Prophet and Charlatan

[drugo]

Feedback and criticism welcome...




Prophet and Charlatan
Sources, implications and the conceptual battle ground of the Castaneda controversies.



[Abstract] The elusive sorcery apprenticeship undertaken by author Carlos Castaneda exemplifies anthropological fiction publicly valued with the generous reception that is usually only sanctioned for empirical ethnographic research. In academic quarters a strong case has been put forward exposing Castaneda’s alleged ethnography as novelistic (De Mille 1980, Beals 1987). However, it appears that connecting to the heart of anthropological epistemology and underneath all theories and methodologies are assumptions founded on moral significance. Drawing on ideas from Immanuel Wallerstein, it seems that Castaneda’s series of books mirror the role of social science whilst sparking a controversy that elucidates the murky waters of anthropological epistemology.


References

Alexander, J. (2003) ‘The meaning of social life: a cultural sociology’. New York: Oxford University Press

Anders, A. (2008) ‘Castaneda’s Ecstatic Pedagogy: The Teachings of Don Juan’. Configurations. 16 pp.245-267

Barnes, S (1972) ‘On the reception of scientific beliefs’. in Barnes (ed.) ‘Sociology of Science’. Baltimore: Penguin

Baron, L. (1983) ‘Slipping inside the Crack between the worlds: Carlos Castaneda, Alfred Schutz, and the Theory of Multiple Realities’. Journal of Humanistic Psychology. 23 (2) pp.52-69

Beals, R. (1978) ‘Sonoran Fantasy or Coming of Age?’ American Anthropologist. 80 (2) pp.355-362

Castaneda, C. (1968) ‘The Teachings of Don Juan’. Berkley: University California Press

(1971) ‘A Separate Reality’. New York: Simon & Schuster

(1972) ‘Journey to Ixtlan’. New York: Simon & Schuster

(1974) ‘Tales of Power’. New York: Simon & Schuster

(1977) ‘Art of Dreaming’. Psychology Today. 11 (7) pp.?

(1987) ‘The Power of Silence’. New York: Simon & Schuster

Churchill, W. (2003) ‘Spiritualism Huckerism: The Rise of the Plastic Medicine Men’. Cultural Survival Quarterly. 27 (2) p.26

Clifford, J. & G. Marcus [eds] (1986) ‘Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography’. Berkley: University California Press

Clifton, C. (1994) ‘Shamanism and Neoshamanism’. in Clifton (ed.) ‘Witchcraft and
Shamanism: Witchcraft Today’, Book Three. Minnesota: Llewellyn

De Mille, R. [eds] (1980) ‘The Don Juan Papers: Further Castaneda Controversies’. Santa Barbara: Ross-Erikson Publishers

Douglas, M. (1975) ‘Implicit Meanings’. LonDon. Routledge

Drury, N. (1989) ‘The Elements of Shamanism’. Dorset: Element Books

Eliade, M. (1964) ‘Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy’. trans. by Trask, W., New Jersey: Princeton University Press

Giddens, A. (1991) ‘Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age’. Cambridge: Polity Press

James, A. & Hockey, J. & Dawson, A. [eds] (1997) ‘After Writing Culture: Epistemology and Praxis in Contemporary Anthropology’. New York: Routledge

Jarvie, I. (1988) Reply to Sangren, S. ‘Rhetoric and the Authority of Ethnography: “Postmodernism” and the social reproduction of texts’. Current Anthropology. 29 (3) pp.415-24

Krantz, D. (2006) ‘Carlos Castaneda and His Followers: Finding life’s Meaning in Your Local Bookstore’. Journal of Popular Culture. 39 (4) pp.576-598

Kremer, J. (1992) ‘Lifeworks: Carlos Castaneda’. ReVision. 12 (2) pp.195-203

Lavery, D. (1980) ‘Dissertations as Fiction’. College English. 41 (6) pp.675-679

Murray, S. (1979) ‘Review: The Scientific Reception of Castaneda’. Contemporary Sociology. 8 (2) pp.189-192

Sangren, S. (1988) ‘Rhetoric and the Authority of Ethnography: “Postmodernism” and the social reproduction of texts’. Current Anthropology. 29 (3) pp.415-24

Tyler, S. (1986) ‘Post-modern Ethnography: From Document of the Occult to Occult Document’. in Clifford & Marcus (ed.) ‘Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography’. Berkley: University California Press

Wallerstein, I. (2003) ‘Anthropology, Sociology, and Other Dubious Disciplines’. Current Anthropology. 44 (4) pp.453-465

Wallis, R. J. (2003) ‘Shamans/NeoShamans: Ecstasy, alternative archaeologies and
contemporary Pagans. LonDon: Routledge.

Znamenski, A. (2007) ‘The Beauty of the Primitive: Shamanism and the Western Imagination’. New York: Oxford University Press

Edited March 11, 2014 by drugo

[mutant]

Definately biased and apologetic, but interesting, in a first skim through. I will print and read properly some time.

[drugo]

Definately biased and apologetic

 

how so?

[mutant]

I know I am biased against him and very critical of people who are liars, especially lying, egomaniac cult creating liars that pass off their lies as science/truth/anthropological data

So I can spot the other side of the bias in this text Still it's informative and very interesting, like I said.

I printed it and will take the time to read it more carefully. But I can already quote some points where it's obviously biased if you care

Edited June 12, 2010 by mutant

[Tlaloc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I11F-CDyiyA

He was a brilliant liar who succumbed to his own myth.

Brilliant storytelling, with many concepts and ideas "borrowed" from various sources (many eastern) and given different names.

I ran around with a group of followers a while back. People who met him and "worked" with him and the witches. I can assure you, they were very very strange.. and very strange things would happen when we would gather.

