Sustained Action Summary
Jeremy Donovan
Sustained Action Summary
It would seem that the most common strategy of the few people still
attempting to hold onto belief in the work of Carlos Castaneda is what
I would call the "it's possible" argument. To each individual point
raised by Sustained Action, the "it's possible" person is able to come
back with "well, it's still possible that ... whatever". The reason
this response is so naive and inappropriate in this case is that, above
and beyond each individual point, there is a *pattern* to the data
which has been uncovered regarding Carlos Castaneda and his associates,
and the gist of that overall pattern is what is being ignored. My
intention in giving this summary is to explicitly delineate that
overall pattern in condensed form.
Bear in mind, then, that the point of this summary is NOT to give the
few remaining believers the chance to repeatedly say "it's still
possible that..." to each individual point listed below. The whole
point is to see the *overall pattern* of the following data, and see
how the overall pattern leads to an inescapable conclusion.
What follows is a list of many of the major points made in more detail
at the web site http://www.sustainedaction.org . Just read the
following list without pausing, then at the end ask yourself,
honestly: what is the overall pattern of the evidence??
1. From the very beginning Castaneda was criticised because he did not
offer any real evidence backing up his alleged field work. He never
provided one shred of evidence that the large group of "sorcerers" he
continually wrote about actually existed as described. There was a
great deal of early criticism pointing out actual contradictions and
discrepancies in his work as well. In the end, he was not taken
seriously as an anthropologist, simply because he NEVER provided any
REAL evidence. There is no serious anthropologist who supports CC
these days.
2. No significant portion of CC's famous "field notes" were ever
produced. In later years, he lamely claimed they had all been
destroyed.
3. According to many people, including his wife, Castaneda often told
enormous lies about his life, long before he ever claimed to meet "don
Juan". For example, he claimed to have been wounded in a war, when he
never even served in the military.
4. Castaneda had changed his last name, had left his country of
origin, and had left all his friends and family behind, *prior* to ever
meeting his "don Juan". He even left a woman who was bearing his
child. This shows that many elements of the freewheeling philosophy CC
claimed to get from a magic man, were really just his own way of
dealing with life (running away from everything and calling
that "freedom").
5. It has been demonstrated that there exists a single anthropological
work published *prior* to Castaneda's books which includes, among other
things, Native American accounts of: 4 male and female types, the
earth as a living being, an axis through the body with "vibratory
centers", men of power turning into trees, spirit beings taking
ordinary human forms, men being equal to plants, talking to plants and
thanking them for their use, men turning into birds, warriors
journeying to other worlds, legends of voladores or "fliers", engaging
in seven years of celibacy to grant power, etc. (Frank Water's book of
the Hopi)
6. It has been documented -- in spite of CC's insistence over the years
that don Juan's knowledge came from *no* well-known tradition -- that
in fact, widespread beliefs in the pursuit of "power" -- perceived as a
primal force possessing will -- existed among several tribes of
California Indians (see web site article: The Cahuilla Connection).
Moreover, CC was acquainted with a woman (Joanie Barker) who in the
early days prior to the advent of the don Juan books is known to have
visited the Cahuilla Indians. CC's wife has confirmed that CC's
original native contact was made at the Cahuilla reservation just a few
hours from LA. This would explain the emphasis on use of datura for
divination in CC's early papers and books (a practice of California
Indian shamans). This would also explain the frequent objection by
scholarly critics of CC that his "Yaqui" acts nothing whatsoever like a
real Yaqui. CC continually distorted the information he was reporting,
right from the beginning.
7. Key scenes from CC's books, such as Don Genaro crossing the
waterfall, were reported in more believable contexts by other
anthropologists CC had met, *prior* to their appearing in more
fantastic contexts in CC books. To give examples: at a conference CC
attended, another anthropologist, Peter Furst, reported how Ramon
Medina Silva, whom CC later met, did a real waterfall crossing
balancing act. Later, the scene with Genaro showed up in a CC book.
And beings very similar to "the fliers" were described in detail in the
earlier works of Michael Harner (CC knew Harner). Many years later, CC
made much of this idea in his own work. CC continually picked up the
stories of others, and modified the ideas so as to appear more
fantastic, never crediting the real originators.
8. Practitioners from CC's Sunday class who have taken Howard Lee's
internal kung fu classes have reported there exists a great similarity
between many of Lee's movement sequences and what CC sold as Ancient
Mexican Magical Passes. It is known that CC studied internal kung fu
under Lee for many years, even dedicating the Fire From Within to him,
but CC never publicly credited Howard Lee for any of his movements.
9. It has been documented that Castaneda and other Cleargreen people
lied about alleged pivotal events in their "mythology", such as Carol
Tiggs supposedly being gone from the world for 10 years prior to
meeting up with CC again at the Phoenix bookstore. Instead, just prior
to meeting with CC at that bookstore, Tiggs was married and living in
LA, working to get a degree in acupuncture. When first confronted with
these documented facts, Cleargreen failed to respond at all. About a
year later, when they finally figured out they couldn't just ignore it,
Cleargreen merely produced another whopper about Tiggs supposedly
having been in two places at once on and off for 10 years, an
explanation which aside from being loopy, was never offered at all
prior to the facts being exposed. When caught in a lie they change
their story.
10. Castaneda and Cleargreen harrassed people who tried to use or
promote CC's work (e.g. Victor Sanchez), and people who tried to report
the actual facts of CC's life (Margaret Castaneda), bringing law suits.
Castaneda's litigation against Sanchez, in particular, bears all the
signs of a one-sided vendetta: after settling with Sanchez's publisher
for a relatively small amount, Castaneda continued to increase his
claim of damages against Sanchez until he ultimately asked nearly 3/4's
of a million dollars for a book cover that bore some resemblance to the
covers of Castaneda's books. In an affidavit, Castaneda also
gratuitously accused Sanchez of behavior that would later prove to have
been true all along of Castaneda, if not of Sanchez: that he regularly
seduced women who attended his workshops.
11. Castaneda's descriptions of key features like the "luminous egg"
were not consistent, and his descriptions changed considerably over the
years. For example, we did not even hear about his famous and
crucial "assemblage point" until 1984, 24 years after the teachings
supposedly began. Yet for all this apparent volatility, in any
particular book, Castaneda's experiences with the luminous egg always
conform to the particular description of the luminous egg he quoted don
Juan as having given him in that book, regardless of how much it might
vary from the description given in other books.
12. After CC got poor reviews for his book _The Second Ring of Power_ --
the only book which does not include anecdotes of "don Juan" -- CC
reinvented don Juan, by claiming mysterious memories of the "other
self" which suddenly began to come back to him. This device let him
continue to keep don Juan in all of his books from then on. Yeah,
that's the ticket ... I just forgot about it, see. It was at a whole
different level of awareness; now I remember everything! Oops, not
quite, here's another book of don Juan stuff. Oops, here's a little
more, etc. Highly suspicious, to say the least.
13. CC and the "witches" claimed that the Orange and Blue Scouts were
beings from another world who had been incarnated somehow in physical
bodies given human birth by Tiggs and Donner. But it was possible to
track down the real families of those ordinary human girls, and
document the facts of their actual birth and upbringing. This is
another hard example of how the "mythology" which CC always swore was a
factual reportage is actually riddled with lies. These lies are not of
the same character as the tricks of "don Juan" in CC's books, where dJ
is always seeking to make real magic more palatable to his
apprentices. Rather, in the real world, Castaneda's lies are always
found to be covering up some very unmagical and ordinary facts. Over
the years CC repeatedly claimed his books and teachings, rather than
being metaphorical, were factual reportings of the actual events of his
life. He repeatedly claimed that he had invented nothing. Yet clearly
this is not true at all.
14. CC, obviously sensitive on the issue of lying, early on decided to
just make it part of the "warrior" path to freedom to lie any time one
pleases. It's the perfect solution: just build lying into the
teachings themselves, and tell people it is beneficial to lie for
pleasure, for stalking, for whatever. This leaves just one little
problem always to be swept under the rug: how can you ever know when
such a person is telling the truth (if they ever do)??
15. In the spiritual and scientific literature of mankind, there is no
pre-Castaneda account of the structure CC referred to as
the "assemblage point", a crucial element of his entire model of the
universe. Castaneda claimed the "assemblage point" was the fundamental
agent of perception, yet no one *prior* to this one man -- known to be
a liar -- had reported this allegedly crucial feature of our being.
And why would someone who was supposedly vitally interested in
perception never say a single word about the human brain and its
mechanisms for perception, other than to say, "Don't ask me about the
brain!"?
16. Castaneda claimed that, in all life forms, dreaming and waking
perception are due to greater or lesser shifts of the "assemblage
point", but people who have sustained severe damage to the inferior
parietal lobes of the brain, while still experiencing ever-changing
waking perception, can no longer dream at all. In other words, certain
basic mechanisms of perception actually *differ* between dreaming and
waking states, implying they are NOT both due to movements of the exact
same structure, as CC asserted. This same conclusion is supported in
other ways, such as by the fact that animals more primitive than
reptiles, while experiencing waking states, also do not dream.
Dreaming is something which apparently *evolved* as the *brain*
evolved. Moreover, the human infant does not begin to dream until
about the fourteenth week in the womb, as its own developing brain semi-
duplicates that evolutionary process and arrives at the point where
dreaming is "ignited." This data, and an enormous amount of additional
hard evidence, imply that CC's entire model of perception, for which he
never offered any evidence, is fiction.
17. Certainly in dreaming, and in some circumstances even in waking,
the human brain is very capable of modeling actual perceptual
experiences of whatever one strongly believes. Thus, even people who
had real-life experiences which seemed to correspond to Castaneda's
work should not be quick to conclude his work is any accurate
description of "the way things are". There have been scientific
experiments which indicate that most people who firmly believe they are
having full-blown OOBE are in reality just doing some form of lucid
dreaming. That is how good the brain is at modeling alternate
realities, and that should also tell us how easy it may be to
experience given model of reality purely via suggestion.
18. In light of existing scienfific data on the placebo effect (See web
article: More on the Placebo Effect), it would be rather odd if there
were ANY form of religion, mysticism, shamanism, or martial art on the
planet which did not have many people walking around attesting to its
benefits. Just based on the placebo effect, we could expect as many as
three out of ten people to become convinced that they have
experienced "beneficial effects" after using "sorceric techniques".
This does *not* allow one to correctly conclude those techniques are
really accomplishing anything major, for the same would be true of
almost *any* technique which engages the expectation factors inherent
in the placebo effect.
19. Castaneda claimed all memories are stored in positions of the
assemblage point. But research shows that long-term memories are stored
in a kind of a "global fashion" pulling from different locations all
over the brain. Removing any part of the brain can have deleterious
effects on long-term memory. There are strange cases of people who
have lost functionality to the temporal lobes of their brain who can
still remember things from their childhood, but cannot remember things
that happened five days ago. Again, the evidence shows that CC's model
of memory is also totally unsupported, and actively contradicted by
much of what is known about the brain.
20. Castaneda claimed the real difference between male and female was
that their "assemblage points" are turned with different sides facing
outward. (Humorously, when this was described at a Women's workshop,
the *opposite* of what appears in CC's books was said regarding which
side faces outward for men and women, and when questioned on the
matter, they had to improvise additional information to cover up the
mistake). But there is very well-documented research tracing just
exactly how sex is determined, by the X and Y chromosomes. In fact,
researchers have traced it down to the exact segment of the Y
chromosome which is responsible for determining sex, and since 1990
have been able to directly alter the sex of an egg which is known to be
female simply by injecting it with a *single* gene. Once again, CC's
model does not stack up with the actual evidence.
21. Karlis Osis, research fellow at the American Society for Psychic
Research in NY, wrote about how Castaneda once claimed he could send an
ally to a place where scientific instruments would be rigged up to
detect its presence, but claimed it might be dangerous. Osis (probably
to CC's dismay) responded by offering the laboratory of the American
Society for Psychical Research--replete with such gadgetry as an eight-
channel polygraph, a video system, a soundproof room--and assumed all
responsibility for any ensuing danger. Neither Castaneda nor the ally
ever showed up. This is the major point: for all the astonishing
magical stories in their books, Castaneda and his associates never
demonstrated anything "amazing" for anyone.
22. Castaneda repeatedly claimed, in magazine articles, in public
speeches, and in private ones to the Sunday class, that he was "pure" --
that he was celibate -- that he was a "bored fuck" who therefore
needed to use all his energy exclusively for dreaming. We later found
out he was continually having sex with a large number of women over the
years, and was even trying to seduce women from our class. In front of
our class he made fun of one Cleargreen inner-circle student for
wanting to be his lover, laughingly claiming he just couldn't be that
for her. It turned out he had been having sex with this very student
for years. She is writing a book about her experiences, so look
forward to that one.
23. Castaneda, from the beginning, kept telling and retelling the same
stories from his encounters with "don Juan", but often his accounts of
key incidents do not agree at all. For example, a story of a man who
runs out of the restaurant screaming after looking at CC is used in two
different books in totally different contexts, with directly
conflicting story elements (see web site article: Story
Inconsistencies). Witness the contradictory ways (also documented on
the web site) in which CC describes his alleged first historic meeting
with "don Juan". Rather odd for someone who always claimed to be
a "factual reporter".
24. Joanie Barker -- the woman Castaneda claimed had been "don Juan's
first disciple" -- was from the earliest days kept in the background of
CC's life. Castaneda gave us to understand that Joanie had failed on
the path of knowledge, and had to be cared for. She never made an
appearance, never wrote a book, and never claimed to have done anything
even remotely sorceric. But if Joanie really was another apprentice of
don Juan, wouldn't she have at least come forward to help verify that
this "don Juan" really existed, especially during the days when there
was considerable controversy over the validity of CC's Ph.d at UCLA?
She never said a word. However, Joanie was known to visit the Cahuilla
Indians just a few hours from LA -- the same site Margaret Castaneda
said was the location at which CC first contacted shamanic informants --
and Joanie is known to have been with CC in the days prior to his
first book, so it is probable that she *was* involved somehow in
helping CC connect with whatever shamanic sources he managed to find.
Recently, Joanie was directly asked by Gloria Garvin (one of CC's
lovers for many years) if she had ever met Castaneda's "don Juan", and
Joanie candidly replied that she had not. Joanie also told Gloria that
there had been cases when Joanie was in Mexico with Castaneda where he
would excitedly tell her, after she had been talking with someone, that
it had been "don Genaro" or one of the other characters out of his
books. Castaneda's longtime friend, Margarita Nieto, has described
similar instances of Castaneda claiming she had just seen a character
from the books. Apparently that is as close as any of the women ever
got to interacting with the "sorcerers" in Castaneda's fiction.
Gloria, who also traveled with Castaneda in Mexico in the 70s, was
occasionally asked by him to answer the telephone as "la Gorda".
25. Castaneda, we were told by his disciples, had for some time been
looking for a special being known as the "Electric Warrior", a being
who was to complete his party somehow. We eventually discovered that
CC told many women they were (or might be) the "Electric Warrior".
Apparently it was another seduction tactic. One such woman, who had
been told she was the "Electric Warrior", after making some
little "mistakes" that apparently angered Castaneda (including not
responding properly to his seduction tactics), was ostracized by the
group, shunned until such time as she managed to drop out of the cult
and get some therapy to put herself back together. She went from being
the special queen of the universe to being garbage, all in a pretty
short stretch of time. I had dinner with this woman a few times, and
found her to be a sincere and intelligent young woman. If this woman
really had been the special being they needed so much to complete their
party, would she have been treated that way? The truth is: Castaneda
used women, flattering them by giving them an "energetic title", then
trashed them and threw them away if they ever displeased him or
disobeyed him.
26. Castaneda repeatedly claimed that sorcerers do not die -- but
instead, vanish from the world, after burning from within. He claimed
that even sorcerers who do not make it into the "third attention" at
very least make it into the second attention, or escape into the
inorganic realm. In any case, they do not merely die like the average
man. Carlos Castaneda repeatedly told us that he had long been ready
to leave, implying continually that he might just decide any day to
vanish into the unknown never to be seen again. He always claimed he
was trying to take us with him. He also claimed don Juan was dancing
with youthful energy on the day he left the world! However, after all
this endless talk about alternative ways of dying, all the evidence
shows that Carlos Castaneda died like any average man. His remaining
followers now lie about this, but the truth was made obvious, thanks to
two of Castaneda's former students who followed him around catching him
on video. They were able to shoot video footage of CC right up to one
month before he died. In the final video sequences, Castaneda is
observably quite ill and feeble, barely able to walk a block on his own
power, and he displays the discoloring of skin characteristic of one
dying of liver cancer, which is what his death certificate lists as his
actual cause of death. The same followers who shot video of him ill
even went to the Culver City mortuary where Castaneda was taken after
he died and confirmed that the people who ran the mortuary did indeed
cremate the body of one Carlos Castaneda.
27. Castaneda, in his interactions with the Cleargreen inner-circle, in
many ways fit the portrait of a typical, authoritarian, narcissist guru
figure. He kicked people out of his group if they did things he did
not approve of. He publicly humiliated his people, occasionally
accusing them of misbehavior he had supposedly *seen* (but in many
cases these accusations turned out to be completely false). He
initiated "shunning" of his people for misbehavior. He discouraged
interpersonal communication between his inner-circle followers,
attempting to prevent them from comparing notes on him. Why? Because
he was doing things like having sex with female followers on the
nonsensical basis that because he was the "Nagual" his sperm
was "heavier" than that of a normal man and would somehow "fix her
energy". The truth is that, like so many gurus, Castaneda used his
position of authority to obtain sexual favors.
28. Carol Tiggs apparently received explicitly written out *scripts*
detailing what she was to tell other Cleargreen insiders regarding
certain key elements of Castaneda's mythology. We know this, because
some of those scripts were recovered from the trash outside her house.
Now supposedly this was the "nagual woman", allegedly one of the most
powerful beings in the universe. So why did she need to have pre-
written scripts telling her how to interact with other members of the
Cleargreen staff? Who is it that needs a canned script -- the living
channel of "the spirit" or ... an actress?
29. Florinda Donner, one of the witches, was forced to leave her
doctoral program, after heavy suspicions of plagiarism arose regarding
her work on her book _Shabono_, wherein she claimed to have lived for
an extended period with the Yanomomo Indians. Her book is suspiciously
very similar to that of an earlier author on the same topic, and a
careful review of the actual chronological events of her life leaves
one wondering when she could have found the time to even do what she
claimed. A statement from her professors exists, expressing puzzlement
over these very matters. So it looks as if Florinda tried the same
trick Castaneda successfully used to make himself famous -- i.e. borrow
a few facts and mix them with extraordinary fiction -- but ... she got
caught.
30. Florinda Donner was married and living with her husband in
Manhattan Beach until mid-1972, so it is nearly impossible to fit the
trips and long sequences with don Juan and the women of his party
described in Florinda's book Being-in-Dreaming into Florinda's real-
life chronology for the period of mid-1972 to 1973 (the year don Juan's
party supposedly departed from the world), especially considering that
she was then attending UCLA full time. Florinda never even mentioned
being married, of course. In general, the chronologies (see the web
site for details) of the real lives of all of the women cast extreme
doubt on their claims of having interacted with CC's "don Juan". Of
course, if they did not really interact with "don Juan", then their own
books are also fictionalized accounts, created to lend support to
Castaneda's own fiction.
31. The major Cleargreen players have been well compensated for their
roles. To give just one example, in a September 1997 statement
recovered from court records, Florinda, Taisha, and Carol each received
shareholder distributions in excess of $70,000 apiece.
32. Around the time Castaneda died and was cremated, some of the
prominent women associated with his party bought new cars and soon
afterwards split town. To the uninformed, this might look as though
they all may have burned from within with the master or something --
but you don't need new cars in the second attention, now do you?
There is a great deal more information available in the full text of
the Sustained Action site at http://www.sustainedaction.org . I have
tried to cover many of the major issues in this summary, and the big
picture, the overall pattern of this data, should now be clearly
visible. The work of Castaneda and his cohorts was, and still is,
largely a FRAUD.
Fine, readers may certainly find elements of beauty in Castaneda. He
was an artist. Readers may even find elements of the truth there. He
was an eclectic and intelligent man who incorporated information from
Native American traditions, Eastern traditions, and many modern
philosophical schools of thought. However, as has been made evident,
you will also find his mostly borrowed elements of truth and half-truth
mixed with a liberal dosage of shameless lies and fictional
distortions. So finally, to spell it out one last time, the
inescapable conclusion is:
1) Do not follow the work of Castaneda as if it is the total truth
about life.
2) Do not regard the fiction Castaneda and his associates presented as
being an honest reportage.
3) Realize the extent to which Castaneda was just another authoritarian
guru.
