Tyler Akers: What is the function of using separate names Peter Lamborn Wilson and Hakim Bey?

Peter Lamborn Wilson: I call it ambulatory schizophrenia. You know, foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of etcetera etcetera. I just needed several identities, and those aren’t the only ones.

….

“…you can’t use violence because violence is completely monopolized by the state. We live in a police state, in communities that are occupied by armed forces…and we have welcomed them into our communities and it’s okay to have these guys going around with guns and guard dogs because we’ve accepted it. So. where’s the revolutiorion?”

Art and mediation:

“I think that every artwork is striving to break down mediation. That was the problem for me with traditional theater, and why I was interested in the avant-garde theater was the whole question of proscenium, the division between the audience and the performer. I’ve always said that the only solution is to get rid of the audience all together.”

“So after years of working on the radio and using lots of recorded music, I decided to take the step of eliminating it from my own house so that when I hear live music it really goes right to my heart and I pay full attention.”

In conversation with Peter Lamborn Wilson, The Brooklyn Rail, Octer 4, 2012

“I’m always pleased to say that what I work on has no practical significance whatsoever. The great thing about science is you never know what’s gonna be discovered or what’s the implications. What if you had to pick one area that had less direct practical significance, it’ll be hard to find one that add up more than mine (regarding his role in the public understanding of science). I try to understand how the universe began and how it’s going end and these questions are incredibly important for us culturally but the kind of new physics that we try and develop and understand affects the universe on scales that really are divorced from human scales directly. Obviously, they relate to what the reason of how we got here and ultimately we want to understand these questions and unfortunately religion tries to protect and use up those question and I want to point out how science can dress them so they’re fundamental sort of cultural questions. I’d like to say my work is as useful as a Mozart Symphony… at its best it enhances the cultural experience of being human.”

“…one of the problems with science is that it has practical utility.”

Lawrence Krauss, “Lawrence Krauss and Dave Rubin: Donald Trump, Nuclear Thread, Science and more (Full Interview),” The Rubin Report video, Oct 21, 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erSOdcN8VUI.

  • Science engages with practical utility but art helps to navigate, question and mediate it? Science is about discovery–good or bad, whatever implications remain secondary–and art is about questioning these impact?