I think that 'conciousness' is the real mystery here...

Appreciate his thoughts and interp none-the-less...

what a jackal.

certainly is a predatory universe Carlitos

I hope you found IT

[rhubarb]

But I can already quote some points where it's obviously biased if you care

 

yes please??

[mutant]

2 examples

Perhaps the most ruthless deluge was unleashed by the critical thinking of psychologist Richard de Mille (1980) in the magnum opus The Don Juan Papers.

ruthless is negatively charged , no? it seems to embed an immorality, since it is argued that Castaneda was doing a morally good thing, but hey this is not my mother tongue

Rather than simply attempting to legitimate Castaneda’s seemingly successful public hoax, this paper chooses to analyse the case study as a controversy that brings into focus ideas that concern various anthropological methodologies

this is apologetic for both the paper and Castaneda. It anounces what the paper is going to try to do, and that is to justify castaneda's writtings as if they challenge scientific methods, anthropology or whatever.

Well, whatever philosophy Castaneda carried and taught with his books, it's philosophy, spirituality, religiocity, quest for the meaning of life etc.

Lies are not a challange for science, lies are a challenge for truth. Sorry it's just that deception doesn't do it for me and trying to justify deception is not a breakthrough in anthropology , it's philosophy, spirituality, theology, like I said.

Was it successful? It was a commercial success, that's for sure. Was it spiritualy successful? Hmmm I doubt that. I doubt he even found what he searched himself.

I am finding the paper quite decent & thought provoking though, but don't you think the author obviously likes Castaneda?

I will come back when I read it all.

Edited June 15, 2010 by mutant

[drugo]

2 examples

ruthless is negatively charged , no? it seems to embed an immorality, since it is argued that Castaneda was doing a morally good thing, but hey this is not my mother tongue

this is apologetic for both the paper and Castaneda. It anounces what the paper is going to try to do, and that is to justify castaneda's writtings as if they challenge scientific methods, anthropology or whatever.

Well, whatever philosophy Castaneda carried and taught with his books, it's philosophy, spirituality, religiocity, quest for the meaning of life etc.

Lies are not a challange for science, lies are a challenge for truth. Sorry it's just that deception doesn't do it for me and trying to justify deception is not a breakthrough in anthropology , it's philosophy, spirituality, theology, like I said.

Was it successful? It was a commercial success, that's for sure. Was it spiritualy successful? Hmmm I doubt that. I doubt he even found what he searched himself.

I am finding the paper quite decent & thought provoking though, but don't you think the author obviously likes Castaneda?

I will come back when I read it all.

 

Perhaps you should read the paper before commenting. Your arguments do not resonate with the paper and its ideas. It is not an attempt to rescue Castaneda from scientific reductionism, rather, it attempts to tease out certain paradoxes that underlie the nature of truth.

[mutant]

Perhaps you should read the paper before commenting. Your arguments do not resonate with the paper and its ideas. It is not an attempt to rescue Castaneda from scientific reductionism, rather, it attempts to tease out certain paradoxes that underlie the nature of truth.

I read it. It's a very good essay. I still think it's apologetic and ...hmmmm a bit hesitant in what it wants to say. I think it's somewhat missing some points, like why Castaneda lies are somewhat 'justified' or , why does Castanedas controversial method [better like that huh?] has benefits over other more scholar approaches in reaching the truth? How do we justify this? ANd how do we fit this into anthropology?

Is it because his books where very popular ["people needed these ideas badly" arguement]that proves it's OK using lies presented as anthropology?

Are Castaneda pseudo-ethnological books better than other real ethnological/anthropological ones?

So my point is, that I don't dislike Castaneda's legacy because his philosophy [that's what I can call it] is against modernist thought or against scholar anthropology or that it's a pretty biased, idealistic, nostalgic philosophy. I dislike the whole thing because all this thing was based on lies that he never admitted. Plus, most people reading his books still don't know this nowadays!! I think that's inacceptable.

That's why he was/is so famous. He sold his first books as the real story and you know how it's more exciting like this. People don't like the scholar tone of Plants of the Gods. What they prefer is easy to digest pseudo-real story novel-like, a guide to spirituality , shamanism and psychedelic drugs guide, all in one, exciting adventure. And you know what? They don't mind if it's made up.

People like to live in a dream, in the land of fairies, that's why drugs are always popular. Castaneda offered this to the world, but a commercial success doesn't justify means and lies IMO.

Am I missing something? Is it OK to lie if you're talking about 'good' things like love and self-awareness?

In other words he is a self-titled guru. Because he got a PhD and got his books published as real story and nobody gave a shit to dismiss him until he became overly successful & became a legend. This is not the real thing though.

Good ideas are OK, but deception and pseudo heros make the cake totally unappealing to me. I will stick to the original ethnobotany, and will continue to be critical on such philosophies on what we would like to be, especially if they present themselves as truth while they're not...

Would love to know your ideas on my criticism and let me know if I am missing something.

[The Dude]

Myth and allegory allude to greater truths than any dry academic, clinical science could ever even attempt to grasp. Art imitates Life imitates art imitates life... therefore the whole nature of truth/lies is seen to paradoxically entangle as they integrally form each other, all is merely a suggestion planted in the receptive minds of the observer, truth is a fallacy.

We all live in fairyland, some people would prefer this to be a fiction invented by our own minds (to reduce it to a personally invented idea, hence retain egoic ownership / perceived control of the mystery presented), some peoples minds are invented by others fictions... it's all relative and suggestible and ultimately a complete lie... reality i mean.

BTW i haven't read the article, just felt you might have missed something. I just like to add my 2c to controversial discussions.