4) If you are still into shamanistic activities, it would be best to
forget Castaneda and seek out more *authentic* sources of "spiritual"
practice.
I recommend that people save this summary and repost it every time a
newbie shows up asking lots of questions. It should save some time.
-Jeremy Donovan
(If those TB's had any guts at all, they would let somebody post this
summary to Tango)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
cta
Jeremy Donovan wrote:
>
> jeremys Summary
>
> aerwer reter5t fghretyio 0p98ire;lk /;lcvp
> weiouro iouorjnj,kn ;poret ,nxckbvfhjs loirt
now ther is proof of what you are
can you go away and make some other people go all sleepy
teach THEM the benifits of warm milk
teach THEM what to look for when buying pyjamas
and dont forget
they MUST think like you
cr...@worldnet.att.net
> now ther is proof of what you are
> can you go away and make some other people go all sleepy
> teach THEM the benifits of warm milk
> teach THEM what to look for when buying pyjamas
> and dont forget
> they MUST think like you
No one has to think like anyone. These are basic facts
he reported about Aranha. Christ all mighty, even fucking
Mr. Magoo could see CC scammed your asses. Wake up! :)
Steve Ralph
<jerem...@my-deja.com> wrote:
Sorry Jeremy, you are not the first.
You could replace the words Carlos Castanada with any number of any
number of phrases and names.
It is a very old and tired format, and is insulting, mainly to
yourself.
Your obsession will end up killing you.
Go and see http://www.trancenet.org to see how the professionals do
it. You will find a very familiar pattern. You will probably find some
useful ideas. The map of the neganauts is there for all who wish to go
that way.
Sustained Action? Ha! You couldn't act to save a gerbil in distress,
let alone yourselves.
Steve Ralph
Steve Ralph
wrote:
>
>>
>>Sustained Action Summary
>>
>>BIG EMPTY SPACE SNIPPED<<
>>I recommend that people save this summary and repost it every time a
>>newbie shows up asking lots of questions. It should save some time.
>>
Just send them to trancenut. They do a far better job, and have
decades more experience.
>>-Jeremy Donovan
>>(If those TB's had any guts at all, they would let somebody post this
>>summary to Tango)
I dout anyone will find your guts very interesting. If ever I came
across someone more deserving of the self-imposed TB label than your
good self, I am at a loss.
Anyway, happy neganauting!
Steve Ralph
cta
is it ok if i dont join the SA squad
bowrbird
the
anti cc vitriol.....
it carries a whiff
not unlike a woman scorned.
Poor babies!
How does it go?
Build a bridge!
GET OVER IT
Dan
Many many positive thoughts towards you and all others who are willing to
accept what is the truth, and to live strong, and with strength and honor
and humility and beauty. Truth does set us free.
A truly sublime moment in time is this post of yours; which I believe is
truly your finest ever in adc ....
Thank you, Sir.
Dan
cta wrote:
honey child ... what's your insistence on clinging on to the myth as if
it really happened?
Dan
Steve Ralph wrote:
......
Poor Steve... why don't you write as concise and right on a summary as
jeremy did, and then we'll talk.
Poor baby ....
> Steve Ralph
Dan
Steve Ralph wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 18:56:34 GMT, Jeremy Donovan
> <jerem...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry Jeremy, you are not the first.
> You could replace the words Carlos Castanada with any number of any
> number of phrases and names.
> It is a very old and tired format, and is insulting, mainly to
> yourself.
> Your obsession will end up killing you.
Hey steve ralph ...
How does it really feel to have reality smack you right upside your head?
Chris Rodgers
> is it ok if i dont join the SA squad
Yes. It's ok if you join the human race again too. :)
(Thanx for asking)
Really Heavy Mind Thing
Dude,
cta is like Jeremy being the tough guy. There both pussycats, just
loving' to fuck wit'cha however they can get a lick in...
imo, they don't give a rats ass either way... they just want to get
your goat for whatever it's worth.
;o)
vic sargenti
HA!
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"It's just, like, a really heavy mind thing! Ya know?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Really Heavy Mind Thing
bowrbird wrote:
>
> How does it go?
>
> Build a bridge!
>
> GET OVER IT
How does it go?
you know the routine,
Bite my ass!
Eat shit!
I mean, What the fuck? Over?
v!
Really Heavy Mind Thing
Dan wrote:
>
> Hey steve ralph ...
>
> How does it really feel to have reality smack you right upside your head?
Hey Steve Ralphed,
How does it feel to have two first names?
How does it feel to be named after a word for Vomit?
Hey Steve? Why are you such an ass?
Were you beaten as a child?
Maybe you could shut the hell up?
Really Heavy Mind Thing
Dan wrote:
>
> Hey steve ralph ...
>
> How does it really feel to have reality smack you right upside your head?
Really Heavy Mind Thing
Jeremy Donovan wrote and wrote and wrote:
Hey DavidJeremyWorrelDonovanBoyGeorgeMichaelJacksonBrowne,
Great job, bruh! Nice piece of work there you scoundrel you! You
should get the Pulizter! Instead of Finding Forrester, someday they'll
make a movie about you called Doing Donovan.
All kinding aside, nice article.
You the man!
bowrbird
Whose truth?
Why toss out the baby with the bathwater?
Sure cc was a perpetually irritating little fucker,
but its interesting that he didn't try to dress himself up in a favourable
light.
Some people find the tools and techniques useful, and some do not.
Why the need to have everyone share your world view?
Why is it the anti cc's are predominently male?
What is that they defend so vehemently with their attacks?
Did they find they weren't up for it,
and so defend and justify their inadequacies
by killing the messenger?
Whether you are positively attached or negatively attached
either way, you're hooked, flip flapping mindlessly
If you were up for it, you wouldn't be hooked..
and you are, aren't you?
heh heh heh
look out for the knee jerk self righteous indignation
coming your way real soon!
ReallyBigFatPig
>But which truth?
Witch trough?
>Whose truth?
Yours?
>Why toss out the baby with the bathwater?
What baby?
>Sure cc was a perpetually irritating little fucker,
>but its interesting that he didn't try to dress himself up in a favourable
>light.
Gee, guess that makes everything okay, never mind. Frauds are people too.
>Some people find the tools and techniques useful, and some do not.
Tools and techniques, I love it! Here, bend over big boy!
>Why the need to have everyone share your world view?
Yeah, tell me why, pendejo.
>Why is it the anti cc's are predominently male?
Because usenet is? Because you're projecting. Because who fucking cares???
>What is that they defend so vehemently with their attacks?
Defend what? Something wrong with vehemence? Oh, passion's a no-no, I forgot.
Hey, what are those three fingers on your hand doing pointing back at your
silly ass?
>Did they find they weren't up for it,
>and so defend and justify their inadequacies
>by killing the messenger?
The messenger killed himself, you idiot. Attacking seems to be your forte
here, what are YOU defending? Justifying? Feel inadequate perhaps.
Ahahahaha!
Bonehead.
>Whether you are positively attached or negatively attached
>either way, you're hooked, flip flapping mindlessly.
Good self description. You get 10 points for honesty, even if unintended.
>If you were up for it, you wouldn't be hooked..
Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who's the biggest jackass of them all?
>and you are, aren't you?
No, I'm the really big fat pig, remember me?
>heh heh heh
I'd recognized your condescension anywhere.
Go blow yourself, ratboy.
>look out for the knee jerk self righteous indignation
>coming your way real soon!
I believe you just farted, close enough.
Randy
Steve Ralph
<ReallyHeav...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
How doees it feel to endlessly repeat yourself?
Chris Rodgers
> The messenger killed himself, you idiot. Attacking seems to be your forte
> here, what are YOU defending? Justifying? Feel inadequate perhaps.
> Ahahahaha!
> Bonehead.
LOL!! Bonehead! :)
Jenadbc
>"bowrbird" <bowr...@ihug.co.nz> writes:
>
>>But which truth?
>
>Witch trough?
>
>>Whose truth?
>
>Yours?
>
"Is there in truth no beauty?"
>>Why toss out the baby with the bathwater?
>
>What baby?
>
sometimes
>>Sure cc was a perpetually irritating little fucker,
>>but its interesting that he didn't try to dress himself up in a favourable
>>light.
>
>Gee, guess that makes everything okay, never mind. Frauds are people too.
>
Frauds, phonies, personas--are they the same?
>>Some people find the tools and techniques useful, and some do not.
>
>Tools and techniques, I love it! Here, bend over big boy!
>
No more watching "Deliverance", before posting.
>>Why the need to have everyone share your world view?
>
>Yeah, tell me why, pendejo.
>
Tell me too
>>Why is it the anti cc's are predominently male?
>
are they? percentage, that is.
>Because usenet is? Because you're projecting. Because who fucking cares???
>
there, there
>>What is that they defend so vehemently with their attacks?
>
>Defend what? Something wrong with vehemence? Oh, passion's a no-no, I
>forgot.
uh oh--passion--hot button
> Hey, what are those three fingers on your hand doing pointing back at your
>silly ass?
>
>>Did they find they weren't up for it,
>>and so defend and justify their inadequacies
>>by killing the messenger?
>
>The messenger killed himself, you idiot
fell on his own sword, I heard.
Attacking seems to be your forte
>here, what are YOU defending? Justifying? Feel inadequate perhaps.
>Ahahahaha!
>
>Bonehead.
>
>>Whether you are positively attached or negatively attached
>>either way, you're hooked, flip flapping mindlessly.
>
>Good self description. You get 10 points for honesty, even if unintended.
>
>>If you were up for it, you wouldn't be hooked..
>
>Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who's the biggest jackass of them all?
>
>>and you are, aren't you?
>
>No, I'm the really big fat pig, remember me?
>
>>heh heh heh
>
:-)
>I'd recognized your condescension anywhere.
>
>Go blow yourself, ratboy.
>
or girl.
>>look out for the knee jerk self righteous indignation
>>coming your way real soon!
>
>I believe you just farted, close enough.
>
>Randy
>
Hey Randy, is this mugwumpery?
slider
bowrbird wrote
there is something about the vehemence, not to mention
the persistance of the anti cc vitriol.....
it carries a whiff
not unlike a woman scorned.
### - lol, and well said... imho it's the vitriolic smell of
disillusionment;)
slider...
slider
Dan wrote
Steve Ralph wrote:
......
Poor Steve... why don't you write as concise and right on a
summary as jeremy did, and then we'll talk.
### - this is very patronising Dan, and something so weak that imho
it'll never work on someone as tight/together as steve... you firing
blanks:)
slider...
slider
Dan wrote
cta wrote:
### - what's all this Dan... patronisation week???:):)
slider
Really Heavy Mind Thing wrote
Dan wrote:
>
> cta wrote:
>
> honey child ... what's your insistence on clinging on to the myth
as if it really happened?
Dude,
cta is like Jeremy being the tough guy. There both pussycats, just
loving' to fuck wit'cha however they can get a lick in...
imo, they don't give a rats ass either way... they just want to get
your goat for whatever it's worth.
### - nah... imho, cta has actually got something (implicit) to say
that isn't just all gripe-water?:)
slider...
slider
Dan wrote
Steve Ralph wrote:
Hey steve ralph ...
### - but steve's correct in what he says Dan - imho, jeremey hasn't
at all examined his stance in this, and is merely "re-acting" to stuff
(something i notice you're not particularly in favour of either;)
surely you can see it's a very old and well played-out theme he's
(jeremy)using - and almost exactly like steve says... i mean, jeeze
people, let's have a little honesty around here and not so much of the
emotionalism eh:)
slider...
slider
Really Heavy wrote
Hey Steve Ralphed,
How does it feel to have two first names?
How does it feel to be named after a word for Vomit?
Hey Steve? Why are you such an ass?
Were you beaten as a child?
Maybe you could shut the hell up?
### - imho this is such a childish "reaction" that it hardly warrents
comment - (hey vinny... surpress the goddamn world why don't you!:)
lol, looks to me like steve has pulled ALL your plonkers:):)
slider...
slider
Really Heavy Mind Thing wrote in message
<3A6531AB...@worldnet.att.net>...
Jeremy Donovan wrote and wrote and wrote:
Hey DavidJeremyWorrelDonovanBoyGeorgeMichaelJacksonBrowne,
Great job, bruh! Nice piece of work there you scoundrel you! You
should get the Pulizter! Instead of Finding Forrester, someday they'll
make a movie about you called Doing Donovan.
All kinding aside, nice article.
### - well you can certainly pucker-up and kiss-ass, that's for sure:)
You the man!
v!
### - mere hero-worship to go with your hero-hate cocktail?;)
slider
Steve Ralph wrote
Sustained Action? Ha! You couldn't act to save a gerbil in distress,
let alone yourselves.
### - is that the same gerbil of the apocalypse? (i liked him:)
slider...
Jeremy Donovan
Dan wrote:
"Thank you David Jeremy Worrel Donovan ....
Many many positive thoughts towards you and all others who are willing
to accept what is the truth, and to live strong, and with strength and
honor and humility and beauty. Truth does set us free.
A truly sublime moment in time is this post of yours; which I believe
is truly your finest ever in adc ....
Thank you, Sir."
Sir Daniel, you're welcome!! :-)
I appreciate the appreciation, and you got the issue right on.
It IS about the truth.
A few of you regulars who hang here should save the post so you can put
it up for newbies if needed. I've had my say and I doubt I'll hang
around much longer. I did my best, and I've reported my results.
It's funny to me that people like Unc think they see a "pattern" in the
TB who turns vehemement critic, but don't see what the pattern truly
IS. Briefly, it is the pattern of people who passionately seek the
truth. There was very little real evidence to go on back when I was a
TB, and thanks to CC's considerable skill as writer/orator, coupled
with my own *dreaming*, I had many seemingly profound experiences which
seemed to directly apply, so at that time there was good reason to give
the benefit of the doubt and defend "the value" of those teachings.
Based on the evidence at hand, back then, as nearly as I could tell,
that was my best assessment as to the truth (although it always nagged
at me that so many factors were hidden or dubious). Now, with an
enormous amount of additional evidence brought to bear, I am forced to
change my tune. But I still want the same thing I wanted all along: I
want the truth. THAT is the real pattern of the devoted TB who becomes
devoted critic. "All I want is the truth. Just gimme some truth." -
Lennon
The thing which astounds me about critics of SA, is how they have so
little regard for the truth that they desperately hang onto myths and
obvious lies, excusing/avoiding literally *anything* in order to do
so. It's really a no-brainer now; there is *plenty* of evidence. I
can only conclude those people do not have the integrity to care what
the real truth is. CC was a lying bullshitter, and you simply can't
trust what he said, so now that most of the facts are out, you might as
well just be grateful for what enjoyment you got reading those books,
and move on.
But some people are so "gone" they actually think there is no truth.
They are like abused children who grow up to be child abusers. They
identify with the one who abused them, and make endless excuses for
him. They ask what appear to be smart questions (but aren't), such
as: whose truth? The simple answer is: YOURS. In a given moment,
YOUR truth is whatever you truly believe is correct, deep down inside.
And that's the thing. Castaneda knew he was a lying bullshitter. He
KNEW it. However self-deluded he may have been, somewhere inside
himself he HAD to know it! He knew friggin' Patty Partin wasn't his
kid, he knew Carol Tiggs didn't vanish from the friggin' earth, he knew
most of his don Juan stories were BS. CC pretended, but he didn't love
the truth enough to face the truth and speak the truth about ... his
own experience. So he based his life in a lies and exaggerations, and
sucked in a lot of people who took him in good faith. That really
sucks. All the people who in the early days most contributed to
communicating CC's teachings on the internet: me, Corey, Dan, Randy,
Vini, Chris, etc. are now each and every one united in indicting him as
an opportunistic bullshitter. Vini is right -- this is simply justice.
Now, having said all this, there are still a few remaining issues (of
course, there always are). I will get right to the most significant
one. Almost every culture has some conception of a "great spirit", and
when you strip away all the "Toltec" bullshit, an experience of
something like "the spirit" seemed to be at the root of many of my
subjective experiences. Particularly in dreaming, I seemed to
be "being taught" by an actual "invisible force" which I truly believed
was DOING stuff to me. :-) I have many distinct memories of being
directly "touched" by this rather intangible force, and there is a very
*distinct* (if difficult to describe) feeling associated with it. At
the time, I related all these experiences directly to CC's distortions
and myths, because they would usually happen while I was lucid in
dreaming, and I learned how to do my dreaming from CC's books, so it
was thoroughly colored with his mood and his scenarios. This is why I
was such a devoted believer and why I worked so hard to defend CC's
teachings. The question remaining is: did all of that really just
come from my own fertile brain, or is there really some "great spirit"
at large in the universe which touches and teaches people? That
question remains to be answered, and lies will not answer it. I am now
absolutely unwilling to accept *anything* CC said about it. He has
been conclusively shown to be an unreliable source. All issues
connected with that universal force, which may or may not exist, may or
may not really be anything like the way CC described them. This merely
puts Castaneda in the same camp I keep every other religion in (with
just a little additional disdain for being such a blatent fucking
liar). :-) The basic question remains.
A paragraph from one of my recent SA posts, speaking to a couple who
were translating my summary into Italian, and getting insulted for it:
It IS kind of interesting, the way people practically insist on
believing in some kind of magical solution to life, and don't seem to
have very high standards on where they get one. A guy on SA recently
posted some interesting Richard Dawkins quotes about how belief in God
may have survival value -- imparting hope, meaning, and justice where
there may not really be any. Perhaps the desire to believe in "magic" -
- in spite of real evidence to the contrary -- is just a broader
version of a similar impulse. Perhaps there really is "magic" in the
universe. But lies won't answer the question for us. It can be a real
pisser to find that your answers to life aren't really the answers, so
it's natural to have some irrationality and denial associated with that
process. Here's the Dawkins quote:
From Richard Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene".
Granada Publishing 1978 pocket p.206-207.:
".... The gene, the DNA molecule, happens to be the replicating entity
which prevails on our own planet. There may be others. If there are,
provided certain conditions are met, they will almost inevitably tend
to become the basis of an evolutionary process.
Do we have to go to distant worlds to find other kinds of
replicator and other, consequent, kinds of evolution? I think that
A new kind of replicator has recently emerged on this very planet.
It is staring us in the face. It is still in its infancy, still
drifting clumsily about in its primeval soup, but already it is
achieving evolutionary change at a rate which leaves the old gene
panting far behind. The new soup is the soup of human culture."
"Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes
fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. Just as genes
propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to.
body via sperms or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the
memo pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in
the broad sense, can be called imitation. If a scientist hears, or
reads about, a good idea, he passes it on to his colleagues and
students. He mentions it in his articles and his lectures. If the
idea catches on, it can be said to propagate itself, spreading from
brain to brain. As my colleague N. K. Humphrey neatly summed
up >---<: "memes should be regarded
as living structures, not just metaphorically but technically.- When
you plant a fertile meme in my mind you literally parasitize my
brain, turning it into a vehicle for the meme's propagation in just
the way that a virus may parasitize the genetic mechanism of a
host cell. And this isn't just a way of talking--the meme for, say,
'belief in life after death' is actually realized physically, millions
of times over, as a structure in the nervous systems of individual
men the world over."
Consider the idea of God. We do not know how it arose in the
meme pool. Probably it originated many times by independent
'mutation'. In any case, it is very old indeed. How does it
replicate itself? By the spoken and written word, aided by great
music and great art. Why does it have such high survival value?
Remember that 'survival value' here does not mean value for a
gene in a gene pool, hut value for a meme in a meme pool. The
question really means: What is it about the idea of a god which
gives it its stability and penetrance in the cultural environment?
The survival value of the god meme in the meme pool results
from its great psychological appeal. It provides a superficially
plausible answer to deep and troubling questions about existence.
It suggests that injustices in this world may be rectified in the
next. The 'everlasting arms' hold out a cushion against our own
inadequacies which, like a doctor's placebo, is none the less effec-
tive for being imaginary. These are some of the reasons why the
idea of God is copied so readily by successive generations of
individual brains. God exists, if only in the form of a meme with
high survival value, or infective power, in the environment
provided by human culture."
Be that as it may :-) -- and I think it a very interesting idea -- my
question remains as well. My experiences of that "force" may not have
been just an "idea", so this question goes a bit deeper still. A
related question: is there a "guiding force" or "intelligent
originating designer" behind the DNA (and the culture) which is driving
evolution on this planet?
-Jeremy
bowrbird
Does anyone here appreciate the distinction between attacking what someone
may say,
and attacking someone on a personal level?
