mi milijarderi kada se radi o informacijama i uslugama koje su nam dostupne, nude nam se nevjerojatne stvari u usporedbi s onim što su ljudi imali prije stotinu godina. Ali, to ne možete pretvoriti u novac.

Scott: Kako se to slaže s preporodom lounge stila, pa sada  Frank Sinatra i Dean Martin odjednom postaju najveći buntovnici?

Bob: Ha, ha! Zacijelo nikad niste očekivali da će netko ozbiljno slušati Franka Sinatru – to vas je sasvim ozbiljno pogodilo! No sada ste shvatili, zar ne? Oni neprekidno prekopavaju kulturu, ili bilo što, samo da stvore zabavu, jer uvijek neki novi ljudi navršavaju 18 godina i idu na maturalni ples, a moraju biti drukčiji od onih prošlogodišnjih, pa će prekopati sve ne bi li stvorili hologram kojim bi se prikazali drukčijima. Na kraju idu na maturalni ples u konfekcijskim odijelima knjigovođa, znate na što mislim, ili nose knjigovodstvene spise. To su maske identiteta.

Scott: To se shvaća kao “camp”?

Bob: Da, camp ljudima daje smisao zbilji jer im nudi reprodukciju njihova života. Mi zapravo više nemamo reprodukciju. Sav biznis temelji se na reprodukciji; sva kultura je reprodukcija, jer ako je sve nestalo, nema ničega za reprodukciju. Naknadna slika toga što se pretvaramo da nešto još postoji samo je reprodukcija onoga što je prije postojalo, i zato se sve pretvorilo u camp. No to je samo jedan aspekt. Nostalgija ima tri aspekta: tu je camp, tu je obnova arhetipa, i tu je holeopatski klišej. Camp je pop-kultura i očita nostalgija, pogled u retrovizor, konzervativna tvrdoglavost ljudskog bića. Camp je stavljanje nečega u zagrade.

Scott: Je li to isto što i ironija?

Bob: Da, ironija je stavljanje svega u zagrade.

Scott: I je li sve ironično?

Bob: Da, morate biti ironični, jer budući da ste drugim medijem prevedeni u drugi oblik, živite život ubrzanog umjetnika koji je svjestan situacije; zato je sveobuhvatna svijest zastarjela. Vizionari su zastarjeli jer smo već u svemu tome, pa i prosječan čovjek može biti ironičan jer je prošao kroz toliko promjena, što vodi prema ironičnom stajalištu, a ono je poput krajnje samosvijesti. Drugim riječima, to je iskustvo tipa “dopustite mi da ponovim ono što sam htio reći”.

Evo o čemu se radi. Mi smo roboti, mi smo tehnološki uvjetovani. Vjerojatno mislite da su strojevi nešto mehaničko, anorgansko. Kada shvatite da su oni živi i da djeluju zajedno sa starijim strojevima – a govor je još stariji stroj – onda ćete shvatiti da su strojevi nešto organsko.

Scott: A sad nešto drukčije: je li pisanje rastjelovljeno iskustvo?

Bob: Na Internetu jest.

Scott: Zar stavljajući riječi na papir ne izlazimo iz tijela?

Bob: Ne, u rastjelovljenosti se radi o istodobnosti: kada neposredno komunicirate sa svima, a pisanjem to ne činite. Kada ste na telefonu, ili na televiziji ili radiju, milijuni ljudi dijele taj elektronički prostor - zato sve tehnologije do pojave telegrafa nisu  rastjelovljene. Početak rastljelovljenog pisanja je telegraf. McLuhan definira telegraf kao elektrifikaciju pisanja, ili kao simultanost pisanja, a e-mail je satelitska verzija telegrafa.

Scott: Ali knjiga s tisućama čitatelja, zar ona nije rastjelovljena?

Bob: Nije…

Scott: Zato što nije simultana?

Bob: I zato što nije živa. Vidite, elektronička tehnologija je živa, ona je organska. Sve mehaničke tehnologije, poput knjige, koja s gledišta povijesti tehnologije potječe od preše za grožđe – one vam ne govore. Ono što vam ne govori, što ne čujete, to je mehaničko. Ali radio čujete, televiziju čujete, računalo čujete. Kada su računala nagrnula sedamdesetih i osamdesetih godina, bila su vizualna, tipkali ste u njih i privremeno su obnovila gutenbergovske vrijednosti. Možda su zato sedamdesetih godina nastali yuppieji: privremeno je opet zavladala ta 19-stoljetna pristranost prema vizualnome. No tada odjednom ulazimo u virtualnu stvarnost ili CD-ROM, i čujemo glas koji nam govori. A govor je prva ljudska tehnologija, to je najintimniji, najobuhvatniji medij. Kada ulazimo u svijet u kojemu predmeti ne govore, to  je mehanička faza. U naše doba, to je trajalo od knjige,  sve do filma, čini mi se. Knjiga i novine, kao strojevi, hrpe čelika – oni nam ne govore.

Scott: Ne razumijem vaš pojam točke nestajanja.

Bob: Kada pogledate prema obzoru, vidite obzor, ali ne vidite iza njega. Iza njega je nešto što je nestalo. E, sada, sljedeća je faza, proći kroz točku nestajanja. To je optička iluzija da se iza obzora nalazi nešto što je nestalo – a ja znam da tamo nečega ima. I sada, zazvoni telefon i ja dignem slušalicu. Znam da je Los Angeles iza obzora u odnosu na Toronto. Netko me zove iz Los Anglesa – ja ČUJEM Los Angeles. Drugim riječima, ne vidim ga, ali ga čujem – i tako sam prošao kroz točku nestajanja i više nisam ograničen samo okom. O tome govorim metaforično u članku “Zabava je smeće”, o mističnoj smrti; kada umirete, prolazite kroz točku nestajanja – tu radim s višestrukim značenjima. No dao sam vam samo značenje na jednostavnoj tehnološkoj razini. Kada je došao telegraf, stupili smo u kontakt s područjima koja nismo mogli vidjeti. To je svojevrsno tehnološko izvanosjetilno opažanje.

Scott: Kada govorim na telefonu, rastjelovljen, ne pričam sa zbiljskom Moskvom…

Bob: Ona je U VAŠOJ GLAVI – čak ne u vašem uhu, ona vam je u središnjem živčanom sustavu, Moskva vam je u glavi. Drugim riječima, oko definira odnose tako da ste vi ondje a ja ovdje – postoji udaljenost, linearnost i odnos središte/periferija. Sve to fragmentiranje svojstveno je oku; oko stvara i definira prostor. No vaš sustanar David mogao bi nas čuti u drugoj sobi, akustično. Akustika je prodornija, cjelovitija, uključuje više ljudi i više ujedinjuje kao osjetilni motiv nego oko, zar ne? Dakle, mehanička tehnologija u biti je podražavala fragmentirajući aspekt oka, a elektronička tehnologija oponaša ujedinjujući, holistički učinak uha. Zato je 20. stoljeće akustično, nasuprot vizualnom 19. stoljeću. Hm, o čemu ste vi ono zapravo govorili?

Scott: Pa, o ideji rastjelovljenosti. Pomislio bih “Oh, pa ja razgovaram s Kalifornijom” ili tako nešto.

Bob: Da. To je vrlo jednostavno, ali nevjerojatno je kako ljudska bića ne znaju ništa o svojim osjetilnim pristranostima. Sve ovo možete reći učenicima u osmom razredu i sve će odmah shvatiti i zapamtiti. Ali nikada se nisu razmatrale značajke naših osjetila, posebno u zapadnoj kulturi, jer smo, budući da nas je fonetska abeceda vizualno fragmentirala, stekli mržnju prema tijelu te i sami postali  fragmentiranima. To nije loše po sebi, to je samo učinak vizualnog prostora; nismo voljeli razgovarati o osjetilima, jer smo bili pod utjecajem osjetila vida, jedinog osjetila u kojemu je  moguća apstrakcija i izoliranost. Zato smo težili  izolaciji, i to je područje kapitalizma, individualizma i nacionalističkih ratova – sukoba oko prostora, omeđenih granicama oka.

Istočne kulture, kulture nefonetske abecede, one su inkluzivnije – imate klišeje o tome kako oni plešu, jer su svjesniji tijela, jer ih abeceda nije fragmentirala. Oni se nisu bili industrijalizirali. Sada se industrijaliziraju, ali uz temeljnu, arhetipsku razliku… te kulture više ne postoje, jer smo svi pod utjecajem satelita i sve to nestaje. Ne možete jednostavno primijeniti istočnjačko znanje o osjetilima, jer istočnjaci nisu znali da su tehnologije koje je stvorio zapadni čovjek zapravo produžeci osjetila. Zato su McLuhan, i  Joyce iz Finnegans Wakea, predstavnici nove  spoznaje, post-freudovske, post-jungovske, post-svačije, jer su shvatili da smo se osjetilima služili kao metaforom za te nove tehnologije, i morali su ljude naučiti svojstvima svakog od tih osjetila, o kojima ne razmišljamo. Kada shvatite ta svojstva, kada počnete shvaćati što znači “rastjelovljenost”, tada ćete shvatiti da  svi strojevi to simuliraju.

To je vrlo jednostavno, ali nevjerojatno je koliko su naše kulturalne pristranosti snažne, s obzirom na osjetila. Svi misle da razgovaraju s Los Angelesom, a kada shvatite što hoću reći bit će vam jasno da ne razgovarate s Los Angelesom, nego da je on ovdje. To je poput telekineze: putem nekoga drugoga, ja u drugom gradu pronalazim CD i slušam ga preko telefona. Zato to nazivam rastjelovljenim, onkraj naše uobičajene osjetilnosti – to je elektroničko izvanosjetilno opažanje.

Bob Dobbs

© Bob Dobbs and Figure/Ground Communication
Dobbs was interviewed by Laureano Ralon on June 22th, 2012
A man calling himself Bob Dobbs claims to have been born in Paris in 1922, and ensures us that in World War II he worked with international intelligence agencies for many decades. In the early 1970s, he claims to have begun working with Marshall McLuhan as his official archivist. Dobbs tells us that he surfaced in 1987 on CKLN-FM in Toronto to begin whistle-blowing on his former colleagues, what he refers to as a secret organization supposedly called the “Council of Ten.” In 1992 Time Again Productions produced two CDs compiled from his numerous radio broadcasts, Bob’s Media Ecology and Bob’s Media Ecology Squared.
I must say I found your auto-biography quite eccentric, to say the least, and your ideas quite difficult to understand. Do you mean anything literally?
Every word I wrote to you I meant to be taken literally. And every word I will speak here I intend to be read literally. It’s when these words encounter other media, including the viewers of those words, that they tend to be taken as “symbolic” or metaphorical.
Who were some of your mentors as a student and what were some of the most important lessons you learned from them?
I never had a formal education, including when I was a boy. I wasn’t even “homeschooled” in Paris since I grew up as a butler’s son on the estate of an EXTREMELY wealthy English-speaking family (think of the TV series, “Downton Abbey” – that’s my servile youth). A few people here and there among my father’s friends taught me to read and write by the time I was eight years old. However, the lifestyle of my family’s employer exposed me to information and practical affairs that would be considered eye-opening and unusual by the “usual” citizen. By the time I was fifteen I could be quite precocious compared to my “educated” peers. But overall, people would be accurate if they called me an autodidact as far as “book-learning” goes.
However, over the years, I eventually had the opportunity to meet and engage all the overachievers in any field, you name it. For example, I have read and met every person who had an award named after them in the MEA organization, except Mary Shelley and Harold Innis. My father knew Walter Benjamin and I met him in my teens. Of course, I was too young to understand his intellectual worth at the time. But these encounters do rub off in beguiling ways, and I’m sure it encouraged my apparent mild-mannered presumptuosity.
Later, when I worked in the international intelligence milieu in the late Forties and early Fifties, I did have professional mentors. Three stand out – Reinhard Gehlen, André Malraux, and Licio Gelli – because their legacies are extremely controversial, to say the least. They were proto-“media ecologists” for the Information Age known as the Fifties, and were the ones who pointed to the value of Marshall McLuhan’s Explorations journal. The writings by the many authors in the nine issues of the Fifties’ version of Explorations led to many new understandings, for me at least, of the methodologies of my employers as they carried out their bureaucratic agendas in their “world” of programming the Information Society. I actively sought out many of them.
Joshua Meyrowitz’ thesis in No Sense of Place is that when media change, situations and roles change. In your experience, how did the role of university professor evolve over the years?
I never was a university student formally but I have sat in on (or audited) a lot of university courses over the last 50 years. I made many friends among these professors and often discussed their professional problems with them. Seven who loom memorable are John A. Wheeler (Princeton U., Princeton, New Jersey), Edgar Z. Friedenberg (Dalhousie U., Halifax, Nova Scotia), Harry Whittier (Dalhousie U., Halifax, Nova Scotia), Peter Drucker (Claremont Graduate School, Claremont, California), Hugh Kenner (Johns Hopkins U., Baltimore, Maryland), Donald Theall (McGill University, Montreal, and later president of Trent U., Peterborough, Ontario), and the community of heroin (sic) users.
Thinking back, I suspect Don Theall hit the nail on the head when he once said to me, “Bob, it was an exciting time to be a university professor after World War 2 up until the Eighties, but I certainly wouldn’t choose that career if I was starting out today.”
I’d go so far as to say that today there is no GROUND for the university professor. Universities are there for the students to work out their identities on their terms and the professor is not to be taken seriously during that enterprise. The undergraduate is an entrepreneur in the university and the professor the welfare recipient; in other words, the student pretends to learn and the professor pretends to teach.
How did this not necessarily forlorn predicament come to be? McLuhan defined the situation in late 1964:
“The bomb is of higher learning all compact, the extension division of the university. The university has become a global environment. The university now contains the commercial world, as well as the military and government establishments. To reprogram the cultures of the globe becomes as natural an undertaking as curriculum revision in a university. Since new media are new environments that reprocess psyche and society in successive ways, why not bypass instruction in fragmented subjects meant for fragmented sections of the society and reprogram the environment itself? Such is [William] Burroughs’ vision.”
By the late Fifties, speech in a speed-of-light society became archetypalized (anything spoken had the effect of the archetype). This is why McLuhan was correct in advocating that classroom content be turned over to “bullshit sessions”. This would be the only chance for the university professor to eek out a role for herself as the old bricks-and-mortar university became the new “software City.”
By the Eighties, we were experiencing a speed-of-thought society and non-verbal mental gesture, or “ESP”, ruled the day. The University as City suffered budget cuts (replaying what the old “hardware cities” like New York suffered in the mid-Seventies) and fell by the wayside and teachers were reduced to mere thugs of speech.
Fortunately, that was 30 years ago. Now, the students engage their educational “bullshit sessions” and ESP on the Internet and through Web 2.0 >>> 3.0. The university classroom serves for rest and relaxation from the stresses and strains of digital life which I call the “Chip Body.” The classroom is the new “Club Fed” or, at least, the Halfway House for the Chemical Body’s reflective and daydreaming capacities.
I’m not being facetious or naive here since my professor friends have informed me on the backlash that’s arrived over the past few years. The administrations – the “working class” – of University City are “not going to take it anymore” – they’re having an identity crisis themselves which naturally leads to “violence”, vengeance-seeking, and rebellion; in this case, the “violence” is expressed in the renewed emphasis on extremely paranoid and inflexible standards of performance and output in the classroom and in academic journals, i.e., the Gutenberg Ghetto (GG). This “agon” is confined, of course, to those aspiring to a role in the GG and does not affect the transient aristocratic class – the students – who have many other crusades to play with, including pretending to acquire a huge debt load, like any old-time “blueblood”. The student-employers have retrieved the ancient meaning of “scholia” – leisure.
What makes a good teacher today in your opinion? How does one manage to command attention in an age of interruption characterized by fractured attention and information overload?
One cannot be a “good teacher” today. Like the book two hundred years ago, the teacher arrives too late. The teacher “today” is in the same position as the homeless on the street corner meekly offering some trinkets in exchange for “food scraps” and “coinage”. Studies have shown that those suffering hardship often are forced to engage in behaviour upon which it is not useful to impose the values, preferences, and judgements of the “civilized and well-adjusted literate life”. However, one can get attention by being obscure and “difficult”… or having a public-access TV show… what do they call it in show biz? – having a “crossover hit”? Terrence Gordon runs seminars on the role of ethics in the real-estate profession. Arthur Kroker formed a punk-rock band. Marshall McLuhan became a cartoonist.
In 1964, Marshall McLuhan declared, in reference to the university environment that, “departmental sovereignties have melted away as rapidly as national sovereignties under conditions of electric speed.” This claim can be viewed as an endorsement of interdisciplinary studies, but it could also be regarded as a statement about the changing nature of academia. Do you think the university as an institution is in crisis or at least under threat in this age of information and digital interactive media?
Self-entertainment has been the new Yoga for many decades. However, this Yoga must be applied to not just one “self” anymore but to many bodies. Let me spell them out for you:
What once were large corporate vestments now are small enough to be considered as organs, like lungs, that are new additions to our archetypal Chemical and Astral Bodies.
The Chemical Body is what most people consider to be their “physical body.” The dominant model for this is the product of Western science since the telegraph. The Astral Body is what pervades all cultures – the belief there is more to our makeup than the Chemical Body. It is a huge storehouse of religious and spiritual energy. The third organ is the TV Body – the repository of historical one-way broadcasting. The fourth is the Chip Body – the mutating warehouse of digital omni-directional media. The fifth is the Mystery Body – what we’re still excavating and whose lineaments we cannot fully assess yet, if ever. We now know it’s made up of the previous four bodies but we don’t know what more we will discover about its constituents, affects, and effects.
The Android Meme is the resultant of the interplay, violent and ecstatic, of the first four bodies. I claim this five-body paradigm is a lot more useful or comprehensive when applied to our post-9/11 scene than Samuel Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” probe.
Offering para-sensory perspective in assisting the orchestration of these five Bodies is the only arena wherein opportunity lurks for the seriously dedicated teacher. All other conceptual avenues have been closed, especially the authoring of books. If one publishes a book – or more accurately, throws a book into the garbage apocalypse – one has no claim to the title/role of a serious “media ecologist”. Releasing books is equal to aiding and abetting Baudrillard’s “perfect crime”. McLuhan spent his whole educational and Gutenbergian career wrestling with this challenge invoked by “Finnegans Wake”, and still failed to mobilize a solution. Although he, at least, was righteous enough to admit it. We should be so wise!
I suggest we assist the para-modern parent, especially the immigrant fresh off the airplane, in grasping the fact that the honourable enterprise of saving money and making many sacrifices to be able to send their children to university, will inevitably go awry for all concerned, and will continue to do so until the quadradictions (sic) are understood. The first steps for any parent who insists on having her children become sophisticated citizens and “media literates” is to force their youngsters to read and discuss one or 2 books from just 2 authors – namely, James Ellroy and Thomas Pynchon. This is all that’s required. Try “Blood’s A Rover” and “Inherent Vice”. If this “curriculum” is moderately successful, then the young adult should be rewarded with the comic book, “Finnegans Wake”, and they’ll be off to the races. Oh but, then again, every student should be given the opportunity to engage some archaeology. Wyndham Lewis fits the bill here as a remote artifact to dig into. I suggest “The Art of Being Ruled” and one of his novels. To have lived in the Western World and not know the media-probes of the world’s first cyberpunk borders on a social injustice.
In 2009, Francis Fukuyama wrote a controversial article for the Washington Post entitled “What are your arguments for or against tenure track?” In it, Fukuyama argues that the tenure system has turned the academy into one of the most conservative and costly institutions in the country, making younger untenured professors fearful of taking intellectual risks and causing them to write in jargon aimed only at those in their narrow sub-discipline. In short, Fukuyama believes the freedom guaranteed by tenure is precious, but thinks it’s time to abolish this institution before it becomes too costly, both financially and intellectually. Since then, there has been a considerable amount of debate about this sensitive issue, both inside and outside the university. Do you agree with the author? What are your arguments for or against academic tenure?
Tenure reinforces the specialist tendency, and that is an untenable position for the present educator. Employment is now one of the facets of self-entertainment, and engagement in any form of work or profession mandates the adoption of an adjustable set of multiple skills for any occupant of our Global Membrane. And the university teaching roles may be the most taxed by these new requirements. And, yet, these academic role-players have no right to expect respect if they fail to be an exemplar of how to live with these new omni-directional pressures. It cannot be mentally (or physically?) healthy to provide one puny form of information service for more than a couple of “years” when we now live 2000 years per annum. We only have to be reminded of the fate of those creators who seek tenure as show-biz celebrities to get our appropriate bearings on this matter.
What advice would you give to graduate students and aspiring university professors, and who are the thinkers today that you believe young scholars should be reading?
I would advise graduate students to avoid the university profession. Instead, seek out the new laboratories, experimental enclaves, and strange human beings (and one never knows who that would be, so one must be circumspect). I don’t recommend “reading” a thinker. After initial exposure and interest by whatever medium, one should engage a thinker in person. At least, audit their environments. Read more of her later.
How did you meet Marshall McLuhan?
I was sent by Reinhard Gehlen, a friend of my employer’s brother, from Paris to investigate this writer whom Mr. Gehlen found compelling. I had read very little by Marshall McLuhan when I first met him.
Off the record, you made the following highly controversial statement: “The media ecologists (with book-bias) that you interview don’t know how to tackle our post-literate situation.” Why do you say such a thing?
As I touched on in an earlier answer, the fundamentalism of North America is its almost fetish-like obsession with the printed book as the arbiter of high value-creation. That’s really what North Americans are adamant about – the sacred trust of literacy. Unfortunately, literacy creates habits that are anathema to the apprehension of the varieties of tactility that permeate all contemporary phenomena, and subsequently, to every profession’s attempt to define and exploit that tactility. This also explains the huge popularity of literacy’s nemesis – the free porn sites wherein you would not find it difficult to discover someone you know pressing their wares. So, the Western post-industrial societies will never discard reading. It’s an activity that needs no encouragement or bailouts. But the habits acquired via literacy will prove as obstreperous and dim as those fostered by our venerable religious institutions. Personal and social poise will come from other forms of consumption and ritual. The awareness of para-media’s curriculum for our Five Bodies may be the only avenue of resuscitation for media-ecology careerists.
You also claimed that, just before dying, Donald Theall named you the new Marshall McLuhan. Isn’t that a little pretentious?
Michael Edmunds informed me back in 2007 that Don Theall made that statement to him around that time. And I do not demur when that suggestion is broached. I’m a one-man university and quite knowledgeable about forms of knowing and poise that are esoteric now but will be increasingly demanded by human beings around the world. Sounds like the trajectory of Marshall McLuhan to me. However, pray that I don’t suffer the same fate.
What is a para-media ecologist?
It is a way of living that privileges the legacy of not only the modern and the postmodern, but that which runs before, beside, above, below, and after those habits of observation. It is musical, of course, and is intuited by T.S. Eliot’s famous definition of the “auditory imagination”. I mentioned the Mystery Landscape earlier. The para-modern attracts the frequencies of the anomalous in what’s become – not a post-information milieu – but a Pre-Information Environs.
You have characterized your fivebodied.com website as the most important website in terms of understanding the synchronicity of the internet. Why is that?
You misunderstood me. For years I have been discussing – not synchronicity – but “xenochrony”, a term coined by Frank Zappa that I have adopted to describe the result of attempting to be an anti-environment to an environmental surround of hyper-synchronicity. When people engage fivebodied.com, they usually experience eventually some type of “synchronicity”. At least, that’s what they like to call it. And it can be a very disorienting experience. I wouldn’t call it “synchronicity” because I think something else is going on. In the course of this fallout, I almost had to develop the patience for patients. Then again, perhaps I have, since I spend 20 hours a day providing “tach”-support as the spectre of xenochrony protrudes. In brief, synchronicity happens between people, animals, and objects whereas xenochrony happens between and among the machinic phyla.
What are you currently working on?
Besides the ongoing “tach”-support, I am presently running a “factory” that may be classed as the most profoundly productive laboratory on the planet. No kidding. What my colleagues and I are creating seems to not only turn all “known” principles in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Medicine upside-down, but portends shifting their managers into a vast tableau of embarrassment throughout many of the knowledge industries.  This may explain the slight tone of arrogance some may have perceived in my comments above. I prefer to blame the tone on confidence. - figureground.ca

 
Bob Dean

If you're researching the ancient history of the Church of the SubGenius (or at least looking at its activities over the past twenty years), you might stumble across a curiosity: Bob Dean, the so-called "Canadian Bob Dobbs." Bob Dean has repeatedly spouted the line that he was the "inspiration for the J. R. 'Bob' Dobbs character of the Church of the SubGenius." This is stated on his home page.
Since the 1980s, Dean has been spinning elaborate fairy tales about himself, based on the theories put forth by Canadian scholar Marshall McLuhan. He's woven a convoluted history involving himself, and he plays the role of a guy born in 1922 who has personally met Adolf Hitler, assisted in launching the career of Lyndon LaRouche [1], had inside knowledge of JFK's assassination, and introduced Prince Charles to Lady Diana. All this is part of his long, ongoing, incomprehensible talk of the deep, heavy symbolism involving James Joyce's Finnegans Wake (which was a heavy source of inspiration for McLuhan). Lately he's become a fan of the Matrix movies, and he works them into his writing and speeches frequently. He's also fond of using invented terms such as android meme, phatic communication, tetrad (these last two taken from McLuhan), xenochrony (taken from Frank Zappa: [2]), and Menippean (as in "Menippean satire:" [3]). Good luck trying to understand what these terms actually mean according to Bob Dean, however: Dean can (and often does) preach about them for hours and hours at a time. See his home page for examples of this.
Bob Dean claims to be the intellectual heir to Marshall McLuhan, and as proof of this he's likely to direct you to a fancy-sounding Web site called the Marshall McLuhan Center on Global Communications. This site states that it was "founded by McLuhan's daughter Mary shortly after his death in 1980," and on the list of its Board of Directors it includes Mary Corinne McLuhan, several other names, and both the names of Robert Dean ("McLuhan Archivist & Scholar") and Dr. Carolyn Dean M.D. N.D. ("Doctor, Naturopath, Author"). The site gives a long list of "corporate sponsors," but it doesn't actually describe anything that it has actually done or contributed to the field of media research; its calendar of upcoming events is completely empty.