[ThunderIdeal]

in the second part that mutant quotes.... legitimise not legitimate????? sounds like an interesting essay tele

[drugo]

Myth and allegory allude to greater truths than any dry academic, clinical science could ever even attempt to grasp. Art imitates Life imitates art imitates life... therefore the whole nature of truth/lies is seen to paradoxically entangle as they integrally form each other, all is merely a suggestion planted in the receptive minds of the observer, truth is a fallacy.

We all live in fairyland, some people would prefer this to be a fiction invented by our own minds (to reduce it to a personally invented idea, hence retain egoic ownership / perceived control of the mystery presented), some peoples minds are invented by others fictions... it's all relative and suggestible and ultimately a complete lie... reality i mean.

BTW i haven't read the article, just felt you might have missed something. I just like to add my 2c to controversial discussions.

 

The arguments in the paper resonate virtually with all that you are saying. As for my paper "missing something", in my opinion truth is like a landscape painting that is never truly complete or missing, never all encompassing, and never 'wrong' simply because it is focusing on one thing and not another, such as painting a series of caves and not trees or clouds and not the sun, it is still a landscape.

Though thanks for the blurb, it was thoroughly enjoyed

Mutant -

You seem to be accepting all scientific methodology as means or tools that produce some sort of absolute fact or real truth. But, as history has prevailed, scientific methodology itself evolves and creates and destroys itself. Progressive science is just as interested in developing methods and developing the questions that it is asking as it is in developing answers. Rather than thinking that it is absolutely immoral to positivisticly "lie" -- a perspective that sanctifies ephemeral scientific methods as absolute -- the article suggests that Castaneda's dance between myth and reason, or myth and myth, stretches dogmatic tendencies of the Church of Reason elucidating certain limitations of contemporary anthropology including its tendency to focus on narrow particularlisms.

All words are like characters in a story. And what positivistic science calls logic may be seen as personality types and attitudes that certain characters use to help make yes/no actions and decisions.

There are evolving rules and codes that govern ethnographic truth just as there are evolving rules and codes that govern Sudanese story telling truth. Perhaps it is better to think of truth as a vessel of morality rather than some sort of Godly encyclopedia that science is building.

Edited June 20, 2010 by telepathogen

[mutant]

Dude

Myth and allegory allude to greater truths than any dry academic, clinical science could ever even attempt to grasp. Art imitates Life imitates art imitates life... therefore the whole nature of truth/lies is seen to paradoxically entangle as they integrally form each other, all is merely a suggestion planted in the receptive minds of the observer, truth is a fallacy.

I am personally against this dry scientific protocol of understanding truth, what I call 'scientifism'

but man life art nature and all, they don't blend randomly and totally chaotically. Sure there's a certain chaotism that can't be denied but their blending and imitation follows some undeniable patterns, I don't call it science, I call it nature, natural history, plain observation of natural behaviours.

and reality is not a lie. but we're off topic here. Have I told you my theory on the nature of reality as a comparison of the almost theoretical objective reality and each individuals/groups of like minded subjective reality?

Anyway

I can see Castaneda's ideas as beneficial and great and all good, my problem is that he impressed people with a lies. I am not totally accepting he was after all a positive force, even in the new agey movements. Hey, he generally was an advocate of psychedelic religion and said quite nice things, but he lied , the controversy cannot be denied. What was his motivation?

tele

You seem to be accepting all scientific methodology as means or tools that produce some sort of absolute fact or real truth

no, I am not like that, I might sound a bit like this when I am talking to believers. When I am talking to the scientifists, those that you mistake me for, my arguements are in the opposite direction.

I can understand your point about positively lying, and the interpretation of Castaneda's writings, lot's of people write similar stuff, what's so special about castaneda and he became so popular? He lied. His books are still sold as a real anthropological books...

but, you have to admit that

this positive lying is positive depending on which side your observing it from... you like these ideas.. you like the man, y'know? So the ideas are positive.

They're not particularly negative anyways, but all this positivism gets on my nerves and really does depict the real picture, the real thing. Don't get me wrong. Lots of this hippy-newagey-buddist whatever does it for me, but this one, this guy is a phonny.

I am talking about the person and the two first books

you talking about the messages the books carried...

difference

this

plus I have a thing with lying, especially when lying to become a pseudo-guru of some sort and making couple of bucks along the way...

[The Dude]

there is no such thing as fiction. (stole that quote from someone on here)

all things are true ...OR all truth is fictitious.

The only absolute is there are no absolutes, ergo there is no such thing as absolute truth, itself a paradoxical statement in its absoluteness, maybe reality might start to come into focus about here...

Your theory on the nature of reality as a 'comparison' between a theoretical objective world, and the subjective world of the individual / group consciousness is totally novel and amazing. I now understand it all. Of course there is no way to verify this as I am just a figment of your imagination agreeing with you to act as an agent of further self delusion which you can't remember programming into the video game of your life... I'm not actually here and you made up carlos castaneda so stop fucking blaming him for your fantasies inconsistencies.

...ok assuming that I am actually real, back on topic.

The part that you may have missed is that your distinction between truth/lies is an arbitrary line in the sand... in your mind. Furthermore, myth cannot be said to be a lie... it could be misinterpreted. Of course the correct interpretation is always the one you currently have, it's from there you can jump to the next stepping stone.

Edited June 21, 2010 by The Dude

[drugo]

The part that you may have missed is that your distinction between truth/lies is an arbitrary line in the sand... in your mind. Furthermore, myth cannot be said to be a lie... it could be misinterpreted. Of course the correct interpretation is always the one you currently have, it's from there you can jump to the next stepping stone.

 

An excerpt from the end of the paper that you may be interested in. I feel that the line in the sand between truth/lies is not simply arbitrary but ethical.