While you attack what I say we have a communication going, when you attack
on a personal level you lose all credibility and become an unworthy
opponent. Perhaps you don't realise that you reveal yourself as not having
moved on from the playground tactics. Would also suggest, that whatever
your experience of cc, you never were going to be up for it.
rainbowbird
>
>
> Be that as it may :-) -- and I think it a very interesting idea -- my
> question remains as well. My experiences of that "force" may not have
> been just an "idea", so this question goes a bit deeper still. A
> related question: is there a "guiding force" or "intelligent
> originating designer" behind the DNA (and the culture) which is driving
> evolution on this planet?
>
The question is can there be pattern such as the DNA without intelligence.
Also to repeat and alter a pattern there must be memory.
RBB
Steve Ralph
Idoit! It's a 'her'!
>slider...
>
>
rainbowbird
> cr...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >
> > cta wrote:
> >
> > > now ther is proof of what you are
> > > can you go away and make some other people go all sleepy
> > > teach THEM the benifits of warm milk
> > > teach THEM what to look for when buying pyjamas
> > > and dont forget
> > > they MUST think like you
> >
> > No one has to think like anyone. These are basic facts
> > he reported about Aranha. Christ all mighty, even fucking
> > Mr. Magoo could see CC scammed your asses. Wake up! :)
>
> is it ok if i dont join the SA squad
Jezus CTA ......don't interpret a comment not as an invitation.:)
RBB
Steve Ralph
<rainb...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
The existance of DNA demonstrates that intelligence not only exists at
a very fundamental level in the universe, but that that intelligence
uses chaotic entropy to create higher levels of intelligence.
The second law of thermodynamics only holds when intelligence is not
taken into account. DNA is memory in itself.
imho
Steve Ralphing
>
>
rainbowbird
Looks like there is memory without a brain.
RBB
>
>
clear...@my-deja.com
Sri Jeremy <jerem...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> But some people are so "gone" they actually think there is no truth.
> They are like abused children who grow up to be child abusers. They
> identify with the one who abused them, and make endless excuses for
> him.
Is this how you see the people of Cleargreen? If so, how do you ever
expect to get through to them?
ch
clear...@my-deja.com
"slider" <sli...@nospameasycam.com> wrote:
>
> Really Heavy Mind Thing wrote in message
> <3A6531AB...@worldnet.att.net>...
>
> Jeremy Donovan wrote and wrote and wrote:
>
> Hey DavidJeremyWorrelDonovanBoyGeorgeMichaelJacksonBrowne,
>
> Great job, bruh! Nice piece of work there you scoundrel you! You
> should get the Pulizter! Instead of Finding Forrester, someday they'll
> make a movie about you called Doing Donovan.
>
> All kinding aside, nice article.
>
> ### - well you can certainly pucker-up and kiss-ass, that's for sure:)
Step aside, and let a REAL ass-kisser show you how it's done! (clears
throat)(says in best Scarlett O’Hara southern drawl)
My Heavens Mr. Donovan! That was just SUPERB! You certainly DO have a
way with words!
I do believe I felt the earth move as I read your wonderful document!
(blush)
> You the man!
> v!
>
> ### - mere hero-worship to go with your hero-hate cocktail?;)
>
>
uncle...@my-deja.com
Jeremy Donovan <jerem...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> It's funny to me that people like Unc think they see a "pattern" in
the
> TB who turns vehemement critic, but don't see what the pattern truly
> IS. Briefly, it is the pattern of people who passionately seek the
> truth. There was very little real evidence to go on back when I was a
> TB, and thanks to CC's considerable skill as writer/orator, coupled
> with my own *dreaming*, I had many seemingly profound experiences
which
> seemed to directly apply, so at that time there was good reason to
give
> the benefit of the doubt and defend "the value" of those teachings.
> Based on the evidence at hand, back then, as nearly as I could tell,
> that was my best assessment as to the truth (although it always nagged
> at me that so many factors were hidden or dubious). Now, with an
> enormous amount of additional evidence brought to bear, I am forced to
> change my tune. But I still want the same thing I wanted all along:
I
> want the truth. THAT is the real pattern of the devoted TB who
becomes
> devoted critic. "All I want is the truth. Just gimme some truth." -
> Lennon
I've had my say as well. So I will simply comment that this
is what you *tell* yourself you want. What I perceive you
really want is for people to believe that you know the truth.
You want that more than you want the truth. Thus paragraphs
like:
> The thing which astounds me about critics of SA, is how they have so
> little regard for the truth that they desperately hang onto myths and
> obvious lies, excusing/avoiding literally *anything* in order to do
> so. It's really a no-brainer now; there is *plenty* of evidence. I
> can only conclude those people do not have the integrity to care what
> the real truth is. CC was a lying bullshitter, and you simply can't
> trust what he said, so now that most of the facts are out, you might
> as well just be grateful for what enjoyment you got reading those
> books, and move on.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Really Heavy Mind Thing
clear...@my-deja.com wrote:
> "slider" <sli...@nospameasycam.com> wrote:
> I do believe I felt the earth move as I read your wonderful document!
> (blush)
> > ### - mere hero-worship to go with your hero-hate cocktail?;)
You guys are crude, rude and unrefined,
please feel free to suck my WHITE ASS anytime you feel inclined,
fuckheads...
;o/
Dan
> to accept what is the truth, and to live strong, and with strength and
> honor and humility and beauty. Truth does set us free.
>
> A truly sublime moment in time is this post of yours; which I believe
> is truly your finest ever in adc ....
>
> Thank you, Sir."
>
> Sir Daniel, you're welcome!! :-)
My distinct and hearty pleasure!
> I appreciate the appreciation, and you got the issue right on.
> It IS about the truth.
Yes Sir! ... and awww shucks, sir ... lol ...
Anyway, all the sir's and shucks and hearty welcome fellow's aside ... fine
as that may be, some of us will (uh oh a *solemn oath* sort of thing coming
up..) as long as we live do our utmost best to find, and to embrace and
share, and always learn from the truth. Freedom and Truth ... it's our
birthright as mysterious beings given a spectacular gift of life.
> A few of you regulars who hang here should save the post so you can put
> it up for newbies if needed. I've had my say and I doubt I'll hang
> around much longer. I did my best, and I've reported my
> results...................
Again, another great work from you. Thank you.
And I understand how it is that you have friends that go back dozens of
years and come from all walks of life.
Last thing ... your last two posts have created quite the uproar in adc's
quaint ShantyTown; bringing on a barrage of defensive and nasty posts from
the citizens most likely to engage in, and most likely to deny, such
knavery... even 'cat' popped in (like she or what's his name 'avocado'
hasn't been reading or posting all along anyway!)
Well done, and much obliged.
ReallyBigFatPig
Ah yes, listen to the masturbaters speak! Oh the poor disillusioned slobs,
they're just not good enough. No, no, they're just not as SPECIAL as we and
the dead man Carlos are. Poor souls <sniff>. God we're good!
Fucking idiots.
Randy
ReallyBigFatPig
>Here it goes again..
Yes indeed, your holy warriorship.
>Does anyone here appreciate the distinction between attacking what someone
>may say,
>and attacking someone on a personal level?
Your sense of humor is overwhelming, your sense of importance amazing! Ad
hominy and grits, you stupid fuck. Wake up and smell the hypocrisy.
>While you attack what I say we have a communication going, when you attack
>on a personal level you lose all credibility and become an unworthy
>opponent.
Ew, ouch, oh-no! You're nothing but a god damn puppet spouting the words of a
dead fraud.
>Perhaps you don't realise that you reveal yourself as not having
>moved on from the playground tactics. Would also suggest, that whatever
>your experience of cc, you never were going to be up for it.
Up for being an ass-kissing, slavish, spiritual pimp? A guru worshipper? A
mindless acolyte? No, I guess not. I'm soooo disappointed, boo hoo and damn!
Glad you've got what it takes and are up for it, little one. Suck away.
Randy
ReallyBigFatPig
>Chin sprints?
Skin flints?
>>"bowrbird" <bowr...@ihug.co.nz> writes:
>>
>>>But which truth?
>>
>>Witch trough?
>>
>>>Whose truth?
>>
>>Yours?
>
>"Is there in truth no beauty?"
Or in beauty no truth?
>>>Why toss out the baby with the bathwater?
>>
>>What baby?
>
>sometimes
In this case, I'd save the bathwater.
>>>Sure cc was a perpetually irritating little fucker,
>>>but its interesting that he didn't try to dress himself up in a favourable
>>>light.
>>
>>Gee, guess that makes everything okay, never mind. Frauds are people too.
>
>Frauds, phonies, personas--are they the same?
To varying degrees, I suppose. What's your point?
(oink!)
>>>Some people find the tools and techniques useful, and some do not.
>>
>>Tools and techniques, I love it! Here, bend over big boy!
>
>No more watching "Deliverance", before posting.
Darn!!!
>>>Why the need to have everyone share your world view?
>>
>>Yeah, tell me why, pendejo.
>
>Tell me too
The response was more holier-than-thou TB bullshit as usual. "We've got what
it takes, you weren't up to it," etc. Yeah, right, and sorceric pigs can fly.
>>>Why is it the anti cc's are predominently male?
>
>are they? percentage, that is.
Last I heard, don't really know.
>>Because usenet is? Because you're projecting. Because who fucking cares???
>
>there, there
Where???
>>>What is that they defend so vehemently with their attacks?
>>
>>Defend what? Something wrong with vehemence? Oh, passion's a no-no, I
>>forgot.
>
>uh oh--passion--hot button
Okay fine, let's all be calm and say OM for a while. Then we can get back to
the slap-down!
>> Hey, what are those three fingers on your hand doing pointing back at your
>>silly ass?
No response to this, what a pity.
>>>Did they find they weren't up for it,
>>>and so defend and justify their inadequacies
>>>by killing the messenger?
>>
>>The messenger killed himself, you idiot
>
>fell on his own sword, I heard.
Freudian little bastard.
> Attacking seems to be your forte
>>here, what are YOU defending? Justifying? Feel inadequate perhaps.
>>Ahahahaha!
>>
>>Bonehead.
>>
>>>Whether you are positively attached or negatively attached
>>>either way, you're hooked, flip flapping mindlessly.
>>
>>Good self description. You get 10 points for honesty, even if unintended.
>>
>>>If you were up for it, you wouldn't be hooked..
>>
>>Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who's the biggest jackass of them all?
>>
>>>and you are, aren't you?
>>
>>No, I'm the really big fat pig, remember me?
>>
>>>heh heh heh
>>
>
>:-)
That's easy for you to say.
>>I'd recognized your condescension anywhere.
>>
>>Go blow yourself, ratboy.
>
>or girl.
Whatever.
>>>look out for the knee jerk self righteous indignation
>>>coming your way real soon!
>>
>>I believe you just farted, close enough.
>
>Hey Randy, is this mugwumpery?
No, definitely not. It's called fighting self-righteousness with
self-righteousness.
Fucking little pimps . . .
Randy
bowrbird
the masturbators, such a lovely word!
funny how we can see the masturbator in others
but rarely in ourselves..
how do you explain the curious homogeneity that finds us more alike than we
care to believe?
Steve Ralph
<rainb...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
You need the brain to access memory, but is memory held in the
structure of the brain? I don't know, really, but I always had the
idea that memory was a 'whole body' thing.
Steve Ralf
>>
>
>
>
>
ReallyBigFatPig
>> "slider" <sli...@nospameasycam.com> writes:
>>
>> >bowrbird wrote
>> >
>> >there is something about the vehemence, not to mention
>> >the persistance of the anti cc vitriol.....
>> >
>> >
>> >it carries a whiff
>> >
>> >not unlike a woman scorned.
>> >
>> >
>> >### - lol, and well said... imho it's the vitriolic smell of
>> >disillusionment;)
>> >
>> >slider...
>>
>>
>> Ah yes, listen to the masturbaters speak! Oh the poor disillusioned
>slobs,
>> they're just not good enough. No, no, they're just not as SPECIAL as we
>and
>> the dead man Carlos are. Poor souls <sniff>. God we're good!
>>
>> Fucking idiots.
>>
>> Randy
>
>the masturbators, such a lovely word!
>
>funny how we can see the masturbator in others
>but rarely in ourselves..
>
>
>how do you explain the curious homogeneity that finds us more alike than we
>care to believe?
Oh, I know! Flyers, of course!
You fucking parrot . . . wanna cracker?
Randy
Jenadbc
>
>>Chin sprints?
>
>Skin flints?
>
Shin splints?
>>>"bowrbird" <bowr...@ihug.co.nz> writes:
>>>
>>>>But which truth?
>>>
>>>Witch trough?
>>>
>>>>Whose truth?
>>>
>>>Yours?
>>
>>"Is there in truth no beauty?"
>
>Or in beauty no truth?
>
>>>>Why toss out the baby with the bathwater?
>>>
>>>What baby?
>>
>>sometimes
>
>In this case, I'd save the bathwater.
>
I'm there. ;-)
>>>>Sure cc was a perpetually irritating little fucker,
>>>>but its interesting that he didn't try to dress himself up in a favourable
>>>>light.
>>>
>>>Gee, guess that makes everything okay, never mind. Frauds are people too.
>>
>>Frauds, phonies, personas--are they the same?
>
>To varying degrees, I suppose. What's your point?
>
Point? Points? We're keeping score.
>(oink!)
>
Backatcha.
>>>>Some people find the tools and techniques useful, and some do not.
>>>
>>>Tools and techniques, I love it! Here, bend over big boy!
>>
>>No more watching "Deliverance", before posting.
>
>Darn!!!
>
:-D
>>>>Why the need to have everyone share your world view?
>>>
>>>Yeah, tell me why, pendejo.
>>
>>Tell me too
>
>The response was more holier-than-thou TB bullshit as usual. "We've got what
>it takes, you weren't up to it," etc. Yeah, right, and sorceric pigs can
>fly.
>
Mine can.
:-O
>>>>Why is it the anti cc's are predominently male?
>>
>>are they? percentage, that is.
>
>Last I heard, don't really know.
>
Mr. Science precise guy didn't check the stats before he responded. hehehe
>>>Because usenet is? Because you're projecting. Because who fucking
>cares???
>>
>>there, there
>
>Where???
>
Here, baby! Pig baby, here!
(smack, smack!)
>>>>What is that they defend so vehemently with their attacks?
>>>
>>>Defend what? Something wrong with vehemence? Oh, passion's a no-no, I
>>>forgot.
>>
>>uh oh--passion--hot button
>
>Okay fine, let's all be calm and say OM for a while. Then we can get back to
>the slap-down!
>
Ommmm!
Waiting for your best shot.
>>> Hey, what are those three fingers on your hand doing pointing back at your
>>>silly ass?
>
>No response to this, what a pity.
>
Avoiding that finger thingy, you know.
>>>>Did they find they weren't up for it,
>>>>and so defend and justify their inadequacies
>>>>by killing the messenger?
>>>
>>>The messenger killed himself, you idiot
>>
>>fell on his own sword, I heard.
>
>Freudian little bastard.
>
Yeah! What he said.
>> Attacking seems to be your forte
>>>here, what are YOU defending? Justifying? Feel inadequate perhaps.
>>>Ahahahaha!
>>>
>>>Bonehead.
>>>
>>>>Whether you are positively attached or negatively attached
>>>>either way, you're hooked, flip flapping mindlessly.
>>>
>>>Good self description. You get 10 points for honesty, even if unintended.
>>>
>>>>If you were up for it, you wouldn't be hooked..
>>>
>>>Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who's the biggest jackass of them all?
>>>
>>>>and you are, aren't you?
>>>
>>>No, I'm the really big fat pig, remember me?
>>>
>>>>heh heh heh
>>>
>>
>>:-)
>
>That's easy for you to say.
>
Yeppers.
>>>I'd recognized your condescension anywhere.
>>>
>>>Go blow yourself, ratboy.
>>
>>or girl.
>
>Whatever.
>
>>>>look out for the knee jerk self righteous indignation
>>>>coming your way real soon!
>>>
>>>I believe you just farted, close enough.
>>
>>Hey Randy, is this mugwumpery?
>
>No, definitely not. It's called fighting self-righteousness with
>self-righteousness.
>
>Fucking little pimps . . .
>
>Randy
>
My response was the mugwumpery, Mr. Big P. :=P
slider
Really Heavy Mind Thing wrote
You guys are crude, rude and unrefined,
please feel free to suck my WHITE ASS anytime you feel inclined,
fuckheads...
;o/
### - well yes vinny... and an, ahem, "very refined" reply from you in
return i might add... so then, don't tell me you're racist as well as
an angry young man? - (ya' gotta' get your mind right boy!:)
heh... he can sure dish it out... but he sure can't take it;)
slider...
Chris Rodgers
> You need the brain to access memory, but is memory held in the
> structure of the brain? I don't know, really, but I always had the
> idea that memory was a 'whole body' thing.
I think it is that (whole body) and more too.
Old data (memory) may exist some place else.
Where? Who knows? It may exist where all our
feelings come from. Our soul, our energy body,
our infinite being? Who knows which is the proper
name. There's more to us than these bones, skins,
veins, etc etc. We are what 75-85% water? No
wonder it is so easy to lose your charge eh? :)
Chris Rodgers
> Sri Jeremy <jerem...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > But some people are so "gone" they actually think there is no truth.
> > They are like abused children who grow up to be child abusers. They
> > identify with the one who abused them, and make endless excuses for
> > him.
>
> Is this how you see the people of Cleargreen? If so, how do you ever
> expect to get through to them?
Why bother? They are whacked beyond belief. Anyone that is capable
of doing this to people is not concerned with anyone getting throught to
them. :)
slider
ReallyBigFatPig wrote
Oh, I know! Flyers, of course!
You fucking parrot . . . wanna cracker?
Randy
### - (heh heh heh... i think randy wants a flame war:) - i mean, are
you really THAT bored guy?:) - tell ya what bro', try aiming all that
shit at jeremy... (e.g. he seems to like indulging in meaningless
conversations:) - personally, 5 minutes of that crap has me yawning
big time:)
got any more randy... or was that your best shot? (grin:)
slider...
rainbowbird
Well if you take away parts, you have no longer memory. Or certain memory.
On that the conclusion of memory seated in the brain is drawn.
But it can also be like you say. You have no longer access.
Actually a piece of the puzzle I was looking for.
I know others who feel that memory is the whole body too.
Many bodyworkers do, as massages brings up long forgotten memory.
I can feel for that, specially since through hart-transplantation memory
transplant has happened as well.
In that those that say it is in all cells, DNA might be right too.
Also if the change of DNA is possible by crossing it with other DNA, the memory/
information question comes up again.
Why picks a DNA up the other data in the first place and doesn't prefer to stay
with data it already has?
Since it does it cannot be a closed circuit. And as such it is not the unique
blueprint we believe it to be.
I believe that memory is a more energetic thing.
Otherwise you could not read memory out of someone's energy field.
But you can.
Also the hundred monkey theory cannot be, if it is the brain or body only.
If the whole group changes behavior if there is enough mass of information,
despite different location
informationfield/memory is not bodybound only and obviously affects the whole
specific configuration of a species.
Those fields don't look like they are time or space dependent.
On the other hand I don't believe that consciousness is without matter, so I think
of an energetic field of dense matter, as part of matter.
In that I can visualize as long as there is enough living mass of that particular
matter, say like human bodies, the fields created in time stay attached to the
specific collective matter configuration , but are also accessible
informationwise.
Intelligence can access itself.
Primitive it is the idea of anchestors.Another is linear reincarnation.
In that I visualize that each body while creating a field which it will later add
to the collective, also is entertainer/container of several old fields. It is an
accumulative process.
In some way you see that higher intelligence and large collective body-mass go
together.
I cannot see the development of high intelligence of a species, if old data are
not kept in some way.
I also don't believe that data are only kept, by transference as in education,
belief or culture.
That would be a much to high risk affair in the case of partial distinction.
Humans are vulnerable to catastrophe. In the case of the plague, one can see that
civilization didn't go very much back.
But it should have if knowledge and therefore memory is gone.
In the contrary recovery comes as quick as the same way your body has this matrix
when it has to heal.
There are those jumps in evolution and there is still the question how they
happened.
I can imagine that any certain mass of stored fields can be the cause.
Now on that theory that everybody's field lives on anyway as data, it is not
strange to me to imagine that you also can transfer aware consciousness to such a
field. So in that I also see a possibility as in live after death, also individual
awareness.
But not as a given, but as a choice, a potential.
Oh, well. It is just a possibility.
RBB
thom
Hat's off you you Jeremy, you've got focus, that's for sure. An
excellent summary, one which has obviously consumed a lot of time, money
and effort to construct. You are the IRON MAN of ADC w/o a doubt. You
have my respect.
You've been on both sides of the fence, fighting hard both ways. First
vehemently pro CC and now, well, CC antipathetic. Never anybody's *bud*
in ADC and I suspect its true also at SA (though I don't hang there) -
always an independent operator. Always armed to the teeth with reasons
(below find a near nuclear bomb).
