Transcribed by Randy Koppang

The Bob Dobbs dialogue with Randy Koppang, Part 2

In our time, where cyberkaos and paradox lurch at every turn - I quote a politically conservative, widely syndicated radio talk-show host, who insures high ratings by specializing in issues mondo-bizarro in kind: "It’s the Quickening"!

Yes! Indeed! But, as mainstream media often does, in their service as conspiracy neutralizers, the 3/19/97 L.A. Times said: "What’s all the hullabaloo over the possibility of human cloning? It’s been going on for years in television programming labs... "!!

Given such psychic affects on mass consciousness via selective TV hypnosis - it’s no wonder the Higher Source cult got swept away with millennium fever and alien/comet mythology; only to celebrate the vernal equinox with a human sacrifice of mass suicide?!

Which brings us - of course - to BOB! Not the anti-Bob and Connie of Bo and Peep. Not J.R. Bob Dobbs, the self selected Bob inspired parodic clone of Bob. But, the... will the true media ecologist Bob please stand up, Bob Dobbs! And Bob’s wit and wisdom for the budding subgenius always has been to please, turn that tele-vision OFF! If you ever hope to pre-empt the dis-ease of human clones run-amok and millennium madness, stop the telematic effects now. Do it while they safely precede the cause of real-clones (an oxymoron) moving in next door. Get slack. Turn off the TV!

And return with us now, via the miracle of Akashic magnetitape—to Gerry Fialka’s Contemporary Communications Conference of 29 July 1996: Bob’s anti-mystery mystery school initiation...

BOB: So, let’s return to the two words creative evolution.

RANDY KOPPANG: Yes - our theme for a day.

BOB: McLuhan used to say that any word will trigger off any other word in a language. There’s a chain reaction of thought and ideas in speech. If you want to set up a polarity, you take any 2 words, like ‘I CHING’, which is a hexagram based on 6.

RK: Actually, it’s comprised of two tri-grams.

BOB: Right. So, it’s the fact that you can take any 2 things, which is the essence of relationship. And there’s the profound truth that objects are non-selfobservable. Only relationships between objects are observable. And the popular expression of object non-observability was done by Alan Watts, and those popular mystics; where they said you can’t see the thing doing the seeing. You can’t see conscious self.

Watts often pointed out you can’t see your own eyes, as individual perceptors in our reflexive/holographic universe. You’ve got to have relationship to begin reflexing consciousness and evolve it.

So, consciousness itself is necessarily double. Therefore, it has to include the nothing part of itself and the something part of itself; and can’t see itself.

RK: Explaining the defining material component required by the universe, so you can have a reflexive sense...

BOB: ... of spirit!

That was one of Marshall’s axes to grind. Because he didn’t like the way Western secret societies, and Western philosophy in general, and all the arts and sciences split matter and spirit.

So, you take 2 words. We’ll use these 2 words Creative Evolution. There seems to be 2 patterns here, in terms of humanity’s "normal" experience of itself (remembering that, on the one hand, humanity was an object that was non-selfobserving of its collective-self until now; until reflexive electric media and cyber-introspection): most people see that things stay the same. But they’re also aware there’s change going on; those are like 2 archetypal cognitive processers. Culturely, then, the things remaining the same are called isomorphic. The term isomorphic means a form which keeps showing up; in nature, through man’s eyes, or in Jungian archetypal forms, through the studying of various cultures. But, the other part is the metamorphic. The change which is creating a feeling of newness, and novelty.

Like, this is exactly the same environment (here, now) as yesterday. Yet, this is different for us, at the same time.

So, we’re trying to correlate this dual truth: you must have change to know sameness! It’s the same old point of duality. So, Creative Evolution, when you put the 2 terms together, it seems to imply the dynamic; the metaphoric aspect of human consciousness, right? Evolution means change. And Creative could be: we create the change or something makes us feel we’re creating a change, or something actually does the change outside ourselves. So, the phrase Creative Evolution seems to be 2 words inferring or invoking the metamorphic truth, or pattern, right!

Now, the duality has to be satisfied; so as to include the isomorphic - OR, the Catholic Church! The static creationists. The guys who are against evolution, creatively divine or otherwise. So, the creationists are harping on the other half-truth, which is: Nothing changes; humanity has eternal problems, and there are long lived values we should preserve, for passing onto new generations, which have worked - generally.

There’s the dissonance! See, consciousness is dissonant. Even though, if I should use one word, I have to include the other word providing consonance; then there is no dissonance - paradox. I can see you. And you’re always remaining the same. You don’t turn into bizarre situations in front of me - you know what I mean? Unless I induce it somehow.

RK: Yes, entheogenetically or technologically.

BOB: So, what is changing - and - what is not changing, is forever what philosophy is about. And when reading philosophy, they write about the Absolute vs. the Flux. Heraclitus was the guy who emphasized the flux. And others, like Axymander or Thales emphasized the un-changing. They would try to decide which one was realer than the other - which is the ground (of being): is change the figure, or is no-change the ground?

The problem is that because they were increasingly approaching the visual bias (linguistically: technologically) with the phonetic alphabet, they got into the I-bias of saying one is it, the other is not; they began to split them. And the bias of Occidental culture in that period was: to conclude one view was more important than the other; arguing endlessly over which one it was. Yes, they were operating within this split illusion.

RK: Which probably represented the seed for establishing the development (and institutionalization) of an ultimate polical ploy: namely, the dialectic; i.e., the thesis vs. anti-thesis into synthesis.

BOB: Right! Hegelianism.

RK: Although, I’m sure they didn’t conceive of it as such. Because that was a further refinement of classical I-bias.