Of course, the success of the Don Juan books at providing wise council on certain problems of the present does not mean that the style of the operation – Castaneda’s controversial methodology – is to replace its alternatives such as hard empirical ethnographic particularism. Rather, the moral of the Castaneda story for anthropology is that there are murky boarders between myth and reason, and the various apparatuses that attempt to separate and connect the two are continually being negotiated and remade by, ultimately, moral compasses.

The declaration of fact from fiction indicates the expression of moral or value laden judgements and trajectories; similar to the sacred and profane declarations made by medieval Christianity. All epistemology is sacralised – and demonised – by particular codes and narratives. As Nietzsche tells, ‘what can be thought must surely be a fiction’ (cited in Lavery 1980:675). In a similar tone, Wallerstein (2003:459) proclaims that:

Narratives are an admirable understandable and attractive way of communicating perceptions of reality. To be sure, even the harshest set of differential equations is a form of narrative, though not the most palatable form.

There are inherent biases and rules governing and valuing different theories, methodologies and actors on the stage of today’s western dreaming. Constructing Don Juan with truths from real fieldwork, Castaneda managed to seduce the western imagination in a way that is typically reserved for empirical ethnography. The power of this reservation, the uncanny hegemonic position of positivism in the western psyche, arguably would have radically dismissed the value of Castaneda’s work if the author confessed to ethnographic piracy. But, a seemingly obvious dismissal of Castaneda’s legitimacy and value seems to distort and become less obvious – and less objective – under the epistemological telescope; uncovering a perspective that reveals multiple ways of knowing and therefore multiple realities. The courageous role of social science at attempting to understand, and implicitly catalyse, social phenomena is bound up, as Wallerstein (2003:458) urges, in an eternal responsibility toward ethnography and fieldwork. However, how social scientific fieldwork is developed, employed and presented is surely another matter – a matter that tends to be laced with positivistic moral potions.

 

Mutant -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism

Edited June 21, 2010 by telepathogen

[mutant]

Dude

Nonsense!

this is rhetorical big words

****

if you are exposed to gravity you fall

if you fall of the 4rth store, you break many of your bones

if you cut your hand off , you stay handless for life

if you cut/injure you cactus it will heal up quickly

if you cut the tip of your cactus it will eventually pup from some areole

****

yeah, it all sound like a fiction film, a novel

no mate, not everything is fiction

the fact the my parents personalities played a major part in what I and my personality are like is not fiction, it's not something I convinced myself in and so I believe in it. I came to find out it is absolutely true. As it is with everyone.

Truth & honesty is something some people value more than others, I happen to be of the ones [the few] that value them a lot. Lot's of people tend to not care if what they're eating/consuming/believing is true or not, the real thing or made up. I do.

So, since you are probably real yourself despite the rhetorics, it's your impressively empty words which are arbitrary.

Reality is there, if you're speeding enough and crash on it you won't argue about it being fiction.

Now..... is it good for you to be obsessed with truth? that is another thing. Another y'know?

I don't even know if you understand difference or even matter with such fluid perception you claim to have.

*****

Tele reasoning about the paper implying it's OK to lie if there's an ethical reason to do so, is more to my liking, and contrary to what you say it actually makes sense - but I still do not agree totally on the ethical arguement. You got to find a non believer, a philosopher, an objective researcher to say "what Castaneda says is right, I don't mind he fooled us because he did this for a good purpose"

When we find such a man, we have to know what kind of guy he is. If he is like Dude who says reality doesn't exist, and everything is fiction, then IMO it doesn't count. We have to find someone who accepts there's limit, a line between fantasy and reality.

We also {well I have to actually] find out what kind of man Castaneda really was, what kind of life he lived. Again, IMO, we cannot separate one's life and personality from his work especially when trying to use controversial arguements to step on [ethical + positivist "it's good for us" arguements]

Max Horkheimer and other critical theorists criticized the classic formulation of positivism on two grounds. First, they claimed that it falsely represented human social action. The first criticism argued that positivism systematically failed to appreciate the extent to which the so-called social facts it yielded did not exist 'out there', in the objective world, but were themselves a product of socially and historically mediated human consciousness. Positivism ignored the role of the 'observer' in the constitution of social reality and thereby failed to consider the historical and social conditions affecting the representation of social ideas. Positivism falsely represented the object of study by reifying social reality as existing objectively and independently of those whose action and labor actually produced those conditions. Secondly, he argued, representation of social reality produced by positivism was inherently and artificially conservative, helping to support the status quo, rather than challenging it. This character may also explain the popularity of positivism in certain political circles. Horkheimer argued, in contrast, that critical theory possessed a reflexive element lacking in the positivistic traditional theory.

btw. the term positivist is totally loose and controversial

Edited June 21, 2010 by mutant

[The Dude]

[edit] more thoughts, can never get it all out in a way where I'm convinced it's what I actually mean to say, and the person I'm addressing it to will get what I mean, do i even know what I mean? this would take for ever if I cared that much, know what I mean? Even if you say yes, do i know? With that in mind I crucify the control trip that needs perfect wording to allow for 100% certainty of interpretation and accept these discussions as in a permanent state of uncertainty. I could never really explain it, even to myself.

Your points about gravity etc. whilst being a direct apprehension of reality doesn't change the fact that all you experience is fiction. Yes it is a persistent fiction... the narrative needs consistency.

When your ego/persona/who you think you are lets go of all its attachments and the fictions it has written for itself, the curtain is closed and the stage of life is made evident for what it is. Yes... everything in your life, your family, your genetics, your conception of physics and the laws of gravity... is fiction, albeit a very convincing and persistent fiction.