If I could, one honest question, one I don't think you will find
difficult to answer. One that would only require a quick reply, no
research required:
Would you rather that CC had never published his books?
Thom
With Respect
Jeremy Donovan wrote:
> Sustained Action Summary
>
> It would seem that the most common strategy of the few people still
> attempting to hold onto belief in the work of Carlos Castaneda is what
> I would call the "it's possible" argument. To each individual point
> raised by Sustained Action, the "it's possible" person is able to come
> back with "well, it's still possible that ... whatever". The reason
> this response is so naive and inappropriate in this case is that, above
> and beyond each individual point, there is a *pattern* to the data
> which has been uncovered regarding Carlos Castaneda and his associates,
> and the gist of that overall pattern is what is being ignored. My
> intention in giving this summary is to explicitly delineate that
> overall pattern in condensed form.
Its allways cool when the "cliff notes" come out. They save a lot of
time...
>
> Bear in mind, then, that the point of this summary is NOT to give the
> few remaining believers the chance to repeatedly say "it's still
> possible that..." to each individual point listed below. The whole
> point is to see the *overall pattern* of the following data, and see
> how the overall pattern leads to an inescapable conclusion.
>
> What follows is a list of many of the major points made in more detail
> at the web site http://www.sustainedaction.org . Just read the
> following list without pausing, then at the end ask yourself,
> honestly: what is the overall pattern of the evidence??
>
> 1. From the very beginning Castaneda was criticised because he did not
> offer any real evidence backing up his alleged field work. He never
> provided one shred of evidence that the large group of "sorcerers" he
> continually wrote about actually existed as described. There was a
> great deal of early criticism pointing out actual contradictions and
> discrepancies in his work as well. In the end, he was not taken
> seriously as an anthropologist, simply because he NEVER provided any
> REAL evidence. There is no serious anthropologist who supports CC
> these days.
>
> 2. No significant portion of CC's famous "field notes" were ever
> produced. In later years, he lamely claimed they had all been
> destroyed.
>
> 3. According to many people, including his wife, Castaneda often told
> enormous lies about his life, long before he ever claimed to meet "don
> Juan". For example, he claimed to have been wounded in a war, when he
> never even served in the military.
>
> 4. Castaneda had changed his last name, had left his country of
> origin, and had left all his friends and family behind, *prior* to ever
> meeting his "don Juan". He even left a woman who was bearing his
> child. This shows that many elements of the freewheeling philosophy CC
> claimed to get from a magic man, were really just his own way of
> dealing with life (running away from everything and calling
> that "freedom").
>
> 5. It has been demonstrated that there exists a single anthropological
> work published *prior* to Castaneda's books which includes, among other
> things, Native American accounts of: 4 male and female types, the
> earth as a living being, an axis through the body with "vibratory
> centers", men of power turning into trees, spirit beings taking
> ordinary human forms, men being equal to plants, talking to plants and
> thanking them for their use, men turning into birds, warriors
> journeying to other worlds, legends of voladores or "fliers", engaging
> in seven years of celibacy to grant power, etc. (Frank Water's book of
> the Hopi)
>
> 6. It has been documented -- in spite of CC's insistence over the years
> that don Juan's knowledge came from *no* well-known tradition -- that
> in fact, widespread beliefs in the pursuit of "power" -- perceived as a
> primal force possessing will -- existed among several tribes of
> California Indians (see web site article: The Cahuilla Connection).
> Moreover, CC was acquainted with a woman (Joanie Barker) who in the
> early days prior to the advent of the don Juan books is known to have
> visited the Cahuilla Indians. CC's wife has confirmed that CC's
> original native contact was made at the Cahuilla reservation just a few
> hours from LA. This would explain the emphasis on use of datura for
> divination in CC's early papers and books (a practice of California
> Indian shamans). This would also explain the frequent objection by
> scholarly critics of CC that his "Yaqui" acts nothing whatsoever like a
> real Yaqui. CC continually distorted the information he was reporting,
> right from the beginning.
>
> 7. Key scenes from CC's books, such as Don Genaro crossing the
> waterfall, were reported in more believable contexts by other
> anthropologists CC had met, *prior* to their appearing in more
> fantastic contexts in CC books. To give examples: at a conference CC
> attended, another anthropologist, Peter Furst, reported how Ramon
> Medina Silva, whom CC later met, did a real waterfall crossing
> balancing act. Later, the scene with Genaro showed up in a CC book.
> And beings very similar to "the fliers" were described in detail in the
> earlier works of Michael Harner (CC knew Harner). Many years later, CC
> made much of this idea in his own work. CC continually picked up the
> stories of others, and modified the ideas so as to appear more
> fantastic, never crediting the real originators.
>
> 8. Practitioners from CC's Sunday class who have taken Howard Lee's
> internal kung fu classes have reported there exists a great similarity
> between many of Lee's movement sequences and what CC sold as Ancient
> Mexican Magical Passes. It is known that CC studied internal kung fu
> under Lee for many years, even dedicating the Fire From Within to him,
> but CC never publicly credited Howard Lee for any of his movements.
>
> 9. It has been documented that Castaneda and other Cleargreen people
> lied about alleged pivotal events in their "mythology", such as Carol
> Tiggs supposedly being gone from the world for 10 years prior to
> meeting up with CC again at the Phoenix bookstore. Instead, just prior
> to meeting with CC at that bookstore, Tiggs was married and living in
> LA, working to get a degree in acupuncture. When first confronted with
> these documented facts, Cleargreen failed to respond at all. About a
> year later, when they finally figured out they couldn't just ignore it,
> Cleargreen merely produced another whopper about Tiggs supposedly
> having been in two places at once on and off for 10 years, an
> explanation which aside from being loopy, was never offered at all
> prior to the facts being exposed. When caught in a lie they change
> their story.
>
> 10. Castaneda and Cleargreen harrassed people who tried to use or
> promote CC's work (e.g. Victor Sanchez), and people who tried to report
> the actual facts of CC's life (Margaret Castaneda), bringing law suits.
> Castaneda's litigation against Sanchez, in particular, bears all the
> signs of a one-sided vendetta: after settling with Sanchez's publisher
> for a relatively small amount, Castaneda continued to increase his
> claim of damages against Sanchez until he ultimately asked nearly 3/4's
> of a million dollars for a book cover that bore some resemblance to the
> covers of Castaneda's books. In an affidavit, Castaneda also
> gratuitously accused Sanchez of behavior that would later prove to have
> been true all along of Castaneda, if not of Sanchez: that he regularly
> seduced women who attended his workshops.
>
> 11. Castaneda's descriptions of key features like the "luminous egg"
> were not consistent, and his descriptions changed considerably over the
> years. For example, we did not even hear about his famous and
> crucial "assemblage point" until 1984, 24 years after the teachings
> supposedly began. Yet for all this apparent volatility, in any
> particular book, Castaneda's experiences with the luminous egg always
> conform to the particular description of the luminous egg he quoted don
> Juan as having given him in that book, regardless of how much it might
> vary from the description given in other books.
>
> 12. After CC got poor reviews for his book _The Second Ring of Power_ --
> the only book which does not include anecdotes of "don Juan" -- CC
> reinvented don Juan, by claiming mysterious memories of the "other
> self" which suddenly began to come back to him. This device let him
> continue to keep don Juan in all of his books from then on. Yeah,
> that's the ticket ... I just forgot about it, see. It was at a whole
> different level of awareness; now I remember everything! Oops, not
> quite, here's another book of don Juan stuff. Oops, here's a little
> more, etc. Highly suspicious, to say the least.
>
> 13. CC and the "witches" claimed that the Orange and Blue Scouts were
> beings from another world who had been incarnated somehow in physical
> bodies given human birth by Tiggs and Donner. But it was possible to
> track down the real families of those ordinary human girls, and
> document the facts of their actual birth and upbringing. This is
> another hard example of how the "mythology" which CC always swore was a
> factual reportage is actually riddled with lies. These lies are not of
> the same character as the tricks of "don Juan" in CC's books, where dJ
> is always seeking to make real magic more palatable to his
> apprentices. Rather, in the real world, Castaneda's lies are always
> found to be covering up some very unmagical and ordinary facts. Over
> the years CC repeatedly claimed his books and teachings, rather than
> being metaphorical, were factual reportings of the actual events of his
> life. He repeatedly claimed that he had invented nothing. Yet clearly
> this is not true at all.
>
> 14. CC, obviously sensitive on the issue of lying, early on decided to
> just make it part of the "warrior" path to freedom to lie any time one
> pleases. It's the perfect solution: just build lying into the
> teachings themselves, and tell people it is beneficial to lie for
> pleasure, for stalking, for whatever. This leaves just one little
> problem always to be swept under the rug: how can you ever know when
> such a person is telling the truth (if they ever do)??
>
> 15. In the spiritual and scientific literature of mankind, there is no
> pre-Castaneda account of the structure CC referred to as
> the "assemblage point", a crucial element of his entire model of the
> universe. Castaneda claimed the "assemblage point" was the fundamental
> agent of perception, yet no one *prior* to this one man -- known to be
> a liar -- had reported this allegedly crucial feature of our being.
> And why would someone who was supposedly vitally interested in
> perception never say a single word about the human brain and its
> mechanisms for perception, other than to say, "Don't ask me about the
> brain!"?
>
> 16. Castaneda claimed that, in all life forms, dreaming and waking
> perception are due to greater or lesser shifts of the "assemblage
> point", but people who have sustained severe damage to the inferior
> parietal lobes of the brain, while still experiencing ever-changing
> waking perception, can no longer dream at all. In other words, certain
> basic mechanisms of perception actually *differ* between dreaming and
> waking states, implying they are NOT both due to movements of the exact
> same structure, as CC asserted. This same conclusion is supported in
> other ways, such as by the fact that animals more primitive than
> reptiles, while experiencing waking states, also do not dream.
> Dreaming is something which apparently *evolved* as the *brain*
> evolved. Moreover, the human infant does not begin to dream until
> about the fourteenth week in the womb, as its own developing brain semi-
> duplicates that evolutionary process and arrives at the point where
> dreaming is "ignited." This data, and an enormous amount of additional
> hard evidence, imply that CC's entire model of perception, for which he
> never offered any evidence, is fiction.
>
> 17. Certainly in dreaming, and in some circumstances even in waking,
> the human brain is very capable of modeling actual perceptual
> experiences of whatever one strongly believes. Thus, even people who
> had real-life experiences which seemed to correspond to Castaneda's
> work should not be quick to conclude his work is any accurate
> description of "the way things are". There have been scientific
> experiments which indicate that most people who firmly believe they are
> having full-blown OOBE are in reality just doing some form of lucid
> dreaming. That is how good the brain is at modeling alternate
> realities, and that should also tell us how easy it may be to
> experience given model of reality purely via suggestion.
>
> 18. In light of existing scienfific data on the placebo effect (See web
> article: More on the Placebo Effect), it would be rather odd if there
> were ANY form of religion, mysticism, shamanism, or martial art on the
> planet which did not have many people walking around attesting to its
> benefits. Just based on the placebo effect, we could expect as many as
> three out of ten people to become convinced that they have
> experienced "beneficial effects" after using "sorceric techniques".
> This does *not* allow one to correctly conclude those techniques are
> really accomplishing anything major, for the same would be true of
> almost *any* technique which engages the expectation factors inherent
> in the placebo effect.
>
> 19. Castaneda claimed all memories are stored in positions of the
> assemblage point. But research shows that long-term memories are stored
> in a kind of a "global fashion" pulling from different locations all
> over the brain. Removing any part of the brain can have deleterious
> effects on long-term memory. There are strange cases of people who
> have lost functionality to the temporal lobes of their brain who can
> still remember things from their childhood, but cannot remember things
> that happened five days ago. Again, the evidence shows that CC's model
> of memory is also totally unsupported, and actively contradicted by
> much of what is known about the brain.
>
> 20. Castaneda claimed the real difference between male and female was
> that their "assemblage points" are turned with different sides facing
> outward. (Humorously, when this was described at a Women's workshop,
> the *opposite* of what appears in CC's books was said regarding which
> side faces outward for men and women, and when questioned on the
> matter, they had to improvise additional information to cover up the
> mistake). But there is very well-documented research tracing just
> exactly how sex is determined, by the X and Y chromosomes. In fact,
> researchers have traced it down to the exact segment of the Y
> chromosome which is responsible for determining sex, and since 1990
> have been able to directly alter the sex of an egg which is known to be
> female simply by injecting it with a *single* gene. Once again, CC's
> model does not stack up with the actual evidence.
>
> 21. Karlis Osis, research fellow at the American Society for Psychic
> Research in NY, wrote about how Castaneda once claimed he could send an
> ally to a place where scientific instruments would be rigged up to
> detect its presence, but claimed it might be dangerous. Osis (probably
> to CC's dismay) responded by offering the laboratory of the American
> Society for Psychical Research--replete with such gadgetry as an eight-
> channel polygraph, a video system, a soundproof room--and assumed all
> responsibility for any ensuing danger. Neither Castaneda nor the ally
> ever showed up. This is the major point: for all the astonishing
> magical stories in their books, Castaneda and his associates never
> demonstrated anything "amazing" for anyone.
>
> 22. Castaneda repeatedly claimed, in magazine articles, in public
> speeches, and in private ones to the Sunday class, that he was "pure" --
> that he was celibate -- that he was a "bored fuck" who therefore
> needed to use all his energy exclusively for dreaming. We later found
> out he was continually having sex with a large number of women over the
> years, and was even trying to seduce women from our class. In front of
> our class he made fun of one Cleargreen inner-circle student for
> wanting to be his lover, laughingly claiming he just couldn't be that
> for her. It turned out he had been having sex with this very student
> for years. She is writing a book about her experiences, so look
> forward to that one.
>
> 23. Castaneda, from the beginning, kept telling and retelling the same
> stories from his encounters with "don Juan", but often his accounts of
> key incidents do not agree at all. For example, a story of a man who
> runs out of the restaurant screaming after looking at CC is used in two
> different books in totally different contexts, with directly
> conflicting story elements (see web site article: Story
> Inconsistencies). Witness the contradictory ways (also documented on
> the web site) in which CC describes his alleged first historic meeting
> with "don Juan". Rather odd for someone who always claimed to be
> a "factual reporter".
>
> 24. Joanie Barker -- the woman Castaneda claimed had been "don Juan's
> first disciple" -- was from the earliest days kept in the background of
> CC's life. Castaneda gave us to understand that Joanie had failed on
> the path of knowledge, and had to be cared for. She never made an
> appearance, never wrote a book, and never claimed to have done anything
> even remotely sorceric. But if Joanie really was another apprentice of
> don Juan, wouldn't she have at least come forward to help verify that
> this "don Juan" really existed, especially during the days when there
> was considerable controversy over the validity of CC's Ph.d at UCLA?
> She never said a word. However, Joanie was known to visit the Cahuilla
> Indians just a few hours from LA -- the same site Margaret Castaneda
> said was the location at which CC first contacted shamanic informants --
> and Joanie is known to have been with CC in the days prior to his
> first book, so it is probable that she *was* involved somehow in
> helping CC connect with whatever shamanic sources he managed to find.
> Recently, Joanie was directly asked by Gloria Garvin (one of CC's
> lovers for many years) if she had ever met Castaneda's "don Juan", and
> Joanie candidly replied that she had not. Joanie also told Gloria that
> there had been cases when Joanie was in Mexico with Castaneda where he
> would excitedly tell her, after she had been talking with someone, that
> it had been "don Genaro" or one of the other characters out of his
> books. Castaneda's longtime friend, Margarita Nieto, has described
> similar instances of Castaneda claiming she had just seen a character
> from the books. Apparently that is as close as any of the women ever
> got to interacting with the "sorcerers" in Castaneda's fiction.
> Gloria, who also traveled with Castaneda in Mexico in the 70s, was
> occasionally asked by him to answer the telephone as "la Gorda".
>
> 25. Castaneda, we were told by his disciples, had for some time been
> looking for a special being known as the "Electric Warrior", a being
> who was to complete his party somehow. We eventually discovered that
> CC told many women they were (or might be) the "Electric Warrior".
> Apparently it was another seduction tactic. One such woman, who had
> been told she was the "Electric Warrior", after making some
> little "mistakes" that apparently angered Castaneda (including not
> responding properly to his seduction tactics), was ostracized by the
> group, shunned until such time as she managed to drop out of the cult
> and get some therapy to put herself back together. She went from being
> the special queen of the universe to being garbage, all in a pretty
> short stretch of time. I had dinner with this woman a few times, and
> found her to be a sincere and intelligent young woman. If this woman
> really had been the special being they needed so much to complete their
> party, would she have been treated that way? The truth is: Castaneda
> used women, flattering them by giving them an "energetic title", then
> trashed them and threw them away if they ever displeased him or
> disobeyed him.
>
> 26. Castaneda repeatedly claimed that sorcerers do not die -- but
> instead, vanish from the world, after burning from within. He claimed
> that even sorcerers who do not make it into the "third attention" at
> very least make it into the second attention, or escape into the
> inorganic realm. In any case, they do not merely die like the average
> man. Carlos Castaneda repeatedly told us that he had long been ready
> to leave, implying continually that he might just decide any day to
> vanish into the unknown never to be seen again. He always claimed he
> was trying to take us with him. He also claimed don Juan was dancing
> with youthful energy on the day he left the world! However, after all
> this endless talk about alternative ways of dying, all the evidence
> shows that Carlos Castaneda died like any average man. His remaining
> followers now lie about this, but the truth was made obvious, thanks to
> two of Castaneda's former students who followed him around catching him
> on video. They were able to shoot video footage of CC right up to one
> month before he died. In the final video sequences, Castaneda is
> observably quite ill and feeble, barely able to walk a block on his own
> power, and he displays the discoloring of skin characteristic of one
> dying of liver cancer, which is what his death certificate lists as his
> actual cause of death. The same followers who shot video of him ill
> even went to the Culver City mortuary where Castaneda was taken after
> he died and confirmed that the people who ran the mortuary did indeed
> cremate the body of one Carlos Castaneda.
>
> 27. Castaneda, in his interactions with the Cleargreen inner-circle, in
> many ways fit the portrait of a typical, authoritarian, narcissist guru
> figure. He kicked people out of his group if they did things he did
> not approve of. He publicly humiliated his people, occasionally
> accusing them of misbehavior he had supposedly *seen* (but in many
> cases these accusations turned out to be completely false). He
> initiated "shunning" of his people for misbehavior. He discouraged
> interpersonal communication between his inner-circle followers,
> attempting to prevent them from comparing notes on him. Why? Because
> he was doing things like having sex with female followers on the
> nonsensical basis that because he was the "Nagual" his sperm
> was "heavier" than that of a normal man and would somehow "fix her
> energy". The truth is that, like so many gurus, Castaneda used his
> position of authority to obtain sexual favors.
>
> 28. Carol Tiggs apparently received explicitly written out *scripts*
> detailing what she was to tell other Cleargreen insiders regarding
> certain key elements of Castaneda's mythology. We know this, because
> some of those scripts were recovered from the trash outside her house.
> Now supposedly this was the "nagual woman", allegedly one of the most
> powerful beings in the universe. So why did she need to have pre-
> written scripts telling her how to interact with other members of the
> Cleargreen staff? Who is it that needs a canned script -- the living
> channel of "the spirit" or ... an actress?
>
> 29. Florinda Donner, one of the witches, was forced to leave her
> doctoral program, after heavy suspicions of plagiarism arose regarding
> her work on her book _Shabono_, wherein she claimed to have lived for
> an extended period with the Yanomomo Indians. Her book is suspiciously
> very similar to that of an earlier author on the same topic, and a
> careful review of the actual chronological events of her life leaves
> one wondering when she could have found the time to even do what she
> claimed. A statement from her professors exists, expressing puzzlement
> over these very matters. So it looks as if Florinda tried the same
> trick Castaneda successfully used to make himself famous -- i.e. borrow
> a few facts and mix them with extraordinary fiction -- but ... she got
> caught.
>
> 30. Florinda Donner was married and living with her husband in
> Manhattan Beach until mid-1972, so it is nearly impossible to fit the
> trips and long sequences with don Juan and the women of his party
> described in Florinda's book Being-in-Dreaming into Florinda's real-
> life chronology for the period of mid-1972 to 1973 (the year don Juan's
> party supposedly departed from the world), especially considering that
> she was then attending UCLA full time. Florinda never even mentioned
> being married, of course. In general, the chronologies (see the web
> site for details) of the real lives of all of the women cast extreme
> doubt on their claims of having interacted with CC's "don Juan". Of
> course, if they did not really interact with "don Juan", then their own
> books are also fictionalized accounts, created to lend support to
> Castaneda's own fiction.