BOB: Yes. It was in the industrial context; like, Hegel comes at the end of the industrial phase, prior to arriving at the Electrical Revolution. So, he’s wrapping up (via his ultimate merchanistic rap, enshrouding truth with boring debate) this new dynamic since the Renaissance. Because there’s (now) more change going on than they experienced in Greece. You know, with the change that went on from about 1450 to 1750. A 300 year period; in its broadest parameters, the modern epic. So, Hegel finally articulated a pattern of metamorphosis that he saw, unique to the Gutenberg Galaxy. This shows you how archaically obsolete the gameboard of applied politics is structured to this very day. The debate form, as control point, should be cast onto the scrapheap of history. Yet, it’s still standard.

And then, Joyce - many specialists, like William Erwin Thompson, accused McLuhan of simply replaying the Hegelian thesis—antithesis—synthesis. But they missed the point that Joyce (McLuhan’s perceptual role model) made the breakthrough, with the help of artist Wyndham Lewis: the realization that past times become passtimes; the retrieval aspect, which evolves from the Hegelian triad to the tetrad!

But the futurismal stick-in-the-muds still think McLuhan is Hegelian. I mean Hegel is very important to the principle of Creative Evolution.

RK: Perhaps, Thompson, Eco, Wilson, et al are wearing their academic reputations a bit too seriously, in the paradoxical shadow of McLuhan’s celebrity for being both housed in Canada’s National Archives, and also published in books whose pictorial/text format (at the time, the 60’s) was probably a role model for AVANT GARDE magazine. They should chill out.

BOB: Okay. Returning to the native Americans, "barbarians", Amazonians or any pre-literate society that were not affected by the phonetic alphabet - it didn’t even occur to them to wonder whether change was the ground; or whether the - sameness was the ground. Because they lived in both; being pre-literate, they didn’t have the split. And to see both was/is normal to them.

Now, that can be seen, by us, as a bias in itself, only made possible via our new vias of visual space, which then could look back. And this is why the Indians and the "barbarians" never could stop the dynamo of Western Imperialism.

RK: Precisely. On this very point, in fact, I’d like to make a comment. Only yesterday I had an encounter with a native American "power circle".

BOB: Yeah? With a group of people, is that what you mean?

RK: Yes. A "power circle" is a native American way for teaching; a teaching tool.

I went to what, basically, was a book pre-view in someone’s home. An Indian woman was giving a synopsis of a book she just published. And she went through this long argument; I think it was an argument too, rather than simply a presentation of her indigenous or pre-literate perceptions, i.e., what the prior-ities of humanity should be; given the malignant global effects of obsolete technology, i.e., how can we preserve the essential, preferable percepts of human-connectedness with the biology of our planet - that kind of a rap, ya know?

BOB: The pre-literate sensibility.

RK: Yeah. She went through this whole... uh... Tribal Dance in her circle; maybe that’s a good way to put it. She did dance. She didn’t actually, literally dance. But she did her pow-wow dance; trying to compel the European sensibility represented by those folks in the circle. That, actually, what we have to do, is we must support her cause for racial purity and sovereignty - on the terms she took her stand upon, i.e., we have to contribute and demonstrate the good human sense - the humane sense - in support of peoples like hers; so they can preserve, to the best of their ability, what little there is that’s left of archaic/pre-literate society. However, what she missed the whole point on, is realizing or recognizing, that - with the exception of perhaps a few remote hunter-gatherer bands in deepest darkest Amazonas, Indonesia or Borneo, etc. - in our context of contiguous North America, that’s no way, in fact the case. And a perfect example of the antithesis of what she prescribed, was the fact that she also specified we support the following: she requested, in addition to our support for the cultural/traditional/spiritual integrity of their cultures, these very same reservation-ist natives are undermining their public outreach to preserve it. By asking people like us (the media habituated) to also support their sovereignty rights for importing Las Vegas style gambling onto their reservations!?

I mean, that’s technology insideous enough to be seen as the Trojan Horse phenomena.

BOB: Yeah!

RK: So, here’s this woman sermonizing this whole rap. And she didn’t even recognize she was simultaneously negating her very premise. It was truly phenomenal.

And in true candor - thanks to you, Bob’s insights and teachings, I could sit there and kinda smile to myself: well, during Q&A I should probably try to clarify the holes in her rap. But I didn’t. Because I could see by other comments, both by her and from the "circle", I would have belabored perceptions too far over all of their consensual tunnel of appreciation.

BOB: There was no time to argue, or for them to learn about your understanding.

RK: Right: McLuhan’s "Understanding" electronic media. In this case, for entertainment gambling. You can’t preserve isomorphism with applied metamorphism. You have to creatively evolve with the tao of...

BOB: Yeah. That’s the problem with proper communication when Bob enters the popular media, and these different groups hear him. They take an emotional response; getting all worked up about it. Because they think I’m talking on their level. And they feel insulted.

So, yeah - in that sense we have to form a mystery school to help them take time...

RK: An anti-mystery mystery school.

BOB: Yeah, so let’s leave it at that. Now that’s very good; that you perceived. That is a key statement on Bob’s second album.

Have you heard the second Bob’s Media Ecology?

RK: Yes.

BOB: Where I talk about the Indians. Maybe this is where you got the idea. I talk about the case in Canada, where the government’s going to give the Native Canadians land. And they will really undo their situation.

Yeah, that’s a very good point; because that’s very observant. Anyone who’s been around me will learn that. But for smeone who picks me up through the media - that’s a very good point to learn from Bob. Because THAT is the question! Ironically, the new terrorists are the government funded sub-cultural groups, like this; though the natives don’t know.