Keeping in mind that there is no you there is only me. This is the fiction I (am that i am) created for myself... a choose your own adventure sort of book, with branching possibilities that are held within the greater narrative, a drama or myth.

If you realise that you am I, all this conversation here becomes a bit of a joke, as do all of the facades we put on trying to convince the other of our separation of identity, as maybe necessary lest the universe collapse.

I still maintain that truth is a lie... it has a nice oxymoronic paradoxical-ness about it.

Truth is a reality but anything written about it is false.

Truth is one, the sages call it by many names.

The map is not the destination.

Allegory^^^ use it.

The way I see it, If a 'crazy' person believes in pink elephants in every room it doesn't mean they're not there just because everyone else is careful to ignore it and not dare utter its possibility lest they look the fool, you can become very adept at fooling yourself this way and even start believing the pink elephant isn't even really there. A negative hallucination they call it.

Mutant... you talk of believers, but all your rhetoric clearly demonstrates your hooked on your beliefs.

It may be that belief is the filter of the infinite and that your inability(choice) to experience the mystery that expanded awareness ventures into is because of your personal belief bias (filters) that disallows the presence of unknowns.. It seems apparent that you have a critical prejudice to any notions of uncertainty as a truth, an ideal where any acceptance of mystery is far too... uncertain to accept. Far too different a mindset to even see as a possibility.

This is the natural result in a world where they teach us what's known is known, what isn't isn't worth knowing. Information is an accumulation of data; what you can't count doesn't count.

Such a paradigm would discount any immaterial ideas/theories/spirits/active agents of physical manifestation ... as purely hypothetical fantasies contained within the physical space between the ears - Forgetting the reality of directly experiencing this communion with self, as the totality of being, where all (and some) notions of true/false are totally (and in part) meaningfully meaningless.

psychedelics are amazing in their ability to spontaneously remove these filters (ego control trip) allowing the 'natural' (non believing) states of just experiencing to emerge on their own (not as you'd believe as the result of make believe fantasies)

These experiences often contain mythological elements that synthesise your real life experience with over-arching archetypes, a cosmic sense of place is allowed... Myths create and expand our current interpretations of the known through allowing us to venture into the unknown,

You restrict your apprehension of reality (the colours of your pallette) by your innacceptance of the unknown as being a legitimate truth because it is not a hard fact, or even possible to prove.

It is the sandpit of ideas, you cannot prove/disprove an idea, but it is certainly true that they create our reality.... which may be false, if that idea rings true to you.

All things were once thoughts

all possibilities were once theories

all theories were once ideas

all ideas were once fantasies...

I always paraphrase awesome quotes, just not quite right, need to start writing them all down.

and...

also...

*yawn*

Edited July 15, 2010 by The Dude

[Psiloman]

The way I see it, If a 'crazy' person believes in pink elephants in every room it doesn't mean they're not there just because everyone else is careful to ignore it and not dare utter its possibility lest they look the fool, you can become very adept at fooling yourself this way and even start believing the pink elephant isn't even really there. A negative hallucination they call it.

 

Still though, those pink elephants however real are not going to trump over you or trump over the one who perceives them as real*. On the otherhand objectively real elephants (or transsubjectively if we want to knit pick on terms) can surely trump over you and they will leave evidence of it : if the body is shipped away to a foreign land for an autopsy ...well the corononer can prossibly tell you have been trumped over by a real elephant ,even if he/she had just been sent the body with no details.

However "fluid" the reality, i think we are just playing here, we are entertaining philosophy for the sake of it : none of the people talking here is going to try to pass through a concrete-steel enforced wall, full speed ,on the ground that "reality is what you make of it" or "reality is so fluid i can call it fiction". Why? Well because the hard objective reality of the wall will meet the soft and fluid theories (and body) of the person attempting the feat and...in an almost fascist way impose its hard "truth" : that of broken bones, broken nose, bleeding or concusion. I dont thing anyone here will argure that they can pass through walls, i mean not "theoreticaly" as if we are in a "Fringe" episode, but practically.

The value of truth? Hmm...Depends : While i enjoy storytelling and knowing that something is fabricated doesnt subtract from enjoying it ,there are cases where i would like to know what really happens/has happened,even in the sense of approximate reality ,at least the person giving me the data regarding them as correct to the best of his/her knowledge. I wouldnt fuss over a fairytale,i like them, i woudl fuss over though an anthropological/ethnological study that is fabricated. Going into more "science grounds" ,there i like my data to be sincere since i want to utilise them for practical purposes hence there is no room for fabricating. I would rather have wrong but sincere data, i can accept a miscalculation its a bit more difficult to accept a fabrication.

*Depends though on how one ACTS on their beliefs. If for example,and lets take an extreme one, a person suicides because -archetypal paranoia- "CIA is after them,reading their thoughts" ,the end result might be the same as for a person that INDEED CIA was after him and commited suicide. The implications and consequences are real in both cases although in the first it might be brighter than the sun the fact that CIA has no reason to chase erm...your greengrocer that the most suspicious and daring thing he ever did in his lifetime was...sell you Australian olive oil telling you its Greek olive oil, which we all know is a National level threat, and the most secret thing he ever layed his hands on was his grandmothers secret cookie recipie Hmmm...Depends though on what the cookies have as a filling ;)

What are we really arguing about here?

And as fabrications go, if i lied to you about lets say your "significant other's" ehm.."activities" not including you (heh, yes lets go a bit for something more personal/emotional here) or lied to you about money or your health, would you let me of the hook if i played the "reality is fiction,its fluid" card? Or if a person doesnt come through a trade in this website (lets say you send him money for cacti, to take an example already having taken place),could the person play that card? If -for arguments sake- the person REALLY believed he/she kept his part (whereas for an external observer he/she didnt) ,would it make it "true" and put you to rest that indeed you received the part of the trade you were promised? I dont think you would be very happy or very convinced Why so though?