>
> 31. The major Cleargreen players have been well compensated for their
> roles. To give just one example, in a September 1997 statement
> recovered from court records, Florinda, Taisha, and Carol each received
> shareholder distributions in excess of $70,000 apiece.
>
> 32. Around the time Castaneda died and was cremated, some of the
> prominent women associated with his party bought new cars and soon
> afterwards split town. To the uninformed, this might look as though
> they all may have burned from within with the master or something --
> but you don't need new cars in the second attention, now do you?
>
> There is a great deal more information available in the full text of
> the Sustained Action site at http://www.sustainedaction.org . I have
> tried to cover many of the major issues in this summary, and the big
> picture, the overall pattern of this data, should now be clearly
> visible. The work of Castaneda and his cohorts was, and still is,
> largely a FRAUD.
>
> Fine, readers may certainly find elements of beauty in Castaneda. He
> was an artist. Readers may even find elements of the truth there. He
> was an eclectic and intelligent man who incorporated information from
> Native American traditions, Eastern traditions, and many modern
> philosophical schools of thought. However, as has been made evident,
> you will also find his mostly borrowed elements of truth and half-truth
> mixed with a liberal dosage of shameless lies and fictional
> distortions. So finally, to spell it out one last time, the
> inescapable conclusion is:
>
> 1) Do not follow the work of Castaneda as if it is the total truth
> about life.
>
> 2) Do not regard the fiction Castaneda and his associates presented as
> being an honest reportage.
>
> 3) Realize the extent to which Castaneda was just another authoritarian
> guru.
>
> 4) If you are still into shamanistic activities, it would be best to
> forget Castaneda and seek out more *authentic* sources of "spiritual"
> practice.
>
> I recommend that people save this summary and repost it every time a
> newbie shows up asking lots of questions. It should save some time.
>
> -Jeremy Donovan
> (If those TB's had any guts at all, they would let somebody post this
> summary to Tango)
Really Heavy Mind Thing
thom wrote:
>
> Hey Bro!
>
> Hat's off you you Jeremy, You are the IRON MAN of ADC w/o a doubt. You
> have my respect.
>
> You've been on both sides of the fence, fighting hard both ways.
> Thom
> With Respect
What kind of blithering,
Butt sniffin, kiss ass, brown nosin', two-bit, dung-lovin',
wanna-be-like-mike, kinda, conservative, middle-of-the-road,
chickenshit, whitebread, cocksuckin, motherfuckin,
bang'em-in-the-backside reply is this?
Huh? tell me?
Huh? Huh? ....Huh?
hey now!
Jeremy's got a boyfriend...
;o)
v!
Really Heavy Mind Thing
ReallyBigFatPig wrote:
>
> Ah yes, listen to the masturbaters speak! Oh the poor disillusioned slobs,
> they're just not good enough. No, no, they're just not as SPECIAL as we and
> the dead man Carlos are. Poor souls <sniff>. God we're good!
>
> Fucking idiots.
>
> Randy
Hey you really big fat pig,
Why don't you go bang The Blue Scrote or something? You should
specialize in scrotum care products for the Tensegrity long-time
practitioner! I bet you had sexual fantasies about Willy and the Blue
Scrote the whole time you were doing tensegrity at your strategically
located position below here stage.
I thought you looked especially hot and bothered after those long
tedious Workshop sessions...
:oD
Sooty Wannabe
Chris Rodgers
> What kind of blithering,
> Butt sniffin, kiss ass, brown nosin', two-bit, dung-lovin',
> wanna-be-like-mike, kinda, conservative, middle-of-the-road,
> chickenshit, whitebread, cocksuckin, motherfuckin,
> bang'em-in-the-backside reply is this?
>
> Huh? tell me?
> Huh? Huh? ....Huh?
LOL!!! Whitebread mofucker. Honky please! :)
Jeremy Donovan
RBB:
"Well if you take away parts, you have no longer memory. Or certain
memory. On that the conclusion of memory seated in the brain is drawn.
But it can also be like you say. You have no longer access.
Actually a piece of the puzzle I was looking for.
I know others who feel that memory is the whole body too."
You are into something interesting here, but you'd better be pretty
careful drawing conclusions. I read some material on this subject in a
book discussing consciousness, related to brain damage cases. I gave
the book back to a friend; I wish I still had it. There are brain
damage cases which indicate that "body image" (the image the brain
keeps of the entire body) is *crucial* to "identity" itself. People
with brain damage including major damage to this "body image" have the
bizarre experience of losing not only memories, but their sense of "who
they are" as well. They lose their identity. They do strange things,
like continually running their hands over their bodies, trying
to "restore" their very sense of "self". As you have noted before, the
brain does not exist by itself, it is connected to the rest of the
body, and there are physical locations in the brain pertaining to each
area in the body. The "whole image" created in the brain by the
conglomerate of all that physical data is somehow *intimately* bound up
with our basic sense of "identity". I had made a mental note to read
more on this, but haven't run across any more material yet.
RBB:
"Why picks a DNA up the other data in the first place and doesn't
prefer to stay with data it already has?"
The "purpose" seems to be variation, for better odds of continued
survival. That's what sex is, beyond reproducing life -- it's one of
the main ways "life" found to mingle DNA. If two organisms can mix
their genes, their descendants have a better chance of replacing
vulnerable ones, finding stronger ones, developing better defenses.
RBB:
"Since it does it cannot be a closed circuit. And as such it is not the
unique blueprint we believe it to be."
Also a controversial subject. I ran across interesting information on
this the other day too. There's a fellow who believes consciousness
exists at the cellular level, who makes arguments regarding how we
allegedly modify our own basic genetics. His data was less than
convincing, but some of his arguments were intriguing. I'd give you a
link, but I forgot his name already. If I run across it again, I'll
post it.
RBB:
"I believe that memory is a more energetic thing.
Otherwise you could not read memory out of someone's energy field."
I'd say one must distinguish different kinds of "memory". The "memory"
encoded in DNA is not the same type of "memory" as when we recall an
experience. The "memory" in DNA is more fundamental, for DNA contains
instructions on how to build the whole "machine", including the brain
and nervous system which is then capable of having "memories" of
experience.
Assuming you really do read someone (a rather large assumption), I have
to ask what you mean when you refer to someone's "energy field". How
do you KNOW for sure what you are really reading, and where the
information is really coming from? Could it be you may just be used to
perceiving it that way? What I'm asking is ... just how sure are you
as to exactly where and how you obtain "readings"?
RBB:
"I think of an energetic field of dense matter, as part of matter.
In that I can visualize as long as there is enough living mass of that
particular matter, say like human bodies, the fields created in time
stay attached to the specific collective matter configuration , but are
also accessible informationwise."
The body does have an electromagnetic field. The "body image"
assembled by the brain is based on electromagnetic impulses, and thus
our very "identity" is partly based on an image derived from
electromagnetic impulses. But you mean something else, right? How
would you describe the "energetic field" of the body?
"Intelligence can access itself.
Primitive it is the idea of anchestors.Another is linear reincarnation.
In that I visualize that each body while creating a field which it will
later add to the collective, also is entertainer/container of several
old fields. It is an accumulative process.
In some way you see that higher intelligence and large collective body-
mass go together.
I cannot see the development of high intelligence of a species, if old
data are not kept in some way.
I also don't believe that data are only kept, by transference as in
education, belief or culture.
That would be a much to high risk affair in the case of partial
distinction. Humans are vulnerable to catastrophe. In the case of the
plague, one can see that civilization didn't go very much back.
But it should have if knowledge and therefore memory is gone.
In the contrary recovery comes as quick as the same way your body has
this matrix when it has to heal."
This seems like pure speculation. I'd guess that culture and belief
ARE very much the keepers of data and that it WOULD be possible to set
man back millennia by thoroughly destroying the modern technological
culture. If you could destroy all record of it, and the people who
remembered it all died too, I don't believe their offspring would just
instantly reinvent it all. No way. The guy who believed in cellular
consciosness was making an argument which leads in the direction of the
actual data of experience somehow being encoded in raw form in our
genes, but at this time I have not seen ANY convincing evidence that
DNA stores the actual data of experience. To me it looks as if
the "memory" it imparts is of an entirely different nature -- more
fundamental, structural -- more of potentials than of finished results.
And to me, the puzzle has to go back *before* DNA anyway. Before there
was life on this planet at all there was already an incredible
foundation in place, i.e. a planet, in a galaxy and etc. The
overall "potential design" would seem to have been inherent somehow in
the beginning -- an initial design which would eventually, after
billions of years, put all the pieces in place to *give rise* to this
DNA and all that would come of it. At least, that's how it seems to
me.
-Jeremy
Ether Vying
> "Well if you take away parts, you have no longer memory. Or certain
> memory. On that the conclusion of memory seated in the brain is drawn.
> But it can also be like you say. You have no longer access.
> Actually a piece of the puzzle I was looking for.
> I know others who feel that memory is the whole body too."
>
> You are into something interesting here, but you'd better be pretty
> careful drawing conclusions. I read some material on this subject in a
> book discussing consciousness, related to brain damage cases. I gave
> the book back to a friend; I wish I still had it. There are brain
> damage cases which indicate that "body image" (the image the brain
> keeps of the entire body) is *crucial* to "identity" itself. People
> with brain damage including major damage to this "body image" have the
> bizarre experience of losing not only memories, but their sense of "who
> they are" as well. They lose their identity. They do strange things,
> like continually running their hands over their bodies, trying
> to "restore" their very sense of "self". As you have noted before, the
> brain does not exist by itself, it is connected to the rest of the
> body, and there are physical locations in the brain pertaining to each
> area in the body. The "whole image" created in the brain by the
> conglomerate of all that physical data is somehow *intimately* bound up
> with our basic sense of "identity". I had made a mental note to read
> more on this, but haven't run across any more material yet.
Phantom limbs are interesting in this regard. Sometimes after amputation,
a missing limb is still felt as being present. People with amputated arms
can be so fooled by the sensation of presence they're convinced they're
reaching for something with the non existant arm, or topple over when they
go to step with an amputated leg. Obviously, their body image hasn't
conformed to the reality of the new arrangement. The sensory input from
the nerves should be telling the brain that the arm is no longer there,
but instead the impulses continue to support the old 'body image'. Also,
in some unfortunate cases, the memory of the limb is pain. The nerves seem
to be stuck in the pain loop of the injury .. the last sensation
experienced from the limb before it was amputated. This seems to be some
kind of neural memory.
> RBB:
> "Why picks a DNA up the other data in the first place and doesn't
> prefer to stay with data it already has?"
>
> The "purpose" seems to be variation, for better odds of continued
> survival. That's what sex is, beyond reproducing life -- it's one of
> the main ways "life" found to mingle DNA. If two organisms can mix
> their genes, their descendants have a better chance of replacing
> vulnerable ones, finding stronger ones, developing better defenses.
>
> RBB:
> "Since it does it cannot be a closed circuit. And as such it is not the
> unique blueprint we believe it to be."
>
> Also a controversial subject. I ran across interesting information on
> this the other day too. There's a fellow who believes consciousness
> exists at the cellular level,
It would seem to be fself evident that cells are conscious on a level we
can't possibly comprehend, yet experience every living moment. :-)
> who makes arguments regarding how we
> allegedly modify our own basic genetics.
:-) So many ways to do that ... pollution, manmade toxins, food choices,
drugs, radiation .. the list goes on. But I'm sure you're getting at the
other angle ... whether we can modify our genes to affect better health or
whatever ... we just don't have a catchphrase for that in today's
nomenclature. We might call it ... a miracle, act of will, or act of god.
It's a rare phenom, but it does happen.
> His data was less than
> convincing, but some of his arguments were intriguing. I'd give you a
> link, but I forgot his name already. If I run across it again, I'll
> post it.
>
> RBB:
> "I believe that memory is a more energetic thing.
> Otherwise you could not read memory out of someone's energy field."
>
> I'd say one must distinguish different kinds of "memory". The "memory"
> encoded in DNA is not the same type of "memory" as when we recall an
> experience.
Are you sure of that? What if (I know how you love my what if
scenarios(!)) ... what if all memory is memory and it's stored
holographically in DNA? The memory is always there, but not accessible. In
this scenario, an injured brain would be unable to 'translate' the
holographic memory. The hologram is intact, but there's something wrong
with the projector.
I can carry the speculation a bit further .. what if the DNA is damaged?
Does it have a holographic image of itself intact, just as the brain of an
amputee may have an intact body image? And can we access the holographic
image of say ... DNA before it became corrupted by environmental factors?
> The "memory" in DNA is more fundamental, for DNA contains
> instructions on how to build the whole "machine", including the brain
> and nervous system which is then capable of having "memories" of
> experience.
What DNA contains or doesn't contain is still unknown for the most part ..
even when scientists think they know all that there is to know. Just today
it was announced that Toronto scientists had found the "Holy Grail" for
disorders such as cancer, diabetes and some forms of heart disease. The
holy grail comes from the functioning of a gene called CD45. It regulates
the growth of red and white blood cells, viral infections and a number of
diseases. Basically it directs the manufacture of an 'off' switch
(protein) for when the immune system need no longer be on the warpath. An
immune system with a malfunctioning "off'' switch is the likely cause for
auto immune disorders. The paper I read it in didn't put up an e-version
of the story, but if you're interested in pursuing it further, Nature
published the findings today. The lead researcher, Dr. Josef Penninger,
presented his research at the Keystone Colorado lectures about a week ago.
For years, scientists thought that they knew everything there was to know
about how CD45 functions. Here's a bit of what Dr. Penninger had to say
about the discovery:
"People weren't interested in it any more, because everyone thought they
knew what it was doing. We only found this because we wanted to revisit an
old finding."
"This, I found scientifically exciting. There we were thinking we had
figured out this thing and then we had a completely new function which we
had missed for the last 10 years. This was definitely a Eureka moment."
And there will be many many more Eureka! moments to come before we can say
definitvely what DNA does or doesn't contain or what it does or doesn't
do. We've only just begun.
The structure of the brain and our own in utero development demonstrate
how evolution builds one stage over another ... the design is indeed
'cumulative' in the physical sense. :-)
> I also don't believe that data are only kept, by transference as in
> education, belief or culture.
> That would be a much to high risk affair in the case of partial
> distinction. Humans are vulnerable to catastrophe. In the case of the
> plague, one can see that civilization didn't go very much back.
> But it should have if knowledge and therefore memory is gone.
> In the contrary recovery comes as quick as the same way your body has
> this matrix when it has to heal."
>
> This seems like pure speculation. I'd guess that culture and belief
> ARE very much the keepers of data and that it WOULD be possible to set
> man back millennia by thoroughly destroying the modern technological
> culture. If you could destroy all record of it, and the people who
> remembered it all died too, I don't believe their offspring would just
> instantly reinvent it all. No way. The guy who believed in cellular
> consciosness was making an argument which leads in the direction of the
> actual data of experience somehow being encoded in raw form in our
> genes, but at this time I have not seen ANY convincing evidence that
> DNA stores the actual data of experience.
There is, as of yet, no such data ... but it's early yet. :-)
> To me it looks as if
> the "memory" it imparts is of an entirely different nature -- more
> fundamental, structural -- more of potentials than of finished results.
>
> And to me, the puzzle has to go back *before* DNA anyway. Before there
> was life on this planet at all there was already an incredible
> foundation in place, i.e. a planet, in a galaxy and etc. The
> overall "potential design" would seem to have been inherent somehow in
> the beginning -- an initial design which would eventually, after
> billions of years, put all the pieces in place to *give rise* to this
> DNA and all that would come of it. At least, that's how it seems to
> me.
I've got more news for you! Based on geologic evidence, life on earth, and
hence DNA, may be waaaaaay older than scientist's believe. This one I can
give you a link for:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast17jan_1.htm?list62743
January 17, 2001 --
Scientists are drawing a portrait of how Earth looked soon after it formed
4.56 billion years ago, based on clues within the oldest mineral grains
ever found. Tiny zircons (zirconium silicate crystals) found in ancient
stream deposits indicate that Earth developed continents and water --
perhaps even oceans and environments in which microbial life could emerge
-- 4.3 billion to 4.4 billion years ago, remarkably soon after our planet
formed. []
The last few days has seen a flurry of remarkable announcements that
question tenets of scientific belief. Everybody know you can't stop light,
right? Guess what?
Scientists bend universal laws by 'stopping' light
(AP) - Physicists said they have brought light particles to a screeching
halt, then revved
them up again so they could continue their journey at a blistering
300,000 kilometres a
second.
The results are the latest in a growing number of experiments that
manipulate light, the
fastest and most ephemeral form of energy in the universe.
Eventually, researchers hope to harness its speedy properties in the
development of more
powerful computers and other technologies that store information in
light particles, rather
than electrons.
The experiments were conducted in separate laboratories in Cambridge,
Mass., by groups
led by Lene Vestergaard Hau of Harvard and the Rowland Institute of
Science and
Ronald Walsworth and Mikhail Lukin of the Harvard-Smithsonian Institute
for
Astrophysics.
The results will be published in upcoming issues of the journals Nature
and American
Physical Letters. []
We are cursed to live in interesting times. :-)
Ether Vying
clear...@my-deja.com
Some of the people you know could have ended up in Cleargreen. And
might still be in there. Didn’t CC recruit a few from the Sunday
Sessions?
I certainly am not defending what Cleargreen is doing, they got some of
my money too. If they should disband there would be a much better
chance of individuals coming forward to tell their story, and perhaps
bringing the full truth out in the open. And judging from the accounts
of those who were in deep, the Cleargreen folks are going to have a
tough time getting themselves straight if Cleargreen should disband. A
very tough time….
Greg’s video might go a long ways to make some of those people take a
more objective look at what they are doing, but until that video is
widely distributed, things will continue as they are now. The ever-
forthcoming books might make a difference to some, but probably not to
Cleargreen.
Cat
poses some new ideas here. Yes, what if CC had never published his
books, or existed at all?
Then we would not be here either, debating or agreeing or whatever.
Cat
slider
ReallyBigFatPig wrote
Ah yes, listen to the masturbaters speak! Oh the poor
disillusioned slobs, they're just not good enough. No, no,
they're just not as SPECIAL as we and the dead man Carlos
are. Poor souls <sniff>. God we're good!
Fucking idiots.
### - i was going to just totally ignore this one because of it's
overall rather nasty and contentious tone, but i can see now it can
perhaps still serve to make a fairly reasonable point... i.e. if
bowbird had been making that statement from the POV of being one of
the so called true-believers who is still living in total denial that
cc even "died" (grin:) - then i'd tend to agree with you... but imho
there is also the "outsiders view" to consider (i.e. people who have
seriously studied "other" schools of thought first - with cc being
like a plug-in module to that:)
i think you'll find that the fundamental difference between these two
types is imho rather easily revealed in that the so called
true-believer (i still dislike that term TB) objects to any slur on
cc's character whatsoever, while the outsider objects not to the
information supplied (far from it!) but the "tone" of the supplier
involved, who quite apparently (at least to objective eyes:) has
deliberately corrupted/arranged it in such a way so as to directly
influence the minds of the people reading it, and this to "actively
employ" them in their own destructive and (now admittedly) hateful
agenda!
for example... see how jeremy directly instructs the readers in his
latest brain-washing campaign here to "read it all through to the end"
before thinking about it or questioning it??? - (personally, i started
at the other end as soon as i saw that ha ha ha;) - imho this
blustering reaffirmation on jeremy's part comes directly in response
to being (rather cleverly:) "outed" by uncletantra only a few days
earlier! (well done unc':)
and while i don't doubt that there may be some here, who being "that"
disillusioned with their lives now have nothing better to do with
themselves now other than to seek a sort of sick and sad revenge for
all the bad things the world has done to them (ahhh diddums:) - there
are also many i'm sure who retain a healthy enough sense of personal
development and who of course wish to continue developing it... and
who also have no wish to take yet "another" couple of years off from
working on themselves by becoming press-ganged into a new neo-nazi
movement operating under the guise of liberating people, and that
rather obviously (and ultimately) seeks only to satisfy it's own
unquestioned (and imho) misguided desire to punish and revenge,
thereby reasserting itself (in it's own ego's eyes that is:)
i mean... no one likes to feel a fool - but not many of us would go to
"such extremes" in order to "prove it" to themselves and the
world?:):):) - go figure!:)
and so jeremy recommends and falls back upon science as his "rational
safety net" eh? - lol screw that! - every artist knows that the
god/religion of science is a crock o' sh...!:):)
slider...
Jeremy Donovan
You got it right, Randy. He's a mental masturbator. Slider, you are
guilty of every accusation you make and more, and fail to see that
sometimes destruction is constructive, and that this is one of those
times. I am not doing what I do "hatefully", but I DO detect that in
your postings, and I have for a very long time.
