Noesis 55 - November 1990
Letter from Chris Langan
November 29, 1990
Dear Mr. Hoeflin:
When I received the most recent issue of Noesis, I could not help but be struck by your total devaluation of my contributions to the Society as editor of its journal.
After my short-lived amusement, I saw that I would either have to respond, or confirm by silence a casual slur which reflects ill on me and on the work I published as editor.
I therefore drafted the accompanying letter. While it runs to eight pages, this is not out of line for what amounts to a defense of my record with the group.
It occurs to me that you might not want to print it. For the same reasons, you would not want me to print it myself, temporarily resuming the editorship I never explicitly relinquished.
It seems a shame that some accord cannot be reached in the interests of harmony. I suggest that you consider this possibility seriously, since I was forced construct my defense in a way that might be seen as quite unfavorable to you...not only by the members, but by the nonmember subscribers you have enlisted.
Regarding these latter, it seems to me that you have assumed that they subscribed to Noesis merely in order to receive a slightly upgraded version of In-Genius. I would consider it far more likely that they really want an inside view of the mentation of "genius-level" people...the ones who conceive and apply the new theories by which science and philosophy advance.
It would be irrational for you to prefer total domination of a second-rate digest to honored association with a journal of the calibre to which I elevated Noesis almost single-handedly. I think of your recent behavior as more unconsidered than intentional. You need not take the accompanying letter too seriously in that case.
I do not as a rule enjoy making others look bad, and that is not my intention here. I have always understood that you consider Noesis a potential source of revenue to you, and thus offered no resistance when you began to move on the editorship (an editorship you had expressly declined before I took it). But your remarks are all the more pointless in view of my cooperation, and I am left with little interpretative leeway regarding them. I hope you were not personally aggrieved by my refutation of your objections to the CTMU. These refutations were impersonal and consistent in form with the depth and tenacity of your criticism. They are certainly not a rational cause for enmity, or for the appearance thereof.
If you have any suggestions as to how we might avoid unnecessary controversy - e.g., a detailed apology by you in the next issue, and an unconditional retraction of the editorial restriction against me - I might be persuaded to hold onto my response.
I do not presently want exclusive editorship of the journal. But I want it understood that I may, with suitable notice, print (or have printed fully and promptly) my further contributions, in a way consistent with those of the past. If I print myself, I will require (a) a full list of subscribers; (b) printing and mailing costs, not to exceed 1/12 of the year's dues.
Please don't hesitate to share your thoughts on my suggestion with me. While I do not currently have a telephone, you can of course reach me just as you have in the past. If you decline, feel free to print this letter along with the other one. Merry Christmas to you and yours.
The Mega Society
Copyright © 1990 by the Mega Society. All rights reserved. Copyright for each individual contribution is retained by the author unless otherwise indicated.