What are the implications of all of the above?

Edited June 21, 2010 by Psiloman

[mutant]

Too many assumptions and too much certainty for my supposed 'closemindedness' whereas you're not less dogmatic and absolute than me yourself, like I said in another thread. The difference is I can argue and actually make my conclusions and points make sense

first

I was never scared away from making fool of myself because I said weird things, never tried to be the norm - on the contrary I praised the different and supported the weak, I questioned everything I needed to and I reached my own conclusions which might also be temporary - no need you making assumptions on how I reached my own conclusions since you don't know shit about my life - btw I say weird shit all the time, I just don't happen to regard hallucinations reality.

Mind you my conclusions are always replicated and re-tested with all kinds of people, you know, arguements and reasoning are always available, and this not only when I take drugs, but also when I am sober, unlike those fantasy realities you so boldly defend.

Other than that you admit people just do this, that is, they accept what's convinient for them. That's true for believers and non-believers alike. You & me are not an exception either...

Yeah the map is not the destination

but the map you're drawing is not objective because you find maps boring. You cant even read the fucking map I am making...

I have been making a map about me and a map about the others, the general map [subjective-objective reality] but you're saying the maps do not exist, they are not the real thing, and they don't tell us anything about the earth or life...

Well you're telling this to a map enthusiast. Ask the experts first, about the maps I mean, before you assume you know everything about all kinds of mappings and all kinds of quests.

You insist that truth/reality is a lie that me am I you he she etc are one and all that hippy shit, OK. You also talk about pink elephants, and who are we to tell to the one that sees them that there are no pink elephants?

In my book [yep you guessed it] there are no pink elephants, just people that make such childish arguements because they need to defend their weird beliefs as normal.

Psychosis may be feel-good [messiah syndrome, creativity, euphoria] , and it may be feel-bad [paranoia, fear, agression]

You don't like me calling it psychosis? Well, welcome to reality. Not my reality mind you.

It's psychotic symptoms all the way if one is talking to someone who isn't there. Good for him if he enjoys this. Good for him if he manages to work through it in some sort of spirituality between him and 'the other', and not having it creating problems in his life, but if you ask me 'the other' is just a part of him, that's all. It's just more convinient for the psychotic mind to see the other as an external reality.

I am not here to maintain the stigma for mental disease. But I will argue against those who keep repeating all this bullshit , there's no reality, reality is in our head, truth is fictious, there are no mental diseases etc. etc.

My friend was convinced reality is not fixed, that we make it whatever we want, and that we can use these drugs to do it, this, before he burst through into a psychotic episode.

They might have made him a shaman in another society, but don't expect me to accept all this childish arguements just because you theists wanna promote reality as a fluent fiction.

What you say is like Castaneda's stuff, in a way***

you promote bullshit, but it's for a good reason

thing is I don't think it's such a good reason after all. It's the same old reason. You want to defend your religion, because you got it right in your head and it makes sense. It doesn't matter it's your own, custom-made religion. Don't overestimate yourself. Each persons religion is after all a custom made religion. Especially new agey, psychedelic, buddhist, pacifist, hippy stuff....

you say the map is not a destination, so you have a destination?

there's a saying it's the quest and the journey that counts, not the destination and it's my right to make maps as we walk, no? If you had your eyes more open, you would see it's a pretty decent map after all. It even has you believers fit in.

But you are still using a map, wherever you're walking to, only it's an old, mystic map, lots of those new agey mumbo jumbo maps out there, especially in psych forums. Each one uses the map that suits him. I don't like the mystic map for myself, but I would love it if you explained it to us, if you could.

But you can't, because your ultimate arguements and concepts are abstract [pretty normal, as it's religion, based on faith, not facts]. Your map is abstract. You can't show me the signs.

Using my own map now, I can explain everything and point you at, and answer every fucking questions you got.

Just remember, my map is a map of human behaviour, it explains, it does not suggest.

You map suggests how people should live their life. What's the real deal. Why? Because. No explanation. I say screw your map.

Psychedelics munching was never a good enough arguement for me to point out that one man is better than the other, or that an opinion is more worthy than another. You saw what happened with Chiral. He didn't convince me either. But maybe he does not know what a map is.

PS: Love ya psiloman, cheers ;)

Edited June 21, 2010 by mutant

[drugo]

You got to find a non believer, a philosopher, an objective researcher to say "what Castaneda says is right, I don't mind he fooled us because he did this for a good purpose"

When we find such a man, we have to know what kind of guy he is. If he is like Dude who says reality doesn't exist, and everything is fiction, then IMO it doesn't count. We have to find someone who accepts there's limit, a line between fantasy and reality.

We also {well I have to actually] find out what kind of man Castaneda really was, what kind of life he lived. Again, IMO, we cannot separate one's life and personality from his work especially when trying to use controversial arguements to step on [ethical + positivist "it's good for us" arguements]

 

The stories Castaneda spun are real, as in they were really recorded by other anthropologists. Castaneda's wisdom is shamanic but not necessarily very ethnographic. But, Eliade's landmark magnum opus Shamanism is not ethnographic, but instead is 'arm chair' anthropology, just like Castaneda's work. But, Castaneda claims that his stories are accounts taken by him personally which enables a huge audience (because of wester positivist biases) and it enables an amazing tool for invigorating the western imagination with truths from other anthropologists and shamanic explorers.

...................

Reading [Castaneda’s] books one would do well

to keep in mind the formula with which traditional

Sudanese story-telling begins:

“I’m going to tell a story”, the narrator proclaims.