• Eric McLuhan, Marshall McLuhan's son, made a short statement regarding Dean: [4]
• A second statement from Michael McLuhan at marshallmcluhan.com: [5]

This is all so metaphysical and detached from reality that in any other context, Dean would be an unknown, harmless kook. Except for one thing: he stole from the Church of the SubGenius.
Unlike the idea of Slack as revealed to the world through J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, Bob Dean's philosophies are different from actual SubGenius dogma. In fact, Dean has spent the years since 1987 trying to convince the world that the Church of the SubGenius is actually based upon him – himself, personally. He states that Rev. Ivan Stang and Philo Drummond "invented" J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, and actually based it on a meeting that supposedly took place between Stang, Philo, and Dean at a bar in 1978. Dean allegedly "taught" them some cosmic wisdom and showed them a picture of his father, and it inspired them to create an entire religion and base it on him. The only "proof" he has ever offered is this so-called "diary entry" that he wrote himself: [6]
In this interview, Dean repeats the same fake story outright, "He [Stang] and Philo met me in 1978, in Dallas; when I was stationed there for the Secret Council of Ten. And, as young kids, they met me in a club. We had a couple of accidental (from their uninitiated view) meetings. But, in retrospect, they were preordained meetings, where I gave ‘em some info. As young, imprintable minds, they lapsed into this whole baroque spiral and creatively evolved Bob into this joke church, and joke religion and joke business; their psycho circus for the endtimes! All inspired by me!" [7]
Except that this never happened.
A concise listing of Dean's so-called autobiography can be found here: [8] Dean insists this chart is "proof" that he is telling the truth about himself. For an example of Dean's idea of the truth, look at the beginning entries that show him meeting James Joyce at the age of 13, predicting ("flashes on") the Sputnik satellite at the age of 14, and predicting JFK's assassination the very next day after his Sputnik revelation. The entry that "proves" his meeting with Stang and Philo Drummond is listed under February 2, 1978.
Most if not all of the entries of this "diary" are completely made up: Dean claims they are "interviews" with the subjects in question. Several of the subjects of these "interviews" (Frank Zappa, James Joyce, and Marshall McLuhan himself) are dead, which means Dean is supposedly engaging in channeling sessions, communicating with their spirits and claiming they are talking to him. In other words, he makes it all up. (Some of the entries in this "diary" are real howlers, as well: in these entries, Dean claims to have met James Joyce [9]; that a sit-down conversation took place between McLuhan, Lyndon LaRouche, Frank Zappa, Peter Beter, and himself [10]; and that McLuhan supposedly praises Dean's remarkable insight into his works [11].)

(As of June 2008 Dean has made claims that the recently deceased George Carlin has something to do with him, reinforcing Dean's pattern of making claims about people who can't possibly refute them.)

Bob Dean has never been one to shy away from "interviews" where he talks about himself, his grand accomplishments, and what a wise and great teacher he is. Here ( eightbit.com/rebirth_of_bob_dobbs.php ) Dean tells another story, one that is closer to the truth: "I was in Toronto at CKLN in 1984 and some guy comes up to me and asks, ‘Ever heard about these guys, Church of the SubGenius?’ He handed me some booklet or something and I read it. Then I knew, I realized this is based on fucking me! They're describing the whole thing they got from what I told them.” He claims again that he met with Ivan Stang and Philo Drummond in 1978, and that this meeting "inspired" them to found the Church and create J.R. "Bob" Dobbs as a tribute to him. (Strangely, Dean's "diary" describes Stang using his real "human" name at this meeting, while Philo only names himself with his pseudonym of Philo Drummond.) Of course, he also claims that he was actually born in 1922. You've seen the pictures: does that guy look and sound like he's 85 years old? There has never been any indication that he ever met Stang and Philo in 1978.
Dean has also claimed that the image of J.R. "Bob" Dobbs is based on a picture of his own father, "Rene Dobbs," who was a member of the Priory of Sion. However, since Dean was not born in 1922, the Priory of Sion does not exist (see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priory_of_Sion ), and there is no such person as "Rene Dobbs" (any more than Dean's real name is "Bob Dobbs"), then the identity of the person shown on Dean's Web site as "Rene Dobbs" is questionable. For all that anyone knows, he could be a person that Dean photographed himself, in an attempt to "prove" that the Church of the SubGenius is somehow based upon him. To counter this, we ask the following: Is Stang's Dad really "Bob"?
Stang further comments: "He attracts some REAL WINNERS, though, doesn't he? 'Octavian' is the scholar whose blog page "proves" Dean flashed a photo of his dad to me and Philo in a bar in 1978 and that we swiftly RE-DREW it (??), added a PIPE to it for some reason (??), and then built a whole fake religion around it… with us, oddly, totally ignoring all the McLuhan and other kook stuff that Dean is obsessed with. I guess if the photo of Dean's father was the ONLY PREVIOUS EXISTING PHOTO of a MAN SMILING, then that story would make PERFECT SENSE." [12]

(In contrast to this story, the original "Dobbshead" image used by the Church as the image of J.R. "Bob" Dobbs" has been available at the official SubGenius Web site at this location: [13])

History

However, there's a bit more to this story than Dean is willing to tell. Before he discovered the Church of the SubGenius, Dean used the name "Bob Marshall." He named himself after Marshall McLuhan (original, yes?) and it was with this name that he began calling this radio talk show on CKLN in Toronto hosted by Mike Dyer (and produced by Nelson Thall). He bamboozled them enough with his "android meme" double-talk that they brought him on as a co-host…which wasn't hard, considering it was a tiny independent station. (He probably wasn't paid for it, either.) CKLN aired his radio show in the mid-1980s under the name "International Connections with Bob Marshall," and it focused on conspiracy theories, Peter Beter, Lyndon LaRouche, and similar loons and loony topics.
One of the show's co-hosts, Greg Duffell, further blurred the line between Bob Dean, "Bob Marshall," and "Bob Dobbs" in a blog interview: "Regarding the Dean-Marshall-Dobbs debate; all I can say is that I hosted an IC show, I believe in 2002, where I tried to get both Bob Dobbs and Bob Marshall on the phone together. While I was prepared to phone two different locations in order to facilitate this interview, Bob Dobbs said that Marshall would come over to his house so they could be together. During the course of this on-air call, Dobbs passed the phone to Marshall when it was time for him to speak." [14] It certainly was convenient that both "Dobbs" and "Marshall" happened to be living in Manhattan at the time.
See stargate007.blogspot.com/2007/05/disclosure-deli-plaza-of-mind.html for Dean's explanation of this: he claims "Bob Marshall" was an "young and impressionable when he worked with me at CKLN from August, 1984 to 1989, and acquired a voice like mine through natural osmosis due to my charisma and his excellent miming talents." The Toronto Globe and Mail also stated "The guy is Bob Dean, otherwise known as Bob Marshall" in its March 30, 1993 article on the Stang-vs.Dean controversy…back when it was a controversy. (Now it's just a sideshow.) [15]
It was while playing his Bob Marshall persona that Dean stumbled across literature from the Church of the SubGenius. Upon making this discovery, Dean was struck by a revelation. Even though he was in Canada, the Church of the SubGenius was in Dallas, and no one had ever heard of him before, he immediately had the idea that they were basing a religion on him. This amazing revelation was what led him to call himself "Bob Dobbs" and claim the Church is all about him.
In 1987, something happened that shook Dean up: the International Connections show was taken off the air for (allegedly) airing anti-Semitic rants by Peter Beter. Dean apparently figured that if he wanted return to the air and avoid the problems that resulted in his being kicked off, he should adopt a brand-new identity and start over from scratch. So, shortly after this, he began calling himself "Bob Dobbs" instead of Bob Marshall. Furthermore, the name of the radio show at CKLN became the Church of the Subgenius Hour. A little while after this epiphany, Dean showed up at Stang's door in Dallas and introduced himself. He was apparently expected to be welcomed with open arms – but instead, Stang suggested he not call himself "Bob Dobbs," and go do his own thing instead. Stang describes the meeting in this interview: www.grayarea.com/subgenius.htm (Do a search for the word "dean" and you'll find it.) In one posting to alt.slack in 2003, Dean acknowledged this meeting, claiming that "Bob Marshall" was the one who visited Stang. [16]
Dean's radio lectures under his new persona of "Bob Dobbs" contained the same unending conspiracy-laced rants about McLuhan and Finnegans Wake, but he threw in SubGenius terms such as "Slack," "pink," and "the Conspiracy" on a regular basis. And by calling his show the "Church of the Subgenius" (sic – the G was lower cased), he found that he suddenly had an audience! People actually called because they thought they were talking to J.R. "Bob" Dobbs himself, the founder of the Church. It was here that Dean committed the sin that turned the entire Church of the SubGenius against him: he told his listeners he was the "real" "Bob." He did nothing to dissuade them from the fact that he is not the true J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, and he repeatedly pronounced that he was the true founder of the Church. Despite all the work that the SubGenius foundation had done in the years before he came on the air as "Bob Dobbs," Dean pretended the Church of the SubGenius was all about him, and that his blatherings about McLuhan's theories of media were what the Church was based upon. At no time did he give Stang or the Dallas-based SubGenius Foundation any mention or credit for this show.
The new radio show lasted for four years, until the plug was pulled in 1991. The show's producer, Nelson Thall, was able to get two CDs of his material recorded, Bob's Media Ecology and Bob's Media Ecology 2. It was at this time that Thall and the CDs' producer, Dave Newfeld, used his name of "Bob Dobbs" to get Negativland to contribute to the second CD, which they have since disavowed because they feel they were cheated by the fake use of the name "Bob Dobbs." (www.negativland.com/negdisco.html - scroll down to the entry for "Tribal Mandate.") Dean has endorsed these CDs and mentions them frequently in his subsequent writings and interviews.
Mark Hosler of Negativland comments on the incident:

Negativland's experience many years ago with the fake "Bob Dobbs" you speak with on your site was very bad, unethical, and we were sorry we worked on that re-mix project with him. At the time, we were told he was officially endorsed by the real Church of the SubGenius, had no reason to be suspicious, so we did the project. That, of course, was false. Now, we are all for smart and funny hoaxes and pranks and jamming (and have done more than a few ourselves, as you know), but this guy's "jam" serves no bigger purpose at all that any of us can tell. So why does he do it? Unclear. While this fake Bob does indeed have some smart things to say at times, we've no idea why he insists on presenting himself as being the actual "Bob" Dobbs or that he started the Church. I've known the actual founders of the Church of the SubGenius for a very long time, and they have nothing to do with this guy and don't endorse him. Heck, the very nature of the Church is that you only ever talk about "Bob," you can't actually BE "Bob," for "Bob's" sake! Nobody can. This fake Bob could have easily done his McCluhan-esque shtick without resorting to piggy backing on the SubGenius's. A very strange and creepy guy. And, unlike the true SubGenius "Bob", he's not even funny. Perhaps his worst sin of all. [17]

Dean also wrote a book entitled Phatic Communication with Bob Dobbs, allegedly published in 1992. ( The book's amazon.com entry: [18])There have been rumors on alt.slack that this book appeared in the New Age section of a bookstore or two [19], but it has never been seen otherwise. It's worth noting that Phatic Communication with Bob Dobbs is credited to a publisher called "Perfect Pitch Editions" (ISBN 0-9694528-1-0 (alternate, search)). However, as a Google search for "Perfect Pitch Editions" reveals, the only persons affiliated with this publisher are Bob Dean and his wife, Dr. Carolyn Dean [20].
After his wife lost her license to practice medicine in Toronto [21], Mr. and Mrs. Dean moved to New York City, where they resided until 2008. Living in New York gave him the opportunity to stalk Rev. Nickie Deathchick when the Church held a Devival there in 1996 [22]. Since then, Dean spent the past ten years getting the occasional article published in fringe magazines like Flipside and Paranoia, at the rate of about one article every couple of years or so. He's also been able to get onto a few podcasts, such as the "Nardwuar" show that was proudly pointed to in his short-lived Wikipedia article.
(In May of 2008, Bob Dean and Carolyn Dean relocated to Hawaii: [23]; plus Dean's own post to alt.slack: [24])

Dean on alt.slack

But what really made Dean a pariah was his arrival on alt.slack. Before he actually appeared on the newsgroup full-time, the folks here had heard of Dean and a few wondered whether Stang's being pissed off at him wasn't just jealousy of a sort. But once he showed us how creative and original he is, his supporters quickly disappeared. (Google Groups search of alt.slack for "Bob Dean:" [25])
Dean has been repeating his single sermon about "the android meme," throwing in such McLuhan-esque terms as "phatic communication," "xenochrony," and "menippean" since the beginning. All of his speeches and writings keep returning to this same subject, and everyone who's ever dealt with him became bored to tears with it long ago.
Some samples:
Zapanaz (Joe C.): "The person who posts as 'purple' is a moron, and makes this stuff up to annoy people. Really, no joke." [26] (See also: [27])
Governor Rocknar: "You can't come up with an ORIGINAL name so you choose to STEAL THE NAME OF OUR SAVIOR!" [28]
Boddhisatva Troutwaxer: "Having met you, I can assure everybody here that you're not 79 years old. In fact, I would be surprised if you were much over forty. This is only one of your vile and odious lies. Please take your self serving bullshit and go away!! " [29]
Doc Martian "Where will he strike next? Conan O'Brien? Adult Swim? Jello Biafra? KISS? Purple is the real estate infomercial of alt.slack. When he's not being dull he's repeating his name and phone #."
nu-monet: "All he seems to do here is try to put the words 'Bob Dobbs' at the end of every one or two word post he makes; or, conversely, he posts a few paragraphs of some seemingly random nonsense from some dead minor philosopher-poet nobody cares about." [30]
Melinda Smith: "Gary Null pretends to be a doctor and you pretend to be 'Bob'." [31]
Sister Decadence: "Now fuck off. Moron." [32]
CHUCKkey: "The problem is that this guy is 110% EGO DRIVEN and he's certainly one of the 'bad kind' of weirdo, not the 'good kind'. He is on his OWN PLANET." [33]
Here's an interesting message from Reverend Susie the Floozie in which she tears Dean a new hole (June 15th, 2009): [34]
This message is amusing: tinyurl.com/2qlm9c Here, alt.slack user SubSpecies23 calls Purple (Dean) "a complete idiot and mental defective." The regulars on alt.slack should quickly realize why this is funny.
As far as the denizens of alt.slack are concerned, Dean can rant and ramble on about Marshall McLuhan, Frank Zappa, James Joyce, and Lyndon LaRouche for as long as he wants. We simply want him to do it as Bob Dean and not as "Bob Dobbs," and we especially want him to do it far away from alt.slack.

Bob Dean Today

Thanks to the wonders of the Internet, Dean has actually managed to find three or four people who believe his rambling nonsense and think he's an intelligent, wise teacher. (I'll leave it to you to decide what that says about their own intelligence, and gullibility.) They spend most of their time over at Dean's message board, reading his rants about himself, McLuhan, himself, and himself, and agreeing with every word he says. It's mildly ironic (in a pathetic kind of way) that Dean has a presence on the Internet at all, because his message board, his Web site, and the YouTube channel dedicated to him were all built by his three or four fans; he didn't make them himself. I doubt he knows how to create a blog or a podcast, which is why he continually calls up his favorite Web podcasts rather than make one himself. So when it comes to the YouTube channel dedicated to him, I'm certain that "BuzzCoastin" and "BobDobbsTown" are the work of his fanboys. The self-proclaimed "master of media" doesn't understand how to get around on the Internet, and he lets them do the work for him.
The YouTube channel for Dean is here: www.youtube.com/user/BobDobbsTown . Recently, the user "BobDobbsTown" restricted the comments there so as to prevent SubGenii from posting their own insights on Dean; as a result, the newer videos have only a few comments, all of which give glowing praise to our friend Dean. Interestingly, the person managing this account has some deep, insightful criticism of this very page about Bob Dean: [35]
In a further attempt to get attention, Dean himself points out that he has been using yet another moniker called "Bob Neveritt." [36] Under this surname, he's made a couple of guest appearances on an Internet podcasting site, Cash Flow with James Martinez. The guy who manages this podcast, James Martinez, is a self-proclaimed financial specialist who specializes in debt reduction and banking conspiracy theories. Interestingly, the Web page for this podcast has a big blurb noting that these shows "are for entertainment ONLY," which means they are not officially licensed for any kind of legal advice or financial workings other than mere talk. (It's the same disclaimer many "psychics" and tarot card readers use to distance themselves from any incorrect predictions they may make.) Dean proudly announces "Bob Neveritt's" connection to this podcast here: [37]
As of 2009, Dean has been busy working with his wife, Carolyn Dean, on a major pet project of hers: they are planning to take part in the opening of a "5-star" resort "medical spa" in Costa Rica called the VidaCosta Media-Plex. According to its Web site, this facility will "house a 100-seat screening room and full recording studio designed by the award-winning producer/engineer, David Newfeld. It will feature a multimedia broadcasting center for medical and related topics under the direction of Robert Dean, Archivist for the McLuhan Center for Global Communications."
Meanwhile, something else happened that rocked Dean's world: in 2009, he discovered a kindred soul who calls himself "iON". A New Age "philosopher" with a podcasting blog, iON and Dean discovered that they could spout inarticulate babble back and forth to each other for hours and hours at a time, and that is what they've done for the past few years now. In his usual manner, Dean has attempted to take credit for iON, but iON is so far gone that he simply doesn't care about it. And as of early 2012, the two of them are happily rambling on and on, back and forth to one another, much to the delight of the five or ten people who take their rants as incredible cosmic wisdom.
(Also, in an attempt to make money, Dean has also taken to selling bottles of so-called "RnA Drops" at over $100 a bottle. Apparently the ingredients of this "RnA drop" liquid are the same as you would find in Rejuvelac, a simple home remedy that you can make yourself for far less than $100.)

Conclusion

Having said all that, let me clarify why Dean angers so many members of the Church of the SubGenius. It has nothing to do with him calling himself "Bob Dobbs" – heck, anyone can call themselves that, and there really are people out there named Bob Dobbs. What upsets us is this: if you read any of the SubGenius books, watch the videos, listen to the Hour of Slack, or read alt.slack or any of the blogs out there, you'll see that Ivan Stang is a guy who goes out of his way to credit people for the hard work they've put into their contributions to the Church – often for free. People post stuff to alt.binaries.slack or send him packages, tapes, books, and whatnot, and rarely if ever ask for anything in return; and in return he gladly acknowledges their efforts and plugs their stuff. (I was surprised recently to look at www.subgenius.com and see a link to my own blog placed prominently on the front page – something I had not asked for, but am very grateful and flattered by.)
All Dean has ever done is try to get attention for himself. Every word that comes out of his mouth is "Me, me, me!" Everything he ever writes is "Me, me, me!" He's spent twenty years trying to grab credit for the Church of the SubGenius, even though he has not contributed one whit towards it. Without this charade, he would be nothing more than a completely unknown kook who shows up at Marshall McLuhan "media" events and calls talk radio shows. All of his attention has come from his claiming to be "Bob Dobbs" and lying about his so-called "inspiring" the Church, which is why he keeps it up. His reputation, what little it is, consists entirely of material stolen from others. And that's why I see no reason to give him the attention he so desperately seeks.
However, new online venues like Wikipedia, YouTube, podcasting, and blogs are giving kooks like Bob Dean more avenues to spread their word online. This is great if you're an unknown kook trying to inform the world about your importance and self-worth. But if you're trying to take credit for someone else's work, then you'd better be ready for when you are called to prove that your claims are no more than a puff of hot air.

After asking Dean numerous times on alt.slack to comment on this entry, he finally replied on December 13, 2007. His reply consisted of one entire sentence: "It's all incorrect as I've clarified many times over the last 15 years." [38] (It was later expanded into a message thread on alt.slack, in which his rebuttal to this page consisted of two sentences: "I said there's not one sentence of accuracy in your screed. Now prove me wrong." [39] The newsgroup regulars proceeded to prove him wrong, though he denied everything.) - http://www.modemac.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/Bob_Dean

Xenochronous Note



BOB DOBBS. Paramedia Ecologist. Bob Dobbs was born in Paris in 1922 and after World War Two worked with international intelligence agencies for many decades.
He surfaced in 1987 on CKLN-FM in Toronto and began whistleblowing. Two interpretations of Dobbs are circulating in the popular media: one is through the Church of the SubGenius; the other is on two CDs, Bob's Media Ecology and Bob's Media Ecology Squared, put out in 1992 by Time Again Productions, early students of Marshall McLuhan. The best presentation of Dobbs' work is in his book, Phatic Communion with Bob Dobbs. Today, he travels the world explaining his/our victory over the Android Meme, and the tracings of these activities were regularly published in Flipside magazine in the late Nineties.
TOM DOBBS FOR PRESIDENT - The Official News
Tom Dobbs for President, Comedian turns politician, 2008 Presidential Campaign, Man of the Year, Tom Dobbs News, Dobbs Blog. www.tomdobbs.com/ - 19k - Oct 5, 2006
More about: BOB DOBBS Bob Dobbs was born in Paris in 1922 and after World War Two worked with international intelligence agencies for many decades.
He surfaced in 1987 on CKLN-FM in Toronto and began whistleblowing. Two interpretations of Dobbs are circulating in the popular media: one is through the Church of the SubGenius; the other is on two CDs, Bob's Media Ecology and Bob's Media Ecology Squared, put out in 1992 by Time Again
Productions, early students of Marshall McLuhan. The best presentation of Dobbs' work is in his book, Phatic Communion with Bob Dobbs. Today, he travels the world explaining his/our victory over the Android Meme, and the tracings of these activities were regularly published in Flipside magazine in the late Nineties.