Just like when we encountered the African-Americans when we were down at the bench, in Venice. And these guys came along, resulting in a very strange interaction; which Bob diplomatically disarmed for the person who got involved with it. It was a very interesting... But - I’m saying this for Scott - what we witnessed yesterday is what Randy witnessed the same day! Ya know?

RK: ... From the perspective of a different set of ethnic parameters...

BOB: ... A different culture which doesn’t identify with left-hemisphere literate culture; i.e., Eurocentric culture.

RK: Yeah - right - I think a solution to the Black dilemma, or shall I say their occupational hazard, of evoking adversarial reactions to their Afro-centric exegesis. This can be summed up by recalling Bob’s radio-phonic initiation with Tarik.

Again, to digress here from your group confrontation, into an individuated one - I heard a radiopathic dialogue Bob had with Tarik; where you persevered in your bias-free comprehensivism. But unfortunately, many Black Americans have an attitude. Africans don’t have an attitude. Because I spent 5 months in Africa; oddly enough, although Africans have been equally colonialized, they don’t have an attitude. And I noticed this contrast.

BOB: Well, African-Americans are not Africans. That’s ridiculous to add the name African.

RK: Not any longer they’re not. The African forms of fashion/art and culture, adapted into Black American lifestyle, exemplifies Joyce’s retrievalist cycles of "past times becoming passtimes"; for them, not Africans. But, in any case, even though Tarik had an attitudinal tone of resistance to your contribution - Bob did clarify in his mind that your perception did help the un-initiated understand: both his concern or priority in terms of Afro-centric historial revisionism, but enhanced with a greater appreciation of how both sets of data (his and yours) play into a more comprehensivist eschatology. And, how is the understanding analogously mirrored: via the visual space of "Understanding media"; or the "Wake", etc. And, further, this understanding is not a "centrism"; not a Euro or Afro, or any other centrism. That’s obsolete! It leads to attitudinal one-ups-manship.

BOB: Oh, yeah. That was a very good dialogue. And I remember, Ned - who didn’t like my show very much, it’s been rumoured - he complimented that one point. He said Bob answered Tarik really good. He really got a new point across...

RK: ... There may have been a learning curve with Tarik; he was conciliatory.

BOB: Yeah. Tarik had a private conversation with me; having that discussion. So, then he got on the radio. And for some reason, THAT was the time when he finally got what I’d been saying. Oh yeah, we had these discussions right in these 2 chairs, here in this yard, back in 1993; oh, he’s a friend.

RK: Really. Well, I’m acquainted with Tarik via our mutual support for the Health Freedom’s Movement. So, not too long after I’d heard your radioapathy with him, I ran into him at an NHF conference. And I kinda pushed his response button by quoting Bob, ya know, and joked with him about that program.

BOB: You mean you discussed that show with him?

RK: Oh yes. That was the intention. A role I’ve assumed with a lot of people, as a function of my astrology, I guess, is to engage people through the "controlled folly" (of Casteneda); humorous criticism getting to the heart of an issue - when done tactfully, it’s valuable.

BOB: So, you brought this up with him?

RK: Yes I did. He kinda like acknowledged in gesture only; silently... hahaha...

BOB: But verbally - not...

RK: ... And then deferred the topic onto something else.

BOB: Right. You mean he said nothing.

RK: No, i.e. he didn’t argue my point.

BOB: Yeah - because I knew that dialogue was good. And I wanted feedback on it.

RK: Intuitively, I was reiterating your gestalt. Discarnatly.

BOB: What’s great about that - I’m glad you did - as I said to Gerry: Have you seen Tarik lately? No I haven’t. And then... you did see him... did he mention anything on that level (?), about that interaction? We never got a comment back from Tarik; never having a chance subsequently to talk with him about that briefing. We may have spoken from Nuévo York to him, by phone. But that point never came up. And, well aware, I became of whether he was ever gonna acknowledge what happened in that conversation.

You’re the first person to give me feedback - that you actually - you know, as an agent-probe of Bob, went in and said... and what was good, was that he was in the radio audience; for which we were performing when broadcasting Bob’s exegesis. So, you were an audience-vector of "What goes around, comes around"! And Tarik thinks: Oh, people saw/heard that! You representing the people...

RK: ... Yeah, the self-selected coming full circle pattern, through me, and back here to the "set and setting" of your original dialogues with Tarik - weird, huh!

BOB: ... He reminded Tarik of it. And Tarik could only do phatic communion; just gesture.

He kinda knew: (as if to imply) that’s a very complex issue. We can not fit it into your dialogue, then. But it is a valuable issue, maybe we can address it privately at Bob’s mystery school or something. Ya know what I mean? That’s to suggest the why of his demurral; which is not disagreement. He just looked at you and thought - oh, there is an awareness of that.

It’s weird how (as Dave Emory proverbial-izes) "What goes around, comes around"; providing inexorable or desired closure.

Well - that’s good.

So, we were discussing the philosophical split presaging dialectics and...

SCOTT: ... And I thought, hmmm, I wonder maybe if the dialectic-split is a mirrored analogue of the split Randy brought up initially; the splitting of the energy poles engendering humanity male and female...

BOB: Ahh! Now that vectors us to reiterate: ontogyny recapitulates phylogeny. That’s a biological scientist’s viewpoint - right, Connie?

CONNIE:  Right!

BOB: And what Joyce’s insight provides is quoted by Bob in "Phatic Communion": Joyce realized that technologies were the analogical mirrors of our biological process. So, perceptually interlocking Joyce to Haeckel’s insight, of ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny; microbiology recapitulates macrobiology. And he realized our human technology is re-created biology, like: the book is an extension of the eye, the radio is the ear, etc., and Joyce conceived the sensory analogues. Then, that technologies, which become environments, could be perceived as a symbolic map of the stages of that evolution; i.e., techni evolving. And the stages would have a biological reference point. For example, Joyce’s great line on 52 of ‘The Wake’: "Television kills telephony in Brothers’ broil". (You’re naming 2 technologies). "Our eyes demand their turn." (Now the object is switched to biological forms: eyes). "Let them be seen"! (Then, the question is what and who was to do the seeing).