-J.
uncle...@my-deja.com
"slider" <sli...@nospameasycam.com> wrote:
<lots of stuff...duly snipped>
Slider, as I've said, I've said my piece, and don't have
that much to add. I don't think I was trying to "out"
Jeremy as much as to point out 1) there is a lot of
emotion buried under these supposedly scientific arguments,
2) the emotion suggests an agenda, and most important 3)
it's Just Another Opinion.
To some extent, I even agree with most of Jeremy's
conclusions at the end of his post, with the following
annotations:
> 1) Do not follow the work of Castaneda as if it is the total truth
> about life.
Do not follow *anyone's* work or writings as if they were the
total truth about life. Including Jeremy's. Including the
view of science.
> 2) Do not regard the fiction Castaneda and his associates presented
> as being an honest reportage.
Regard science the same way. "Honest reportage" is as rare
in the world of science as it is in the world of mysticism.
*Everyone* has an agenda.
> 3) Realize the extent to which Castaneda was just another
> authoritarian guru.
Realize the extent to which Castaneda was human. So are you.
That doesn't mean that you don't also have wisdom to share
with the world. Castaneda might have, too. Learn from it,
without thinking of him as either less or more than human.
> 4) If you are still into shamanistic activities, it would be best
> to forget Castaneda and seek out more *authentic* sources of
> "spiritual" practice.
If you are still into shamanistic activities, it would be best
to *supplement* Castaneda with other, possibly more authentic
sources of "spiritual" practice. To ignore him completely is
to do the ostrich thing, stick your head in the sand, and
pretend he never existed. Read his stuff with the same degree
of benevolent skepticism as you read anything else.
As you said, my argument is not so much with the "facts"
presented but with the authoritarian tone with which they
are presented. If Jeremy were presenting his arguments
as what they are -- Just Another Opinion -- I would have no
problem with it. He isn't. He's presenting it as The Truth,
and sneering at those who don't believe it is The Truth.
As he himself said, "Just Another Authoritarian Guru."
Jeremy Donovan
Slider:
"### - well yes vinny... and an, ahem, "very refined" reply from you in
return i might add... so then, don't tell me you're racist as well as
an angry young man? - (ya' gotta' get your mind right boy!:)
heh... he can sure dish it out... but he sure can't take it;)"
You know, you've been askin' for it for a very long time, so let's see
how well you like having your request fulfilled. You're the most
negative influence on this board IMO, constantly trying to prove (esp.
to yourself) how "intellectually enlightened" you are, but basically
you're a *bystander* with a big fucking mouth, who apparently has no
life to speak of, thus is continually vitally concerned with panty-
waist "technicalities" which are largely just an irrelevant irritant to
people with REAL issues here. GET A FUCKING LIFE YOU MENTAL
MASTURBATOR FROM HELL (England, same diff, whatever)! This scene is
just a big "philosophical argument" to you, you superficial jerk! Your
main concern here, pathetically, is with being PAC (Philosophically and
Artistically Correct)*. Well, I can *see* that Mr. "I'm So Refined" is
also one of the *angriest* people here, but without the balls to admit
it. He's always trying to instigate or continue some useless flame
war, and I feint from surprise on the rare occasion he makes a point of
genuine interest. Artist, my ass. Slider, you wouldn't know an artist
if one kicked your silly butt halfway to the moon (one just did). Piss
the fuck off! Stop wasting our time! You bore the shit out of truly
thoughtful and creative men, wanker, and always have. It's a shame we
couldn't have this conversation in person (it adds effect when I get in
your face). I'd like to see how you react to something REAL.
Your pal,
Jeremy
(* the term "PAC" - "Philosophically & Artistically Correct" is
copyright 2001 Jeremy Donovan :-) :-) )
uncle...@my-deja.com
JAAG - Just Another Authoritarian Guru
(also copyright 2001 Jeremy Donovan)
Jeremy Donovan
uncle...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <949vcu$rc5$2...@uranium.btinternet.com>,
> "slider" <sli...@nospameasycam.com> wrote:
>
> <lots of stuff...duly snipped>
>
> Slider, as I've said, I've said my piece, and don't have
> that much to add. I don't think I was trying to "out"
> Jeremy as much as to point out 1) there is a lot of
> emotion buried under these supposedly scientific arguments,
> 2) the emotion suggests an agenda, and most important 3)
> it's Just Another Opinion.
Not. The summary is filled with factual information.
Go ahead, put your head in the sand.
> To some extent, I even agree with most of Jeremy's
> conclusions at the end of his post, with the following
> annotations:
>
> > 1) Do not follow the work of Castaneda as if it is the total truth
> > about life.
>
> Do not follow *anyone's* work or writings as if they were the
> total truth about life. Including Jeremy's. Including the
> view of science.
>
> > 2) Do not regard the fiction Castaneda and his associates presented
> > as being an honest reportage.
>
> Regard science the same way. "Honest reportage" is as rare
> in the world of science as it is in the world of mysticism.
Bullshit. Most of the time, researchers have little reason to lie,
their methodology is subject to accepted standards, and their results
are subject to peer review and confirmation. Gurus are NOT. Put your
head in the sand, see if I care.
> *Everyone* has an agenda.
> > 3) Realize the extent to which Castaneda was just another
> > authoritarian guru.
>
> Realize the extent to which Castaneda was human. So are you.
> That doesn't mean that you don't also have wisdom to share
> with the world. Castaneda might have, too. Learn from it,
> without thinking of him as either less or more than human.
I did. This point of yours is better, and scores a: duh.
You piss me off because you think you're saying something important and
it's fucking trivia. You're another *bystander* with a big mouth.
> > 4) If you are still into shamanistic activities, it would be best
> > to forget Castaneda and seek out more *authentic* sources of
> > "spiritual" practice.
>
> If you are still into shamanistic activities, it would be best
> to *supplement* Castaneda with other, possibly more authentic
> sources of "spiritual" practice. To ignore him completely is
> to do the ostrich thing, stick your head in the sand, and
> pretend he never existed. Read his stuff with the same degree
> of benevolent skepticism as you read anything else.
>
> As you said, my argument is not so much with the "facts"
> presented but with the authoritarian tone with which they
> are presented. If Jeremy were presenting his arguments
> as what they are -- Just Another Opinion -- I would have no
> problem with it. He isn't. He's presenting it as The Truth,
> and sneering at those who don't believe it is The Truth.
>
> As he himself said, "Just Another Authoritarian Guru."
Bullshit. I'm not a guru or an authority of any kind. If my words
have "authority" it is simply because so many of them are factual, or
perhaps because my arguments are so cogent. I have no titles, mystical
claims, followers, lackeys, groupies -- and not a publication for which
I receive a dime. Everything I do is for free, and everything I write
(unless factual) is my opinion, to which I'm entitled like anyone
else. Put your head in the sand, see if I care.
-Jeremy
Jeremy Donovan
Man, it must be something in the air today. :-)
Thanks for the compliments, Thom, and for your usual sincerity.
Thom wrote:
"If I could, one honest question, one I don't think you will find
difficult to answer. One that would only require a quick reply, no
research required:
Would you rather that CC had never published his books?
Thom
With Respect"
Damn that's a good question. Unfortunately, I AM going to have to
think about it awhile, and give it the thoughtful reply it deserves.
Right at the moment I'm in ass-kickin' mode. I'll have to get back to
ya.
-Jeremy
Really Heavy Mind Thing
Jeremy Donovan wrote:
>
> You're the influence on this board IMO, constantly fucking mouth.
> GET A FUCKING MASTURBATOR. This jerk can *see* that
> without the balls to point my ass, you wouldn't moon the shit out of truly
> thoughtful and creative wanker. It's a shame. I'd like to see you REAL.
>
> Your gal,
> Jeremy
Jeremy!
You GO, girl!
;o)
v!
P.S. e.d. The above quote was edited by simply omitting sections of
words and leaving the remaining in the original order.
Really Heavy Mind Thing
Chris Rodgers wrote:
>
> LOL!!! Whitebread mofucker. Honky please! :)
Ok let me try again,
What kind of Dumb-ass, no good, two-bit, butt lovin', ass kissin',
dick-needin', honkey ass muhfuh, peckerwood, cracker kinda, up-the-ass
bullshit reply are you tryin' to make here Bo-aaahhh! HUH???
HUH??
v!
rainbowbird
> Chris Rodgers wrote:
> >
> > LOL!!! Whitebread mofucker. Honky please! :)
>
> Ok let me try again,
>
> What kind of Dumb-ass, no good, two-bit, butt lovin', ass kissin',
> dick-needin', honkey ass muhfuh, peckerwood, cracker kinda, up-the-ass
> bullshit reply are you tryin' to make here Bo-aaahhh! HUH???
>
> HUH??
> v!
> --
Now that is enough.
Go and wash your mouth with soap.
And stop throwing with your new brand of cereals.
RBB
rainbowbird
> Hey Bro!
>
> Hat's off you you Jeremy, you've got focus, that's for sure. An
> excellent summary, one which has obviously consumed a lot of time, money
> and effort to construct. You are the IRON MAN of ADC w/o a doubt. You
> have my respect.
Iron describes rigidity. Is that what you admire on our dear DW
aka..aka..aka...aka Jeremy?
One Blumfunkel was enough to give me a nightmare and than it was just a look
alike. :)
What was that figure irritating you practically had to breathe CC or all was
in vain.
So good that he is gone, because if any figure ever really made me wanting to
kick some ass it was this
Dr. Blumfunkel.
I just hated that figure with all my heart. What a son of a bitch that was.
If there is a cult and I would have doubts to join it it would just take one
singel Blumfunkel not to join. :)
He was like a condom that prevented fertilization.
You are in the row to become his substitute, because
a) you unburied him
b) you tried to raise him from the death by reposting him
Now how about your iron.....
In which fire you like to melted?
On your question would you have rather that CC had not written his book...
It is the famous should, could, would have sandwi(t)ch.
As if that is really an option.
And I cannot believe that J has bought it.
He is getting old the poor thing.
Concrete - tiredness.
RBB
>
>
(!)
> ReallyBigFatPig wrote
>
> Ah yes, listen to the masturbaters speak! Oh the poor
> disillusioned slobs, they're just not good enough. No, no,
> they're just not as SPECIAL as we and the dead man Carlos
> are. Poor souls <sniff>. God we're good!
Oink! Hot damn!
> Fucking idiots.
Who's fucking the idiots?
> ### - i was going to just totally ignore this one because of it's
> overall rather nasty and contentious tone, but i can see now it can
> perhaps still serve to make a fairly reasonable point... i.e. if
> bowbird had been making that statement from the POV of being one of
> the so called true-believers who is still living in total denial that
> cc even "died" (grin:) - then i'd tend to agree with you... but imho
> there is also the "outsiders view" to consider (i.e. people who have
> seriously studied "other" schools of thought first - with cc being
> like a plug-in module to that:)
A fairly reasonable point!
Butt then ...
> i think you'll find that the fundamental difference between these two
> types is imho rather easily revealed in that the so called
> true-believer (i still dislike that term TB)
Type more if you want to ... TB is fine by me. Good netizens of adc,
while Slider objects, I don't mind if you refer to True Believers as TBs.
I'm sure this is a source of great relief to many of you(!)
> objects to any slur on
> cc's character whatsoever, while the outsider objects not to the
> information supplied (far from it!) but the "tone" of the supplier
> involved, who quite apparently (at least to objective eyes:)
Whose eyes might those be? You're above your own subjective reality?
Unlike the rest of humanity? Ahahahahaha! Objective, my ass(!) 8-D You're
one of the most opinionated people in adc, bar none ... and that's a
tough row to hoe here, brit buddy!
> has
> deliberately corrupted/arranged it in such a way so as to directly
> influence the minds of the people reading it, and this to "actively
> employ" them in their own destructive and (now admittedly) hateful
> agenda!
They MUST be neo-nuevo-new natzees FSS! 8-0!!!!!
> for example... see how jeremy directly instructs the readers in his
> latest brain-washing campaign here to "read it all through to the end"
> before thinking about it or questioning it??? - (personally, i started
> at the other end as soon as i saw that ha ha ha;)
Maybe if he'd said 'suspending judgement' ... maybe that's a phrase more
to your taste. I'm pretty sure that's what he meant, though he'd be loath
to use the terminology. :-) I think that suspending judgement while
reading through a document is a fairly reasonable request. He didn't ask
you to suspend judgement AFTER reading it. And you're so thrilled with
yourself for being judgemental from the get go! Ahahahahahaha!
> - imho this
> blustering reaffirmation on jeremy's part comes directly in response
> to being (rather cleverly:) "outed" by uncletantra only a few days
> earlier! (well done unc':)
"Outted" him how, exactly? In case you're like oblivious to this reality,
many of us have been reading Jeremy's various personae for 5 or 6 years,
or even longer. Some adcers have interacted with him in the flesh. There
isn't much that you, or a relative newcomer (no offense UT), could reveal
about J's personality that we don't already know.
> and while i don't doubt that there may be some here, who being "that"
> disillusioned with their lives now have nothing better to do with
> themselves now other than to seek a sort of sick and sad revenge for
> all the bad things the world has done to them (ahhh diddums:)
Such deeeeeep and generalized insights(!)
One size fits all, eh?
> - there
> are also many i'm sure who retain a healthy enough sense of personal
> development and who of course wish to continue developing it... and
> who also have no wish to take yet "another" couple of years off from
> working on themselves by becoming press-ganged into a new neo-nazi
> movement operating under the guise of liberating people, and that
> rather obviously (and ultimately) seeks only to satisfy it's own
> unquestioned (and imho) misguided desire to punish and revenge,
> thereby reasserting itself (in it's own ego's eyes that is:)
Ahahahahaha!
No one is pressed to join or to read SA. I have no idea where you get
neo-new natzee, but it seems to be a recurring paranoia with you. You
bring the natzees up alot ... do you see them everywhere, taking over the
world in ways that only you're clever enough to catch on to? 8-0!!!!!
Dan, get out there and save the world RIGHT NOW, dammit!
8-D
I was subscribed to the SA list for about 6 months, and now I sometimes
read it online. I've never had any of your impressions. In fact, I'm
glad SA is there because it presents the other side of the CC story, or
coin, as you like to refer to dualities. Anyone interested in CC and his
works can get a more balanced view by reading SA as well as the official
site. Are you against freedom of speech? Should some people be barred
from voicing their opinions and presenting their findings?
If the information on the SA site is false and libellous, why hasn't
Cleargreen sued? They went after plenty of others. At one time they were
quite litigious ... till Carlos became ill and died, it seems to me. Why
isn't Cleargreen suing Corey et al? I think you can extrapolate a
reasonable possiblity or two, and I'll give you a hint ... it's not
because they're above that kind of thing.
Cleargreen was the house that Carlos built. It was built with his intent,
and he called the shots for what went down while he was alive. It's not
much more than a house of cards at this point IMHO, and those little SA
piggies are huffing and puffing ... and they might just blow that house
down. And if they do ... so what? Due in part to the gratis efforts of
SA's main contributors, CC's cult isn't likely to achieve religious
status ... do you have a problem with that?
> i mean... no one likes to feel a fool - but not many of us would go to
> "such extremes" in order to "prove it" to themselves and the
> world?:):):)
You're doing a swell job(!)
Keep up the good work!
> - go figure!:)
Somebody had to ... :-)
> and so jeremy recommends and falls back upon science as his "rational
> safety net" eh? - lol screw that! - every artist knows that the
> god/religion of science is a crock o' sh...!:):)
Interesting how you accuse Jeremy of having a rigid hateful stance
towards CCism and yet you retain the attitude that you accuse him of
having toward science.
What's the diff?
No diff(!)
Butt your subjective reality will probably disagree with me and tell you
what you want to hear. :-)
Ether Vying
>
> and so jeremy recommends and falls back upon science as his "rational
> safety net" eh? - lol screw that! - every artist knows that the
> god/religion of science is a crock o' sh...!:):)
>
> slider...
Surely you don't presume to speak for 'every' artist? :-) I've talked to
some wonderful artists who feel (as do I) that science, art and
spirituality were once the same thing. It was all magic back then. In
time the magic split 3 ways and each aspect developed its own disciplines
and inventory as it evolved. Art speaks to the soul, science speaks to
the mind, spirituality speaks to the heart. There are real artists
working to bring the 3 aspects back together again in magical works. What
diverged tens of thousands of years ago is converging again. Try to see
the big picture ... it's magic!
Ether Vying
clear...@my-deja.com
"(!)" <"(!)"@kma.net> wrote:
>
> Cleargreen was the house that Carlos built. It was built with his
intent,
> and he called the shots for what went down while he was alive. It's
not
> much more than a house of cards at this point IMHO, and those little
SA
> piggies are huffing and puffing ... and they might just blow that
house
> down. And if they do ... so what? Due in part to the gratis efforts of
> SA's main contributors, CC's cult isn't likely to achieve religious
> status ... do you have a problem with that?
Cleargreen may not achieve MAJOR religious status, but at the rate it’s
going, it will probably be a minor cult/business for some time. Their
main source of income is the workshops, which have dropped attendance
since the star died and the SA site came out. But judging from the
posts on Tango/Tigre, there are still some TB’s, and more newcomers all
the time. There will always be new people reading the books, and a
portion of those will be curious enough to try a workshop. Waiting for
Cleargreen to fold because of poor workshop attendance may be a long
wait.
At this point, the only way for SA to reach TB’s is by them stumbling
on the SA website. Maybe someone should distribute copies of Jeremy’s
little masterpiece somewhere there are a lot of Tensegrity
practitioners……
If Cleargreen canceled the workshops due to poor attendance, then
maybe a distribution of the Video showing CC’s last days as a mortal
human being might cause some Cleargreeners to come out.
ch
Dan
> > - there
> > are also many i'm sure who retain a healthy enough sense of personal
> > development and who of course wish to continue developing it... and
> > who also have no wish to take yet "another" couple of years off from
> > working on themselves by becoming press-ganged into a new neo-nazi
> > movement operating under the guise of liberating people, and that
> > rather obviously (and ultimately) seeks only to satisfy it's own
> > unquestioned (and imho) misguided desire to punish and revenge,
> > thereby reasserting itself (in it's own ego's eyes that is:)
>
> Ahahahahaha!
>
> No one is pressed to join or to read SA.
I find it hilarious that slider has in fact probably done more to publicize
the SA site and generate interest in visiting it than any other poster in
adc.
> I have no idea where you get
> neo-new natzee, but it seems to be a recurring paranoia with you. You
> bring the natzees up alot ... do you see them everywhere, taking over the
> world in ways that only you're clever enough to catch on to? 8-0!!!!!
> Dan, get out there and save the world RIGHT NOW, dammit!
>
> 8-D
alright .. alright ... 'sigh ... butt let me finish my coffee first.... oh,
and I have to finish painting the living room here at the house, but I should
have time late this afternoon to save the world before dinner... so I'll do
it! Heck, slider's imaginary natzees should only take a minute or two,
leaving plenty of time before chow for saving the rest of the world.
:-)!!
slider
(!) wrote
slider wrote:
> ### - i was going to just totally ignore this one because of it's
overall rather nasty and contentious tone, but i can see now it can
> perhaps still serve to make a fairly reasonable point... i.e. if
bowbird had been making that statement from the POV of being one of
the so called true-believers who is still living in total denial that
> cc even "died" (grin:) - then i'd tend to agree with you... but imho
there is also the "outsiders view" to consider (i.e. people who have
> seriously studied "other" schools of thought first - with cc being
> like a plug-in module to that:)
A fairly reasonable point!
Butt then ...
i think you'll find that the fundamental difference between these two
> types is imho rather easily revealed in that the so called
> true-believer (i still dislike that term TB)
Type more if you want to ... TB is fine by me. Good netizens of
adc, while Slider objects, I don't mind if you refer to True Believers
as TBs. I'm sure this is a source of great relief to many of you(!)
### - lol, you're not up on the stage now (!) - as regards the term
TB, i'll attempt to clear up any confusion you or others (grin:) may
have right now...
what i find disagreeable about the term it is that it was apparently
and initially invented as a rather demeaning/put-down term designed to
"hurt" people - (i.e. imho a bit like calling someone a nigger - and
therefore "not very nice" - is that clear enough for you?;)
> objects to any slur on
> cc's character whatsoever, while the outsider objects not to the
> information supplied (far from it!) but the "tone" of the supplier
> involved, who quite apparently (at least to objective eyes:)
Whose eyes might those be? You're above your own subjective
reality? Unlike the rest of humanity?