Bob Dobbs, Phatic Communication with Bob Dobbs, Perfect Pitch (1992)


Phatic Communion With Bob Dobbs is an epyllion (a miniepic) that reads like a postmodern version of the Eddaic Verses, the Old Norse mythological poems that conveyed esoteric religious information through breathless dialogues between the gods. The book consists of "verbal duels" between Lyndon LaRouche and Marshall McLuhan, LaRouche and William Irwin Thompson, LaRouche and Bob Dobbs, Arthur Kroker and Dobbs, then concludes with Dobbs' subsumption of the entire narrative. Oddly enough, the Eddaic poems always ended with the death of one of the interlocutors. In Bob's book, however, all of the interlocutors die except for Bob!

Motor Mouth: Bob Dobbs 

by Craig Baldwin

Craig Baldwin: Please introduce yourself.
Bob Dobbs: I am a negentropist. And I am Bob Dobbs, I was born in 1922 in Paris and I've been working with the Secret Council of Ten (SCT) since the 1940s. The SCT has been dismantled and I'm the only person left dealing with the effects of it and that's where I am today.
CB: I understand you consider yourself a media ecologist.
BD: Yes, "media ecologist" is a term I used in the 1980s because it was not known. But now Wired Magazine is a media ecologist, so it's gone mainstream. The real meaning of media ecology for me was not to turn media off and go back, rather it was a means to move forward and keep the non-entropic process happening--so that's negentropy, so I am a negentropist now in the 1990s.
CB: How does this have to do with mixed corporate-media?
BD: Well, speech is a mixed corporate-medium in the sense that language was the first technology that created community. It was the tool that people could develop a consensus with. And language was the first medium and it contained all the possible extensions and fragmentations of it which are technological inventions. So all future media were implied in speech. And mixed corporate-media in the twentieth century sense is the computer environment using movies, radio, TV, and satellite. So the mixed electronic phenomenon we know in the twentieth century of mixed corporate-media recapitulates the initial virgin state of speech, so the tactile quality of speech is mimed and fulfilled self-consciously by the electrification of speech, which is the mixed corporate-media thing fragmented and then re-imploded. So mixed corporate-media today is the squaring of the implications of our first medium, speech. So language is a mixed corporate-medium, and the electric environment is Mixed Corporate Media.
CB: Please explicate your concept of the discarnate entity in the mixed corporate-media matrix.
BD: There's no such state as the discarnate state. Every medium starting with language is an extension of us, so it's *human*. Even though we think of machines as not us, they are made by humans. Look at a book, it has a simulation of the the visual experience. It is an extension of the eye. So it is an amplification of the eye. It's not that it's *not* an eye, it is an *amplification* of the eye. So it is part of our human bodies. Mixed corporate-media disappeared by 1977, and since then we've lived in a 'negativland,--an afterimage situation. By 1993 Wired Magazine had first retrieved McLuhan, who emphasized the discarnate condition. That condition was first described though by Wyndham Lewis and James Joyce in the 1920s. It is a normal perception now, something that people understand, it's obvious to them, it's a rearview mirror reflex reaction. The discarnate state has become a buzz phrase in pop culture. My job is to point out that it doesn't mean we've lost our bodies, it's just that we live in an environment that's invisible, that's inaudible, is tactility--which is not a sense, it is the interplay of the senses. Mixed corporate-media is an extension of the tactile sense. It is a platform that incorporates all the senses, like a CD-ROM. This tactility is human, it is in us, we extend it, it is human. The discarnate state is a natural fulfillment of speech becoming aware of itself.
CB:Can you talk about the difficulty of establishing reference points?
BD: How does humanity retrieve human scale, or the anthropomorphic image? We have standard reference points of how humans look--2 arms, 2 legs, and all this stuff. Most people don't think of their automobile as part of their organism or sensory life while they are driving. From 1750 to 1900, you have these huge metallic steel newspaper environments that look very inhuman. They were extensions and amplifications of our muscular structure, so they are extensions of our bodies. And the extension of the central nervous system we're talking about starts with the electronic revolution at the turn of the century, beginning with the telegraph. It really blossoms in the 1900s through the 1920s. That's where people start to subconsciously think "we don't even have bodies anymore." The industrial age with its pollutants is considered inhuman to small communities and to personal identity. Individuals now cannot put their signature on objects they make. ...Or even know where the apparatus they are making is going, or for what purpose! For example I knew a person that worked on the first satellites that NASA put up and he didn't even know he was working on the satellite, it was top secret. That kind of impersonality is generally associated with the mechanical age and that is considered nonhuman scale, even though humans still had lives all through the last two thousand years and were interacting with people. The problem was that language, the way people communicated with each other, was aborted by the larger linguistic structures of the industrial revolution, which sort of altered how people communicated about what was going on. So, it was always a communication problem--because people still go on living in their bodies.

Bob Dobbs: ...In the electric age, as we've gotten into TV, which took movies and provided them in your little home so you could have a movie right in your home and you had people doing talk shows and news and it all came into your home and you didn't have to go anywhere [...] the service (surface) effect of television was actually more of human scale. And then you get interactive media in the 1970s and 1980s and personal computers and eventually people are satellite broadcasters with their wired technologies, they can float around the planet.



Now, that's really human scale: you can broadcast to millions of people, you can broadcast one to one. ...The electric age; the post-industrial mechanical-muscular extension age. The electric age is the central nervous system where we become quarks and subatomic particles in terms of communication between people. That reality is really returning to human scale because you can interact and people have what is called electric autonomy. The problem is we still have the fact that you're a human being who likes social reality who likes language and community. How do you relate a community situation to the electric environment after you've been devastated in your perceptions of the mechanical environment? So it is a matter of clarifying. Defining the question and then the answer and saying: We have arrived at a slack state because we have interactive human scale again. That's why DISCARNATE--implying the science-fiction, you-have-been-obliterated, apocolyptic situation--is an inappropriate word for the situation we are in right now.
Craig Baldwin:I liked the electric autonomy part. Let's go back a step or two. I know you have a very complex philosophy, one phrase that comes up quite often is "Menippean satire." Can you explain that?
BD: When the alphabet came in, when the Greek society started to develop in Athens, the individual, like a Socrates, started to categorize ideas (...especially Plato and Aristotle afterwards). They were able to, with writing and the refined state of the phonetic alphabet, start to categorize speech. So speech became the content of writing. Writing was the invisible form. It allowed an individual to read something privately, away from the group, whereas in pre-literate cultures people shared communication acoustically and it was like a hypnotic state where you were trapped in the rhythms of the speech. With writing you can become an isolated scholar, and that's an archetype, OK? Now, out of that Greek period came the problem of the individual who was a novelty in relation to the traditional tribe. The plight of the individual trying to get his identity in relation to the agony of the identity quest of the tribe was acted out ... the tragedy came in, the tragic quest, the fact that an individual could have a tragedy by himself, independently. (It was more of a group phenomenon before writing came in.) So the whole western art tradition of tragedy versus comedy--that was a split caused by the phonetic alphabet in Greek culture. So what were the characteristics of culture before that? When you have the human scale of speech in interaction in early society, people can interact and react to each other immediately. So actually they keep more on their toes. If I wrote you a letter I got six months or so for you to write back to me, so the interactive process slows down, and that has a service--it allows people to become individual and to speculate and develop speech as a categorizing phenomenon. But the disservice is you lose the face-to-face learning skills of the pre-literate, what we call the oral tradition. As a result of face-to-face learning, self-consciousness is created--an ecological self-consciousness. (You know that when you talk you're going to get an immediate reaction, you have a sense of balance, that you have to deal with my reaction right away.) Norman Mailer and them celebrated the black in the 1950s because he seemed to have a neat, hip, self-consciousness and also a sense of being in a prison--which he was, within American culture. In pre-literate societies they didn't have the illusion that writing and visual space gave to the mind which said, "oh, the individual can create his own space away from the hypnotic drum beat of the tribal social rhythm," and it was kinda like a space shot into a new freedom zone. So pre-literate cultures had an innate sense of the prison, the communal bond. As a result of that they created art that was ironic--they were always communicating, but knowing that they were imposing something on someone else and had to deal with the effects. So the modern 1980's phenomenon of irony is a retrieval of a minnipean sensibility of pre-literate cultures. Minnipean satire always satirizes the audience or the person you are talking to, because there is immediate feedback, like on the internet. That's why they call the internet nothing but a bunch of people insulting each other (--it's an oral culture retrieval, because you are interacting immediately). Whereas if you get onstage ... there is a delayed reaction where the audience can't interact immediately and nail the author or whatever (--a slowing down of the interactive process). The basic point is that the theatre stage begins to separate you from the person you're dealing with. The satirical effects of what you're doing are not immediate. In theater they are beginning to play out archetypal categories of individuals, which are ideas. And so the satire is directed towards public icons, not the immediate audience. Whereas with jazz or comedy you're interacting with the audience and they know you're satirizing them, it is direct. There's a delay time in relation to what's being satirized in visual alphabetic tragic/comedic western print culture.
CB: Was Menipus a Greek?
BD: Minnipes lived about 220, 230 BC. This really illustrates it. Aristotle took the new ideas and wrote essays on all the new categories and that was the law for 1500 years or whatever. They didn't think that that was imprisoning, they thought that was great: "We now have something to refer to!" Whereas before writing, it was constant interaction and improvisation. Minnipes shows up and we only had fragments. I think it was Lucian in Rome at the time of Jesus, he found these fragmented writings from Minnipes and what was shocking about them was that he would write prose and verse in the same page. He started to mix it up! It was odd, ironic, underground, bizarre. Lucien and others started writing satirical stuff where they'd say "I'm going to tell you the truth" and then they'd tell a ridiculously fantastic story and then they'd satirize the reader and make fun of them, then they'd bring in real facts, just like the Book of the SubGenius--it's true and it's not true! It's teasing the audience, teasing the enemy. Mixing media. That crossing of boundaries was inspired by Minnipes. It couldn't have happened before writing came in. He was a natural. Mixing of speech and interaction was obvious in pre-literate cultures. It lost its obviousness when the alphabet separated things. There's a tradition starting in the time of Rome (when Minnipes was discovered) going up to the 19th century. Scholars said there was this legacy of manic crazy scholars--usually scholars who wanted to let off steam who would mix different styles and write bizarre stories--and it became called Minnipean satire. ... The philosophy of Minnipeans was cynicism. Their symbol was the dog, because Diogenes, the guy who went around with a bat and a barrel, was considered a Minnipean in his lifestyle. The dog is the perfect symbol for Minnipean satire. That's Fido in Frank Zappa.
CB: How is it today that we live in Minnipean environment?
BD: We're in a post-literate interactive culture, so we are retrieving what is called the oral tradition, but what's really important is we're retrieving more than the oral tradition--the kinetic tradition. Body language, dance, what happens when people communicate with their bodies. And also tactility is the interplay of senses. So we have all three happening in the 20th century. Mixed corporate media is the oral, kinetic, and tactile tradition. Obviously the electric media, the telephone, allows us to interact. So as a result we retrieve Minnipean sensibility because we're interacting with somebody and we gotta be ironic in how we're sensitive in communication with somebody--we wanna wake them up but we also don't want to wake them up to the point where they beat us up. So we are sensitive, we roll with the punches, and perform jiujitsu. That's black culture, they're very good Minnipeans. Any pre- or post-literate cultures are Minnipean. So, Mixed Corporate Media (in the 20th Century electric sense) are naturally Minnipean and the amazing part of Minnipean satire is it makes the audience conscious of itself via advertising, (which is always satirizing the content of the program by being stupid or [being on] whatever irritating level you interpret advertising. Advertising is the great Minnipean satire of the daily interaction of Minnipean Mixed Corporate Media. Because it is self-consciousness. So we become extremely self-conscious collectively and personally in this ironic situation, so that's why the Mixed Corporate Media ... retrieves a Minnipean environment.
[Bob spits.]

BD: Hoik up? Who said Hoik up, you did? You've done your homework.

CB: I am trying to work with these kinescopes, a certain kind of media format where live television was preserved on 16mm film. A prototype.

BD: Yeah I know them. Kinescope, kinetic space--it was halfway between tactile TV and cinematic kinetic space.

CB:I call it the interface between the two [ ? ] ... the 20^th century live television to cinema. Has the best of both. You do comment in some of your writings about this period of live television, and early TV (like in the 20s and 30s), then what happened after the war, then as you said the big lockdown where everything becomes scripted. Can you make some comments about the movement the legacy the history the dynamic of live TV in terms of the history of TV. Kinda technical...having to do with forces within TV but also a meta-social, etc?

BD: A lot of modern artists in the 1960s decided that the museum was dead, that they didn't want to present their art in museums, because the museum was visual space--the walls of the western literate tradition. It was the container aspect. The last container medium is the movie, because it is not live but it can contain all--anything that ever happened--as content, even better than a painting or music. So the recording aspect of the movie is the final container medium. TV and radio, when someone can get on and interact live, he's interacting with the worker in his home and getting live data coming into his house, and it's not contained, he doesn't know where it's gonna go, he keeps listening, he's dramatically and existentially involved in the live aspect. That's the difference between TV/Radio environment and movie environment, we know that and understand it, that's cliché. But interestingly, when the satellite environment went up in 1957, the previous environment becomes an art form ... it gets put back inside the museum walls and becomes a container/value system from the past and has an aspect of preciousness to it--tribal/cultural value. So the framing of media, which is the history of art ... how could you frame television? It couldn't be framed--until the satellite went around it. So the satellite comes in in 1957 but doesn't really become an environment until the 1960's when a lot of satellites are up. Telstar in 1962, that was the popularization of the satellite environment in popular culture. So by the mid-60s the satellite is an environment. Therefore it will turn the previous environment, television, into an art form. The museum culture is propped up by the money medium (investors, Wall Street), because they live within visual space which is a container medium. So in the end they have to start propping up the container idea itself. That's why in the 1930s they built the Museum of Modern Art. Andrew Mellon built the National Gallery in Washington D.C. They realized that money was obsolete after the crash of 1929. Visual space could not really function within the electric/radio environment as a controller of social mentality, so they had to invest money into objects, so they took art, painting, and sculpture--all those anti-environmental things. ...[These] became a repository of value because the frame was put around them. ... Since you can't put Dan Rather in a museum, you have to kill live TV. So in the mid-sixties they stopped live TV and brought in laugh tracks and things like that. So, paradoxically, TV becoming an art form meant it was killed. Awright. So then, by 1977 Mixed Corporate Media had disappeared itself, which is a complex process. Then it becomes an afterimage from 1977 to 1990, and a negativland. Therefore, since media don't have a ground anymore, you can retrieve live TV because it can't really be live because everything has disappeared. So you have the retrieval of live TV in the 1950s and 1960s ... Saturday Night Live in 1976.

[Member of video crew comments that Tesla was a clean freak (after Dobbs says he won't stand near something dirty...)]

BD: Was Tesla like that? How'd you know that?

BD: Money-oriented society is a medium where you have to control exchange between goods with a chart of complementality where A=B ... they have to be equal and you have debt and credit, etc. That is the western medium that every new environment has to be appropriated by--it isn't anyone's fault. You use the phrase "programming environment." Programming environment is that culture's use of the new environment in their context. So we have had to take a new medium and fit it back into a capitalist economy. So, always, the previous entertainment media, like vaudeville, become the content of the new medium. And that's the entertainment mafia, so to speak. But it is a culturally conditioned thing. You're programming the content. So ... Ernie Kovacs and these guys, who were a refinement of the earlier Bob Hope and Bing Crosby. ...Like the Internet today, people are worried that it is going to be taken over by the corporate culture and deadened. You can't bring in a new technology without each particular culture fitting it into their past reference point. So it is inevitably going to be watered down, deadened. But for the normal mainstream unconscious, that's actually what they want. They want their cultural myths to continue in the new situation of an environment that wipes out their cultural myths. So they are extra ferocious in maintaining the past cultural entertainment. Remember, entertainment is a package situation which comes out of the industrial age. Minnipean cultures don't have entertainment. Every moment is a work of art. The Balinese: "we don't have art, we try to do everything as well as we can." The visual space in a capitalist environment needs entertainment, so entertainment always becomes the content. What's amazing is that television is a tactile mosaic mesh that's activating your guts and your central nervous system. It doesn't matter what's on the TV, the change is brought by the tactile effect of television. It changes a visually biased culture into a whole tactility thing. So you have in the 1950s and 1960s a drug-taking rock 'n roll apocalypse in American social mores due to the mesh of TV, not the content! And the content trods along eventually looking like a bloody hologram totally oblivious to what's going on and you get Dan Rather--who helped kill Kennedy--telling us where the truth is. The content is absurdity because the content always trots along ignoring that the medium it is using, the host it is using, is doing all kinds of changes that have no precedent!

CB: What I want to pursue is this idea of storage. All this collective media, flotsam and jetsam, is always with us, floating, running on the spot. Can you speculate on the possibility of our increased access to the collective storehouse of all media history.
BD: We never left 1945. See, that's the essential characteristic of language, that was the first medium that could store our experience. Language, words, allowed early humans to store experiences so that they didn't have to go back and relive the experiences. If they had a new situation and wanted to comment on how that related to a previous one, they had a bunch of words that expressed concepts. The essential feature of media is that storage. Language is the first storage. I'm saying that language anticipates all the unfolding means of storage that develop: first writing, then the printed book, and then the newspaper and the movie. The chief characteristic of media is storage. Now what's interesting is that in the electric age we have live broadcast, but we have tape recording so we can store it and yet create new content immediately. So the storage characteristics and the live characteristics occur simultaneously. But, to emphasize the recording aspect: everything that is happening can be preserved. So if someone is born 50 years from now they can relive 1945 or 1922 and it is new for them and it is 2022, so they have the Beatles in 2022. So in that sense all time happens when you have electric recording. That's the akashic records. The movie is the akashic container. Tape recording is the preserving of non-visual and acoustic stuff. The akashic records are constantly being filled up and maintained, juxtaposed with this ongoing "now"-making environment that Dan Rather and the news people keep making up, saying "this happened, that happened, blah blah blah blah" and you gotta react. And we store it and look back but while you're looking back checking what happened two weeks ago, there's new events broadcasting at you, so the culture is always trying to adjust to the present and that's the main activity. The amazing thing is that if you can make new time as well as always storing previous time then kids in an educational situation always spend their time processing previously recorded environments--including books, those's are recorded environments--and so in a hundred years you're gonna have kids put in little wombs where they'll be programmed. They will be sleep-drenched with all this historical recording just as a requirement for citizenship. It seems to be a bias of humans to preserve the past--even though the past is immense! So while we are constantly preserving the past and all time, and we can contain, we have more time to preserve than they did 1000 years ago. We have many more times. Plus we have the new making going on all the time, creating new times. So, all times exist now, plus the non-time of immediate now-making that goes on every day which has no content because the point is that the newsmen just want to look busy [runs in place] --"We're still running!"--you know? So, the jobs are shrinking, the number of people who need to look like they're busy is going down, so the rest of the population sits back and watches TV or reads books or records things. In any and in each of these activities archiving is involved. Everybody is an archivist! That's the situation!

CB: How does that affect our understanding of the concept of time?

BD: Fucking obliterates it! I mean, here's an interesting question--what is the content of media, the most universal content? The most universal content is the user! The human being, and that is what I was saying earlier. The human being continues going along interacting with someone who looks like a human being, but I have a person here with a camera, a whole fucking world on his shoulder! Human beings have a sense of biological time which I call "first nature." All human-created technology and artifacts are second nature--an imitation of first nature. Just like the book is an imitation of the eyeball, which was made by [looks around] who knows what, but we call it first nature, it's biological. So the question is how does our sense of biological time relate to timelessness in the electronic storage world. That's what 'Finnegans Wake' tried to present. It tried to explain and show a painting and a sound orchestra and an image that would give you a perspective on that question. And that question is what I am continuously explaining an answer to. So obviously, we seem to have biological time, but if we start to have immortality drugs, then we're gonna have to decide whether we want to leave this and go to another time. That'll be the existential question. Suicide will become a new avant-garde activity [it isn't already?!? --ed.] But meanwhile we have people who are trying to live lives [--walks in place] and they are actually in an environment where they are everybody else and everybody else's machines, which are angelic and communicating to each other in a satellite environment. So we obviously don't know what time it is. I'll remind you, when Frank Zappa was asked what he really wanted to know he said: "what time is it?" And that was the key question in 'Finnegans Wake' around page 35--the cat asks what time it is. Joyce was really aware of the problem of biological time in relation to media-generated time, which brings us back to media archeology. When was the past, when is the future? We actually don't know what is anymore. So when the baby-boomers see kids replaying the Beatles or whatever, they go "Geez, that's nostalgia." It ain't nostalgia.

CRAIG BALDWIN: If it's not nostalgia what is it?

BOB DOBBS: It's live. It's new. Virtual reality is real reality is virtual reality. It is processing, it is more real than biological time. Media storage.
CB: What are the prospects for intervening and changing that past time?
BD: The recorded time? That's media ecology. [...] The Japanese had the idea that art is a thing that helps you adjust to the present. The only real artistic act now--in the sense of an artist or scientist intervening in a culture and presenting a new environment that upsets everything and to which people have to adjust--would be to turn off the electrical environment. If you turned it off, it would be totally...it would be way bigger than Stravinsky's riot in 1913, or the Yippies' riot at the Pentagon in 1967. No event we've had could compare to the apocalypse and change of perception that would be caused by turning off the electrical environment--television and satellite. That's the only way you'd do it. Now, is that going to happen?
CB: No! [video tape cuts off the conversation] ...Elaborate on the idea of a media fast.
BD: The only way is to drop out and specialize in one medium. Ignore Dan Rather and all that he's propagating. Ignore the news. The news is the only thing that exists. So, if you ignore the news you're ignoring everything. (Because, everything else is just spinning the news and making economics out of it.) One form of media fast in the electric age would be to retrieve the eye. The eye has no dominance in the electric age, which is more kinetic and tactile. Joyce says on page 52 [of Finnegan's Wake], "Television kills telephony in brothers' broil. Our eyes demand their turn. Let them be seen!" So how can the eyes be recovered as a floating organ in a situation where people really don't have any human scale, or they feel that they don't have any human scale? [...] How to retrieve the eye? Joyce created a book which you can't read. But in learning how to read it, by using depth perception, you re-activate your eye. So, the antidote to to the twentieth century is Finnegans Wake, because it brings back the obsolete eye (and it is an eye that includes all the senses), so you can read it out loud or you can see movement on the page, and ultimately you are making a book that is useful to the eye because it includes all the multi-dimensional experiences that you have in the 20th century mixed corporate-media environment. The only media fast you can have today is to do what Gerry Fialka does in L.A., is have a Finnegans Wake group. Do Finnegans Wake. Especially at a group or community level, because the whole thing is to retrieve community on a certain level of first biological nature. It is the only book that can be read in a group format where no one can determine what the hell the meaning is. But the exploration/explanation is the joy of speech, so you are retrieving language. Joyce was, as Hugh Kenner said, a modernist in the sense that he celebrated speech. Postmodernists see speech as a virus. But there is an eternal value in speech, in the Modernist sense, as the greatest archetype, the greatest medium. McLuhan always said that the greatest art form is conversation. Joyce took speech and made it the content of Finnegans Wake. He preserved the visual tradition of the book and the eye while enhancing speech interaction. Better than "E=Mc2!" A beautiful antidote, a scientific answer, a health progenitor for humans on a general level. A great answer to the disease of the twentieth century.