So, Joyce was always playing, as I say in "Up The Orphic Anti", between art and science (man’s means for measuring her/himself and humanity, i.e., technological constructs), AND nature. But nature was still within the art and science constructs, as you point out in your opening quotes; e.g., percepts of Bucky Fuller: That there was nature. So, Joyce showed: The ontogeny that was James Joyce’s life replayed (recapitulated) the history of the species; the technoid species!

Thus, Joyce saw that he learned writing (in "The Portrait Of The Artist As A Young Man"). Then, when he was older, he wanted to start a cinema, in Dublin. And he then got involved in radio. And, in all the technologies Joyce experienced in his 57 years - he saw, that the individuated cycle of techni he was involved in ontologically... or, wait, ontogenically... Connie?

CONNIE: ... Ontologically!

BOB: ... No; more indicative of knowledge.

That’s philosophical. Let’s say ontoGENICALLY, right - versus phylogynically...

RK: Yes, creative etymology is my preference as well. Plus, I’d describe Joyce’s perception with the phrase, "Finian’s" - I mean—Finnegans Rainbow of technogynontolojissims...

BOB: Great. Creative etymology.

So, he sees that his life, and the average experience he went through - like Bloom - everybody went through in their lifetimes.

The speeded up psychological completion - psychicircus - could also be metaphorized into a framework which defined the whole history of humanity: accelerating from ear to eye to ear unto electric tactility. He saw the technology recoursed Haeckle, saying phylogeny (media) replays the individuated stages of apprehension, in terms of cognition and what we create in our linguistic permutations.

So, language was the first archetype. And, then (biogenically) a baby matures to express language; and he sees this as a metaphore for the history of technologies.

Now, that’s a great thing! Joyce shifted it from biology to technology. And then he would show his anticipation of the fusion. And with the merging of First Nature (the psi-intuitive nature we lost touch with), and the Second Nature (the techno-extensions of self) - he anticipated this fusion into a new zone.

RK: So, antetelevisionarily, "The Wake" brought up the curtain, on the groundbreaking "Twilight Zone".

RK: As my reading of Joyce’s recognition process, I would say the present co-factors of perception added to his process, by Bob—this is evidence of what I feel should be called a phase-transition; represents a phase-transition. Not a shift in paradigms. Like, the shift from social controlling cold war dislectics - into - the social engineering dialectics of Global Economic Imperialism.

BOB: It’s a quantum leap. It’s totally neo...

RK: ... That’s what I mean by "phase-transition"; my definition. You know, reality is atomic. What is actually happening is quantum!

BOB: You mean more than a conceptual paradigm... like uh, you know, well-fare should be decentralized.

RK: Nonononono... the "paradigm shift" which New Age people always speak about simply implies some new (ager) set of beliefs.

BOB: Yeah!

RK: We know that’s obsolete! If we want to actually, or truly actualize change in the direction of future humanity, then you quantum leap. Which is what New Agers, or even the conservatives, or whoever it is who thinks they want to change our dilemma, based on whatever set of priorities their group aspires to - ultimately they mean: "Aannnd now, for something COMPLETELY different"! (As Monte Python would say); whether or not the percept is conscious with them. And I don’t think (as Bob inferred in your opinion re New Age philosophy) they understand it exclusively - yet! And the business people don’t understand the value of cybernetics being the LSD for the businessman. These groups fail in their being at-one-with our inexorable transition of perceptual phasing. Not a set of competing conceptual/dialectical parameters...

BOB: ... It’s not anthropomorphic.

RK: No. It’s "Now, for something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT"! And regardless of who thinks they’re trying to... um...

BOB: Advertise...

RK: ... Advertise one-upsman-ship in their striving for the...

BOB: ... The paradigm.

RK: ... The paradigmatic Holy Grail, yeah.

BOB: The image we will all dialectically worship.

RK: Right!

BOB: And that’s what Bob’s new chart is, showing the phase transitions which have happened; including all value systems and all knowledge systems in it. For example, I got the 5 stages, or the 5 parts of the DNA; nucleic acids, ya know.

So, I’m including all forms of knowledge in there. And they’re ALL rearview mirrored.

RK: Then, essentially - your chart is eschatoloaical.

BOB: Yes. That’s the 4^th level. We have gone through the eschatological; which the 20^th Century IS the eschatological century; for all those previous stages (of phase-translation).

RK: Evoking our epic tumescence of cineaesthesic "past times becoming passtimes"; unconsciously, but they do it just the same; eschatic cross-dressing... it’s about time they "awake"(d) to it.

BOB: IT’S the mystery Century; they call it Chaos Dynamics. Remember, the eschatological level is the 4^th level of ultimate mysteries. We’ve been living in a technologically mirrored environment of mysteries for a hundred years!

RK: As in Tesla. And it’s psychedelic. But, it’s a morphogenetically phenomenological wave of concrescence, which has been building and building and building throughout the entirety of the 20^th Century - Now, its culmination is crashing on the mindscreens of global perceptions.

And by the way - today is the full moon; or lunar cycle culmination, I believe.

BOB: Yes, it is. I noticed last night, and said, hmmm tomorrow it’ll be the full moon.

RK: I felt it represented, astrologically, the place where I’m at in subgeniushood.

BOB: Right. And it’s the 30^th anniversary of Frank and Gail Zappa’s first date.