“Right!” the audience rejoins.

“It’s a lie” he warns. “Right!” comes the reply.

“But not everything in it is false” he asserts.

“Right!” echo the listeners.

........................

What we call story offers powerful dynamics for communicating ideas. It tends to be much more engaging and visceral and inspiring that dry logic bombs. Story can weave multiple truths and captivate the imagination in a way that "objective" science tends to not be able to. And finally, the objectiveness of objective science has evolved over the years, we no longer understand the world as being flat, males as rational/female emotional, an impossibility to talk into a peice of plastic (phone) and connect with the other side of the world. And believe it or not, much of the "factual" rules that you spoke of have been transcended by mystics over the years.

We operate within a very very narrow band of reality. Follow a diet and ingest psyches regularly for a month or two and you will be humbled by the complex potentialities of reality. In my opinion Scientism and its steam train of materialistic progress tends to limit many a brilliant mindbody.

btw. the term positivist is totally loose and controversial

 

you seemed to be using the term as a substitute for positive, as a kind of value point in a dichotomy of good and bad. This is not positivism, it is specifically associated with epistemology not ethics.

Edited June 21, 2010 by telepathogen

[mutant]

Like I said interesting take

[Psiloman]

I tend to find meaning and also enjoy myself immensly in what other people find "dry logic". I tend also to enjoy stories a lot and even make some of my own! It depends what i want to do with the data. Sure, i can be taught "ethos" through a story ,look at Aesop for example . Still if i want sometimes to implement the data , i would really appriate if the person -lets take an example from this forum's thematology- told me if the "chemical analysis on X plant" he did was fictional or indeed took place.

Why so? Because in the case it is fictional i can still enjoy it, but if i want to work with this plan i'd rather have hard data on my hands for it, or if there are no data thats a good start to start unearthing them. Here, many people barricate themselves in dichotomies, meaning that they kind of imagine the storyteller "always imaginative" and the "logic guy" alwas "dry". It aint so ;) Richard Evan Schultes, a logic guy, used to work with plants that he was first acquainted with them through the stories of the locals , and mind you locals did not talk in percentage numbers or chemical structures of phytoconstituents but of myths, gods, spirits etc. So he listened to them, he listened to stories, i can bet he enjoyed them, he had stories himself to tell also (search about his blowpipe fetish ;) ). Of course, when he sent back samples of the plants or fired up his lab machines to find out what the plants have in, he didnt stick to the story in the sense of "Basify,pull thrice with dichloromethane and the immaterial spirit of Ganzu the Great Serpent of the Sapphire Sea is isolated in a 500 mg quantity". That wouldnt quite cut it , would it?

I dont think i am "special" but i seem to enjoy both ,each one on its own. Is is too hard for other people? Am i...that "special" that i can enjoy both for its own qualities? I dont think so . Its more a matter of choice, its more a matter of not having as a preset that logic is "dry" and not having as a prerequisite that someting must be sprinkled liberally with "mystery-i-cant-get-it-it-surpasses-everything-i-can-possibly-explain" for it to be magnificent and awe inspiring (for example i find the....fully explainable photosynthesis in a "dry" biochemistry book utterly wild and fascinating on par with a brilliant sci-fi story !)

And believe it or not, much of the "factual" rules that you spoke of have been transcended by mystics over the years.

Interested in that. Like which factual rules were transcended?

. Follow a diet and ingest psyches regularly for a month or two and you will be humbled by the complex potentialities of reality.

Depends! This "recipe" is not a cure-all! For some it might mean loosing the marbles ala "greengrocer-chased-by-CIA" style, for others it might mean their visual field goes haywire with HPPD-like symptoms. For some it might work : others though would say that "follow and you shall see" has worked for any religion so far, muslims see a paradise full of rice and virgins, christians see how christ has risen, Cthulhu followers have seen the tentacles and Pastafarians have been touched by His Noodly Appendage, Oh bless his Holy Soy Sauce and Meatballs of Mercy ;) They might support diametrically different to each other positions but each of them "has seen" and his/her experience was perceived in the spectrum of "correct" to "undeniable".

I do not doubt for a moment that you have seen it yourself and that you feel that "following a diet and ingesting regularly psychedelics" is indeed the way! I doubt that this could be everyone's way or that this could work for everybody : and if it doesnt work for them it wont mean that "apparently they are doing something wrong". It might mean that the above pertains to your experience and cannot be easily generalised.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I still think though that the whole discussion grounds might need redifinement. For example are we trying to reach a practical conclusion? Are we discussing for ...enjoying the discusion? Bot are ok in my book and are not mutually exclusive. On the discussion : i enjoyed reading castaneda and i took it as a story. If i thought there were some lessons in "ethos" i took them ,a story doesnt have to be real to teach (we all know Le Petit Prince didnt really exist still ,so much meaning)). Personaly though, and this is by no means universal opinion or whatever, i wouldnt take Castaneda's work as an "accurate deptiction of rituals and beliefs" of the tribes he portrays through Don Juan. Eitherway, i enjoyed the books if thats what the question is about

Edited June 22, 2010 by Psiloman

[drugo]

Interested in that. Like which factual rules were transcended?

 

 

 

 

I do not doubt for a moment that you have seen it yourself and that you feel that "following a diet and ingesting regularly psychedelics" is indeed the way! I doubt that this could be everyone's way or that this could work for everybody : and if it doesnt work for them it wont mean that "apparently they are doing something wrong". It might mean that the above pertains to your experience and cannot be easily generalised.