CB: Elaborate on your concept of "past times and pastimes."
BD: Many people think that McLuhan and Joyce were playing with the Hegelian 'thesis-antithesis-synthesis.' That is a 3-part, or triad, process. When you get to the tetrad process you realize that there is actually a retrieval aspect in the synthesis that creates a new environment, in itself, in which humans engage. Hegelian synthesis ignores the retrieval, the fourth part. [...] Reading a book like Finnegan's Wake is a pastime. It's a pastime which is about the history of past times. When a new environment comes in, any culture will take an old culture and turn it into a truth value system, or an art. A preservation. All through history of the Western world we had visual space and we started to create the idea of art (with Aristotle). We had a frame because we had writing, which was the medium that could create a frame. So we always turned the past time into a pastime. The Renaissance turned the Middle Ages into an art form. Shakespeare's plays were about the problems of Medieval kings. The Middle Ages turned the Roman Empire into a parlor game. That is, Charlemagne, 800 A.D., he wanted to retrieve the Roman Empire and re-do--like a Hollywood set--the past time of the Roman Empire (which at the time of the Romans was an environment invisible to them). [...] The knight/feudal culture was turning Charlemagne into an art form because they wanted to retrieve the Holy Roman Empire in Jerusalem, they wanted to kick out the infidels. So the Romans, to go back a bit, were the first ones to do a past time as pastime. They took the Greek culture and made it their content and their hero worship and their gold standard. Now bring it up to date, the twentieth turns the nineteenth century into an art form. The twentieth century is a world of phatic communication where what you say does not have to be responded to and no one's listening. In the nineteenth century, which was the epitome century of science art and technology, people were writing things out and they had an audience.

The twentieth century is a world of phatic communication where what you say does not have to be responded to and no one's listening. In the nineteenth century, which was the epitome century of science art and technology, people were writing things out and they had an audience.

CB: OK. Fine tune this idea about retrieval. In one of your writings you differentiate it from the idea of camp, right? And you said 'nostalgia' a little bit earlier, too. Can you try to distinguish between those three ideas please?
BD: That is important, to differentiate between camp, retrieval, and nostalgia. McLuhan said it best when he said "Camp gives people a sense of reality because it shows them a replay of their lives." Let's say it this way: camp gives a replay of people's lives, and therefore, seems real. [...] Because we take the past time/environment of the nineteenth century (which was an inhuman environment), and because of culture lag, we look at the present through the rear-view mirror. We think the present is apocalyptic and everything has disappeared. One of the things that's disappeared is our human biological nature bodies. This is properly expressed by the fear that the medical business will take over the process of family reproduction with genetic engineering and test tube babies and all that. So the bodies are obsolete. So camp--obviously coming in with Duchamp, and then the Warhol pop art retrievals--takes the body, puts on clothing, and then puns on the body by having a male being a cross gender. In other words, it is playing with the body and using the clothing with sexual gender stylings or categories to play with the effects of those categories. Now that's all clothing with the body... The body disappeared and clothing disappeared 100 years ago. So obviously it is nostalgia to regard everything you are doing as being in quotes. Camp puts everything in quotes. Quotation marks. The archetype is a quoting process. Past times as pastimes.
In the 20th century, we take the 19th century as a pastime and an art form, but that also contains a process of the Renaissance turning the Medieval age into pastimes and The Romans turning the Greeks into pastime! You get to a stage where the art form eventually, through time, becomes an archetype. The archetype is a quotation of the situation. It's high-falutin' camping, aw'right? But the cliché is the present environment of news (Dan Rather repeating the process of informing us. That's a cliché activity. It is not archetypal.) Cliché is the present, the new. And archetype is the old. Camp is a popular-level, unsophisticated, replaying of the archetypal-izing and art-form process. And the reason it is not sophisticated is: it thinks we still have bodies, and it makes an issue out of whether you are a male or a female or homosexual or heterosexual, it makes issues out of these things (when there are no sexual bodies anymore anyway in the twentieth century). The Warhol/Chelsea people, they camped it up. They were playing with bodies and playing with clothing while ignoring the new clothing we all wear, which is satellite environment. They're not even commenting on that. So that's why they are unsophisticated or street-level. It's camp, but it's the same process on the street level as the retrieval and archetypal-izing that McLuhan laid out.

We think the present is apocalyptic and everything has disappeared. One of the things that's disappeared is our human biological nature bodies. This is properly expressed by the fear that the medical business will take over the process of family reproduction with genetic engineering and test tube babies and all that.

CB: No. [...] What about using a collective media storehouse as more than camp or a pastime? Using it actually as a way to do research and learn things and to empower us to engage with the present and the future?
BD: The academics are the POB's, the print-oriented bastards. They are the ones who stick with the archetypal medium of the printed book. So Academia always has had a snobbish relationship to post-printed book media: movie, radio, pop culture. [...] Popular culture is regarded as not high-value or lofty or archetypal (as what the printed book boys preserve), so that's why you can see the cultural snobbery of the POBs against the Andy Warhols and pop culturists. The POBs are obsolete now. The only thing that preserved their tradition was Finnegan's Wake--and they can't even understand it. They can't use it. Joyce created the ultimate irony (by creating a thing that preserves the visual space hierarchy). Popular culture is the now-making. It is the use of all our senses, not just the eye senses. It is the content for the tactile mesh of TV. People are living more in the water of films, TV, movies, music. [...] There's been no communities since 1945. It's been a virtual reality sensorium. Nostalgia is the popular daily interaction in the interval between the great electric storage and the constant now-making. Since many people can't afford to get to the storage facilities that, say, Columbia Records has, Columbia Records puts out the greatest hits CDs. So the popular culture has its own museum by having nostalgia, but it is not nostalgia. [...]
CB: Right. I am talking about the autonomy of the individual to go and access that storehouse as opposed to Columbia Records. What about the prospects of this kind of autonomy and access on the part of individuals across society?
BD: Right. So, note that nostalgia really began in the 1970s (for the 1950s). You know, "Happy Days," and all that. That was before the microchip and personal computer. Then the eighties developed the interactive web. Now *everybody* is a satellite. What's interesting about the satellite environment is that it is the first time we have been able to take first nature and create an artificial environment that a human being could live in outside of the terrestrial habitat of the earth! So it was the first successful [hu]man-made simulation of first nature by second nature (technology). So the satellite environment was the fusion of first and second nature. That environment starts to happen from '57 to '67. Then, with the computer environment and the microchip, the satellite environment was gradually brought down into the personal domicile of one person. This is called the web and the internet, where every person now can be a satellite flowing around within the fusion of first and second nature. [...] Our historical archiving, our historical record.
People are becoming the owners of a whole cultural legacy of all cultures that are on chip, so that obsoletes Rockefeller, and it obsoletes the owners of the system even under the old Andrew Mellon art-preserving situation they were trying to do in visual space before WWII. I said, in a memo in 1977 I sent to Raisa Gorbachev, [pause]:
Gutenberg made everybody a reader, Xerox made everybody a publisher, but the internet makes everybody a satellite broadcaster to every other satellite broadcaster.
So the electric autonomy is that the collective satellite environment has now been personalized and internalized. The satellite environment contains all cultures and it is essentially a mythic structure containing all times--because the technological constructs to make the technology represent thousands of years of technological invention, all crystallized into the satellite--so it's the Omega point. It represents the history of the whole enterprise of humanity! Now we can internalize that! So I become, in traditional terms, godlike, I can contain the whole universe on the second nature level. And so every satellite broadcaster is a megalomaniac! [...] The Wired revolution is collapsed now because everybody is sort of saying: "Hey, we are all losing our jobs, the economy doesn't even need consumers anymore!" [...] The breakthrough will be fusion energy itself, and also a wonderful miraculous medicine that roots out ancient sources of disease. These things will guarantee a physical personal body utopia plus the general effect of cold fusion--which will create an energy source where more energy is created than is put in (therefore upsetting all the Newtonian laws and everything that happened in science). Without fusion we will be in an endless apocalyptic dark age. [...]
CB: You said something about hoiking.
BD: Hoiking is making conscious. [Dogs bark at Bob as he talks]. These dogs, they are using the verbal realm [...] Hoiking is basically a sound thing.
CB: You mentioned bio-electronics. I'm interested in electric vibrations and resonances and a quantum physics kind of thing. Go...
BD: In my chart I have the era from 1960-1990 and the first part is 1960-1977 which is called: "holeopathic cliché probes." The term holeopathic is a combination of the hologram and homeopathy [...] The hologram of now-making gets tinier and tinier yet more potent or more world-dominating. That's from '60 - '77. From '77 to '90 is what I call the anthropomorphic physical. I said earlier that our bodies, our first biological bodies, seem to be here. They seem always to be what we are using [...] but it is through a communication level of social interaction through all these media, aw'right? So I say that people were enraptured with the technological or second nature side of ourselves from '60 to '77.
But by the late '70s, with things like 3 Mile Island, and later Chernobyl, it made people want to preserve original nature, so you had the rise of the deep ecologists and First Earthers [sic] who wanted to retrieve first nature, which I call the 'anthropomorphic physical'. [...] The satellite environment predicts the fusion of first nature and second nature. The satellite is the merging [...] the first man-made environment [dogs barking] the satellite is the realization of [Dogs bark loudly].
CB: OK, cut! [Dogs barking.] Cut, it's OK. [More dogs barking loudly.]
BD: ...Second nature is technological, that's the holeopathic cliché probe. First nature nostalgia is for the anthropomorphic physical--this fusion that is predicted by the satellite. The actual fact comes in with fusion. That was anticipated on the basic scientific material level by Tesla, who could actually use first nature and create energy sources from it by sticking light bulbs in the ground. He somehow saw energy in first nature even though he used a bit of the medium of the man-made light bulb to interact with it. So what Tesla predicted was the fusion of first and second nature. I call that 'tactility', which is the chakric bodies--the occult subtle, non-chemical energies around our bodies. I think the electrical environment is an extension of that. We can extend our chakric occult bodies. We are part of the fusion of first and second nature. [...] The bio-electric situation is...new.
CB: Somewhere in your writings you make some reference to a new electric environment as a new model for ESP.
BD: When visual space came in with writing and then the printed book, you emphasize the eye but you actually, paradoxically, numb the eye and it becomes less sensitive to body language. In the pre-writing cultures, these primitive societies were very sensitive, using all their senses. They were holistic, because they did not have a visual bias. So it was natural--in the excitement of the kind of direct-interface communication I described earlier--that many sparks would fly off in the exchange of words and body language. I think these tribal cultures got really flexible with the unforeseen effects of immediate sensory interaction. It was probably a product of that. Plus ingestion of food and drugs, whatever chemicals altered their body chemistry--which they would be naive about, and just be discovering. The confusion of signals between two or three people could be interpreted as something uncategorizable...
It is what we call ESP. It comes more out of body language communication than writing communication, aw'right? But body language is part of speech. ESP is really the dance of body language underneath verbal overlay, OK? [...] When we burst thru into the electric age, obviously, in movies and television, you have body language communicated in the medium. So we retrieve body language communication and therefore in the 20th century a passion for the occult, for the concept of ESP, was natural because people were re-discovering their bodies. That's the whole subculture of hip, learning how to talk without grammatical structure--impugning(?) more in your tone, imitating the jazz musician, improvising body language and verbal grunt rhythms. (Captain Beefheart versus the grunt people.) That retrieval of body language would naturally inspire, would archetypal-ize, now that's what amazing is that ESP became a romantic notion of immediate communication for the print/visual-biased culture which was fragmented and couldn't do immediate communication. They would romanticize the past time of pre-literate body language dance, and they called it ESP, so then ESP, as a fetish of the nineteenth century becomes an art form, a pastime that is obsessively studied by the 20th century, which actually lives in a natural ESP environment.
[...] The electric age has natural telepathy in effects of immediate interaction. [...] ESP is an obsession of the 20th century. It is past time as pastime.
CB: What about the possibilities of getting outside of our bodies...a kind of telepathic vehicle... remote viewing? [...] Somehow accessing [...]just jam on that one.
BD: When I talk and I am interacting with people and there are no technologies, if you get a certain distance away you can't hear me. Then if I start writing and sending letters with the postal system [...] then I can communicate at a distance. I can send my speech via [cameraman says to hold on] [...] now I've begun to communicate, beyond my normal first nature body, limitations with writing. When I get on the telephone I can talk to somebody in Tokyo and through my instructions (and even more so in the nineties) I can move things with my voice beyond my anthropomorphic first nature level. Therefore, I am operating beyond the normal boundaries of my body. So let's look at the meanings of out-of-body communication while looking at the technological fact that we do out-of-body communication (in reference to previous abilities) [currently].

Most people in the ESP culture celebrate the potential that the CIA was encouraging people to leave their body, travel into Moscow and look in the files, you know what i mean? [laughs] [...] There's a paradox there because satellite surveillance with it's remote viewing can spy on things all over the planet.

I think what most people think by 'out-of-body' is that they are going to leave this body and go into a whole other dimension without the aid of technologies. Why would one do that? Most people in the ESP culture celebrate the potential that the CIA was encouraging people to leave their body, travel into Moscow and look in the files, you know what i mean? [laughs] [...] There's a paradox there because satellite surveillance, with it's remote viewing, can spy on things all over the planet. So I am raising the question: what would be the point of leaving your body?
Probably, for most people, if they could leave their body and be in another dimension then that would satisfy the question of whether consciousness survives this body when it dies. That is a metaphysical question. [...] William Thompson develops this in his book Coming Into Being-- the confusion of the old body and the new technological body leads to an interaction with the astral energies, and,therefore, the astral energies get affected and they start coming thru as demons, or whatever, channeling thru people. So when people discover that they survive death--and I *know* that they survive death, but when *they* discover that--IT'LL BE OBSOLETE! That's the human dilemma! We always discover something because it's no longer a hidden environment!
The real hidden environment is the fact of lock-down Bob rule. [...] There are only two people left in the body--Bob and Connie--who are in a situation where nobody can reconnect with them because they are lost in the confusion between the bio and the electric and therefore the only antidote they have to that is to celebrate the past life, the past time of: [dramatic pause] having a body and wishing you had immortality! And so everybody now is going to announce that they are immortal and they live in the astral dimension, when the astral dimension is obsolete! Now, this is a problem for god and the devil. Because they created first nature. How are they going to deal with humanity's creations? Humanity has created technologies that are challenging all the previous notions of sacredness and that is a threat to the originators of sacredness, god and the devil!
CB: Thanks! That was great [tape cuts]
BD: [puts up his arms) I was like that little girl from Russia that did the perfect 10-10-10...
CB: Can you say a little more about the role of the hologram? I guess it is sort of a model for you in your theory. How does it relate to simulation and to today's and yesterday's media environment?
BD: Most Americans say you 'watched' television and 'I saw it on television' -- now that's the American visual bias, their cultural sensory programming interpreting TV as a visual medium when TV is largely an acoustic surround. It's the tactile interplay of all the senses including motion (because when the camera moves you move) [...] so, television is not a visual medium, um, it is multi-sensory. But a visually-biased culture will use it as content; will see it as a visual medium. But the hologram comes in and, as TV is the perceiving of acoustic space and hearing in all directions, the new requirement which would satisfy the American desire for visual space, for the eye retrieved, would be to see in all directions. Now to see in all directions is what the hologram can do, because you look at it and you walk around it and it develops dimension. So it is actually creating depth for the eye, which the TV doesn't do. The TV creates touch and ear in depth but not sight [...] Dali started making an art form of that in the early seventies.
So, the hologram is an invention that is going to satisfy the human need to to bring back the eye. Now an invention does not become an environment (in the sense of language, etc) until it is a common cliche and everyone is using it. One hologram does not create this effect, but when the hologram becomes an environment the effects will be obvious. As the hologram is becoming an environment the effects of it are already happening on people, it's like the 'hundredth monkey' effect. The effects are happening on people before the cause shows up. So when something becomes an environment it is obviously affecting everybody, but it has been anticipated by the artists and the scientists and previous ideas and notions [...]
The idea of the holeopathic is the hologram and homeopathy. I am taking that concept which describes the effects of the holeopathic situation, the bioelectric merging, and I am saying that the effects of that have happened from 1960-1990. The technology didn't show up and begin to be used by everybody until after 1990. The hologram is here in terms of its effects though the actual technological environment. WIRED magazine and MONDO 2000 etc have their whole virtual reality dream of refining it so you can have your own little goggles and your own little hologram and actually see in all directions and be a satellite. That is a technical thing that requires techno pawns to create inventions that'll gradually put the digital chips together to make it an actuality and a sale-able thing that is easy to use. The effects of that technology which will come in the next 20 years have been here from '60 to '90.
CB: Why, because people have already conceptually inhabited that space even though hardware isn't there?
BD: [Nods] And you know how? [...] TV has a certain bias so it is naturally by the tetrad flipped into a new environment. So the need for seeing all directions which the TV doesn't require does mandate the collective imagination expressed through language as a media to figure out an antidote to the TV specialization, because it fragments just into tactility. So everybody's already demanding holograms and the hologram experience in the TV environment and that's why movies didn't become obsolete with TV. They became a substitute for the future hologram. The hologram will be the movie experience personalized for electric autonomy.
CB: I see. Can you say more about how effects precede causes, how is that possible?
BD: OK. The big discovery of Joyce is past times to pastimes. That's the retrieval factor. McLuhan then synthesized it into a scientific paradigm and it is called a tetrad, where every new environment enhances a certain sensory preference and obsoletes the old situation.
For example writing enhanced the visual bias and obsolesced the oral. It retrieves something from the past that was sort of disappeared for a while. It was sitting on the shelf and then it came back. So what did visual writing retrieve? The private individual. The caveman, the guy by himself who hasn't even been tribalized yet. So the private individual is retrieved by writing, and then what does writing flip into? The printed book, and then if you tetrad that it flips into the electric environment. So the tetrad is the whole process of enhancement, obsolesence, retrieval and then flipping into it's opposite -- a new technology that wipes *it* out and makes *it* obsolete, so the tetrad is a slow process for the last 200 years but as we get into technological speedup and invention and turnover from to 1960 to 1990, the tetrad process of each technology goes through its fifteen minutes faster, aw'right? So as a result of that, the speedup means that the four stages of tetrad happen pretty simultaneously. So when the TV environment comes in as a new environment, extending the bias of tactility, it obsoletes reading -- Johnny becomes illiterate. It retrieves the occult and primitive awareness and drug taking, and it flips into the hologram and seeing in all directions. Because the length of that tetrad over normal biological time is shorter, we in the speedup situation can anticipate the flip point of the tetrad before it has actually shown up. That's how the effects of the future show up before the causes.

Bob Dobbs, Secret Council of Ten, Interviewed by Joan d’Arc

Finnegans Awake!

Or

Who is Driving our Luxury Vehicle?

Bob Dobbs Interviewed by Joan d’Arc

I first heard of para-media ecologist Bob Dobbs when I read Robert Guffey’s, “Synchronistic Linguistics in The Matrix, Or How Bob Dobbs Became the Tetrad Manager”. Guffey had tuned in to KPFK in Los Angeles one morning in 1993 to hear Bob’s “confusing and yet oddly sensible melange of heady scholarship and absurd non sequiturs.” Years later, after seeing The Matrix, Guffey wondered if the Wachowski brothers were shadowing the Dobbsian Universe. The parallels were uncanny.
Bob had been a staple of CKLN radio in Toronto for many years, but I had not had the opportunity to hear him. I joined Mr. Dobbs’ interactive forum, Fivebodied.com, in May of 2006 in order to learn more about the technological sensory extensions of our bodies. According to Bob, it takes about ten years to really figure out what he’s talking about. I have tried to catch on, with what little extra time I have, but certainly do not feel that I have arrived.
Bob began writing for Flipside magazine in June 1995, in what was termed a “continuing collective clairvoyance” in 25 issues of the magazine, including a column named “Android Meme’s Xenochrony” which began in 1998. Bob advised, “Do not try too hard to comprehend the text … let the percepts wash over you like a hot shower.” With this excellent advice in mind, step into the whirling room that is Bob Dobbs.