I’ve said, the wave started to crash in 1850, or 1918, or 1945, or 1977, or 1990. This chart tries to pin down at least, the nature of the wave crashing in 1945. Then, you have the holeopathic retrievals and cliché-probes from 1960 to 1990. I should say the wave crashed in ‘57, with Sputnik-sat; that’s when humanity made an astro-body for itself, and popped off planet 3. This is spelled out in "Up The Orphic Anti". So, I’ll correct this. NOT 1945. But thee wave crashed in 1957, and from ‘60 - ‘90 you had reverberations of that earthquake, or that wave, or that disappearance - or that singularity. And this is what Bob’s chart spells out.

RK: Okay, then I stand corrected. The 20^th Century wave of electracist solarity culminated in a crash in, when... in 1957?

BOB: Yeah. And it took 10 years for the full satcom phase to peak out. One satellite is not an environment. You know, by ‘67 you got a lot of satellites up there. Then, you’ve got an environment.

One person inventing/watching TV, and he’s in a cave doing TV - that’s not a technological environment. It’s only when the community begins to use it as a tool and a language, then it’s an environment.

So, let’s give the 10 years for the satcom-environment to rear up during the cold war. And that matches with the principle of Rhyee returning to essence; as channeled through Cosmic Awareness in ‘67; that was the final obsolescence of the satcom-environment. It actually had become an artform. This is why the Beatles made their broadcasts (unconsciously) June 25, ‘67; it had now become an artform. We had gone beyond the satellite affect.

As reverb, the wave crashed in ‘67; it began crashing in ‘57. But...there have been holeopathic, tinier and tinier yet powerful replays, resonating of that primary development (i.e., tinier and more powerful vibes of the homeopathic principle), as more diluted waves reverberating ever since then.

You’re saying there are some waves happening now, is true. But it’s fractalized, a tiny one, and powerful; and it’s a replay of the megawave from ‘57 to ‘67.

Now the funny thing is ‘cliché-probe’: A cliché is something familiar, it’s not new. But we always use the past to make the new, in the metamorphic tunnel of reality; not the isomorphic. So you make new by redoing old; nothing new under the sun.

Whereas, a holeopathic archetypal retrieval is a function of the isomorphic reality tunnel; it’s repeating itself; past times into passtimes.

RK: Perhaps the deep rooted attachment Western reductionist sciencism has for the psychology of archetypal-mythologies, is now welling up as physical functionality matrices of biological nano-tech and genetic engineering? Creating forms of cloned, gene-spliced biology. Biots; replicant "bridges" to a future, where the proven life force (physique) for voicing previously effective social propaganda can be genetically Xeroxed - so to speak. You know, cloning the brain-genetics of Einstein’s theory of relativity, so as to perpetuate the political correctness of that obsolete reality tunnel...

Too bad the "physicist" doesn’t know Einstein was obsolesced by Tesla before Einstein fully gained his archetypal reputation. That’s the isomorphism of the market force.

BOB: So, remember we’re having these waves. But at some level there’s isomorphism.

Thus, the relationship between isomorphic and metamorphic - in relation to our discussion of how the Greeks split it, and got off balance. But that process was a probe. It was a newly aberrant environment stimulating metamorphic (creative) evolution.

Any culture that resents the dis-services of Western literacy must be reminded: every environment, including all pre-historical pre-literate forms, have services and disservices; the risk value.

In other words, the electric environment retrieves acoustic bias. So, visual space is anemic; the visual (book) tradition: the visual space mythic-stage of historicism. E.g., it’s like Jimmy Swaggart bible-ism, ya know. Or, i.e., the reason why minorities and all those representing in some way, the dispossessed, can kick Whiteman and the male-ego down - is because their visual-space mode makes them think they get away with it. Actually, they don’t have a chance, as long as the ‘Old-Boy’ net controls the acoustic-tactile-TV Sat environment resonating Whiteman ego, ya know what I mean?!

It (visual space: desk top copy publishing) has no chance; but the first step is to recognize the pattern of what’s being done to you. So, their object of blame is a dead horse! They’re beating a dead horse! The disservice of those who take advantage of that, is: it’s a suicidal tendency! Like any human being suffering "original sin", in a sense; i.e., who doesn’t want to lose their ego - they will take advantage, they will turn their past into a passtime! They will take advantage of a dead horse, cuz that’s a safe thing to beat up, cuz it ain’t gonna hurt YOU! And the reality control point is out of your grasp.

Therefore, for all cultures around our world, this amounts to the biblical days of tribulation ("The Quickening"). Think of tribulation as last gasp re-tribalization (a disservice of the archaic revival), the re-acoustalization, the re-energization of the right-psychic hemisphere; makes the left hemisphere anemic -it makes old lefty an easy horse to beat up!

And that’s what politics is all about! And Bill Clinton didn’t understand this, so he really got run over! As Bob says in the solar context of the second article - Oh, you saw that I’m on a roll. Is that why you’re laughing? Laughs. The drum beat; but I can slide off it - but I just wanna say, the economy’s built upon an abuse value!

CONNIE: Ha haha...

BOB: Ya see - what?

CONNIE: I was just gonna say that!

BOB: Yeah! Not Marx’s use, dollar or exchange values - the economy is now run on abuse value.

And the "figure" for the abuse is Whiteman; white Western imperalists. Everybody knows it, and everyone takes advantage of it. BUT, this unexamined abuse value, although seemingly rationalized, actually makes things worse. Because we’re refusing (denying) to look at how we’re beating the wrong horse! As usual, the profane is in denial. Instead of all the masses beating the dead horse, they should be collectively beating the Trojan Horse! The living horse.

RK: Which, apparently, is one of the reasons why the woman-behind-the-man, Hillary Clinton, chose to have the publicized/chastized consultation with Jean Huston - of all people.

