Studio8 - Uniting the Arts

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/printme.php?eid=1544

"De Mille undertook a thorough, serious and painstaking study of Castaneda (unsurpassed by anybody else), analysing
with a microscope everything Castaneda has written, the chronology of his experiences according to Castaneda
himself (who here even knows that Carlos grew up in Peru - why does he say he was born and grew up in Brazil?),
his studies in the US, the access Carlos had to extensive libraries at UCLA containing rare volumes on shamanism
and psychotropic drugs (to which a true Castaneda believer who doesn't think and question much will say so what?),
the nature of his thesis and its acceptance by his faculty.

The problems with Carlos's field notes alone is huge (relating to its supposed translation from Spanish and the
very serious inconsistencies here and the fact that most all the field notes which he must have taken when with or
after being with Don Juan simply have not been verified to exist). Why did the translator of Castaneda's books
into Spanish for the Spanish language editions have so many problems with Don Juan's monologues and speeches and
his talk in general?

For serious problems with translations into Spanish from ostensibly original Spanish field-notes is a cause for
concern regarding the veracity or otherwise of the field-notes. There should be no translation problems if you are
translating into Spanish from Spanish source material (even if via English or any other language)!

Castaneda has Don Juan employ English/American slang and English/American idioms that have no equivalent in the
Spanish language, which is indeed a serious problem if Don Juan only spoke Spanish to Castaneda, which is what
Castaneda himself tells us. The absence of original field notes is also a problem for those of us who like to have
something called evidence.

Unless of course the reason that the Spanish translation was such a problem was because there never were any
Spanish field-notes in the first place and Castaneda just wrote what he did in English because there never were
any Spanish conversations with Don Juan because there were no meetings with Don Juan because there was no Don
Juan.

On the chronology of Castaneda's experiences recounted in his first few books, this unravels completely as De
Mille shows and this is FACT. In fact it is serious indisputable and irreconcilable problems with the chronology
of Carlos's suppossed encounters and learning from Don Juan that is arguably the BIGGEST PROBLEM and REFUTATION of
the supposed veracity of Castaneda's experiences.

And anybody can verify this for themselves by reading his first few books in order (in fact just the first three:
The Teachings of Don Juan, A Seperate Reality, Journey to Ixtlan) never mind the later ones in which even more
insurmountable probems crop up; and painstakingly writing down in sequence when and where Carlos learned, what he
learned, noting the order in which he learned the ways of the Nagual. De Mille actually did this, which is what
one would have to do in order to discover if Carlos's experiences and learning were compatible within the time
periods, dates and time sequences given by Carlos himself. In fact as de Mille points out, Carlos makes it clear
to anybody who like de Mille bothers to do the work here, that what Carlos claims he did and when he did it is
untenable wrt both the sequence and limited time period and dates given - to drum it in, Carlos himself makes it
obvious!!"

I donno 'zoso

I never assumed that the Castaneda's books were anything but well researched fiction and parables.

I know that some contend that they are true accounts of true experiences and fall into the category of anthropology rather than fiction but those books are much like the Bible (and the forged George Bush National Guard records, for that matter) . The truths that they express don't depend on the veracity of the documents.

The books may be read as fiction, that is true, but Carlos continually asserted that Don Juan was real and that the events were true, both in the books and in person. Also, if you read the books ( which I did 20 years ago) you note that most of the topics alluded to --drugs, occult, parapsychology, mysterious meh-ico etc.--were very popular with hippies and new agers. They are cleverly written but are a "cashing-in" on the counterculture.

Castaneda: "A Separate Reality, and How to Market it"

taking a literal view of a highly non-literal exploration may keep some busy (kind of like counting the consonants in the bible).

It's the essence of the trip that makes the work worth reading.

Last time i read the books was in 1973 or so, but reading excerpts available on the net last year (don't know if they're still online) brought back the tone that stimulated a lot of thought then and now.

Let's assume it's fiction or metaphor ( though the writer continually assures his readers it is not) Is it useful psychological theory or escapism? I think the latter

I agree with your observation 'zoso
It was very wise marketing technique to insist that the tales were true
same as it was very good marketing technique for the early Christians to advertise that Jesus had beat the Big D.

Judih, yeah, it's a waste of time to deconstruct a perfectly good myth just because it doesn't happen to be true.

Is the book blue or red
let's dwell on it

the epic of don juan is like coelho's Alchemist, or shirley maclaine's Camino, or any number of alternate trip stories.

Lenny's Adventures in Limbo ran along those lines -a trek through the miraculous
or Gurdjieff's Meetings with Remarkable Men

i love the stuff. It's as real as the mind can go with it.

escapism? escape from what?
from dwelling on outer facts like 'blue' or 'red'

the form is emptiness and emptiness is the form
there are words that wrap themselves around our mind and distract us from simply being.

As myth or Hesse-like trip poetry I think it is lacking as well. Remember "outer facts" such as the vietnam war? poverty? environment? civil rights? Where do they occur in Carlos' bizarre fantasies. Yeah not as bad as Shirley McClaine but close. It's the height of narcissism, as Lasch realized.

what is narcissism? is it not looking everywhere and seeing only yourself? Is this not what most people do?

Wherever i go, there i am.
Well, myth or non-myth, the figure Don Juan spoke about stepping out of preconceptions.

The message is the value.

---wasn't the message, like, eat some locoweed and turn into a crow and fly around the countryside?


iz cool. if it makes ya happy, can't be all bad, ja?

well, the locoweed has been used by shamans for centuries. not recommended for the average rave thrill seeker

and the 'flying around like a crow' though incredibly jim henson/matrix evocative is merely part of the outer show syndrome that captivated a good percentage of interest.

Just like i look at you, perez, and see someone who follows his intellect in the pursuit of truth.
Underneath intellect comes the germ of utter wonder. That germ is the place in me that looks for stimulation.

Yes, the world is filled with realities. And yes, Carlos asked 'Don Juan' what would he do if he were to walk down a road and men with guns were standing above him on a hillside waiting to shoot him. Don Juan answered that he simply wouldn't be there.

There's a time for common everyday logic. The more the better. But there's a time to push aside the doctrine and live life with new perceptions. Not necessarily drug induced, but we know now that certain entheogens can give sneak previews of larger awareness.

Metaphor works for me.

A small step, an open door beyond the boundries of the logical mind? Is it real? Who knows, who cares...real is as real does. Metaphor is a stepping stone to expansion...just fly like a crow.

Good grief ju, you are in flower, aren't ya honey? Hah!

I suggest you finish yr stats class first.