____________________________________

Joan: Bob, we talked about the JFK assassination on an earlier occasion.  A German documentary has just named the assassins as the Cuban secret service.  They state that Oswald was paid $6500 to do the job, along with two other guys. What’s your take on this?
BOB: I don’t have any documents to back up what I say. What I state here is based on my experiences around the time of the JFK assassination. I make them public so they can be judged in 30 years when all the files have been released. The assassination was carried out completely internal to the U.S. There were no foreign elements involved. No Frenchmen, no Cubans, no Soviets, no Canadians, etc. So, those that emphasize the role of Permindex are on the wrong track.
Lee Harvey Oswald did shoot and hit JFK. Oswald had participated in several earlier shootings designed to warn JFK but in those he was instructed to miss JFK. In Dallas, he was told to fire warning shots again but it was also suggested to him it didn’t matter if he hit anyone in the car. Oswald, an extremely pliable young man, almost a puppy, was not aware of the actual motives of the conspirators. There were two other snipers. So all those, such as Pres. Gerald Ford, who have stood by their conviction that Oswald was the lone assassin, knew they were correct on that account, to the extent that Oswald was involved.. Hence, their stubborn confidence in the face of the myriad conflicting evidence. The conspirators counted on the diversity of opinion generated in an information-overloaded society to conceal what was a very simple operation in many ways.
From my perspective, no public researcher or investigator has been successful in presenting a completely accurate description of the events of that day nor the causes. None have come close. I suggest James Ellroy’s American Tabloid (1995) is the best fictional presentation of the complexities of the planning and execution. Joan Mellen’s A Farewell To Justice (2005) is the best use of information released since the considerable impact of Oliver Stone’s film, JFK (1991). However, everyone involved in the planning and execution is dead. The last person died in 1989. Carlos Marcello died in 1993 so he was not directly involved. But you wouldn’t know that based on the volumes of evidence pointing to his hand. James Joyce’s Finnegans Wake (1939) mimes and anticipates the fate of the Warren Commission.
Those who sanctioned the John Kennedy assassination were not involved in the Robert Kennedy assassination. Nor were they implicated in the Martin Luther King assassination. Three different scenarios, three different clusters of motives. Allen Dulles and James Jesus Angleton didn’t figure out the full extent of the conspiracy until 2 or 3 years later. Jack Ruby, in his Dallas life, liked to be seen as a man “in the know” – friend of both police and the criminally organized. He was convinced by the conspirators to act because he believed a larger war was imminent, even though for him it was actually just a vague rumor. A very little-known fact is that J. Edgar Hoover had an idiosyncratic belief for years prior to November 22, 1963, that there was a Catholic conspiracy to destroy the United States government.
In 1963 and 1964 I participated in the cover-up of the true facts of the assassination and I am proud that I did. If the truth had surfaced shortly after the murder, civil war would have broken out in the United States. Not a larger war with the Soviet Union since they weren’t guilty. No, a civil war. We on the Secret Council of Ten supported the cover-up by the conspirators in spite of the heinous character of the act. The seamless web of the global economy at the time could not afford such a rupture in the national fulcrum of that theatrical structure wherein the Word Makes the Market.
It is still very dangerous to discuss accurately the events of November 22, 1963. The personal, institutional, and corporate loyalties overwhelm and frustrate any efficient resolution of the immortal events of that day. Once we had a society largely engineered by television, we turned to stone and our lips were sealed. That is one of the laws of electronic media. Fortunately, journalists, publishers, and songwriters don’t know this, and much subsequent noise and wealth is generated.
Therefore, I will add that all I’ve said in response to your question is complete poppycock due to over-indulgent friendships with Mae Brussell, Lyndon LaRouche, and Dr. Peter Beter.
Joan: So Oswald was not a lone assassin?
BOB: Correct.
Joan: Can you say who was that person who died in 1989?
BOB: It is still not wise to name that person. I will not give any names of the conspirators. But it is the ecology among them that is lethal to expose.
Joan: So, from the point of view of the Council of Ten, the JFK assassination averted two wars, one international and one domestic?
BOB: No. The cover-up of the JFK assassination averted only one war – the domestic civil war. Jack Ruby was under the impression there was going to be a foreign engagement. He was wrong. He was not an insider. He was used.
Joan: So you got involved in the Secret Council of Ten through your father, Rene Dobbs, is that correct? This is fascinating in itself. Can you tell me a little more about your father and how this situation befell you?
BOB: My father was a butler for a very wealthy family in Paris and so was his father and his father’s father. The family’s lineage in the servant world went back over 300 hundred years, straddling French and Scottish ancestors. My father’s great-great grandfather is discussed in a story by Charles Dickens. One can find it in the Miscellaneous Papers Of Charles Dickens, a collection of some of Dickens’ journalism. The tale is dated May 26, 1855 and its title is “The Toady Tree” (pp.49-54). Dickens writes: “When Dobbs talks to me about the House of Commons (and lets off upon me those little revolvers of special official intelligence which he always carries, ready loaded and capped), why does he adopt the Lobby slang: with which he has as much to do as with any dialect in the heart of Africa?”
My father, Rene F. Dobbs, was born on June 4, 1882 – four months after James Joyce and five months before Wyndham Lewis. These two avant-garde writers had a profound influence on Rene and, therefore, on me. His employers were of the European oligarchy class that held court since the Renaissance. This “fondi” group and its secret intelligence resources were greatly weakened after World War One. With cutbacks in the allocations for extensive espionage, my father was upgraded to the inner circle of his employers’ network only out of necessity. Rene became an initiated member of the presently legendary and chimerical Priory of Sion in 1922. His father would never have been such a direct witness to the kind of desperate power negotiations that unfolded between the two World Wars. The panic increased in the Thirties when money as a medium, formerly privately owned, was made public property in the new welfare states.
During the last year of World War Two, my father brought me into his level of access to the global intelligence fields that were preparing the structure of the Solar Government to be set up in the Fifties. In retrospect, my later espionage activities were of the “James Bond” sort compared to his “Jeeves.” He rarely left Europe while I became a man of action in the New World. However, his rather sedentary self developed a perspective considerably wiser than my hyper purview, and by the Sixties his advice on the fate of the Secret Council of Ten saved my life. There are samples of his changing understanding of our family’s profession in the diary section at http://www.fivebodied.com/project.
My father was a Forrest Gump of European intrigue and thanks to his vocation, I ended up in Adolph Hitler’s office in 1936 during the Berlin Olympics, and later, in the laboratory of Albert Hofmann in April, 1943, during the week Hofmann enjoyed his first LSD inquiries.
I did manage to return the favor and give Rene an Alice-in-Wonderland experience when I forced him to see a Frank Zappa concert in 1968 in swinging London. He was absolutely dumbfounded but, nevertheless, recognized the syndrome of classical genius that his ancestors were privy to for centuries in their cloistered world.
Rene died on July 5, 1976, the day after I heard Marshall McLuhan declare, during a broadcast atop the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers, that the next bicentennial for America would be, “in a word, apocalypse.”
Joan: So, short story, this brought you to Marshall McLuhan’s doorstep around what year?  Why did you seek out McLuhan?
BOB: Working with MI6 in 1953, I was part of a team in Iran that failed to protect Mossadeq from the CIA’s successful move to install the Shah. At that point, British intelligence was becoming weaker than American intelligence and I personally paid the price by being dispatched to the margins: Nova Scotia, Canada. However, in January, 1954, I was assigned to investigate an obscure professor in Toronto who had just started a new publication called Explorations in December, 1953. My employers were intrigued at his discussion of some of the basic principles in our policy of “tetrad-management.” We were puzzled at how he came to intuit this. We didn’t want this understanding to become too widespread.
I was asked to get to know McLuhan in the role of someone interested in his ideas. I eventually found out that he was clued-in by his friend, Wyndham Lewis, whom McLuhan had met in 1943. Lewis was an old acquaintance of my father’s and knew a great deal about the Priory of Sion in the 1920s. He satirized it in his novel, The Apes of God (1930).
In 1954, my team fumbled the Guatemalan socialist intervention and Arbenz was forced to resign. I was in the dog house again. I was ordered to get to know the new North American “vectors” since it looked like I wasn’t going to be based in Europe anymore. This apparently regretful turn in my espionage career turned out to be very fortunate. I spent the rest of the 1950s becoming very interested in American pop culture, which I had largely been sheltered from during my youth in Paris. This is when my love of American rhythm and blues was embedded and led to my early interest in Frank Zappa’s work at Studio Z in Cucamonga, California.
By 1962 I decided to create my own “army” in the American media so I first arranged for influential people in New York to promote McLuhan’s work. Tom Wolfe’s reputation was one particularly unexpected beneficiary of that project. As McLuhan’s image soared internationally, I watched how he handled himself and secretly became a friend. Together we plunged ahead, never looking back.
Joan: What do you mean by the term, “the theatrical structure wherein the Word Makes the Market.”
BOB: It’s a description of the effect of the Global Theater (post-Global Village) of mixed corporate-media. In the Sixties when the satellite environment went around the computer and TV environments creating the proscenium arch of the Global Theater, the necessary implosion of the resulting information surround led to the “Solar Government” enforcing a global intercom via the Presidential occupant of the White House. The economy and news was dictated by this oral medium. The White House attempted to be the logocentric mouth for programming this intercom.
“Reality” isn’t real in this theater until the White House acknowledges the issue, topic, or concern. There are no UFOs as far as this intercom is concerned until the White House says there are. Some are irritated by this law of the “market” and call it fascism, if not info-fascism. The economists call it “the interest rate.” I would call it the new volatile and ephemeral ground or medium of “public interest.” Outside of the White House there has been a civil war among all the established media and/or technological environments. This war has been the means for making wealth in the last fifty years.
Joan: So the “chosen” oracle of the economy for the past thirty years was Alan Greenspan, a follower of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism?
BOB: No. One has to understand there are two economies: the hardware economy and the software economy. The hardware economy meets the needs of our Chemical Bodies – food, shelter, heat, drugs, and weaponry. The software economy responds to the demands of our minds – the community’s need to know the “big picture,” to be entertained, and to be challenged mentally. The former was measured by the old medium of money. The latter was relatively free once the electric medium was established in the 1920s. The old medium of money could not measure the information wealth generated by radio so money collapsed. Money then became public property while the software economy grew exponentially through television, computers, satellites, cable, and our present digital media.
Today, the hardware economy is programmed by the Fed Interest Rate. The software economy is programmed by the Nielsen Ratings. This simplified dialectic is how we begin to get a handle on the chaos that is unleashed by the present digital merger of all media and economies into an increasingly shrinking, seamless web that I call the Android Meme of paramedia.
Joan: Can you tell me what you mean by the Solar Government? What exactly is this entity?
BOB: My phrase, “solar government” refers to the management environment that superseded the “world government.” The world government saw its forms in the earlier League of Nations (see George Orwell’s 1984 [1949]) and the subsequent United Nations (see Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World [1932]). Today, it is in the form of the interplay of the World Bank, IMF, Bank for International Settlements, and NATO. The world government is still largely bureaucratic and merely reactive (see Wyndham Lewis’s The Human Age [1955] or William Gibson’s Neuromancer [1984]).
After World War Two, the solar government was initially formed to prepare for humanity’s exploration of our solar system. The Nazis had worked with this vision so both the United States and the Soviet Union secretly acquired Nazi rocket scientists to get ahead in this Space Race. Meanwhile, with the development of high frequency radio, microwave, computer, and satellite monitoring networks after Sputnik in 1957, a new form of control – not an economic bureaucracy – was felt to be necessary to manage the effects of the new synergistic information environments, as well as those of unforeseen new inventions. Not so much in the realm of military hardware – that was overseen by the global coordination of national intelligence agencies – but in the rapidly evolving areas of pharmacology, genetics, advertising, and energy utilities.
The solar government was not reactive but anticipatory – more along the lines of what McLuhan would call a “media ecology” orientation. The solar government was a response to both a wider and tinier vision of “inner” and “outer” space than had been the provinces for the world government. The solar government haggled in the style of what we would term today the “entrepreneurial” and the “startup.”
Nowadays, people acquire an inkling of the solar government with their knowledge of ECHELON which began with a site in North Yorkshire, England, at Menwith Hill in 1952. The movie, Enemy of the State (1998), hints at the solar government but a useful way to conceive it is to realize how deeply minuscule the “global village” was in the Fifties, Sixties, and Seventies and that your historical adversaries lived in the same room as you did. All you could do was dance on each other’s toes. And who was that “you”? The Jesuits, Freemasons, Bolsheviks, Nazis, a few scientists, and some fondi. And the location of that room? Your television set. This space, where the word is the market, was smaller than a quark and bigger than a trillion galaxies (see James Joyce’s Finnegans Wake [1939]). In short, the solar government strolled through the ‘hood while billions flew.
Joan: Bob, just to clarify the term “solar” – does it refer to the sun, or to simply a view of the earth from a satellite location, the first satellite phase being Sputnik in 1957?
BOB: I mean the view of the earth from a satellite position. But that’s just the eye’s biased take on the multi-sensory complex of the solar government. The telecommunications environment that the solar government exploits is a single invisible membrane that became more seamless as the decades since 1950 unfolded. The sun never sets under these conditions. As the Adam Steiffel character says in the film, The Formula (1980): “All it takes is a ten cent phone call.”
Joan: As a senator in 1957, Lyndon Johnson said “the position of total control over the earth … lies somewhere in outer space.” From your point of view, what did he mean by this?
BOB: It’s the typical case of enthusiasm for, and seduction by, a new communications medium. In his instance, the new satellite technology was naturally seen as a further extension of our powers. However, the actual powers unleashed by a new medium are never foreseen. And Johnson wasn’t prepared for them when he became President. The traditional powers of that institution were steadily eroded throughout the Sixties by the social turbulence evoked by the satellite medium. The satellite environment actually made the White House, not “outer space,” the site of total control over the earth. But no President since Johnson has been able to successfully harness it. They all got creamed by those pressures. McLuhan referred to this paradoxical process with the phrase, “the Word makes the Market.” Here’s a quotation from McLuhan on the President’s, or Central Scrutinizer’s, predicament: “The future of government lies in the area of psychic ecology and can no longer be considered on a merely national or international basis.” (Take Today: The Executive as Dropout, 1972, p.227)
Joan: So, basically Sputnik I was a 184 pound radio floating in space and Sputnik II (Muttnik) was a 1,120 pound radio with a dog, which blew up in outer space. How did these artifacts floating in space affect us so profoundly?
BOB: One or two satellites don’t make an influential or massaging environment, but by the early Sixties the increasing number of satellites started to influence the images the older media (including humans) had of their social functions. Everyone began to feel nobody was listening to them so everyone turned the volume up. LOUD!! became the preferred mode for blocking and merging in all areas of global politics and culture. To cite one sample effect, the economy flipped into “stagflation” in the Seventies because we couldn’t absorb the implications of the new wealth created by the satellite milieu.
Joan: Do you think NASA went on to fake the Apollo moon landings in order to save face as the #1 superpower?
BOB: No. I have it on good sources we intentionally left an artifact or two on the moon. They’re waiting for our return. However, NASA’s image itself was obsolesced and marginalized by the new instant-replay technology of the early Seventies. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg were later drafted to perform artificial respiration on the “outer space” project, and Hollywood’s art-film pretensions of the Seventies were quickly dropped. This is another example of how a new medium changes the satisfactions for the audiences of an older medium. Hollywood had to go hyper-kinetic.
Joan: So the solar government represents a new type of control that’s beyond economics and which anticipates future technologies rather than reacting to them? So does it then prime us for the future using television and post-television environments, ie., the internet?
BOB: No, the solar government is rooted in the past – preserves the meme of Gutenbergian individualism and ownership. The complementary effect of this old meme has been the “charmed circle,” i.e., government by committee – in our case, the Secret Council of Ten. It watched – and it could only watch – as new technological environments were created, with the primary concern that a new environment would make the Gutenbergian meme no longer viable. So far the solar government has kept afloat. How the meme survives is the secret of the solar government’s tetrad management.
Joan: The Gutenbergian meme being the print meme? So the print meme is at war with the oral/aural meme of the tribal new age?
BOB: You’ve almost got it. The print meme programs the hardware economy but it’s controlled by the Fed Interest Rate or ”the Word that Makes the Market” – the oral/aural/tribal meme. However, the software economy is completely different. Its super-audience, like the super-enterprise, works for itself. It’s not tribal. It’s fractal and customized for subsets. It’s semi-controlled by the Nielsen Ratings – the obsequious upgrading of Big Brother. This is the participatory nature of the tactile meme which supersedes the print and oral memes who consequently panic. The result is a situation where one-half keeps the other half under constant surveillance. Our Chemical Bodies take turns on one side or the other. You’re either employed or unemployed, watching or being watched. Both need each other in a complementary catch-22. YouTube is escalating the chaos factor in this gridlocked paramedia ecology.
Joan: In your website materials you talk about our five bodies. What are those bodies and how did they arise?
BOB: Our communication environments from the printing press on were layered over and through our older linguistic environments. Humans were inevitably servomechanisms of those massive landscapes. The satellite technology, both an interior and external landscape, was the last of that kind. As digital communication environments developed, they gradually shrunk those massive techno-environments and inaugurated a new kind of autonomy for our Chemical Body in relation to the previous scapes. Now, radio-, TV-, newspaper-, bookscapes are inside your personal mobile – tiny and invisible. These older media become after-images (or memes) as well as huge bureaucracies to preserve the wealth they’d created. They don’t go away – just as ye olde speech never disappeared. They are as real and insistent as our own bodies. They must be fed and housed. However, what once were large corporate vestments now are small enough to be considered as organs, like lungs, that are new additions to our archetypal Chemical Body and Astral Body.
The Chemical Body is what most people consider to be their “physical body.” The dominant model for this is the product of Western science since the telegraph. The Astral Body is what pervades all cultures – the belief there is more to our makeup than the Chemical Body. It is a huge storehouse of religious and spiritual energy. The third organ is the TV Body – the repository of historical one-way broadcasting. The fourth is the Chip Body – the mutating warehouse of digital omni-directional media. The fifth is the Mystery Body – what we’re still excavating and whose lineaments we cannot fully assess yet, if ever. We now know it’s made up of the previous four bodies but we don’t know what more we will discover about its constituents, affects, and effects.
The Android Meme is the resultant of the interplay, violent and ecstatic, of the first four bodies. I claim this five-body paradigm is a lot more useful or comprehensive when applied to our post-9/11 scene than Samuel Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” probe.
Joan: So we operate within these media landscapes to the point where we no longer have “first nature” bodies?
BOB: In the past 20 years the “media landscapes” have transformed into additional miniaturized bodies attached to our original body, like barnacles. The original body was made by “first nature.” Our descriptions of that “first nature” constitute our human-made “second nature.” Some claim to be getting past our “second-nature” descriptions of “first nature” and are subsequently witnessing “first nature.” Others accept the organisms created by our “second-nature” descriptions and consider them to be improvements on our “first nature.” I say we don’t yet completely know what “first nature” is, so I wouldn’t say we no longer have “first-nature” bodies. But our Chemical Body (the dominant “second-nature” description of our “first-nature” body) is presently subsumed by the TV and Chip Bodies – our invisible barnacles.
Joan: Didn’t McLuhan say our technologies are extensions of our first nature body?
BOB: McLuhan said our technologies are NATURE, not only that they’re extensions of our senses and faculties. He didn’t use the term “first nature” as far as I know. His son, Eric, does, though.
Joan: So was he doing “tetrad management” without realizing it?
BOB: McLuhan described the approach of the tetrad-managers but he wasn’t given the opportunity to be one.
Joan: So your intention was to stop McLuhan and instead you befriended him?
BOB: I eventually befriended, in the early Sixties, his style of teaching. Marshall McLuhan didn’t have friends, as he himself reportedly told a close neighbour, York Wilson.
Joan: In effect you rebelled against your own handlers then?
BOB: Yes, but with tremendous caution. It was a 30-year extrication. McLuhan understood how I could get away with it. He didn’t fully admit to me he knew I had this problem but I believe he did privately suspect it.
Joan: In Robert Guffey’s article, “Synchronistic Linguistics in The Matrix” you say the tetrad managers at the National Security Agency manage the global theatre through synchronistic linguistics, and your effect is to mirror that. So once you say that, we all start to notice this happening. And what then? Finnegans Awake! How did James Joyce anticipate this media effect where we would merge with our technologies?
BOB: The tetrad-managers at the NSA used to manage the global theatre of the hardware economy through the oral meme or what Guffey and Randy Koppang call “synchronistic linguistics.” I prefer to call it the “cloning of ESP.” Today it’s run on abuse value, not traditional use or exchange values. So it’s open and vulnerable to any ambitious, hijacking playmates of cities, nations, or planets. The pentad-managers – digital technology come alive – manage the Android Meme. They are inside us in the most intimate tactile sense. They allow us to think we are in control where self-entertainment is the new yoga. They allow us to have a voluntary relationship with the old cloned-ESP environment. Humanity has never been so EXCITED, although we cover it up with a colossal patina of ersatz boredom. (Look at the recent publicity headshot of Matt Groening.) James Joyce learned the tetrad version from Wyndham Lewis. My procedure is to mirror and echo both tetrad- and pentad-managers. My effect is “xenochrony,” or strange synchronicity, where shows like Twin Peaks, the Matrix, SpongeBob, and the film Man of the Year rehearse my life’s minutiae.
Joan: You mean the film starring Robin Williams as President Tom Dobbs? How did this film mirror your life?
BOB: Yes. In short, the xenochrony goes like this: when I won the election for chairperson of the Secret Council of Ten in February’88, I was able to use the discarnate condition of my radio show at CKLN in Toronto to distort the Council’s closed-circuit computers and beat the other 3 candidates. In the movie, Tom Dobbs wins not only by distorted electronic voting, but the virus was in the code of BB (=22), GG (=14), and LL (=8). Those are the numbers on my charts. And those charts (done in 1995) point to my Presidential status in 2012.

“The Android Meme allows you to speak back to it and to edit it.”

Joan: You say digital technology has come to life. Is this the Android Meme you speak of? Is this what Finnegans Wake refers to?
BOB: Yes, the Android Meme is the digital phase of our 20th Century technology. The Android Meme allows you to speak back to it and to edit it. Like the medium of speech, it’s interactive, tactile, and subsequently for the perception of humans, it’s organic. It seems to be alive – in the sense of extremely relevant to and involving our lives. And it is!! Finnegans Wake understands this feature of electric media.
Joan: How would you describe an invention like YouTube, which feeds us nostalgic images as well as DIY clips of “a few of our favorite things.” Would this be a post-television environment?
BOB: If you mean by the television environment one-way mass broadcasting, that was marginalized in the Nineties at the latest. It has survived as a meme of conservation and protection of the values of community created when TV was an environment in the Fifties, Sixties, and Seventies. FOX-TV was the best in meeting the needs for this role over the last decade. Meanwhile, the two-way digital environments became the medium for providing the antidote to TV’s new role. It forged new adventures in new software landscapes. More and more, the Internet user had become the fragmenting Goliath to TV’s centralizing David. But YouTube kills the digital, interactive Internet with its new effects because it turns Goliath into Prometheus, as I show on my charts.
YouTube allows everyone to ignore every other broadcaster and narrowcaster. It’s symptomatic of our post-connecting environment which the present Bush unilateralist image had been so resonant with. But when the full effects of YouTube finally snuck up on the President himself, a Democratic Congress materialized. It’s the American YouTube solipsist ignoring the ignorer. FOX-TV is now diluted too. Dilution and chaos is the fate of the Democratic Congress also, because it is merely Hollywood’s attempt to shore up the entertainment-military complex which rides on the meme of connecting.
Joan: So the solar government anticipated advertising media as a form of control? And by this you mean advertising in the sense of McLuhan’s idea that all media (including scientific media) advertises itself and that ‘advertising advertises advertising’?
BOB: Yes, in the sense that advertising is the handicraft version of tetrad-management. But the solar government didn’t advertise itself per se. It sat on the sidelines letting advertising preserve the Gutenbergian meme, among other memes.
Joan: McLuhan also said, “The hullabaloo Madison Avenue creates couldn’t condition a mouse.” So was this his way of saying we had moved beyond being driven by economics as ground and into science and technology for itself? So economics was no longer the ground or background, but the technology itself became the ground? Can you explain what you mean by this?
BOB: The effects of the technology that science produced became the ground. Conditioning in the sense of stimulus-response was anemic but the new global-theater conditioning (and the later digital-conditioning even more so) conditioned people to feel they were beyond being conditioned. Economics itself was subject to the effects of the new digital technology. The meme of “shareholder value,” “supply-side economics,” “privatization,” “free trade,” and “corporate raider” reigned supreme.

“McLuhan accepted new technology in the sense that he knows it IS US.”