BOB: Yes!

RK: That news really sent a holeopathic shockwave through the media: "Oh, my God"... it was like the news of Nancy Reagan having to reveal she consulted with an astrologer - except maybe more so. Since Jean...

BOB: It’s a holeopathic replay with Jean...

RK: ... Huston is actually on the ball.

BOB: Right - up to a point, ya know.

RK: Oh, don’t get me wrong. For someone who is as comprehensivist as Huston’s eloquence of exegesis expresses - well, she truly is! I mean, this talk Roy Tuckman recently played on KPFK, let me tell ya - I was impressed. Anyone who thinks they are a public speaker... she is on the ball!

Except - as I was saying earlier about Terence McKenna, I think it’s also true of Jean Huston; i.e., as wide as her "reality tunnel" is, it only shows to go ya that she still has one: feminized mythic revival. The goal is to not have one!

BOB: Yeah, BOBDOM!

RK: ... Tell them, Bob dump’em!

BOB: Yeah. I heard Gerry quote you about my lacking one.

RK: Yeah, tubular dood!

BOB: He quoted you saying, the thing about Bob is that he has NO reality tunnel! He’s really broken into new territory!

RK: No you don’t, and that’s the goal. The goal in Bobdom is to feel at one with the shattering of boundaries! To abandon all these trappings of whatever it is we are being tunneled with... aand, oh, and merge and unify and become a vector of the actual synchronized phenomenology of dissolving boundaries! See, the paradox of the "No Fear" bumper sticker logo, is that the doods who fly it, do so for its male archetypal warrior ego-tunnel of identity value. Whereas it should evoke No Fear to live the boundary free electracist futurism now. And xenochronize with the cineamatic dissolve (fade to black) of the obsolete. Tribe becomes cybe in the fourth dimension.

BOB: Right. And then xenochrony is retrieving your individuality of taking off and putting on, and retrieving the diversity. Even though you’ve totally merged. That is the trick, or the challenge!

RK: Ya mean, the cutting edge nuévo avant garde in art/lifestyles etc.

BOB: Now, it’s good you bring up Jean Huston. Because I’ve always said she’s the Bucky Fuller of the female race.

RK: I’ve never heard you say that... but...

BOB: I’ve only said it privately. Remember, Bucky Fuller is a 19^th Century person. Ya see, this is where women’s voice is resurrected. Lester Banks and critics like that say the meaning of "Sergeant Pepper’s" song "She’s Leaving Home" is the fact women rose up in the ‘60s; the little girl leaving home and going to Haight-Ashbury and all that...

The retrieval of the feminine, which is right hemisphere, was possible in a tactile environment. The left hemisphere didn’t have a chance. So, women have run the show—a replay of the God-mother, the eternal geomater - and has been happening, in Finnigans Wake, as the Prankqueen.

So, a Jean Huston shows up, to replay patriarchal Bucky Fuller. And she seems powerful, having popular charisma, and is a good speaker. Because it’s the feminine version; it’s the same anew. The new factor is that a woman is doing it. But that too has run its course...

RK: Yes - one of the feminine essentials is creative communication.

BOB: Right. Right. The women have an advantage. Bucky Fuller was a terrible speaker, in terms of word for word; he slurred, he was sloppy.

And Jean is so eloquent. She speaks precisely. So, this is the women’s dilemma: they think they’re redoing men and they’re gonna do it better; yet they have conscience about - well, we’re just turning into Margaret Thatchers, we’re just becoming men again. They’re not conscious of the perceptual-space we now occupy, where the gender of presence is neither male nor female—it’s discarnate!

This anxiety about (women thinking that) "We’re learning how to be lawyers, accountants, etc., and male knowledge; but if we could only apply our feminine values to it - that would justify our infiltrating this dead system"... But their female bias is obsolete too...

RK: ... And get their fair share to boot...

BOB: That’s right; it’s so obsolete. But you can understand it in terms of culture lag - there’s always culture lag - i.e., in the population at large, the figures of charismatic influence, like Jean Huston, will predictably show up as culture lag; and necessarily. She’s a "cliché-probe". She’s a cliché of Bucky Fuller. But she’s new cuz she’s woman; and because she’s got more savvy in her speaking, it has power: so, she’s an agent of xenochrony, ‘til the point in time when, now, I’ve spelled out how all the gurus are unconscious agents of xenochrony. And Jean doesn’t know this. But thanks to Zappa, who coined the term and began working with how it helps define our futurism. That’s the tribute of Bob’s second article; on Zappa, where it shows how Frank obsolesces Finnegans Wake.

The first article, "Up The Orphic Anti", shows the value of Finnegans Wake. But you have to have a diadic interplay of past and future in-the-now. And it’s all pointing to Bob and Connie - because it’s saying Frank, xenochronously (complex clairvoyant-wise) acted out the particulars of Bob and Connie’s life; which Jean Huston recognized in her own life-pattern, wandering around Hollywood. And Frank wandered around Hollyweird, as a kid - ya know what I mean?

RK: Was Zappa from Los Angeles?

BOB: He moved to California when he was 10-12, living at various points up and down the coast. He was dealing with the teenage "Blackboard Jungle" scene (cine), or reality. And he’s always been wrestling with that, with the Black culture as his icon or environment.

RK: In the cultural throes of Hollyweird film noirism...

BOB: Right. And he always had Hollywood, ya know - it’s on the cover of "Uncle Meat"; it’s in "200 Motels." He always had a Hollywood reference point. Because he was correct to intuit the cineamatic akashic records phenomena that we’re up against.