### - well i'll try to clarify to you what you don't understand ok -
i.e. what we talking about here is, for example, like the artist who
paints a picture and wants to include everything in that picture to
make it a complete representation of reality, i.e. butt he realises
that he (the artist) isn't in it, so he starts again and this time
paints a picture of the artist painting the picture... but again he
realises that the true painter of the picture still isn't in the
frame! - so now (and eventually) he ends up painting a picture of the
artist, who is painting the picture, of the artist painting the
picture... of the artist painting the picture... ad infinitum...
to qualify that somewhat... i'll give you a different slice, in that,
and for example, when you are washing the dishes and not thinking
about anything else... you are the person just washing the dishes -
but if you "observe yourself" washing those same dishes... that isn't
exactly the same person, if you see what i mean? - i.e. one is
subjective and the other is (more) objective (or non-subjective if you
prefer:)
Ahahahahaha! Objective, my ass(!) 8-D You're
one of the most opinionated people in adc, bar none ... and that's a
tough row to hoe here, brit buddy!
### - imho, the interplay between subjective and objective (and my
aware and active participation in that) has afforded me a series of
almost unshakeable views, almost as if the proper % mingling of
extremely hot water and extremely cold water renders up a new
substance (or element) one can then use... or even swim about in! -
liquid water:)
> has
> deliberately corrupted/arranged it in such a way so as to directly
> influence the minds of the people reading it, and this to "actively
> employ" them in their own destructive and (now admittedly) hateful
> agenda!
They MUST be neo-nuevo-new natzees FSS! 8-0!!!!!
### - lol, i know you don't realise it, butt actually you're quite
correct... in other words, one has to make an effort to avoid (or
balance) the extremes - otherwise, either way you always end up on the
extreme right (i.e. nazis saying: do what we tell you:) or on the
extreme left (i.e. the french revolution where we start chopping all
the owners/dissenters heads off again:)
>
for example... see how jeremy directly instructs the readers in his
latest brain-washing campaign here to "read it all through to the end"
before thinking about it or questioning it??? - (personally, i started
> at the other end as soon as i saw that ha ha ha;)
Maybe if he'd said 'suspending judgement' ... maybe that's a
phrase more to your taste. I'm pretty sure that's what he meant,
though he'd be loath to use the terminology. :-) I think that
suspending judgement while reading through a document is a fairly
reasonable request. He didn't ask you to suspend judgement
AFTER reading it. And you're so thrilled with yourself for being
judgemental from the get go! Ahahahahahaha!
### - for sure if jeremy had used the terms "suspending judgement" - i
"definitely" would have responded very differently - i.e. that would
have imho been indicative of an element of "detachment" on jeremy's
part... as it was he's "coming at people" in a totally different
manner to that, also indicating that he has difficulty keeping his
emotions under control? (i.e. not objective reporting:)
> - imho this
> blustering reaffirmation on jeremy's part comes directly in response
> to being (rather cleverly:) "outed" by uncletantra only a few days
> earlier! (well done unc':)
"Outted" him how, exactly? In case you're like oblivious to this
reality, many of us have been reading Jeremy's various personae
for 5 or 6 years, or even longer. Some adcers have interacted with
him in the flesh. There isn't much that you, or a relative newcomer
(no offense UT), could reveal about J's personality that we don't
already know.
### - by outed i was referring to his open admission to an under-lying
agenda (innocent pun?:) - quote:
Jeremy Donovan wrote...
I wanted CC's ass so badly that I made major attempts to
take down his "assemblage point" construct by proceeding
in such a fashion. In my opinion, I have come close to
succeeding. It's debatable.
surely this spells it out quite clearly enough for you (!) - now view
the SA site's original creation in the light of this angry admission
and you will be in the perfect position to understand that it's NOT
the information that some people are remarking on, but the obvious (at
least to some:) "smell" of stale piss that arises from it, and that
basically "reeks" of someone's personal troubles big-time:)
>
and while i don't doubt that there may be some here, who being "that"
disillusioned with their lives now have nothing better to do with
themselves now other than to seek a sort of sick and sad revenge for
all the bad things the world has done to them (ahhh diddums:)
>
Such deeeeeep and generalized insights(!)
One size fits all, eh?
### - (so feisty eh:) - lol, well there's bound to be some maybe going
that way... plus it's just not something i think should be pandered to
and/or condoned in any form (hey, maybe that should read condomed in
any form:)
> - there
are also many i'm sure who retain a healthy enough sense of personal
development and who of course wish to continue developing it... and
who also have no wish to take yet "another" couple of years off from
working on themselves by becoming press-ganged into a new neo-nazi
movement operating under the guise of liberating people, and that
rather obviously (and ultimately) seeks only to satisfy it's own
unquestioned (and imho) misguided desire to punish and revenge,
> thereby reasserting itself (in it's own ego's eyes that is:)
Ahahahahaha!
No one is pressed to join or to read SA. I have no idea where
you get neo-new natzee, but it seems to be a recurring paranoia
with you. You bring the natzees up alot ... do you see them
everywhere, taking over the world in ways that only you're clever
enough to catch on to? 8-0!!!!!
### - amazing!:) - butt again, and although i'm pretty sure you don't
actually realise it, you are imho, quite correct! (hee hee hee, you
must be learning all this stuff in your sleep;) - absolutely for sure
no one is pressed, but that hasn't stopped ole' jeremy from trying it
on though has it!!:):)
as re: the nazis popping up all the time... what i'd say to you, is
that a step towards the nazis is a step towards the nazis - that a
step such as that has to be quickly recognised for what it is in time
if one is to avoid it in time? - that any step towards the right is a
step towards what only always ends-up (at the far end of it) as the
nazis in one form or another (i.e. dictatorships - burn the books...
and er, wield the lash?;)
Dan, get out there and save the world RIGHT NOW, dammit!
8-D
### - hmmm yes, quite... plus i see how you have Dan hypnotised to do
your bidding (ahem, i'll let you know now that i shall be doing
something about that shortly:)
I was subscribed to the SA list for about 6 months, and now I
sometimes read it online. I've never had any of your impressions.
In fact, I'm glad SA is there because it presents the other side of
the CC story, or coin, as you like to refer to dualities. Anyone
interested in CC and his works can get a more balanced view
by reading SA as well as the official site. Are you against
freedom of speech? Should some people be barred
from voicing their opinions and presenting their findings?
### - as stated many times now, and also in many ways, i have no
objection whatsoever to the "bald information" contained on the SA
site - only to the folks who built it and their now admittedly
corrupted reasons for doing so:):) - all apparently done in such a
contrived rush that it's almost as if they didn't realise the sheer
hypocrisy involved in doing it???
If the information on the SA site is false and libellous, why hasn't
Cleargreen sued? They went after plenty of others. At one time
they were quite litigious ... till Carlos became ill and died, it
seems to me. Why isn't Cleargreen suing Corey et al? I think
you can extrapolate a reasonable possiblity or two, and I'll give
you a hint ... it's not because they're above that kind of thing.
### - imho, you are missing the point here... i.e. it is jeremy's
"misdirection" to create that impression in you! - he's "using" people
and only trying to stir-up a lynch mob mentality in his friends and/or
readers (i.e. imho all of the information could have been more easily
presented "without" all the leading remarks and conclusions) - oh for
sure have his own personal conclusions on there too (after all, it IS
his website:) - but preferably somewhere separate and not threaded
through-out the whole of the site and the rather useful information it
contains, information that i'm sure many people ever hearing of cc
would certainly like to read... ultimately, it's just who needs to
have to go on yet another damn paper chase to sort the information
from the person (in this case his nibs - Jeremy:)
Cleargreen was the house that Carlos built. It was built with his
intent, and he called the shots for what went down while he was
alive. It's not much more than a house of cards at this point IMHO,
and those little SA piggies are huffing and puffing ...
### - hee hee hee, don't look now, butt you just called them piggies
(grin:) and you might even get some flak for that remark - (butt don't
worry, i'll protect you if any fucker tries:)
and they might just blow that house
down. And if they do ... so what? Due in part to the gratis efforts of
SA's main contributors, CC's cult isn't likely to achieve religious
status ... do you have a problem with that?
### - no problem at all... although personally i'm of the type that
lets things alone if i see something growing - i'm more like, hey...
look at this one! - let's see what it does (if anything) - and if it
ultimately falls under it's own weight, then so be it... at least, i
ain't gonna be the one to start chopping things down - even "if" it
somehow offends me in some way...
what i ultimately object to is their purile attempts to actively
employ what i see as a fairly nice and sorta' balanced-bunch of
people... (well ok, perhaps that's too flattering - so how about; a
fairly likeable bunch of people who don't seem quite as fucked-up as
the rest of them:) in their self-satisfying and (imho) time-wasting
destructive and chopping agenda! (screw that!:)
i mean, maybe it'd be fine if everyone had tons of time to spare for
such pursuits... butt let's face it, we all be pretty lucky to get
another 20 years of "active life" (i.e. it's not a given) - so who's
got time for endless rounds of imho time-wasting trivial pursuits?
> i mean... no one likes to feel a fool - but not many of us would go
to
> "such extremes" in order to "prove it" to themselves and the
> world?:):):)
You're doing a swell job(!)
Keep up the good work!
### - lol, yes, i was wondering where Dan was getting all this er,
"piffle" from... personally i merely try to do the best i can under
the circumstances - butt can you honestly say the same of yourself? -
seems to me that if we could just leave all the antagonistic stuff out
of it, we could actually have rather interesting conversations at
times - could we try?
and so jeremy recommends and falls back upon science as his "rational
> safety net" eh? - lol screw that! - every artist knows that the
> god/religion of science is a crock o' sh...!:):)
Interesting how you accuse Jeremy of having a rigid hateful stance
towards CCism and yet you retain the attitude that you accuse him
of having toward science.
What's the diff?
### - (i think you looking for trouble:) - butt if you think about it,
mine is the call for objectivity on all matters (science and cc)
whereas jeremy is trying to lure people into a net using science as a
rational carrot, and as his own personal safety net - all the while
primitively appealing to peoples emotions to rise-up and destroy, with
group chants of: kill the pig! - kill the pig! (like in lord of the
flies??? - can't you see the "potential" nazi-vibe in that?:)
in other words, here one is merely seeing the effects of jeremy using
his knowledge and then prostituting it in order to powerfully sell you
an idea, an idea (if you buy it) that will have you up in arms and
wasting perhaps "years" of your 20 or so years left just to "huff and
puff" down (a very apt description by the way:) some curious tree
growing someplace, and all because it bit him on the ass one time and
stung him (ha ha ha, or so he claims:)
No diff(!)
Butt your subjective reality will probably disagree with me
and tell you what you want to hear. :-)
### - lol, you're very clever (!) - and i know you have them, butt put
those damn tweezers away... (like there's a time and a place
you-know?:) - butt apart from (imho:) your rather haughty and
challenging tone, i do think there is the basis of a decent
conversation between us if you'd like to try... (i mean, i wouldn't
for example be very interested in merely a repeat performance of the
first round we had once before;) - plus from some of the things you
say, i see no reason for us to particularly clash all the time and on
every subject... (at least, i don't think that that's what i offer you
in all the conversations we have:)
i can also understand that ones spirit can't always take to everyone
you meet... imho that's acceptable - (i.e. you can't always like
everyone:) - but this doesn't always have to be demonstrated up front
either - (personally i have no such reservations about you in any way,
shape or form... all in all, and in many ways, you seem a rather nice
lady to me:)
on another level... i'd say don't worry about jeremy, he's just in a
bit of a huff and puff about something he's tryin' to figure out...
ignore him, he'll probably get over it eventually:)
lol - i just seen he's having a little puff at me now (ha ha ha, i
hope he's brushed his teeth:) - lol, plus an even better answer from
bob made from centre-stage!:):) - ahhh poor jeremy... i almost feel
sad for him - he must be really feeling quite lonely sometimes:)
hey jeremy... hey pal! - come on:) - come and join us in free-fall -
it's not so bad when you get used to it... just leap in - fuck
everything!!! - everything else just fallsssss awayyyyyy... and hey,
fuck my boot! - can that be buddha's middle-road shining away down
there? - ya-hoo!! - tell him Bob! (bodie in the dead presidents?:):)
he'll take ya' to the edge man:)
regards...
uncle...@my-deja.com
Jeremy Donovan <jerem...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> uncle...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > As he himself said, "Just Another Authoritarian Guru."
>
> Bullshit. I'm not a guru or an authority of any kind. If my words
> have "authority" it is simply because so many of them are factual, or
> perhaps because my arguments are so cogent. I have no titles, mystical
> I receive a dime. Everything I do is for free, and everything I write
> (unless factual) is my opinion, to which I'm entitled like anyone
> else. Put your head in the sand, see if I care.
You care. I did not question your authority; there is no need,
because you have none. But you do have authoritarianism, in
spades. You lay out your theories, back them up with facts,
and then get really, really, really pissed off when people don't
buy what you say as The Absolute Truth. Then you insult them
and call them names and accuse them of sticking their heads
in the sand, of not being open to Jeremy's Golden Truth.
In other words, you're Just Another Authoritarian Guru, just
like every other one I have ever met.
The fascinating thing for me, something I'll bet you've never
considered, is that you come across *exactly* the way you accuse
Carlos of being. It isn't about money, or followers, or any
of the other shit you spouted off about. It's about tone.
Yours is the tone of an authoritarian who is PISSED because
people don't automatically buy everything he says. I've
said it before and I'll probably say it again -- I think you
picked up FAR more from Carlos than you are willing to admit.
You are basically trying to denounce him as an authoritarian
guru by BEING an authoritarian guru.
It undercuts your facts, man. It makes bystanders like me
treat you the same way they would treat any other authoritarian
guru figure. By laughing at you and pointing out the obvious.
If that is sticking my head in the sand, I am content with it.
Party on, dude...
Chris Rodgers
> It undercuts your facts, man. It makes bystanders like me
> treat you the same way they would treat any other authoritarian
> guru figure. By laughing at you and pointing out the obvious.
> If that is sticking my head in the sand, I am content with it.
> Party on, dude...
You can laugh and joke all you like unc, BUTTTT
the fact remains that Carlos DID in fact DO those
things that he cites. So the choice is always
up to you. You can have your head in the sand or
up your butt, it don't matter to me. :)
thom
rainbowbird wrote:
Iron describes rigidity. Is that what you admire on our dear DW
aka..aka..aka...aka Jeremy?
thom:
Well, no. What I admire are 1) Dedication to the pursuit of an
independent inner bearing. 2) Unconditional adherence to one's inner
bearing.
Yeah, I suppose Jeremy is kind of uptight, but hey, that's his
challenge.
rbb:
One Blumfunkel was enough to give me a nightmare and than it was just a
look
alike. :) What was that figure irritating you practically had to breathe
CC or all was in vain. So good that he is gone, because if any figure
ever really made me wanting to kick some ass it was this Dr.
Blumfunkel. I just hated that figure with all my heart. What a son of a
bitch that was. If there is a cult and I would have doubts to join it
it would just take one singel Blumfunkel not to join. :) He was like a
condom that prevented fertilization.
thom:
I really didn't see it that way. I don't begrudge someone their opinion
or viewpoint, nor do I require any compliance with my own. I also don't
mandate a presentation etiquette, though like most, I do appreciate
politeness. What I do look for is the passion - what length one is
willing to go to test one's own views. It strikes me that Jeremy walks
his talk and that I respect that in anyone.
rbb:
You are in the row to become his substitute, because a) you unburied him
b) you tried to raise him from the death by reposting him
thom:
<chuckle> His substitute? Hardly :-D It's not my way to be that vocal.
I fight for my bearing too, I'm just not that public about it.
Nice chatting RBB
Thom
clear...@my-deja.com
Master Donovan <jerem...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Bullshit. I'm not a guru or an authority of any kind. If my words
> have "authority" it is simply because so many of them are factual, or
> perhaps because my arguments are so cogent. I have no titles,
>mystical claims, followers, lackeys, groupies --
but, but.....(snif)
:-(
uncle...@my-deja.com
cr...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> uncle...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > It undercuts your facts, man. It makes bystanders like me
> > treat you the same way they would treat any other authoritarian
> > guru figure. By laughing at you and pointing out the obvious.
> > If that is sticking my head in the sand, I am content with it.
>
> > Party on, dude...
>
> You can laugh and joke all you like unc, BUTTTT
> the fact remains that Carlos DID in fact DO those
> things that he cites.
I do not dispute this.
> So the choice is always up to you.
What I am objecting to here is exactly *what* that
choice IS.
To use the local terminology, the TBers might say
that my only cogent choice is to believe everything
in the books, everything Carlos said. The SAers
seem to say that, because of the facts they are so
fond of quoting, that I should *reject* everything
Carlos said.
Those are simply two choices in a vast universe of
choices. I don't choose to make either of them. I
choose to keep investigating and make my own, care-
fully considered choices, based on my own experience.
I think some of the stuff he wrote had lasting value;
I think other stuff was sheer, stinking bullshit.
> You can have your head in the sand or
> up your butt, it don't matter to me. :)
If you feel that refusing to buy these as the only
two possible options means I have my head up my
butt, that is your right. Personally, I think I
can see further with it in that position than
people who buy into *either* the TB or SA choices.
They are not choices; they are thought-stoppers.
Party on, dude...
:-)
Dan
slider wrote:
> (!) wrote
> slider wrote:
>
Brian, she whupped you soundly in the first go-around you're referring to
.. you've just gotten beaten soundly by Jeremy who described your act
completely ... and you've been whupped by Randy .. and I don't even have
to try and I whup ya ....
What is it about you that embraces the masochist role? Is it the Nazi's?
Take care ... I happen to actually enjoy your persona and style,and hope
for you the best of all things, no matter how much of an idiot you really
are.
D
(!)
> In article <3A695E5C...@current.net>,
> "(!)" <"(!)"@kma.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > Cleargreen was the house that Carlos built. It was built with his
> intent,
> > and he called the shots for what went down while he was alive. It's not
>
> > much more than a house of cards at this point IMHO, and those little SA
>
> > piggies are huffing and puffing ... and they might just blow that house
>
> > down. And if they do ... so what? Due in part to the gratis efforts of
> > SA's main contributors, CC's cult isn't likely to achieve religious
> > status ... do you have a problem with that?
>
> Cleargreen may not achieve MAJOR religious status, but at the rate it’s
> going, it will probably be a minor cult/business for some time.
I thought they'd be out of business by now. I'm surprised they're hanging
in actually.
> Their
> main source of income is the workshops, which have dropped attendance
> since the star died and the SA site came out. But judging from the
> posts on Tango/Tigre, there are still some TB’s, and more newcomers all
> the time. There will always be new people reading the books, and a
> portion of those will be curious enough to try a workshop. Waiting for
> Cleargreen to fold because of poor workshop attendance may be a long
> wait.
I know what I'm waiting for, and it's not that(!)
> At this point, the only way for SA to reach TB’s is by them stumbling
> on the SA website.
Out of curiosity, I just did a web search of Carlos Castaneda. If I were
newly into CC and wanted to find out more, that's what I'd do. Altavista
had over 20 pages in English. I checked out the first 4. I ran across stuff
from SA several times, and found a post by Dan Lawton pimping for a
Cleargreen workshop back in 1997! in an anthropology newsgroup, but didn't
see the official CG site once ... butt let's not tell them that!
> Maybe someone should distribute copies of Jeremy’s
> little masterpiece somewhere there are a lot of Tensegrity
> practitioners……
Isn't there a workshop coming up in Uncle Chrissy's neck of the woods?
Maybe DL could rent a small crop duster to release real flyers over the
workshop attendees while they stand in line to get in!
> If Cleargreen canceled the workshops due to poor attendance, then
> maybe a distribution of the Video showing CC’s last days as a mortal
> human being might cause some Cleargreeners to come out.
They're still in hiding?
Witch broom closet are they in?
(!)
> >
> > > - there
> > > are also many i'm sure who retain a healthy enough sense of personal
> > > development and who of course wish to continue developing it... and
> > > who also have no wish to take yet "another" couple of years off from
> > > working on themselves by becoming press-ganged into a new neo-nazi
> > > movement operating under the guise of liberating people, and that
> > > rather obviously (and ultimately) seeks only to satisfy it's own
> > > unquestioned (and imho) misguided desire to punish and revenge,
> > > thereby reasserting itself (in it's own ego's eyes that is:)
> >
> > Ahahahahaha!
> >
> > No one is pressed to join or to read SA.
>
> I find it hilarious that slider has in fact probably done more to publicize
> the SA site and generate interest in visiting it than any other poster in
> adc.
Now that I think about it, you could be right about that ... too bad don Pequeno
isn't here to do a word count for us. He sure had a way with statistics. :-)
> > I have no idea where you get
> > neo-new natzee, but it seems to be a recurring paranoia with you. You
> > bring the natzees up alot ... do you see them everywhere, taking over the
> > world in ways that only you're clever enough to catch on to? 8-0!!!!!