Joan: Was McLuhan comfortable with technology or did he have concerns?
BOB: McLuhan accepted technology in the sense that he knows it is us. He understood that mechanical, pre-electric technology appeared to humans to be inorganic, alienating and mechanical. The 20th Century had been a period of shock and adjustment to the electric fact that technology is, and has always been, an integral part of our sense life. But McLuhan didn’t accept the unconscious use of our senses. He advocated a new yoga, personal and collective, for encountering our shape-shifting selves.
Joan: In what terms did McLuhan describe the approach of the tetrad-managers?
BOB: McLuhan summed up their approach with the phrase “the medium is the message.” He understood that the tetrad-managers did not identify with the content of the media. They said “give the public what it wants.” They knew that the form of the media was seductive enough for social stability. The Big Brothers, McLuhan said, went inside the sex-death-technology complex and encouraged access to the obsolete (from their vantage point) external social spaces.
Joan: Why is it important to preserve the Gutenbergian print meme?
BOB: McLuhan believed that we should use all our senses and their mutations. The 20th Century has been an era of the extension of the kinetic sense (movies and autos), the proprioceptive sense (computers), and the acoustic sense (radio), but primarily the tactile sense (telephone, television, and telecommunications – the interplay of all analog media inside the satellite environment). Since print technology is limited to an enhancement of the abstracted variation of our visual sense, it is anemic under present conditions. Print media have responded to these pressures and improvised accordingly. But McLuhan stressed that only James Joyce’s Finnegans Wake anticipated the fate of the print medium and provided the antidote to the annihilation of the Gutenbergian eye. The slogan “Finnegans Wake!!” demands that for society to be truly holistic, give the abstracted eye a chance. But our natural somnambulistic response is to create a garbage apocalypse of print and gated communities. And relying on the digital absorption of print does not satisfy the habits created by the old Gutenbergian environment.
Joan: So you mean we should ‘get tribal’? Or get more poetic /aural and less linear /alphabetic? But doesn’t that describe young people today who are less inclined to read and more inclined to watch videos or create their own videos via YouTube? Is “illiteracy” is a problem? Is reading the only way to learn?
BOB: No, I’m not suggesting we “get tribal.” That’s a fait accompli. The 20th Century was more tribal, more poetic/aural than linear/alphabetic in its politics, culture and entertainment in the first 70 years, but in its last 30 years a patina of fragmented individualism has marginalized the tribal ethos. This is known variously as neo-conservatism, privatization, gentrification, etc. But McLuhan’s sensory categories do not apply to this latter period. There’s a lingering of the proprioceptive and tactile media but I would suggest the main constitutive thrust is towards willful and celebratory distortion of any holistic ESP that leaks in. We don’t have a category for this new post-five-senses experience. Literacy and learning in themselves aren’t relevant for navigation, personally or nationally. We call this post-literate void a “dumbing down” but that is a classic case of rearview-mirror diagnosis.
Like Kafka’s Metamorphosis, when the whole population actually transforms into cats and dogs, it’s frightening – not a mere matter of IQ. You’ve got to be very cool. So far we’ve been oscillating between panic cool and panic boredom. Comprehensive relief is a miracle but not impossible. I claim to have the keys to that whirling room.
Joan: Bob, if George Clooney is the sexiest man alive and Gilbert Godfried is the unsexiest man alive, what man are you?  Or at least what’s your “cover story” for 2007?
BOB: I’m the only man alive since I’m the only one who knows what’s going on. And it’s not because “somebody’s gotta do it.”
Joan: In an interview published in Understanding Me, McLuhan says, “the only alternative is to understand everything that’s going on, and then neutralize it as much as possible, turn off as many buttons as you can and frustrate them as much as you can. I am resolutely opposed to all innovation, all change, but I am determined to understand what’s happening because I don’t choose just to sit and let the juggernaut roll over me.” So then McLuhan wasn’t as comfortable with technology as some think he was. He is even sometimes assumed to be saying quite the opposite. So he’s exhibiting a little, shall we call it paranoia, here? Who or what is the juggernaut?

“You mean my whole fallacy is wrong.” – Marshall McLuhan

BOB: One can’t judge McLuhan by any particular statements he makes. One will easily find apparently contradictory statements in other communiques performed by him. McLuhan means it when he says he doesn’t have a point of view. McLuhan mimed a process of awareness, as I write in my published essay on McLuhan: http://fivebodied.com/project/content/view/30/98/1/2
This is why an anticipated cursory inspection of McLuhan’s books produced the intended effect that they were rampant with confusion – an early and persistent complaint by his critics, which proved the success of the technique (“You mean, my whole fallacy is wrong.” – McLuhan’s statement in the Woody Allen movie, Annie Hall).
One minute McLuhan seemed to be a utopian, the next a neo-Luddite, then a Gnostic, still later an agent of the Vatican, or a Zen Buddhist, then a technological determinist, pseudo-scientist, Manhattan Project romantic, and on and on and back and forth. But the classifiers couldn’t see the method in the actor’s performance – the miming of the fate that the Pollstergeist needed “a rapid succession of innovations as ersatz anti-environments” (p.31 of COUNTERBLAST) to disguise the fact it had long disappeared. His satiric retrieval of the mini-module of acoustic and tactile mirrors via the constituency of the homeopathic print mirror, in the genre of a “memory theatre,” reflected the contemporary Medusan after-image of collective technological quadrophrenia, and its complementary human echo.
Be that as it may, McLuhan accepted new technology as inevitable but he didn’t recommend accepting its hypnosis and our consequent numbness that encouraged us to destroy the best achievements of the past.
McLuhan was not paranoid. He worked to create formulas for decreasing paranoia between both cultures and individuals. These formulas provided the means to enter any culture or medium in order to enjoy and exploit their biased dynamics. See the last two sentences on p.120 of The Medium Is The Massage.
Twelve years ago, an entity claiming to be the spirit of McLuhan speaking through the Evergreens told me that we were witnessing the end of paranoia. I interpret “McLuhan’s” projection as the understanding of the effect of an experience that is being provided by the great seduction known as the Android Meme.
Joan: In an interview with Norman Mailer (caught at the end of a short film, Linear Tactility (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfZadF-rwXA&mode=related&search=) Marshall McLuhan says “every age creates as a utopian image a nostalgic rearview mirror of itself, which puts it out of touch with the present.” Mailer tries to argue that nature still exists as a protagonist, but McLuhan sees it as only a rearview image. Bob, what have we done with nature?

“The Earth is now an old “booster-stage”… a quaint form of Camp … a sort of archaeological museum affording immediate access to all past cultures simultaneously on a classified-information basis.” – Marshall McLuhan

BOB: Scroll halfway down to “McLuhan Vid” for the McLuhan vs. Mailer http://molyart.blogsource.com/?page=3  Here is McLuhan’s explanation from his monthly DEW-LINE Newsletter #5 (November, 1968) for corporate executives and other “intelligence” agencies:
“From the first moment of the satellite (October 4, 1957), the Earth ceased to be the human “environment.” Satellites automatically enclose the old “Darwinian” nature environment by putting the planet inside a man-made environment. They are just as much an extension of the planet as is clothing an extension of the skin. Satellites are equivalent to enclosing the Earth in a Bucky Fuller “dome” of acoustic space. The consequent process of archetypalisation of Nature ensures that the Earth is now an old “booster-stage”… a quaint form of Camp … a sort of archaeological museum affording immediate access to all past cultures simultaneously on a classified-information basis.
THE SATELLITE DECIDES FOR US THAT OUR FUTURE RELATION TO THE PLANET IS ONE OF “PROGRAM.”
The satellite is also the shift from the planet as a homogeneous continuum, or visual space, to the planet as a “chemical bond” or mosaic of resonating components. Thus, the Earth has become a “national” or tribal park. It is already a teaching machine, a universal playground for advertisers and teenagers.”
Joan: In your essay “Up the Orphic Anti,” you say the satellite environment ushered in the phase of the “holeopathic cliché-probe” from 1960 to 1990. Your term “holeopathic” combines the processes of homeopathy and the hologram. Can you tell me more about this process and this phase?
BOB: I concur with McLuhan’s description above of the effects of the satellite medium. However, that was then, and I consider the satellite the end of the analogue phase of electronic media. I’ve attempted to update McLuhan by enunciating the effects of the post-satellite phase of digital technology – what I call the era of “voluntary ESP” (ESP being defined as multi-sensuous, mental dance).
Because the interplay of the resonating components of the satellited (sic) analogue environment created essentially a global hologram effect (the era of “cloned ESP”) in the Sixties, I see the later digital effect as shrinking, compressing, layering, and fragmenting (as in any page of James Joyce’s FINNEGANS WAKE) this hologram during the Seventies, Eighties, and Nineties. This massage gradually gave humans a sense of ironic transcendence or disconnection from the massive media environments of the analogue phase – relating to them on a merely voluntary basis while increasingly able to create their own media pod.
This does not mean we are returning to Nature or the Chemical Body since we are still pervaded by the holeopathic TV and Chip Bodies. We remain “all one” via the TV Body, i.e., via one-quarter of ourselves, while we celebrate our multiple separatenesses via the Chip Body, the second one-quarter of ourselves. Up until now, there have been no adequate psychological, social, ethical, political, aesthetic, or economic guidelines for such an unprecedented acultural (sic) experience. For background on these points, see my essay, UP THE ORPHIC ANTI, at: http://fivebodied.com/project/content/view/25/98
Joan: McLuhan’s oppositions, like the eye and the ear, the verbal and the visual, the hot and the cool, the horizontal and the vertical, East and West, have an occult aspect. His ideas of retrieval and reversal, sensory participation, the idea that “you are the screen,” are analogous to occult principles. According to Don Theall in The Virtual Marshall McLuhan, McLuhan felt that technology is a “civilized substitute for magic.” (Theall, 122). What are your feelings on this? Do you agree that McLuhan, as a Catholic humanist, was pointing out the hermetic, Gnostic facets of media, and our interplay with it, as essentially magical?

“I can only regard the movie as the mechanization and distortion of this cognitive miracle by which we recreate within ourselves the exterior world.” – Marshall McLuhan

BOB: This is a question of the utmost relevance for understanding McLuhan’s use of the concept “magical.” The notion that technology is a “civilized substitute for magic” has its origins in Wyndham Lewis’ statement that “art is the civilized SUBSTITUTE for magic; as philosophy is what, on a higher or more complex plane, takes the place of religion” (see p.188 of the Black Sparrow Press reprint [1993] of Lewis’ Time and Western Man, 1927). To see how the young McLuhan, in his mid-twenties, was immensely influenced by Lewis, let’s take a key quotation that McLuhan would have contemplated in 1935-1936 when he was at Cambridge:
“When Kant is showing that the substantival principle can be educed from time, but that space is not only indispensable, but capital, for its generation, he says, ‘In order to supply something PERMANENT IN PERCEPTION, which corresponds to the conception of substance, we need a perception (of matter) in space; for space alone is determined as permanent, while time and all that is in inner sense is in constant flux.’ The objects of our perception, with their mystifying independence and air of self-sufficiency (around which strange and arresting characteristics have gathered all the problems of cause and effect, ground and consequent), are far more uncanny than the unity we experience in our subjective experience. These strange THINGS, that stand out against a background of mystery, with their air of being ETERNAL, and which really appear to be ’caused’ by nothing that we can hold and fix, and from which we can see them being actually produced, are far stranger than we are, or more brutally and startlingly strange.
If architecture is ‘frozen music’ – as it has been rather disgustingly called – what are we to say of these trees and hills and houses? They, at all events, seem far nobler and severer than our minds, or our ‘inner sense,’ which, in the words of the foregoing quotation, is always in ‘a constant flux.’ But these ‘objects’ are the finished product of our perceptive faculty, they are the result, as we are accustomed to explain it, of the organizing activity of our minds. When we say we SEE them, in reality what we perceive is not the direct datum of sensation, but an elaborate and sophisticated entity, or ‘object.’ We do even in that sense ‘create’ them more than ‘see’ them.” (Wyndham Lewis, Time and Western Man, 1927, p. 350.)
Now here’s what McLuhan thinks and writes almost 30 years later in his essay, “Catholic Humanism and Modern Letters” [1954], reprinted in The Medium and the Light, edited by Eric McLuhan and Jacek Szklarek, 1999:
“.. the dream of ordinary perception seen as the poetic process is the prime analogue, the magic casement opening on the secrets of created being.” – p.158
“In ordinary perception men perform the miracle of recreating within themselves – in their interior faculties – the exterior world. This miracle is the work of the NOUS POIETIKOS or of the agent intellect – that is, the poetic or creative process. The exterior world in every instant of perception is interiorized and recreated in a new matter. Ourselves. And in this creative work that is perception and cognition, we experience immediately that dance of Being within our faculties which provides the incessant intuition of Being. I can only regard the movie as the mechanization and distortion of this cognitive miracle by which we recreate within ourselves the exterior world. But whereas cognition provides that dance of the intellect which is the analogical sense of Being, the mechanical medium has tended to provide merely a dream world which is a substitute for reality rather than a means of proving reality.” (p.165)

“the advertisers have discovered that the new media of communication are themselves magical art forms.” -Marshall McLuhan

Did you notice how McLuhan takes the “magical” features of our natural and ordinary drama of perception and cognition and projects them into the forms of our communication technology? Three more samples from the same essay:
“And as we trace the rise of successive communication channels or links, from writing to movies and TV, it is borne in on us that in order for their exterior artifice to be effective it must partake of the character of that interior artifice by which in ordinary perception we incarnate the exterior world. Because human perception is literally incarnation. So that each of us must POET the world or fashion it within us as our primary and constant mode of awareness. And the mechanical or mass media of communication must at least parrot the world in order to hold our attention.” (p.169)
“What the advertisers have discovered is simply that the new media of communication are themselves magical art forms. All art is in a sense magical in that it produces a change or metamorphosis in the spectator. It refashions his experience. In our slap-happy way we have released a great deal of this magic on ourselves today. We have been changing ourselves about at a great rate like Alley Oop. Some of us have been left hanging by our ears from the chandeliers.” (p.164)
“And the more extensive the mass medium the closer it must approximate to our cognitive faculties.” (p.161)
And one more from another essay of that period:
“By pretending that the new magic can be contained in the entertainment sphere we assume the old form-content split which is based on the doctrine that the form of communication is neutral. Even Hitler and Goebbels, fortunately, shared this illusion with the Western world. At present we appear to be living BY an illusion but WITH magical media. Of course this may prove to be an enduring formula.” (“Notes on the Media as Art Forms,” Explorations: Studies in Culture and Communication, Vol.2, April, 1954, pp.12-13)
Having established how McLuhan uses the term “magical,” let’s see how he regards the Gnostic or esoteric mode of the magical. In a letter to his colleague at the University of Toronto, Harold Innis, written on March 14, 1951, McLuhan writes:
“Dear Innis:
Thanks for the lecture re-print. This makes an opportunity for me to mention my interest in the work you are doing in communication study in general. I think there are lines appearing in Empire and Communications [1950], for example, which suggest the possibility of organizing an entire school of studies. Many of the ancient language theories of the Logos type which you cite in Empire and Communications for their bearings on government and society have recurred and amalgamated themselves today under the auspices of anthropology and social psychology. Working concepts of ‘collective consciousness’ in advertising agencies have in turn given salience and practical effectiveness to these ‘magical’ notions of language. But it was most of all the esthetic discoveries of the symbolists since Rimbaud and Mallarme (developed in English by Joyce, Eliot, Pound, Lewis and Yeats) which have served to recreate in contemporary consciousness an awareness of the POTENCIES of language such as the Western world has not experienced in 1800 years.” (Letters of Marshall McLuhan, 1987, p.220)

“Existence is not so much an historical trap in time as a wilderness of horrors multiplied by mirrors. Existence creates itself by an endless chain of suggestions richocheting off each other…” – Marshall McLuhan

Again from the same time in McLuhan’s thinking, the following quotation illustrates how McLuhan grabs the bull by the horns:
“Professor Mansell Jones in his Modern French Poetry (pp.30-31) takes up this theme with reference to two kinds of symbolism which he refers to as vertical and horizontal. Vertical symbolism is of the dualistic variety, setting the sign or the work of art as a link between two worlds, between Heaven and Hell. It is concerned with the world as Time process, as becoming, and with the means of escape from Time into eternity by means of art and beauty. Vertical symbolism asserts the individual will against the hoi polloi. It is aristocratic. Yeats is the perfect exemplar.
Horizontal symbolism, on the other hand, sets the work of art and the symbol a collective task of communication, rather than the vertical task of elevating the choice human spirit above the infernal depths of material existence. In idealist terms, the vertical school claims cognitive status for its symbols, because the conceptual meanings attached to art are in this view a means of raising the mind of man to union with the higher world from which we have been exiled. Whereas, on the other hand, the horizontal, or space school, appeals to intuition, emotion and collective participation in states of mind as a basis for communication and of transformation of the self. The vertical school seeks to elevate the self above mere existence. The horizontal symbolists seek to transform the self, and ultimately to merge or annihilate it.
Mr. Eliot’s position is by no means simple or consistent within itself, but as between the vertical and horizontal camps, his poetic allegiance is markedly horizontal or spatial.
To Catholics, (for all of whom pre-existence is nonsense), the anguish generated over the problems of Time and Space and the self may well be baffling. However, if you are frantically concerned with seeking an exit from a trap, it is of the utmost urgency to understand the mechanism of the trap that holds you. Are you a prisoner of time? (‘History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake,’ says the young esthete Stephen Dedalus.) If so, there are specific dialectical resources which can conduct an elite few to the escape hatch. Are you a prisoner of space? Are you a mechanical puppet manipulated by a thread held in remote, invisible hands? If so, you can learn the techniques of Yoga or Zen Buddhism or some related mode of illumination which will show you the WAY. To learn how to make perfect your will, you need to negate your own personality and to learn that detachment from self and from things and from persons which reveals the totally illusory character of self, things, and persons. Existence is not so much an historical trap in time as a wilderness of horrors multiplied by mirrors. Existence creates itself by an endless chain of suggestions richocheting off each other, just as a symbolist poem of the Eliot kind generates its meanings by spatial juxtaposition. A Catholic poet like Paul Claudel, of course, is not bound by these dichotomies of space and time, the vertical and horizontal. But all he has written is strongly marked with his keen awareness of the space-time controversies in art, politics and religion. (To the European, the comparative American ignorance of these doctrines as elaborated in art, is precisely what constitutes American innocence.) Thus in his section ‘On Time’ in Poetic Knowledge, Claudel takes up the space position, then appropriates the time ammunition as well:  …
Claudel’s thought and poetry obviously move freely in both time and space. As a symbolist he avails himself to the utmost degree of the spatial techniques of inner and outer landscape for fixing particular states of mind. This procedure makes available to him all the magical resources invoked by the Romantics for using particular emotions as immediate windows onto Being, as techniques of connatural union with reality. But he values equally the resources of dialectic and continuous discourse. He can therefore be both Senecan or symbolist, and temporal. That would seem to be an inevitable program for any Catholic for whom Time and Space are not sectarian problems. Today many thoughtful people are torn between the claims of time and space, and speak even of The Crucifixion of Intellectual Man as he is mentally torn in these opposite directions. As the dispute quickens, the Catholic is more and more reminded of the inexhaustible wisdom and mercy of the Cross at every intersection instant of space and time. These moments of intersection became for Father Hopkins (and also for James Joyce) epiphanies.  …
It is not the purpose of this paper to explain the complex falsehoods of the time and space schools of aesthetics, religion and politics. For a Catholic it is easy to admire and use much from each position. But by and large the vertical camp is rationalist and the horizontal camp magical in its theory of art and communication.” (Marshall McLuhan, “Eliot and the Manichean Myth as Poetry,” Address to Spring symposium of the Catholic Renascence Society, April 19, 1954, The McLuhan Papers, Vol. 130, File 29, Manuscript Division, National Archives of Canada, Ottawa.)
Similar themes are spelled out in an unpublished book review he wrote during the same period in the early Fifties:
“THE HEART OF DARKNESS
Melville’s Quarrel With God by Lawrence Thompson, Princeton University Press, 1952. $6.00  The theme of this book is briefly stated (p. 332) by the author:
“My suggestion is that Billy Budd should be viewed as Melville’s most subtle triumph in triple-talk; that it was designed to conceal and reveal much the same notions as are expressed years earlier in Moby Dick and Pierre and the Confidence-Man: that Melville came to the end of his life still harping on the notion that the world was put together wrong and that God was to blame and that only the self- profiting authoritarians pretend otherwise, in order to victimize the stupid . . . . his chronic anti-Christian pessimism did not abate during the forty- five years which elapsed between Confidence-Man and Billy Budd.”
Phrased that way, Melville’s case sounds typical enough.  Spelt out by Professor Thompson, however, this very typical attitude of our time is shown to have profound historic dimensions. Melville’s diabolism, like that of Byron, Blake, Milton, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, was directly linked to the old gnostic tradition of the Ophites and Parsees.  God and the devil are one.  But only the enlightened, the illuminate, know this.
For the populace another version of the facts is expedient.  Writing in Blackfriars of Karl Marx (July-August, 1952) Father Victor White provides a handy description of the myths of Marxist religion and counter-religion which corresponds exactly with the politics of the Marquis de Sade and with the views of Herman Melville – namely that conventional religion and secular humanism are a swindle to put a benign countenance on the devil-god of reality.  Through revolution and tribulation men can perhaps mend them hideous defects of the dualistic divine being.  Mankind can be the saviour of a helplessly malignant deity.  From this point of view, the greater the criminal, the greater his efficacy as saviour. The error of our age has been to regard its diabolical figures and politics as the fruit of impersonal causes and to disregard the historic continuity of devil-worship, with its perennial appeal to the ambitious intellects of every age.  Our situation enters its present phase with the eighteenth century ‘attack’ on belief in the personality of the devil.
As Father White points out, Marxism does not repudiate religion, but channels it against Christianity: “Marxism, in short, only denies God in the sense of setting on record that He is, in our society, in practice denied and ineffectual, and in the sense of echoing the Satanic assurance, ‘You shall be as God.’  Its power against contemporary Christianity lies in the fact that it has stolen Christ’s thunder… But just because it is the ape of God and His Christ, the Christian must see in Marxism a supreme embodiment of the Antichrist …”
A good portion of this book is concerned to show from Melville’s letters and journals, as well as from his stories and poems, his theory of communication as it is linked to his diabolism: “An uncommon prudence is habitual with the subtler depravity, for it has everything to hide.”
Melville appears in this book as a conventionally devout Calvinist who happened to get initiated into the esoteric meaning of Calvinism.  He got a youthful shock on learning that Calvinistic Christianity was a deliberate swindle, or a popular disguise for the ancient pagan cult of devil worship.  For the rest of his life this revelation tormented him.  He was torn between rage at the deceit that had been practiced on his youth and innocence, and exultation in a secret knowledge which gave him vast superiority over the majority of mankind.  The point is this, that, as with Milton and Byron, the secret initiation which Melville underwent performed a violent intellectual operation on a genuine core of grace in his soul.
Melville chose Carlyle as his intellectual twin and antagonist. Professor Thompson is very helpful in lining up the two main traditions of European Manicheanism as they have been nourished and transmitted by the secret societies.  Carlyle and Melville are major representatives of the twin currents.  Carlyle, Professor Thompson links to Goethe and Platonism; but Melville is linked via Byron and Milton to the great Eastern masters of the dark arts.  Carlyle represents the Platonic tradition which views man as a spirit fallen into a fallen world.  Here in the “Cave” we can by unremitting moral effort, by dialectic persistence and self-denial build within our hearts that divine pyramid or temple of Solomon which wil enable us to be free of subsequent incarnations.  In the Plato-Goethe-Carlyle axis we have the cult of “humanism” and moral moderation.  The Zoroaster-Melville axis, however, scorns moderation in favour of heroism.  It prefers the irrational leap of Empedocles to the classical croonings of Callicicles. The condition of men in this world is that of a Prometheus betrayed by a devil-god. Instead of a cautiously conducted retreat from the horrors of existence, it is preferable to rush on any course that promises physical and spiritual annihilation.
Melville’s works are mainly concerned with dramatizing this heroic attitude against the numerous variants of “moral cowardice and mediocrity” represented by Christianity, common sense and popular traditions.  Throughout, Professor Thompson presents us with a Melville who is primarily a diabolic priest and theologian.  He presents Melville as a major exponent of a great cult which has long existed in the world but never so powerfully as today.
Any reader who would wish to see Melville in the main tradition of the secret cults can consult such recent books as Kurt Seligmann, The Mirror of Magic; Stephen Runciman, The Mediaeval Manichee; Walton Hannah, Darkness Unveiled; A. E. Waite, History of Freemasonry, and also his work on the Grail cults.  Perhaps Seligmann is most helpful, although like Waite, he writes in double-talk and triple-talk.
Professor Thompson’s book raises a major question for the teacher of literature, poetry and the arts.  Since the arts are manifestly linked to the pagan rituals of “rebirth” as understood in the secret societies, what is to be the Christian and Catholic attitude to them? The Catholic Church severed its lines of communication with the secret societies in 1738.  Since that time, has there been any “Catholic” art except that produced by previously initiated converts? The arts from Homer to the present day indeed form an ideal order, as Mr. Eliot has said, because they have been representations of the spiritual quests of the pagan rebirth rituals.  ”Rebirth” in pagan ritual amounts to retracing the stages of descent of the soul in the hell of matter and chaos which is existence.  As such, the pagan rituals are in reality representations of the process of abstraction, of the stages of human apprehension.  From this point of view, may not the pagan rituals be valid as art and metaphysics in spite of their own assumptions, but impotent as religion?  James Joyce seems to have been the first to grasp all of these relationships.
Professor Thompson makes us fully aware of the traditional ritual symbolism of Melville’s ships questing over the sea.  He is aware of all the other tropes and types of the spiritual quest such as constitute the major art forms of mankind.  But in particular, he is aware of the links between Moby-Dick the white whale, and the albatross of The Ancient Mariner.  As Porphyry explains apropos of the blinding of the cyclops in Homer’s Odyssey, the cyclops is the type of man’s earth DAIMON.  To kill the whale or albatross is to blind the cyclops, to kill one’s earth DAIMON, to seek an immediate spiritual metamorphosis with all its violent consequences.
The novel as a form of ritual quest had its antecedents in the epic and the Romances.  But the Renaissance tale and novel carry on the tradition with all the sectarian differences and distinctions.  In his History of Freemasonry, A. E. Waite explains how the Gothic romances and science fiction of the later eighteenth century were a direct projection into “art” of the reviving hermetic rituals of that time. Such is presumably the origin of the detective story of the past century, with the sleuth in the role of magus.
Howe’s book Wilhelm Meister and His English Kinsmen is a guide to the nineteenth century novels which are directly tied to Goethe’s ritual, incantation novel.  Any reader of Wilhelm Meister will also see at once the true ritual character of Alice in Wonderland (a correlation underlined in Hannah’s Darkness Unveiled).  And in The Atlantic Monthly for January, 1953, Thomas Mann explicitly links the spiritual quests of his novels to the rituals of hermetic or “Eastern” and revolutionary wing of the secret societies.  That is the wing to which Melville belonged and which his novels explain in detail.  As Norbert Wiener has written of the atomic bomb that the only secret which could have been preserved about it was the possibility of splitting the atom, so with the invisible church of the Antichrist.  The only secret that hides it and which it hides, is that of its very existence.  The mere hint of its possible organized existence is sufficient to unveil it today, when the massive documentation provided not only by such books as Professor Thompson’s Melville and Fyre’s Blake, but the laborious testimony of the Romantic poets, is openly available.  The symbolists, the surrealists, and all the journalists of revolution point to the existence of this church. Its adherents have never hesitated to profess Christianity when pressure has made such a profession expedient.  The irony of such “profession” as it appeared in Melville is, in fact, the main theme of Professor Thompson’s book.
On every page of this book there appears the inevitable conclusion of a devil-god resulting from a univocal approach to existence and the problem of evil.  Unassisted by grace, the human mind seems to be radically incapable of any but a univocal approach to the problem of evil.  Such is the history of all secular society, high and low, ancient and modern.  Chaos and suffering can only proceed from a malignant god or else from a spririt god — one part of whom is malignant and one part benign.   This attitude presupposes the simple continuity of the Existence and the Divine.  Again, these univocal misconceptions seem to have brought into existence all the magical and expiatory rituals and arts of mankind.  And the art, archaeology and anthropology of the modern world have brought them all home to roost at once.
It is this which makes the modern Christian’s position so much harder that that of the early Christians and the Fathers. They knew about devil-worship and yet they were confronted with only that small segment of it which was active in their immediate time and neighborhood. Modern communication, written and mechanized enormously extends the range of pagan experience and practice past and present in which, willy-nilly, we participate today.  Moreover, the modern Christian is subjected to the pagan symbols and rituals in novels, poems, operas, radio plays and movies, in entire innocence of their efficacious and magical character.  Do we have a communication theory adequate to this situation?  Is innocence protection?
As Father White wrote concerning “Jung and the Supernatural” (Commonweal, March 14, 1952, p.561):  ”A living symbol does something to us; it moves us, shifts our center of awareness, changes our values.  Whether it is just looked at, or heard, acted out, painted out, written out, or danced out, it arouses not only thought, but delight, fear, awe, horror, perhaps a deeper insight.”  In other words, the symbols of our environment, commercial and artistic, are not just signs whose reference has to be understood for them to be efficacious.  That is Cartesian and Lockean theory of communication which never fitted the facts.  But Catholics today still hold to that theory of communication, and it hands them over bound and helpless to the consciously manipulated pagan rituals of art, literature and commerce.  The measure of our unawareness and irrelevance can be taken from the fact that no Thomist has so far seen fit to expound St. Thomas’s theory of communication by way of providing modern insight into our problems.”
So when I notice that McLuhan’s classic text, Understanding Media, has thirty-three chapters, I am prepared to allow that McLuhan is making a comment on the mediascape being organized along Machiavellian lines by means of a “freemasonry of the arts” (Lewis) – “arts” including the sense of art as TECHNE. As I am, also, when I contemplate the “cyclops” in the ad that serves as the cover for McLuhan’s update of The Mechanical Bride – Culture Is Our Business (1970).
But you can see that the way you phrase your question, in light of what McLuhan has written, a “yes” or “no” answer is inadequate. And this is as it should be when we are possessed by the super-magical Android Meme.
Joan: Yes, I was certainly asking for trouble there – and got it. Would you say then, that McLuhan’s four governing principles of media – enhancement, obsolescence, retrieval and reversal – are occult tools for us to understand and manipulate conflict and resolution of media environment?
BOB: Yes, with the proviso that, like the Catholic poet, Paul Claudel, who exploited both the Time and Space esoteric schools for his poetic effects, McLuhan “puts on” the contemporary magicians while embedding the Thomist doctrine of “analogical proportions” in his communiques. In this manner, he satisfies his own demand to have a Catholic “expound St. Thomas’s theory of communication.” And he does this by ransacking all the new developments in specialized knowledge fields for “providing modern insight into our problems.”
Joan: So if these are our tools for “tetrad management” of media/information flow, explain to me how you would work an enhancement, obsolescence, retrieval and reversal? Is it a way to manage cultural evolution? What can these concepts do for my understanding of my surround-sound?   Give me an example. I have considerable trouble with this concept. Once you learn how to do it, is it like driving a car?