 

I definitely do not think that psychedelics are the way. I'm not sure how you interpreted such a generalisation from my words. They definetly are a way. Though, i'm not exactly sure what you mean by "way". Perhaps you mean a way or path that can uncover certain complexities of reality and humble anythinker by plugging them into an ineffable grammar of perception, into a kind of super-complex epistemology of light that is ultimately not thought about, but rather, experienced through the mindbody. And, perhaps you mean that entheogens may uncover that thoughts and uttered truths are merely expressions of a clunky apparatus of connectivity; clunky compared to certain noetic downloads and certain indescribable perceptive transmissions and (light~)body intelligences. Thoughts often become redundant when working with astral-body intelligence.

In addition, any movement of the body seems to be question and answer dissolved into one. In other words, living and being "thoughts" in real-time, a nexus that often evokes deeper and more complex forms of connectivity and sharing. Finer, more complex, and intelligent truths.

.............................

I feel that there are certain immutable laws in the universe. For example, a sharp knife combined with human motor intentionality can occasion the cutting of an orange. In a similar fashion, entheogens combined with certain mindbody intentionalities can occasion insight from, and experience with, astral dimensions, profound systems of meaning, different types of entities, and (typically) unimagined levels of consciousness and power. Entheogenic initiation formulas have been successfully repeated on earth for millennia. The non-success stories seem to generally concern those who are not strong enough, and/or without adequate support, to ground and work with such energy.

Saying that entheogens are not for everyone is like saying that oranges are not for everyone. However, I once saw an uneducated boy biting into the skin of an orange and not being able to understand why anyone in their right mind would enjoy or benefit from eating oranges.

Edited June 23, 2010 by telepathogen

[Psiloman]

Yes, i meant more "a way" rather than the more stiff "the way". See, the way you put it with the orange example i agree, in the sense that method of approach is indeed the cornerstone in the whole experience : my qualms were mostly on the "tight schedule" of regular psychedelic ingestion for some months, some people have done it with no -what would be perceived as ill effects- (some others were initiated in other cultures at a quite young age, i think some even around 8 y.o.) but still some people might still exhibit "ill effects" if they take that frequency of use as "a given". Depends on the person , depends on the approach.

Personally i dont know what to make of both this and the "factual knowledge" transcended via levitation,telekinesis or any form of "energy" that seems to be supernatural having of course as a comparison what we know so far. Personally i have see some quite amazing things which i do not know if they were self-suggestion, but still they worked : I used to do free style kung-fu and the "Sensei" (i dont know if thats the word, anyway the teacher) also gave us Chi Quong lessons. Surely i could "feel" what he said i was supposed to feel ("energy wise") although that is not what i focused on, i mean i wouldnt focus on if it is indeed "life energy" or if it is something else, i would just use it and see where i could go from there without any "ties" to any eastern philosophical system. We discussed it very much with Sho (the teacher, he was Malaysian) and we arrived to the conclusion that it is irrelevant when we discuss about it to fuss over if indeed its "my way" or "his way" as far as the theory is concerned: He believed it in apochryphal tones ,i considered it in a naturalistic way, we could have our beer together discussing it and we both knew that one way or another it was of use.Surely this was not an obstacle in building a relationship of trust and mutual "teaching" where each one of us could share with others knowledge from one's field.Discussion could go both ways even for herbal medicine where i would capitalise on the biological aspect and he would capitalise on energy aspect, so after the discussion at least we knew each other's points irrespectively if we embraced it or not (well, now THATS magic, it doesnt happen frequently and thus can WOW people ;).) It might have been physics (at an instictive level) combined with suggestion and self-suggestion, it might have been some kind of energy or whatnot, still it was applicable and you could also put on a "Sho" with it (heh, that was his saying). Still , limitations applied : He used to also ask the question in his classes "What would you do if a guy with a machete tried to give you a full frontal attack?" which the class usually tried to answer as "i would do this and that, disarma this way etc", to which he would reply "I would run like hell" showing both the limitation (well, he couldnt melt the machette with an eyesight or pull a jedi mind trick on the thug trying to off him) and that sometimes the wisest course of action was to either run away, or if you were locked in inevitable combat threatening your life to even fight what would be considered "dirty" if the other person have had you in a corner and it was either "dead or alive" for you. Pretty "down to earth" things in other words, from a person that apparently could harness what it was he was harnessing, and could also put a rather short lived fight -for the opponent- when physical contact was unavoidable.

Anyway ,got carried away there. Interesting phenomena, and as i said i dont know what would make out of them. It would really please me if i could find a person that could perform them and let me study the behaviour of the force behing it, not in a "dismissive way" (read : trying to PROVE a fraud, this could be fraudulent as well if i set my perception only on trying to find the "cheat") but in a way that i would first want to make sure that indeed what we are seeing is happening, and then study the nature of it. For example if telekinisis is concerned i would try to find first if it indeed takes place ,so as to have a starting point and then try to unravel what nature is the force: for example can magnetic shielding stop it? Can other conditions influence it? What kind of materials as susceptible to it? Now ,that would make a rather interesting and fascinating study.

I dont know, some people would be quick to dismiss it. I cannot say i put "belief" in such situations, i mostly put "consideration" and a joyful-playful "investigational" spirit. Now ,thats not too bad if one has "scientist" cariquatured in his/her mind as humorless,stiff,boring,no-play creatures. Not all of them are ;) "True" ones are not, because investigation comes with doubting (even self-doubt) and requires a certain amount of playfulness even withing the "rigidity" of a well defined academic protocol for fruition. Its more like a balance, or if you preffer the term a "holistic approach". I strive for it, its too early though to judge if i am getting close.

Anyway i think the conversation has "strayed" a bit, still interesting though.

[t st tantra]

anyone know where i can find the part of his books in which castenada makes his own little smoke mix?

have looked but cant find it.

but tis in my memory that i have read it in the past.

t s t .