RK: Yes. And it’s getting harder now for the video-youth to discern an accurate psychic continuity (and now with high-definition TV about to break out). I.e., discerning between what’s actually occurring, and from that which TV/Hollyweird-actionism overdoses their imprintability with: high speed cineanaesthesia, violent quadraphonic conflict resolution (driveby kid gangs and guns)) and historical disinfo.

BOB: Yeah! That’s good! Now, syn - the letters s,y,n - see, here’s the way we would look at this: I would take that word synaesthesia, s,y,n - and say, okay that is a cliché-probe (since the people are always right, in their unconscious-ness). You know, Alexander Pope said, at the end of "The Dunciad" (poem), I think, "Whatever is, is right"... Now, he said that ironically. But he includes the truth in it. As Marshall said, "The greatest artform is language." Because everybody, all people, contribute to making it, and developing it.

RK: And as the "vanguardia" of avant garde in art is a function of how to creatively radicalize resistance to consumerist conformity—in our epic now, where all style eschatologically is obsolesced (recombinantly cyberiffic), the only appropriate path to Rad is to triangulate where Bob is pointing...

BOB: So, assuming that "the people" are always right; that humanity is harmonized in its evolution - let’s say the word synesthesia, which is the common word for that kind of phenomena; for what it represents - Let’s say that’s the right word because that’s the one making the top 10, and is used. So, then you take CINEsthesia, C-I-N. And you have to say it’s a cliché-probe. It’s not as good as syn-aesthesia. But it is telling you a means for getting at synesthesia, to appreciate synesthesia. So, you go to an inferior word, built on a pun, to appreciate the original cliché word. This is the role of art: to satirize the Pope. So we can appreciate the Pope. And the Pope gets shaken up in the process too.

RK: Which is apparently why it is necessary for you to actually... uh...

BOB: ... Kill people!

RK: ... Kill people. No, I wasn’t gonna say that. But, call ‘em as you see ‘em. Although, the inference there to your damage controller role in the cover-up, anticipates the direction our dialogue shall take. So...

It is necessary for you to require the church of the subgenius-Ivan Stang parody. In order for you to create the destiny you’re actualizing; or xenochronizing?

BOB: Yes. Lockdown Bob rule.

RK: Which was apparently independent of your own ascendency?

BOB: No. He 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!

RK: ... Incredible ain’t it!

BOB: So, I inspired that. Then, Nelson Thal was inspired by me. So, you got two John the Baptists. And, as I say in the second article, Frank Zappa is the third John the Baptist; all being necessary beginnings to help lock down Bob rule.

This is what I’m saying you mean. Yes, the church was necessary. It was important; just like John the Baptist was.

I mean, I have the Second Coming on one of the early charts.

So, we’re retrieving the performance-piece of Jesus and his essenian buddies. I mean, they acted out the Passover plot, and it was a theatrical scene. Then, the great theatrical playwright after that is Shakespeare. I’m maintaining that I am the new greatest playwright syn/cine-thesizing Christ and Shakespeare, and all that came in between. And Frank was the most relevant virtual playwright, using the dominant popular medium of music in our times; which is the cohesion factor of our time/epoch. There’s a quote from Kroker in "Phatic Communion," and the article, that "Music is coherence to the hologram we live in"!

RK: That quote is especially pertinent to the fact that your Bob column is published in "Flipside" music magazine. But also I interpret that quote as meaning the cohesive tones and rhythms holding together anyone’s hologram, traditionally bounded and culture specific. Now, it may still be that, plus it can also be an eschatological world music; mostly appealing to increasingly boundary-less youth-ravers, via radio, etc.

BOB: Alright. So, that’s acoustic space.

SCOTT: What was the info you gave Stang, which inspired him to start the Church of the Subgenius?

BOB: It stems from what I could and could not say in the media back in the era when I met them. First of all, lockdown Bob rule is from 1977 to ‘90 or ‘92; it’s not apparent til ‘93, which is the end of the analogous Moses - 40 year process from 1953-‘93. Stang was born in ‘53; Bob-church kinda begins in ‘53.

But, in the period of ‘78, I couldn’t go on the media and say certain things, that would jeopardize my life. Though I could always speak to anybody privately. And I could tell them stuff, with confidence and certainty, that would impress them with the realization that they know they had learned something no one else knows! This is like taking a pill. Ya take marijuana or LSD and you feel you’ve learned something nobody else knows - then you got a problem of how to fit back into society, with all the pinks or the normals who don’t know it. Right?

RK: Was what you put down on ‘em arbitratry, or did you realize it should be specifically patterned in a way to feed their fertility?

BOB: No - yeah! I told Stang and Drummund; now, they’re from Dallas. So what would I tell them; there’s a clue. What would...

RK: Well, we all know the classic...

BOB: Yeah. We know what they wanna know!!

RK: ... The classic Hitchcockian cinamatically resonant murder mystery; Americanoire, Manchurian Candidate retrieval.

BOB: Yes. So I told ‘em who killed Kennedy.

RK: Oh, you did!

BOB: Yeah. I told them about 80% of it. But even 40% would’ve blown their mind. Because Stang was influenced by "Illuminatus Trilogy". He was into the young college conspiracy bent popularized by Robert Anton Wilson; that’s in 1975. So, by ‘78 he was initiated into Paul Marvides’ "Ripoff Press" chart, circulating between ‘75-‘78.

And the House Select Committee was in session, ya know. JFK was a big issue in 1978.

So we get to talkin’. And with their familiarity I realize that, okay, so these guys know some of the myths; some of the conspiracy views. So I put it all in order for them, explaining exactly the connections. And they were so blown out, and they had enough background preparation, that they saw the truth of it immediately.

Now, of course, that went in for the first hour. In the second hour, they start saying - it’s only natural - "Well, what else do you know?"