“when you’re using or enhancing one Body, the other three are simultaneously in the relative positions or postures of obsolescence, retrieval, or reversal.” – Bob Dobbs

BOB: In McLuhan’s day tetrad-management was not offered for personal use to the citizen. It was the mode of management implemented out of necessity by the Solar Government in the second half of the 20th Century. The best introduction to and forecast of tetrad-management is Wyndham Lewis’ The Art of Being Ruled (1926). That book served to guide McLuhan and he never missed an opportunity to recommend it to the citizen looking to understand the motives and methods of political and cultural power in his time.
But we now live in a completely different landscape so I’ve adapted McLuhan’s tetrad and offer it to my contemporaries as a balm for understanding the interactions of our four Bodies. Broadly speaking, when you’re using or enhancing one Body, the other three are simultaneously in the relative positions or postures of obsolescence, retrieval, or reversal. For example, when the majority of your activity is clicking or thumbing a digital device (your Chip Body) then your Chemical Body is obsolesced and tends to rely on junk food; your Astral Body is retrieved as an obsessional anaesthetic via yoga mats, psychoactive drugs, personal sexual aesthetics, UFO abductions, etc.; and your TV Body flips from service into crisis – the so-called era of “in-your-face” and “dumbed down” infotainment.
When you shut off your digital effects, the Bodies shift their relations accordingly, depending on what you do next. Understanding these tetradic patterns and processes, I suggest, will enable you to surf the slings and arrows of outrageous wealth.
Joan: According to Theall’s The Virtual Marshall McLuhan, to McLuhan the electric light bulb represented the new world. He equated the light bulb to a Deity whose essence is its existence. Later he replaced the light bulb with electric circuitry and wrote that electricity is perhaps the hidden god, “whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere.” (Theall, 118). Theall explains that to McLuhan the electric world was a “plateau humanity has reached,” perhaps symbolizing “redemption through reintegration and transcendence.”   Do you agree that McLuhan’s basic message was panic apocalyptic?  How did his Catholicism play into this?
BOB: No, McLuhan satirized the apocalyptic “millennial ecstatics” (his phrase) of his time caused by electric circuitry. As much as possible he attempted to never, ever, become what he beheld. The electric light bulb was the device within the electric-circuitry environment that served as his emblem for the aphorism “the medium is the message,” because the bulb had no content – it was “pure” environment, complete transformation, pure “information.” The bulb’s content was the user as this medium permeated the previous biological and geological “matter.” It also represented, for McLuhan, the “inner light” (“whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere”) of the Gnostic tradition, which tradition, he knew, would flourish in the later decades of the 20th Century as the last gasp of the literate environment or meme.
Let me add, however, that all of the concerns evoked by your questions above apply to the McLuhan of the Fifties. They are sidelined by McLuhan’s preoccupations of the Sixties and Seventies. For him, secret societies and occult trends were, at best, merely benign in influence as the more complex Android Meme materialized.
Joan: McLuhan felt that new media are both “transforming and redeeming mankind by freeing him from the world of fragmented material existence.” (Theall, 119). So essentially electricity, with its ethereal quality, replaces the hardware orientation of print? So we’re in a software world that is more fleeting, but somehow more whole?   Can you explain that seeming contradiction?
BOB: McLuhan interpreted electricity as an extension of the tactile “sense” – tactility not actually being a particular, specialized sensory mode but the interplay itself of the sensory actions. So all the older media as extensions of our particular senses were fleeting while electrically-extended tactility integrated them as their constitutive form or medium. Imagine you are at the center of your “consciousness” and are responsible for keeping its sensory components functioning in harmony or in “whole.” The interior landscape you’re attempting to cohere (hopefully with success) is moving at the “speed of light” so you aren’t able to stop and linger with any one sense, let alone become a partisan for it. If you do, a car wreck will certainly occur on your internal information hi-way. These are the stakes when you’re in the vital fulcrum of your personal “culture and technology.” Likewise, the tetrad-managers of the Solar Government so attempted to surf and survive their panic-apocalyptic waves induced by the “timid giant” (a phrase used by McLuhan when referring to television) of tactility IN EXTREMIS.
Joan: McLuhan used the terms “angelism” and “robotism” in a Catholic humanist sense very early on.  What did he mean by these terms?
BOB: Try these definitions:
The term “robotism” therefore, as we use it, does not mean the mechanically rigid behavior of “Rossum’s Universal Robots,” as Karel Capek used the word in his 1938 play. Rather robotism in this context means the suppression of the conscious “observer-self,” or conscience, so as to remove all fear and circumspection, all encumbrances to ideal performance. Such a man, as Suzuki says, “becomes as the dead, who have passed beyond the necessity of taking thought about the proper course of action. The dead are no longer returning ON; they are free. Therefore to say ‘I will live as one already dead’ means a supreme release from conflict.” (Marshall McLuhan and Bruce Powers, The Global Village: Transformations in World Life and Media in the 21st Century, Oxford University Press, 1989, p.67)
Angelism on the other hand ensures a rigidity of point of view which is largely a consequence of linear and visual logic. It is best characterized as promoting confrontation and fragmentation, some of the chief elements in the illusion of objectivity. One emphasizes the eye over the ear. The function of robotism is the reverse. As Lowell Thomas used to say, “On the air, you’re everywhere….” The robotic man is capable of instant adjustment to any social situation without guilt; since he keeps his ear tuned to a collective, a moral identity which we call the audience. Like the attentive crowd, an audience is tuned ground. (Marshall McLuhan and Bruce Powers, The Global Village: Transformations in World Life and Media in the 21st Century, Oxford University Press, 1989, pp.69-70)
Joan: Okay, but what did McLuhan mean by “mechanical bride”?
BOB: “To the mind of the modern girl, legs, like busts, are power points which she has been taught to tailor, but as parts of the success kit rather than erotically or sensuously. She swings her legs from the hip with masculine drive and confidence. She knows that ‘a long-legged gal can go places.’ As such, her legs are not intimately associated with her taste or with her unique self but are merely display objects like the grill work on a car. They are date-baited power levers for the management of the male audience.” (Marshall McLuhan, The Mechanical Bride: Folklore of Industrial Man, 1951, p.98)
Joan: McLuhan insisted he was a satirist and a surrealist. So we’re not to take him completely seriously?
BOB: McLuhan once replied, when asked “if the world had not discovered your great thinking and writing, how would you go about creating a demand for it?” – “I’d put people on… putting people on means teasing them, challenging them, upsetting them, befuddling them; any comic puts on his audience by hurting them. The technique of putting people on IN MY CASE consists simply in pointing to things that they [the audience] have ignored, the things that concern them very nearly but have been pushed aside as insignificant…. A put on is a situation that I study a great deal.” (“Television is Cool and Radio is Hot,” Monday Conference, Australian Broadcasting Commission, June 27, 1977.)
Ten years before at the height of his fame, another television interview went this way:
“Question: Marshall McLuhan, you say that TV has turned the world into a global village, am I right? Will it turn us all into global village idiots?
McLuhan: Again, there are worse fates. An idiot means a very private person, that’s a Greek word meaning a very private person. I am losing my idiot status steadily. I am becoming less and less private. I’d much rather be an idiot.” (“Do You Like TV?,” Sunday, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, March 19, 1967)
McLuhan naturally would appear more “satirical” in a cool medium like TV because its intimate, conversational, talk-show format favored a casual approach. But get him in a classroom and you might think him humorless and grim. The medium, or situation, determined his style. That’s because he was strongly committed to, or SERIOUS about, his project of enhancing people’s perceptions and awareness of their surroundings. He once said the 20th Century seemed, to him, a vast apparatus constructed by Salvador Dali. He considered his art forms as extremely puny in comparison.
McLuhan wrote in the tradition of learned satire, often called Menippean or Varronian satire, a kind of serious literary medicine. Wyndham Lewis once wrote, “Laughter is again an anti-toxin of the first order.” (Men Without Art, 1934, p.93). His essays, “The Greatest Satire is Non-Moral” and “Is Satire Real?” (both in Men Without Art), were important introductions for McLuhan to the Menippean genre.
McLuhan liked to quote Dean Swift – “satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody’s face but their own.”
Is the following comment the words of a serious Surrealist?:
“I naturally feel flattered that Apollo 11 is scheduled to put a man on the moon on my birthday, July 21. Of course the reason for choosing July, the moon month, is derived from occult symbolism of Zodiac signs. The 12:12 a.m. touchdown will establish a new chemical bond of resonance with space-capsule moon. The reverberations will alter all earthly music and patterns for all time to come. The innovators and perpetrators, now as always, are innocent of any awareness of the consequences of their images.” (Marshall McLuhan, “Kahn-Frontation,” unpublished MS., 2-3)
Your last question about McLuhan, an important one, raises an issue that will be debated for many centuries to come. Thanks for asking it.




The Death of The Matrix, A Dialogue With Bob Dobbs by Robert Guffey

BOB DOBBS EXPLAINS FINNEGANS WAKE VIA  THE TEN THUNDERS

Bob & Connie Dobbs and Gerry Fialka in Costa Rica, January 26, 1992.

UP THE ORPHIC ANTI

Introduction by Gerry Fialka to Bob Dobbs' UP THE ORPHIC ANTI.

The following is the first in a series of articles written by Bob Dobbs  specifically for Flipside Magazine, which began publishing in 1977, continuing collective clairvoyance. Do not try too hard to comprehend the text. Though they may confuse you at times, let the percepts wash over you like a hot shower. Let's hope Bob is just whittling on his porch. As an intro, here's an excerpt from a dialogue between Tom Brennan and Bob Dobbs in August, 1995:

Tom: Did you devise Punk Rock as an antidote to what happened before everything disappeared in 1977?

Bob: Yes. I was the first person to perform the merging of the sports star and the culture star when I read some content poetry while doing push-ups on the stage at CBGB's in the spring of 1975. That action by me inaugurated the aesthetics of the Punk movement. You can see the photo of Jello Biafra of the Dead Kennedys on that very same stage in Time Magazine in 1977.

Tom: Hence, Punk took the cue to get athletic - Henry Rollins running and working out.

Bob: They were not really anti-Hippies. They were against the visual-tactile bias of the Hippies who sat still like Buddhists and bureaucrats. Punks wanted to leap about and enhance the kinetic-tactile tension.

Tom: Pogo up and down!

Bob: I was the initiator of Punk and the post-Yippie sensibility. That should tell you something.

 

"To read Virilio is to know  technology as a dark vampiric logic which,

much like the schizoid figure of Leland/Bob in David Lynch's Twin Peaks,

takes possession of the human body as its inhabiting spirit."- Arthur

Kroker, The Possessed Individual,1992, p.21

"Finnegans Wake is the greatest guidebook to media study ever fashioned by

man."- Marshall McLuhan, Newsweek, February 28,1966, p.56

 "I must have been delirious, for I even sought amusement in speculating

upon the relative velocities of their several descents toward the foam

below." - Edgar Allan Poe, The Descent into the Maelstrom

"Leaving behind the processed world of data engineers under the

enterprising sign of 'Details, details, I'm creative', the corporate

directors of telematic history adopt a missionary sense of world technical

destiny as their key value-principle. Finally liberated from (because

wallowing in) the referential signifiers of power, money, and social

status, these cybernetic star-seekers are caught in an Olympian quest to

represent in their bodily gestures and corporate strategies a creative

merger of personal autobiography with the world-historical process of

virtuality." - Arthur Kroker and Michael A. Weinstein, Data Trash, 1994,

p.139

"Gutenberg made everyone a reader. Xerox made everyone a publisher. The

Internet will make everyone a satellite broadcaster to every other

satellite broadcaster. Hence, Re-appearance will be blowing all horns of

its new dilemma." - Bob Dobbs, Memo to Raisa Gorbachev, October 22, 1977.

         Thousands have wondered what to make of my book Phatic Communion

with Bob Dobbs. The book itself is a spinning moire frozen in the blank

white square of tactile space. It features well-organized synopses of five

thinkers who successfully (re)created Grand Narratives that anticipated the

dramatic Grand Narrative of Bob & Connie Dobbs: Lyndon LaRouche, Marshall

McLuhan, William Irwin Thompson, Arthur Kroker, and myself. This is

accomplished by a judicious selection of quotations from the overall arc of

each's writing. Then why is the book called Phatic Communion with me? This

memorandum will attempt to explain the reasons.

        First, it was over 22 years ago when Harold Medjuck, a wealthy

rare-book collector living in Halifax, Nova Scotia in 1973, confided in the

company of Garrett Deane that he thought Bob and Connie Dobbs, whom he had

known for about 2 years, were very likely the "Adam and Eve" of the next

millenium. It was a precocious statement for most people in retrospect but

not so for Connie and myself. We had known the broad outlines of our

destiny for almost 30 years. We both had been born in 1922 but did not meet

until 1944. We had also grown up in aristocratic milieux in Paris, France

but it was my particular experience that prepared us for this destiny. You

see, my father was a butler for a family very prominent in the

international "intelligence community" of the pre-World War Two secretive

world government that had been set up after 1918. And it was through him

that I met everyone from James Joyce and Wyndham Lewis to Adolf Hitler and

Peter Drucker. These encounters gave me a unique perspective on most of the

subsequent history of the twentieth century and also a headstart on

understanding what was coming in the twenty-first century. My unique

personal history combined with Connie's uncanny skill in so many areas

created a duo that was prepared for the awesome tasks that would befall our

very happy lives.

        Now, the accompanying chart to this memo lays out the broad factors

within which my book has meaning and significance. After the Bottom-up

Ground phase between 1945 and 1960, the peruser/lurker will notice that the

next phase of the ongoing evolution of the Bottom-up Ground is called

Holeopathic Cliche-Probes. Holeopathic is a word that combines the 2

processes of homeopathy and the hologram. Since the technologies of the

industrial and subsequent electronic revolutions had been subsumed by the

burgeoning television environment after 1945, one might as well say that

"everything had disappeared". However, in homeopathic terms one should

understand that "everything" (or at least the memory of) was being diluted

to ever more invisible and inaudible but potent EFFECT. This is a proven

homeopathic principle. And this memoried "everything" was an habitable

environment as far as human beings were concerned even though only 1/3

perceptible to them because the effects of an environment always precede

its causes. Hence, the use of the term "hologram". Since most everything

was being retrieved, there was a necessarily "archetypal" quality to the

situation, but since it was an ever-changing and ever-fluid context, there

was a complementary process of intensity creating the HOLEOPATHIC

CLICHE-PROBE. And that's the alchemy you've "lived in" from 1960 to 1990.

        These holeopathic cliche-probes constitute further refinements of

the form and content of the newspaper, movie, radio/television, and

computer environments and their interpenetrations of each other under the

panoptical surveillance/scanning of the Satellite Environment. Advertising

and the Nielsen Ratings were the gluons that simulated economic control of

these media matings. The human element was the agent of pattern-recognition

imposed on these baroque spirals and was known as a tetrad-manager. I was a

member of this elite corps of tetrad-managers and Phatic Communion with Bob

Dobbs is a portrait of the mind of a tetrad-manager in action.

        This book is organized as an inventory of the representative

institutions that the tetrad-manager performs jujitsu with. These

institutions are Technological Humanism, Roman Catholic Thomism, Eastern

Buddhism, and Marxism. These are the "givens" in our solar-theater

geometry. They are the main "conceptual" actors on the solar stage.

However, inside the constant metamorphoses of this theater, they are not

easily recognizable as such. The "figures" of authority for these

collective institutions change their decorative "ideas" periodically. But

LaRouche, McLuhan, Thompson, Kroker, and Dobbs represent something

different. They are the "whistle-blowers" of the crisis latent in each

archetype. They are the necessary adjustment/adaptation in each archetype.

They dance on its toes. They are culture-jammers. They are holeopathic

cliche-probes: LaRouche for Technological Humanism, McLuhan for Roman

Catholic Thomism, Thompson for Eastern Buddhism, Kroker for Marxism, and

Dobbs for Tetrad-Management. Of course, tetrad-management swallows up the

first four modalities and that fact is illustrated in my book with the

excerpts from my rantings laid out symbolically on both the right-side and

left-side pages of the book.

        Why are the others confined to one side or the other of the book?

Well, each is a micro-tetrad-manager, i.e. "cynical", within their own

archetypal stage and hence flip into cliche-probes for their associates and

us. In philosophical, sociological, "media", and alchemical terms LaRouche

puts-on the accumulated wisdom of nominalism, cultural studies, the

newspaper, and Ether, forged into cynical postliberal technological

humanism; McLuhan puts-on analytical positivism, cultural sociology, the

electric media, and Water, forged into cynical Thomism; Thompson puts-on

sensationalism, semiology, the printed book, and Fire, forged into cynical

Buddhism; Kroker puts-on critical theory, dialectical materialism, the

movie, and Air, forged into cynical Marxism; and Dobbs puts-on all four/and

in philosophy (or "quadrophrenia"/plus...), all four/and  in sociology

(that is, collective phobia, cultural norm-functioning, individual

sensation, national myth-making plus Stages of Apprehension), the

satellite, and Earth, forged into cynical tetrad-management. By "puts-on" I

don't mean we mock these institutions but more in the sense of targeting

our respective audiences, much as the stripper takes off her clothes while

putting on and wearing her audience, for the purpose of up-dating and

fine-tuning the sensibilities of our audiences.