> > Dan, get out there and save the world RIGHT NOW, dammit!
> >
> > 8-D
>
> alright .. alright ... 'sigh ... butt let me finish my coffee first.... oh,
> and I have to finish painting the living room here at the house, but I should
> have time late this afternoon to save the world before dinner... so I'll do
> it!
Great! I feel better already. I would have helped you save the world butt I was
up to my eyeballs in a freezing cold war. Had to move alien diarrheal catshit
frozen in the front flower beds out to the perimeter, where the neighbour's cats
come over ... ahahahahaha! After that I laid chicken wire on top of the frozen
deshitted snow on the beds. The feline fuckers are desparate to crap on any inch
of bare ground, or even frozen crusty snow in any of my many flower beds. I
used to suspect 4 of the neighbour's 5 cats, butt now I'm thinking maybe it's
the ugly stray tom responsible for the stench of cat spray and many ugly stray
kittens every spring. It's the most hideous cat I've ever seen in my life. His
head belongs on a cat about 6 times his size. Weird.
> Heck, slider's imaginary natzees should only take a minute or two,
> leaving plenty of time before chow for saving the rest of the world.
>
> :-)!!
Thanks, I really appreciate that. Yo da man!
Having you save the world is in no way a part of any alleged or non-existant
Canadian Conspiracy, BTW!
(!)
> What an excellent question Thom.
It's like old home week around here. Who's going to show up next?
> This gives much food for thought and
> poses some new ideas here. Yes, what if CC had never published his
> books, or existed at all?
>
> Then we would not be here either, debating or agreeing or whatever.
Hey Catster!
Nice to see you! :-) Hope things are going well for you and your hunka hunka
burnin love, Mr. Public Serpent! ;-D
I still think of you as being one of the regulars too. :-) Once a netizen
always a netizen, eh? Besides, adc must have a special place in both your
hearts ... it being the cyberplace where your dreams connected in the virtual
flesh!
It's possible that we might not be in adc if CC hadn't written the books or
existed. But it's also possible that the same players would have shown up in
the same space at the same time in some other back room on usenet. It's a
resonance thing, dontcha think?
:-)
(!)
> (!) wrote
> slider wrote:
> []
I'm not ignoring you, Slider. I was going to respond to you tonight ...
butt suddenly, it's bedtime. Tempus fugit!
Later ...
ReallyBigFatPig
>ReallyBigFatPig wrote
>
>Oh, I know! Flyers, of course!
>
>You fucking parrot . . . wanna cracker?
>
>Randy
>
>
>### - (heh heh heh... i think randy wants a flame war:) - i mean, are
>you really THAT bored guy?:) - tell ya what bro', try aiming all that
>shit at jeremy... (e.g. he seems to like indulging in meaningless
>conversations:) - personally, 5 minutes of that crap has me yawning
>big time:)
>
>got any more randy... or was that your best shot? (grin:)
>
>slider...
Cute. Go ahead, try to change the subject. I'm going to stick to it myself.
Carlos was a fraud. People who spout his "seeing" are fucking parrots, even if
it's just from the books before The Second Ring of Power.
I'm not here to entertain your silly ass. Yawn all you like, just beware of
how vulnerable you are when you do <smile>.
-- Snooter
ReallyBigFatPig
>ReallyBigFatPig wrote
>
>Ah yes, listen to the masturbaters speak! Oh the poor
>disillusioned slobs, they're just not good enough. No, no,
>they're just not as SPECIAL as we and the dead man Carlos
>are. Poor souls <sniff>. God we're good!
>
>Fucking idiots.
>
>
>### - i was going to just totally ignore this one because of it's
>overall rather nasty and contentious tone, but i can see now it can
>perhaps still serve to make a fairly reasonable point... i.e. if
>bowbird had been making that statement from the POV of being one of
>the so called true-believers who is still living in total denial that
>cc even "died" (grin:) - then i'd tend to agree with you... but imho
>there is also the "outsiders view" to consider (i.e. people who have
>seriously studied "other" schools of thought first - with cc being
>like a plug-in module to that:)
>
>i think you'll find that the fundamental difference between these two
>types is imho rather easily revealed in that the so called
>true-believer (i still dislike that term TB) objects to any slur on
>cc's character whatsoever, while the outsider objects not to the
>information supplied (far from it!) but the "tone" of the supplier
>involved, who quite apparently (at least to objective eyes:) has
>deliberately corrupted/arranged it in such a way so as to directly
>influence the minds of the people reading it, and this to "actively
>employ" them in their own destructive and (now admittedly) hateful
>agenda!
>
>for example... see how jeremy directly instructs the readers in his
>latest brain-washing campaign here to "read it all through to the end"
>before thinking about it or questioning it??? - (personally, i started
>at the other end as soon as i saw that ha ha ha;) - imho this
>blustering reaffirmation on jeremy's part comes directly in response
>to being (rather cleverly:) "outed" by uncletantra only a few days
>earlier! (well done unc':)
>
>and while i don't doubt that there may be some here, who being "that"
>disillusioned with their lives now have nothing better to do with
>themselves now other than to seek a sort of sick and sad revenge for
>all the bad things the world has done to them (ahhh diddums:) - there
>are also many i'm sure who retain a healthy enough sense of personal
>development and who of course wish to continue developing it... and
>who also have no wish to take yet "another" couple of years off from
>working on themselves by becoming press-ganged into a new neo-nazi
>movement operating under the guise of liberating people, and that
>rather obviously (and ultimately) seeks only to satisfy it's own
>unquestioned (and imho) misguided desire to punish and revenge,
>thereby reasserting itself (in it's own ego's eyes that is:)
>
>i mean... no one likes to feel a fool - but not many of us would go to
>"such extremes" in order to "prove it" to themselves and the
>world?:):):) - go figure!:)
>
>and so jeremy recommends and falls back upon science as his "rational
>safety net" eh? - lol screw that! - every artist knows that the
>god/religion of science is a crock o' sh...!:):)
You're a fucking idiot on toast, slider. A crap sandwich deluxe.
Got too much time on your hands?
-- Snooter
ReallyBigFatPig
>ReallyBigFatPig wrote:
>
>>
>> Ah yes, listen to the masturbaters speak! Oh the poor disillusioned slobs,
>> they're just not good enough. No, no, they're just not as SPECIAL as we
>and
>> the dead man Carlos are. Poor souls <sniff>. God we're good!
>>
>> Fucking idiots.
>>
>> Randy
>
>
>Hey you really big fat pig,
> Why don't you go bang The Blue Scrote or something? You should
>specialize in scrotum care products for the Tensegrity long-time
>practitioner! I bet you had sexual fantasies about Willy and the Blue
>Scrote the whole time you were doing tensegrity at your strategically
>located position below here stage.
>
> I thought you looked especially hot and bothered after those long
>tedious Workshop sessions...
>
>:oD
>Sooty Wannabe
Oh man, don't you know it! Nothing like the titless, little girl boy, shaved
pussy look, eh? Carlos really knew how to pick 'em.
Not.
-- Snooter
Dan
> > >
> > > No one is pressed to join or to read SA.
> >
> > I find it hilarious that slider has in fact probably done more to publicize
> > the SA site and generate interest in visiting it than any other poster in
> > adc.
>
> Now that I think about it, you could be right about that ... too bad don Pequeno
> isn't here to do a word count for us. He sure had a way with statistics. :-)
I miss the little fella ... to me, seeing the frenetic little warrior in action was
like getting a combo of 'Oprah', 'Jerry Springer', 'True Hollywood Story', and 'The
Science Guy' all rolled into one; very incredibly intimate admissions, totally
whacky fights, an inside *peep* into a very creative peep, and a whole lot of
statistics! There was time when 'grumpy' and 'don peewee' had this incredibly funny
war of words going on that I printed out and saved, and I'd now and then get that
stuff out again while at work, etc, and have more great laughs. Best of everything
to the mighty mite wherever he is; pumping iron at the gym, sleeping with weights on
his lil timmy tummy, compiling ever more stats...
> > > I have no idea where you get
> > > neo-new natzee, but it seems to be a recurring paranoia with you. You
> > > bring the natzees up alot ... do you see them everywhere, taking over the
> > > world in ways that only you're clever enough to catch on to? 8-0!!!!!
> > > Dan, get out there and save the world RIGHT NOW, dammit!
> > >
> > > 8-D
> >
> > alright .. alright ... 'sigh ... butt let me finish my coffee first.... oh,
> > and I have to finish painting the living room here at the house, but I should
> > have time late this afternoon to save the world before dinner... so I'll do
> > it!
>
> Great! I feel better already.
Yep, got it done on schedule and made it to dinner with time to spare; the world's
been saved and it's just fine again. All part of the job, shucks, ma'am.
> I would have helped you save the world butt I was
> up to my eyeballs in a freezing cold war. Had to move alien diarrheal catshit
> frozen in the front flower beds out to the perimeter, where the neighbour's cats
> come over ... ahahahahaha! After that I laid chicken wire on top of the frozen
> deshitted snow on the beds. The feline fuckers are desparate to crap on any inch
> of bare ground, or even frozen crusty snow in any of my many flower beds. I
> used to suspect 4 of the neighbour's 5 cats, butt now I'm thinking maybe it's
> the ugly stray tom responsible for the stench of cat spray and many ugly stray
> kittens every spring. It's the most hideous cat I've ever seen in my life. His
> head belongs on a cat about 6 times his size. Weird.
Ahhh yes ... that one .... we sent him (code name Balloon Head) up to you to keep an
eye on things, throw a monkey wrench (and a ton of catshit) into your takeover plans
... slow ya down a bit, ya know? Keep you busy dealing with catshit... we're not as
dumb as we look down here... ha!
> > Heck, slider's imaginary natzees should only take a minute or two,
> > leaving plenty of time before chow for saving the rest of the world.
> >
> > :-)!!
>
> Thanks, I really appreciate that. Yo da man!
Poor slider ... he's getting just hammered from about four directions right now.. so
he was not quite 'all there in the head' and his natzees surrendered
quickerthanthis!
> Having you save the world is in no way a part of any alleged or non-existant
> Canadian Conspiracy, BTW!
Don't you be starting on me again with your diversionary tactics. Balloon Head is
reporting back everything you're up to.
Schnozz Wally
>> What an excellent question Thom.
>
>It's like old home week around here. Who's going to show up next?
Bigfoot? dP? Crow? How about Clint or Jeff Stoecker. Where the hell have
they been? Or Matilda. And what about that documentary in LA with all the
interviews? Where's that at? On the cutting room floor?
Randy
Schnozz Wally
>Having you save the world is in no way a part of any alleged or non-existant
>Canadian Conspiracy, BTW!
And Dubyah's not a moron.
:-)
Schnozz Wally
>slider wrote:
>
>> ReallyBigFatPig wrote
>>
>> Ah yes, listen to the masturbaters speak! Oh the poor
>> disillusioned slobs, they're just not good enough. No, no,
>> they're just not as SPECIAL as we and the dead man Carlos
>> are. Poor souls <sniff>. God we're good!
>
>Oink! Hot damn!
And buttered yam sandwiches!
>> Fucking idiots.
>
>Who's fucking the idiots?
Anyone who doesn't agree with me!
;-)
>> ### - i was going to just totally ignore this one because of it's
>> overall rather nasty and contentious tone, but i can see now it can
>> perhaps still serve to make a fairly reasonable point... i.e. if
>> bowbird had been making that statement from the POV of being one of
>> the so called true-believers who is still living in total denial that
>> cc even "died" (grin:) - then i'd tend to agree with you... but imho
>> there is also the "outsiders view" to consider (i.e. people who have
>> seriously studied "other" schools of thought first - with cc being
>> like a plug-in module to that:)
>
>A fairly reasonable point!
>
>Butt then ...
>
>> i think you'll find that the fundamental difference between these two
>> types is imho rather easily revealed in that the so called
>> true-believer (i still dislike that term TB)
Sounds like a disease, doesn't it?
>Type more if you want to ... TB is fine by me. Good netizens of adc,
>while Slider objects, I don't mind if you refer to True Believers as TBs.
>I'm sure this is a source of great relief to many of you(!)
>
>> objects to any slur on
>> cc's character whatsoever, while the outsider objects not to the
>> information supplied (far from it!) but the "tone" of the supplier
>> involved, who quite apparently (at least to objective eyes:)
>
>Whose eyes might those be? You're above your own subjective reality?
>Unlike the rest of humanity? Ahahahahaha! Objective, my ass(!) 8-D You're
>one of the most opinionated people in adc, bar none ... and that's a
>tough row to hoe here, brit buddy!
>
>> has
>> deliberately corrupted/arranged it in such a way so as to directly
>> influence the minds of the people reading it, and this to "actively
>> employ" them in their own destructive and (now admittedly) hateful
>> agenda!
>
>They MUST be neo-nuevo-new natzees FSS! 8-0!!!!!
I say we add hominy and fry their asses!
>> for example... see how jeremy directly instructs the readers in his
>> latest brain-washing campaign here to "read it all through to the end"
>> before thinking about it or questioning it??? - (personally, i started
>> at the other end as soon as i saw that ha ha ha;)
>
>Maybe if he'd said 'suspending judgement' ... maybe that's a phrase more
>to your taste. I'm pretty sure that's what he meant, though he'd be loath
>to use the terminology. :-) I think that suspending judgement while
>reading through a document is a fairly reasonable request. He didn't ask
>you to suspend judgement AFTER reading it. And you're so thrilled with
>yourself for being judgemental from the get go! Ahahahahahaha!
Look out mama 'cause here come duh judge!!!
(with an emphasis on *DUH* :-)
>> - imho this
>> blustering reaffirmation on jeremy's part comes directly in response
>> to being (rather cleverly:) "outed" by uncletantra only a few days
>> earlier! (well done unc':)
>
>"Outted" him how, exactly? In case you're like oblivious to this reality,
>many of us have been reading Jeremy's various personae for 5 or 6 years,
>or even longer. Some adcers have interacted with him in the flesh. There
>isn't much that you, or a relative newcomer (no offense UT), could reveal
>about J's personality that we don't already know.
And love.
>> and while i don't doubt that there may be some here, who being "that"
>> disillusioned with their lives now have nothing better to do with
>> themselves now other than to seek a sort of sick and sad revenge for
>> all the bad things the world has done to them (ahhh diddums:)
>
>Such deeeeeep and generalized insights(!)
>One size fits all, eh?
Must be a tonal thang. The record's stuck. Belief is a condom.
>> - there
>> are also many i'm sure who retain a healthy enough sense of personal
>> development and who of course wish to continue developing it... and
>> who also have no wish to take yet "another" couple of years off from
>> working on themselves by becoming press-ganged into a new neo-nazi
>> movement operating under the guise of liberating people, and that
>> rather obviously (and ultimately) seeks only to satisfy it's own
>> unquestioned (and imho) misguided desire to punish and revenge,
>> thereby reasserting itself (in it's own ego's eyes that is:)
>
>Ahahahahaha!
>
>No one is pressed to join or to read SA. I have no idea where you get
>neo-new natzee, but it seems to be a recurring paranoia with you. You
>bring the natzees up alot ... do you see them everywhere, taking over the
>world in ways that only you're clever enough to catch on to? 8-0!!!!!
>Dan, get out there and save the world RIGHT NOW, dammit!
>
>8-D
When's your meeting with Dubyah again, Dan? Any chance you could . . . ah
shucks, never mind.
:-)
>I was subscribed to the SA list for about 6 months, and now I sometimes
>read it online. I've never had any of your impressions. In fact, I'm
>glad SA is there because it presents the other side of the CC story, or
>coin, as you like to refer to dualities. Anyone interested in CC and his
>works can get a more balanced view by reading SA as well as the official
>site. Are you against freedom of speech? Should some people be barred
>from voicing their opinions and presenting their findings?
>
>If the information on the SA site is false and libellous, why hasn't
>Cleargreen sued? They went after plenty of others. At one time they were
>quite litigious ... till Carlos became ill and died, it seems to me. Why
>isn't Cleargreen suing Corey et al? I think you can extrapolate a
>reasonable possiblity or two, and I'll give you a hint ... it's not
>because they're above that kind of thing.
This has got to be the best point made in a long time about these bozos.
>Cleargreen was the house that Carlos built. It was built with his intent,
>and he called the shots for what went down while he was alive. It's not
>much more than a house of cards at this point IMHO, and those little SA
>piggies are huffing and puffing ... and they might just blow that house
>down. And if they do ... so what? Due in part to the gratis efforts of
>SA's main contributors, CC's cult isn't likely to achieve religious
>status ... do you have a problem with that?
>
>> i mean... no one likes to feel a fool - but not many of us would go to
>> "such extremes" in order to "prove it" to themselves and the
>> world?:):):)
>
>You're doing a swell job(!)
>Keep up the good work!
>
>> - go figure!:)
>
>Somebody had to ... :-)
>
>> and so jeremy recommends and falls back upon science as his "rational
>> safety net" eh? - lol screw that! - every artist knows that the
>> god/religion of science is a crock o' sh...!:):)
>
>Interesting how you accuse Jeremy of having a rigid hateful stance
>towards CCism and yet you retain the attitude that you accuse him of
>having toward science.
>
>What's the diff?
>
>No diff(!)
>
>Butt your subjective reality will probably disagree with me and tell you
>what you want to hear. :-)
Those SA'ers are an evil lot. Poor Carlitos.
Not.
Randy
Chris Rodgers
> It's possible that we might not be in adc if CC hadn't written the books or
> existed. But it's also possible that the same players would have shown up in
> the same space at the same time in some other back room on usenet. It's a
> resonance thing, dontcha think?
Yah we would probably be in the same chat rooms.
Cybering our hearts out to people we don't even know.
Hey, maybe I should start ADC chat? Wooohoooo! :)
Chris Rodgers
> Bigfoot? dP? Crow? How about Clint or Jeff Stoecker. Where the hell have
> they been? Or Matilda. And what about that documentary in LA with all the
> interviews? Where's that at? On the cutting room floor?
> Randy
Yah and our buddy from up north, Emilio?
What ever happened to Emilio?
Hey dude, are you still doing the big bad movements?
BTW, does anyone still do these movements? :)
Whatever happened to don Pequeno? Where are you fucker?
uncle...@my-deja.com
reallyb...@aol.com (ReallyBigFatPig) wrote:
> "slider" <sli...@nospameasycam.com> writes:
>
> Cute. Go ahead, try to change the subject. I'm going to stick
> to it myself. Carlos was a fraud. People who spout his "seeing"
> are fucking parrots, even if it's just from the books before The
> Second Ring of Power.
I get it now. The light has dawned and I am saved.
Carlos was a fraud, therefore none of the ideas he ever
wrote could possibly have been accurate.
Thank you so much.
Now, could you do me a favor and point me to the posters
here who have never told a lie, so that I can read some
ideas that *are* accurate?
TheRandyReverend
>> reallyb...@aol.com (ReallyBigFatPig) wrote:
>>
>> Cute. Go ahead, try to change the subject. I'm going to stick
>> to it myself. Carlos was a fraud. People who spout his "seeing"
>> are fucking parrots, even if it's just from the books before The
>> Second Ring of Power.
>
>I get it now. The light has dawned and I am saved.
>
>Carlos was a fraud, therefore none of the ideas he ever
>wrote could possibly have been accurate.
I don't see things as being that black and white, but context helps.
>Thank you so much.
You're welcome :-)
>Now, could you do me a favor and point me to the posters
>here who have never told a lie, so that I can read some
>ideas that *are* accurate?
>
>:-)
Point taken. I personally enjoy exchanges and tales from personal experiences
the most. Accuracy, like consistency, can be a hobgobblin sometimes, but for
the most part I prefer honesty.
Many people here have interesting tales to tell and ideas to share, and usually
get around to doing so when there's a pause in the mudslinging.
Random Lee
rainbowbird
>
>
> > I have no idea where you get
> > neo-new natzee, but it seems to be a recurring paranoia with you. You
> > bring the natzees up alot ... do you see them everywhere, taking over the
> > world in ways that only you're clever enough to catch on to? 8-0!!!!!
> > Dan, get out there and save the world RIGHT NOW, dammit!
> >
> > 8-D
>
> alright .. alright ... 'sigh ... butt let me finish my coffee first.... oh,
> and I have to finish painting the living room here at the house, but I should
> have time late this afternoon to save the world before dinner... so I'll do
> it! Heck, slider's imaginary natzees should only take a minute or two,
> leaving plenty of time before chow for saving the rest of the world.
>
> :-)!!
In your arms I feel soooooooo safe....:):):):)
Now ARE the natzcheese gone and I can come out of my hiding?
RBB