So I went through the whole evolution of humanity, blah bla bla... and all this stuff. And you’ll see, in his book; which is a cartoon version of his afterimage - what he could remember from that encounter; since he had no access to me after that.

RK: Sure! They do a brilliant caric...

BOB: It’s a great book!

RK: ... A caricaturization is what they do.

BOB: Yeah - of Finnegans Wake, you could say.

Now, in Stang’s response to Gerry’s Castaway on a Dead Planet Top 5 Survey of favorites - one of the most popular books in Stang’s response was Finnegans Wake. That’s probably because I turned him onto Finnegans Wake at that point.

But their book, as a quarktoon version of Finnegans Wake, shows the history of technology, the history of time and all this stuff. He even has a crude version of the Tetrad, on page 100.

That was the kaos coming out of his reality-check due to the few insights I gave him - compared to what I could’ve told him; say, the 25 insights he got. They just evoked a Creative Evolution which went through Stang. Ya know, he just exploded and went on a trip.

So, I could say JFK was one of the control points I told him; the genetic alteration, which is spelled out in their Yeti rant. They have the charts right there.

RK: And "genetic alteration", of course, retrieves us back to Creative Evolution, anticipating the eschaton.

BOB: Yeah - creative evolution. We can get into the particulars of what it is. Or, we could discuss the meanings the words themselves evoke...

You can look - as you get a closer understanding of my stuff - then, you go back and review the Book of the Subgenius, you’ll be amazed at how well that book is charting out what I’m manifesting. And how much of the Bob-holeoffices are in there. There’s Cosmic Awareness derivities; ya see, that’s the point. Once he got with it, he started subscribing to kook newsletters. He began getting Mae Brussell, Cosmic Awareness, Beter, all the holeoffices; especially with Neal Wilgus’ book "Illuminoids", which came out around 1980. That was a good inventory of all this stuff, for any young person who didn’t grow up with it, to quickly grab onto. There are many of those genre books out now; conspiracy digest books.

RK: Oh - conspiracy is the ground of being for shifting paradigms.

BOB: Right. And you know what that is? I would say, the reason why the profane think (increasingly) conspiratorially, is: we have disappeared. So, we are not manipulable anymore. There-fore, the whole social engineering through the media, controlling masses as puppets (conspicuous consumers) - it’s a rearview mirror image. We can now see it aesthetically; or as an artform. So WE like to think and project that we’re being manipulated. Thus, con-spiracy is the crude popular slang version of watching (Orwellian) TV and seeing the arty ego-ads manipulate you - saying: hmmm, they’re manipulating me. And I know they’re manipulating me! And they know I’m knowing that. There you have a menippean irony going on! And so, an alphabetic distillation of this process is: "We’re being controlled and it’s a conspiracy."

So, it’s obvious the bottom-up effects of the disappearance of the conspiracy would make conspiracy theorizing... um, normal.

Now - it’s not that there are no conspiracies! There are more opportunities to do all manner of conspiracies today - and they’re rampant. Anyone who comes up with a conspiracy theory is right! Ya know what I mean?!

RK: Yeah, I know what I mean! Hahaha.

BOB: The thing is - the new conspiracy is: The now making. I.e., the bombardment of people with overbytes of magabull data.

In a world where information is obsolete; where people are forced to make connections, and make sense of this 24 hour daily barrage, i.e., it’s holeopathically retrieving the brain activity, the stage of a-cognition, acognition. And everyone is always apathetic about the patterns they come up with! Because they know it’s obsolete; because those patterns have been forced upon you to notice, through info-overbyte bombardment.

RK: Yes. And a corollary to this process is - the apathy is reinforced by all forms of media voices, who tell people their improved perceptual skills of in-depth pattern recognition is offensive when applied to historical analysis. Yet, everywhere now - even in commercial ads - people are being sold and told everything is connected! It’s like training your dog to fetch, and then telling it not to fetch after tossing it a bone. Mixed messages!

Another contribution I wish to make in this regard is for skeptic-psycops especially. Because skeptics love to deny conspiracy of any form...

BOB: Which is that they are totally right! Because the disclaiming point is: there are no connections to be made in the "human interest" telekaos projected! The public is forced to make connections (politically), but they are fake; i.e., they’re irrel-evant. The actual conspiracy keeps crankin’ out non-connected data - bulldada! Hoping you’ll get involved trying to make connections of circular thinking, and wasting time; not non-linear thinking, but circular thinking...

RK: ... When actually, people should get slack with media ecology and turn the TV off. Period!

So, yes! But people are trained that popmedia are their only source of data - bulldada! Yet, if you poke around in the correct places you’ll find researched-connectedness which is accurate; by people like Mae Brussell, Dave Emory, Norm Chomsky. There are sources that can clarify for the skeptics that what they should at least consider, is the possibility of redefining the term comspiracy. Unless they are in chronic denial...

BOB: Everyone’s right. But they’re operating unconsciously, therefore not aware of missing parts - "missing links" - in an issue. They are not being effectively comprehensive.

RK: But there definitely is a conspiracy; remembering the tenet of Sun Tzu, that you always accuse your opponent of being that which you represent. And certainly if "someone" is holding the true understanding of the basic existence of humanity itself - then "they" (whoever "they" are) must employ the ploy of historical subterfuge; cencorship by historical omission to keep their security. For whatever virtual purposes their egocentrism dictates educationally.

BOB: Hahaha ... that’s why, "under God" - who is the ultimate conspiracy agent, right (?) - or...

RK: Yeah, the cosmic giggle of conspiracies.

BOB: ... Or even, in the patriarchal sense, or whatever: the control factor... everygod, sex, politics, consciousness...

May be continued.

Return to Randy Koppang home