         Why are these five men selected to represent vast environments of

information and collective experience? Because they each are encyclopedic

in their interests and are relative polymaths - a condition most citizens

in the solar theater are experiencing and living, although unconsciously.

These five men are making valient efforts to become conscious and, most

importantly, can articulate this awareness verbally. The first four have

biases but this is natural since they have not had the background I've had

which by its very nature requires one to be unbiased just to survive.

However, the reader of Phatic Communion can rehearse the biases of the

first four in order to get a handle on approaching an awareness

approximating mine. I am hoping to save the reader/unconscious

tetrad-manager a great deal of time and pain in a world where sensory input

is unfortunately obsolete. Since most people today are forced to live in a

holeopathic retrieval of the American Hologram, which is the epitome of the

cycle of civilization, then these five men can represent

actualizers/distillators of the discoveries and experience of each decade

of the past 50 years, as in: LaRouche (1950's = "holeopathic-radio" bias),

McLuhan (1960's = "holeopathic-television" bias), Thompson (1970's =

"holeopathic-computer" bias), Kroker (1980's = "holeopathic-satellite"

bias), and Dobbs (1990's = "holeopathic non-bias"). There is also one

common denominator in the relationships between these five men and that is

in the person of James Joyce's FINNEGANS WAKE. Their careers all represent

a creative struggle with this artifact. The fact is that Joyce summarized

the lived experience of the twentieth century, in particular, and the

complete cycle of civilization and technological evolution as the merging

of Art, Science, and Nature, in general, and pointed to a new resolution.

In short, James Joyce saw the significance of the environments created by

the atomic bomb and television. In essence, he saw that fission precedes

fusion.

        As I've said before when asked, "everything disappeared" in 1850,

or 1918, or 1945, or 1977. Let's look at the implications if we choose

1945. First, we should realize that Joyce did not realize his achievement

entirely alone. As Dennis Brown has shown in his book Intertextual Dynamics

within the Literary Group, Joyce was ably assisted by the independent

discoveries of Wyndham Lewis, Ezra Pound, and T.S. Eliot. And, of course,

not only I would add W. B. Yeats. Then, if everything disappeared in 1945,

those five men would assume archetypal status and their followers would be

holeopathic cliche-probes of them in a world where "a whole lot of shakin's

goin' on" (homeopathic succussion). As I've worked it out, LaRouche would

be an active mirror/echo of Pound, McLuhan of Lewis, Thompson of Eliot,

Kroker of Yeats, and Dobbs of Joyce. Just mull it over for a minute. The

parallels are striking. Both Pound and LaRouche were controversial

political prisoners and obsessed with "newspaper" events. Both Lewis and

McLuhan had their most significant works suppressed and were obsessed with

the "discarnate" electric fate of humanity. Both Eliot and Thompson worked

in/with the institution of cathedrals and were obsessed with Paleolithic,

Neolithic, and Oriental theologies. Yeats and Kroker were both active

nationalists and were obsessed with Gnosticism. Joyce and Dobbs were great

synthesizers and their audiences were obsessed and fantasized over their

bizarre relationships with their wives. In these parallels, it's not that

the latter exactly matches the previous case because, remember, a mirror

reverses an image and a holeopathic mirror is more potent and more intense,

a kind of "parallel processing".

        Now, all of the above obsessions are themes in Finnegans Wake. But

how would this book have any use to an intelligence agent like myself,

involved in gold swindles, corporate and political coups, assassinations,

and cultural (re)generation. The utility of this text was invoked not only

because I, and especially my father, knew James Joyce personally, but also

because we had to know the full meaning and effects of the principle

"fission precedes fusion". In order to give a clue as to how all this leads

to lockdown BobRule, I will jump ahead to a denouement that will surface in

one or two years as a major transforming environment - that of the

confirmation of Professors Fleischmann's and Pons' "cold fusion" energy

source. They are getting very positive results in their laboratories in

France at this very moment. This new technological breakthrough will turn

the world upside-down because history for the past 6,000 years has been

based on "friction" (in all senses of the word), but now we will enter a

new unprecedented "frictionless" energy-based society where more energy is

available as output than was put in. So therefore, you might be able to see

how "fission precedes fusion" by considering the accompanying chart as a

review of the friction of crowds, if one considers each medium as an

extension of the crowd creating new stresses and strains in the crowd.

However, there is a definite trend leading toward implosion from the

Telegraph to the Satellite & Laser Beam phase. The satellite is an

important marker in this evolution towards fusion. If you consider every

technological environment an extension of the human crowd, or social

Nature, rather than of just biological Nature, or first Nature, then

because the satellite is alone of all technologies a complete extension of

the planet, or first Nature, by being the first man-made habitable

simulation of our "natural" environment, then the satellite is a

simultaneous extension of both first and second Natures, and something

unique and unprecedented has occurred. This merging of the two Natures

"anticipates" symbolically the bridging of the gap ("friction") between

humanity and the environment which is now actualized by "cold fusion".

Also, this "frictionless" condition is anticipated by the satellite as a

symbol of individual detachment from the historical prison of the crowd

dynamic. We are literally "out of town", and not just in another town, but

"off the planet". Even though the satellite is a symbolic actualizer of

this existential autonomy and solitude, its effect on the collective

consciousness creates a purgatory of frustration because there would not be

a complementary situation of freedom from basic food, energy, and shelter

needs which still involve the "money crowd". But, the "cold fusion"

surplus-energy source bypasses and resolves this catch-22 dilemma by

allowing the individual to live anywhere once he has a cold-fusion

"battery". We will be relatively free of ground rent, or "visual space".

         Since the movie medium contains all previous media, or crowds, it

is essentially the replay of all the cultures that ever were, a kind of

Akashic Records (to borrow a notion from Theosophy). But television is a

decided "break" or rupture from the "container" aspect of the movie medium

as well as all previous media. It is a live transmission of the interplay

of all the senses and is engaged in a "now-making" that cannot have a

reference point and cannot be contained. So one can see how television ends

the ideological-control characteristic of the crowd dynamic, i.e. the

centralized, elitist imposition of myth. The elites of the solar theater

were forced to fall back on "cultural norm-functioning" and allow the

decentralized situation of contradictory "passions" to run free. I

personally was employed by these elites who inhabited what we would

privately call the Secret Council of Ten. As television began to become an

environment in the late 1940's and early 1950's, especially in the West,

the cultural side-effects were dramatic. The American political scene is

the one I was most involved in so I would like to talk about the period

from 1947 to 1987 to illustrate a general inventory of effects that we had

to manage after television had "disappeared" all crowds and the computer

and satellite environments became the "ground". Of course, there was a

great nostalgia for "crowd-control" behaviour at first. So from 1947-57 the

American political scene was characterized by two major syndromes -

McCarthyism and the Korean War as expressions of a baroque spiral of

pro-"hot" (hardware, outer-kinetic) media sentiments. This was abruptly

aborted when the satellite environment manifested from 1957-67 beginning

with Sputnik. Immediately the American audience adopted a baroque spiral of

pro-"cool" (software, inner-kinetic) media preferences evidenced by the

popularity of President John Kennedy and the surfing craze, and the

"cautious" (programmed) involvement in Viet Nam. However, the American

profile changed again when the satellite environment was obsolesced by

"liquid" mixed corporate-media from 1967-77. The Beatles were the first to

take advantage of the fact the satellite environment had become an artform

with the first "entertainment" satellite broadcast on June 25, 1967. Since

the satellite was a symbol of freedom from the crowds of social Nature, the

collective consciousness would now register this fact publicly with an

outburst of sentiments for individual autonomy. The social turmoil in

America during this period is well-known, but the breakdown, in my terms,

would be characterized as such: an anti-"hot" (hardware, outer-kinetic)

media baroque spiral between 1967 and 1972 effecting a painful pull-out

from Viet Nam and the downfall of the American presidency via  Watergate;

and an anti-"cool" (software, inner-kinetic) media baroque spiral between

1972 and 1977 symbolized by exposure of the CIA's Project MKULTRA, the

fortunes of Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his wife Margaret, and the collapse

of the "counter-culture" as a social and political force. The bias towards

electric autonomy lost its appeal in the American hologram after 1977

because if everything had not disappeared by 1945, the media retrievals of

"everything" definitely lost their grounding and acceptance by 1977. What's

happened since then? Well, since Sputnik had prefigured the fusion of first

and second Nature and the satellite environment had long been subsumed, it

was inevitable that we would experience aggressive, Orphic holeopathic

cliche-probes for the next ten years. (Remember Orpheus failed in his

mission into the Underworld and also was torn apart by the female Maenads).

From 1977-82 we witnessed the Orphic baroque spiral of the Solar Government

with the Space Shuttle, the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars"), and

Michael Jackson's "Moonwalk". And from 1982-87 you had to endure the Orphic

baroque spiral of the Universal (multi-dimensional) Government with the

"planetization of the esoteric" via such mediums as Ramtha and the New Age

movement of Shirley MacLaine, and the collapse of Reaganism via  the

Iran-Contra investigation and the revolt of the computerized economy on

Black Monday, October 19, 1987. I will return to the phase from 1987-97

later for with this outline as a context I can now fill you in on some of

the strategies and tactics made by myself and my colleagues on the Secret

Council of Ten over the last 50 years.

         You see, Joyce had essentially discovered the tetrad once he had

seen through the television form. He even organized the large-scale

structure of Finnegans Wake on the tetrad: Book One deals with the

amplifications of technology, Book Two is concerned with the obsolescence

of technologies, Book Three deals with retrieval of forms, and Book Four is

modeled on the "flipping-into-its-opposite" feature of technologies. My

employers had followed the serialization of Finnegans Wake in Transition

magazine during the 1920's and 1930's and had intuited that Joyce was on to

something that they should understand for purposes of power as they

locked-down World Government. But when World War Two was over, the

consequences of victory and the new situations immediately made the tetrad

mandatory and applicable for the new management tasks on the most secret

"intelligence" levels. It was not until late 1953, however, that concern

mounted over the possibility of public detection of these secret codes and

processes. An obscure Professor of English in Canada began writing essays

in a magazine called Explorations that indicated he had penetrated

Finnegans Wake and the seamless web of postmodern power. Here is a

quotation from a speech Marshall McLuhan gave in 1954 to indicate such

understanding: "This may seem very specialized, very arty. Actually it

spells out into the most practical political and social consequences for

each one of us. What Joyce is saying is that for the first time in history

man now has the means of observing the social process as the process of

redemption. This he can do because the social process is the analogue of

the process of sense perception and interior cognition. And the process of

perception is that of incarnation. For anybody concerned with the subject

of Catholic humanism in modern letters, I should think that Joyce's

insight, which was marvelously realized in his work, is the most inspiring

development that is possible to conceive. But we must ask, what happens

when this insight occurs even in a fragmentary way to the secular minds of

our age? The answer can be found in The Foundations of Social Survival a

recent book by John Lindberg, a Swedish nobleman associated with the United

Nations. His proposal for social survival is that we adopt the Christian

doctrine of brotherly love. He is not a Christian but he thinks

Christianity might be made to work by non-Christians. Perhaps he has in

mind that it appears to be unworkable when left to Christians. In short, he

proposes practical Christianity as a sort of Machiavellian strategy of

culture and power. And his reasons are directly linked to the developments

I have outlined in modern letters. Namely that in the modern world we have

through the very perfection and instantaneity of our means of communication

made it impossible to resolve the conflicting claims of the numerous

societies and cultures which are now in close association. Neither can we

hope to impose any one culture on all the others and reduce them to a

single form. But, he argues, we now have the key to the creative process

which brings all cultures into existence (namely the extension into social

institutions of the central form and mystery of the human cognitive

process). And it is this key which he proposes to deliver into the hands of

a world government".

        This is where I came in. I was 31 years old and this was my first

assignment that sent me across the Atlantic Ocean from Paris to America. My

job was to befriend McLuhan and figure out how he had done it, how much he

understood about us, and what he intended to do about it. Imagine my

surprise when I eventually found out how he had cracked Joyce's book. It

was Wyndham Lewis who showed him the way! I couldn't believe it! For two

reasons: first, we thought we had effectively removed Lewis from cultural

memory; and, second, I had personally known him in Paris in 1937. This

second factor had a special effect on me - it was the first time I

experienced a curious resonance with my own personal life history while on

assignment. It was the first instance of a complex clairvoyance that I

eventually would realize about my existence. The perceptive reader of this

memo and others may someday come to understand what I'm referring to. That

remains to be seen. As Walter Bowart once said: "Bob, there are only two or

three people in the world who can understand you, and you haven't met them

yet!!"

        Even though I am interpreted in Nelson Thall's and Dave Newfeld's

album called Bob's Media Ecology as a McLuhanite, that is only one-fifth of

me as I tried to show in Phatic Communion. The tetrad-manager cannot

identify with knowledge or power in order to perceive the lineaments of new

knowledge and new power, however transient they may be. Talk to David

Worcester of Seattle for an explanation of that fact if you can't

understand me. Meanwhile, McLuhan eventually surfaced into mainstream

America in the mid-1960's and it is a test case of how we can confuse the

public's perception of new knowledge. For example, we hoicked up

Buckminster Fuller as a counter-foil to McLuhan in this period even though

Fuller and McLuhan were good friends. Then we created a split between

Edmund Carpenter and McLuhan in the early 1970's. This was important

because "Ted" Carpenter was very influential in the Counterculture, having

helped to nurture the underground film movement and to create an interest

in Carlos Casteneda's writings from his Los Angeles base. If some budding

biographer wanted an incredibly serendipitous life to write about, Ted

Carpenter would make his day. Later in the 1970's we tried to create a rift

between Barrington Nevitt, the most knowledgeable and comprehensive

McLuhanite, and McLuhan but Nevitt was too patient with McLuhan's

eccentricities and too loyal a friend for that effort to succeed. However,

Marshall would soon die. In the 1980's we had to deal with his disciples

and their attempts to keep his work in the public ear. We were obliged to

play off Derrick de Kerckhove against William Irwin Thompson, then Bruce

Powe against Arthur Kroker, all the while keeping Eric McLuhan and Frank

Zingrone whittling on the sidelines. It worked until I was in a position to

effect Operation Lockdown Bobrule beginning in 1990. All that could be

salvaged of the Pink McLuhan was executed through Prince Charles' friends,

the Global Business Network and their house organ, Wired magazine.

Fortunately, however, that venture is now defunct since I engineered the

January 1996 issue of Wired featuring a bogus e-mail interview with me

disguised as an electronically-channelled McLuhan. But that's just a brief

run-through of our tactics in the "holy office" of Marshall McLuhan. To be

told perhaps at other times are the fates of the other "holy offices" such

as Mae Brussell, Frank Zappa, Lyndon LaRouche, Cosmic Awareness, Garrett

Deane, Herbert W. Armstrong, Dr. Peter Beter, and Club 22.

        But what does the phase "Anthropomorphic Physical" mean? That's the

fate of our flesh, our first Nature. Since 1900, our bodies, under

electronic conditions, could only be considered as sub-atomic particles.

Modern Physics, especially Quantum modeling, has always only been

describing our social actualities. The same applies to Modern Chemistry,

particularly Genetics. However, our media, or extensions of our crowd

behaviour, suffered the same fate after television subsumed "everything"

following World War Two. All media in the cycle of technological

civilization were then invoked in terms of the same models from the

physical sciences. All media were also shaped along the "cool" iconic lines

of the cartoon form, "the MAD vestibule to TV". But they also, being

extensions of humanity's social Nature, were equal to quarks and nucleic

acids. Thus, we have the category for the Holeopathic Retrieval of Mixed

Corporate-Media being dubbed the Quarktune, Orpheus having "tuned" the

whole world. The latest modeling from Physics is encompassed around the

theory of the"superstrings" (vibrating loops). Besides reminding me of the

image of the tetrad (see the cover of The Global Village by Bruce Powers

and Marshall McLuhan), this idea strangely echoes the images of Rhyee,

Eloi, Tu, and Lofti from David Worcester. According to Worcester, ever

since 1967 when Rhyee returned to the Plane of Essence, all that interferes

with us are the "cobwebs of Rhyee". This notion always reminds me of

Nietzsche's idea of the "throw of the dice over the spider's web of

existence". Now, following my chart, after the phase of Holeopathic

Cliche-Probes from 1960-77, we have the phase of Anthropomorphic Physical

from 1977-92 as the Bottom -up Ground. Since "everything's" absolutely

"disappeared", can't be seen, heard, moved, or felt, including Holeopathic

Retrievals, by 1977, what's left and what's possible? Well, of course, none

other than the D-cell, thanks to Joe Dun Sloan. And who had the D-cell?

None other than Bob and Connie Dobbs! The new Adam and Eve!! So our task

became one of resuscitation and reappearance, not the old job of

"artificial respiration", the traditional role of all the arts and sciences

within the confines of the friction-based (entropic) energy of society. If

we could stay "in the physical" until about 1990, the very fact of our

existence would anticipate the evolution to a frictionless-based

(negentropic) energy of a truly new and "modern" society. Well, it's now

1996, and with the success story of Pons and Fleischmann, the preservation

of the late Joe Dun Sloan's D-cell, and the unprecedented labwork of

Connie, you are virtually assured of reappearance and, if you join me,

physically guaranteed!!

Essay Archives Topics Replies Author Views Last Post Sticky: McLuhan's early and a few later essays 0 sixbodied 1584 Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:23 am sixbodied Sticky: ANDROID MEME'S XENOCHRONY - The complete set in order 0 sixbodied 1812 Mon Dec 31, 2007 7:04 pm sixbodied McLuhan & Watson - From Cliché to Archetype (1970) 0 monsquaz 1458 Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:59 pm monsquaz CLONING ESP by Bob Dobbs 8 sixbodied 5153 Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:58 am sixbodied Misc. McLuhan essays & reviews 0 monsquaz 1836 Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:41 pm monsquaz Wyndham Lewis 3 monsquaz 2767 Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:00 pm klingklang22 The History of Rock 'n' Roll (1999 interview) 2 sixbodied 2203 Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:33 am smw Fringy links... 1 ~Foo Fighter~ 3582 Mon Dec 01, 2008 3:57 pm Conditional_ID ALONE WITH THE BURDEN OF TRUTH 0 convulsionaire 1100 Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:22 pm convulsionaire A Summer Conversation with Bob Dobbs at the Abandoned Campus 2 guestron 3977 Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:21 am guestron Documents on the D-Cell 6 monsquaz 3036 Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:17 pm monsquaz FLIPSIDE Series #7 - Frank Zappa, Again 0 sixbodied 1171 Sun Jul 06, 2008 1:07 am sixbodied Wanta Links 0 ~Foo Fighter~ 1946 Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:17 am ~Foo Fighter~ Bob Explains 10 thunders in Costa Rica 4 octavian 2383 Fri Nov 30, 2007 2:35 pm octavian Arthur Kroker eBooks 0 monsquaz 1502 Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:51 pm monsquaz ANDROID MEME'S XENOCHRONY 1 sixbodied 2000 Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:31 pm Hexbodhi McLuhan - A Media Approach to Inflation (NYT 9/21/74) 2 monsquaz 2977 Mon Oct 01, 2007 3:59 pm sixbodied The Correspondence of Marshall McLuhan and Edward T. Hall 0 monsquaz 1606 Fri Sep 14, 2007 7:47 am monsquaz LITERARY/AESTHETIC CLICHÉ-PROBES IN... 0 sixbodied 1552 Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:47 pm sixbodied McLUHAN AND HOLEOPATHIC QUADROPHRENIA:... 0 sixbodied 1489 Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:38 pm sixbodied MEMO TO PRINCE CHARLES - June 4, 1987 0 sixbodied 1709 Tue Sep 04, 2007 3:52 pm sixbodied Sylvere Lotringer's MORE & LESS #3:... 0 sixbodied 1387 Tue Sep 04, 2007 3:38 pm sixbodied FLIPSIDE Series #6 - Timothy Leary 0 sixbodied 1363 Tue Sep 04, 2007 3:23 pm sixbodied FLIPSIDE Series #5 (Part Two) - Frank Zappa 0 sixbodied 1494 Tue Sep 04, 2007 3:21 pm sixbodied FLIPSIDE Series #5 (Part One) - Frank Zappa 0 sixbodied 1452 Tue Sep 04, 2007 3:16 pm sixbodied FLIPSIDE Series #4 (Part Two) - David Jay Brown 0 sixbodied 1514 Tue Sep 04, 2007 3:14 pm sixbodied FLIPSIDE Series #4 (Part One) - David Jay Brown 0 sixbodied 1459 Tue Sep 04, 2007 3:10 pm sixbodied FLIPSIDE Series #3 (Part Two) - Paul Krassner 0 sixbodied 1363 Tue Sep 04, 2007 3:08 pm sixbodied FLIPSIDE Series #3 (Part One) - Paul Krassner 0 sixbodied 1314 Tue Sep 04, 2007 3:04 pm sixbodied FLIPSIDE Series #2 - Finnegans Wake 0 sixbodied 1677 Tue Sep 04, 2007 3:03 pm sixbodied FLIPSIDE Series #1 - Entertainment Sucks 0 sixbodied 1582 Tue Sep 04, 2007 3:00 pm sixbodied Driving Our Luxury Vehicle - FULL Dobbs PARANOIA Interview 0 sixbodied 1743 Mon Aug 20, 2007 12:22 pm sixbodied Nigey Lennon, Frank Zappa, and me 0 sixbodied 1671 Sat Aug 11, 2007 11:16 pm sixbodied Why George Bush Wins and Pacifica Loses 5 monsquaz 3277 Wed Aug 08, 2007 2:31 am ^* Plaza Interview with Producer for Bob David Newfeld 1 guestron 1648 Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:46 pm ^* Android Meme's Xenochrony [ Goto page: 1 ... 3, 4, 5 ] 62 Eep² 19991 Wed Jun 20, 2007 9:41 pm snowbody Having just seen them, I would add... 0 sixbodied 2070 Tue May 29, 2007 12:26 am sixbodied Plaza of the Mind Interview - PART ONE 1 sixbodied 2940 Fri May 18, 2007 9:22 pm snowbody Plaza of the Mind Interview - PART TWO 0 sixbodied 9375 Thu May 17, 2007 2:41 pm sixbodied I like this:... 0 sixbodied 1803 Thu May 10, 2007 12:55 pm sixbodied The Conversion of Gloria TNT 0 monsquaz 4359 Thu Apr 26, 2007 3:45 pm monsquaz Interview with Greg Duffell from International Connection 1 guestron 2095 Wed Apr 11, 2007 12:04 am sixbodied Channeling McLuhan 3 monsquaz 2571 Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:59 pm sixbodied AMX 3 Hexbodhi 3384 Mon Jan 15, 2007 12:23 am Señor Ketchup Phatic Communion with Bob Dobbs [ Goto page: 1, 2 ] 16 Hexbodhi 11679 Sun Jan 14, 2007 6:21 pm guestron Donald F Theall: The Toronto School of Communications 0 Sleeper! 2025 Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:13 pm Sleeper! Bob Dobbs Interview with Sam (and Linus) 0 octavian 1812 Fri Aug 11, 2006 1:43 pm octavian Link to name mentioned in Silencing the VST..... 1 Linus Minimax 1969 Wed Jun 28, 2006 12:22 am justfive Mark all topics read New posts    No new posts    Announcement [ Popular ]    [ Popular ]    Sticky [ Locked ]    [ Locked ] You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum

http://www.fivebodied.com/viewtopic.php?t=343

http://www.dobbstown.com/

http://bobdobbstown.posterous.com/

http://bobshow.libsyn.com/