From: siguy2@hotmail.com   
      
   On 5 Feb 2006 23:25:17 -0800, "Jeremy H. Donovan"   
    wrote:   
      
   >   
   >clave_scri...@spl.at wrote:   
   >> ok, so   
   >>   
   >> do you think what is "real" is objective?   
   >   
   >I just posted the dictionary definition of the word "real" a few days   
   >ago.  I don't make up special meanings for words, and use more or less   
   >standard meanings.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >> couldn't you use the word "symbolic representation" (or something   
   >> similar) rather than "fiction"   
   >   
   >I think making it all into stories about "don Juan" more qualifies it   
   >as fiction.  But I have also used the word myth many times in relation   
   >to what CC did.  It actually fits very well for Castaneda to have taken   
   >an element from the Homeric mythology and utilized it in his own   
   >mythology.  I don't see that it matters much what one calls it.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >> although many of your posts are elucidating, my perception is that the   
   >> content of the posts are looking to offend, they are swaggering around   
   >> waiitng to "pick a fight", taking a proverbial ax to any idea that you   
   >> personally don't find "right", and that is annoying to me   
   >   
   >You're totally welcome to be annoyed, especially when it's by your own   
   >interpretations.  What I posted was mostly scholarly with just a bit of   
   >speculation.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >> i can take the figurative heat and dispense my own as well as one of   
   >> the linbackers playing in the superbowl today, but that's not my MO, i   
   >> save it for when i need it, and rarely is it to express dismissal of   
   >> someone else's ideas in a condescending manner   
   >   
   >Ideas?  Where?  The only ideas I saw in this thread were from the   
   >Greeks and from me.  A lot of people think they can handle heat from   
   >me, at first.  But very few actually can.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >> noting form your previous posts, maybe you think "shock and awe" is   
   >> going to loosen up some cult member's weltanschauung, that that is your   
   >> responsibility, and you will "win", however i request that when you   
   >> dialog with me you save it for another person please, it's not for me   
   >   
   >I request of anyone I speak with that there be some substance to their   
   >words.  If not, well then...as you have observed, they get "the   
   >treatment".  I don't play favorites.  I trash everyone equally, cultie   
   >or not.   
   >   
   >So far your questions don't make much sense.  The Greeks had "gates" of   
   >horn and ivory, and Castaneda created gates related to awareness and   
   >"intent" within dreams.  The main ways in which those two concepts are   
   >similar are the ways I already pointed out:  the usage of the term   
   >"gates", and the basic idea that some "gates" supposedly pertain to   
   >things that are real, rather than illusory.   
   >   
   >I added the (obvious) speculation that Castaneda appropriated that idea   
   >and expanded on it, as he did so many times with so many different   
   >ideas.  If you find that offensive somehow, all I can say is ... good.   
   >:-)   
   >   
   >Castaneda claimed "don Juan" taught him about "gates" of dreaming.  But   
   >if CC really just borrowed the idea from Greek and Egyptian mythology,   
   >then that was yet another traceable "don Juan" lie, wasn't it?   
   >   
   >I think it's probable, and thought it was worth noting.   
   >   
   >   
   >-Jeremy   
   >   
   >   
   >> Jeremy H. Donovan wrote:   
   >> > clave_scri...@spl.at wrote:   
   >> > > am i mistaken, or is the tone of your message inferring that becuase   
   >> > > anyone would appropriate and expand upon a historical concept that it   
   >> > > is therefore illegitimate as an idea now?   
   >> >   
   >> > How about I answer your questions with some questions?   
   >> >   
   >> > Do you think that because some ancient people believed dreams come   
   >> > through two "gates", one of horn and one of ivory, that that means they   
   >> > really do?   
   >> >   
   >> > And if someone in modern times takes that same idea and then makes up a   
   >> > new set of "gates", does that mean the new set of "gates" is real?   
   >> >   
   >> > Isn't it much more likely that a fictional set of "gates" based on a   
   >> > myth about "gates" is highly likely to be nothing more than fiction?   
   >> >   
   >> > Hint:  the answers to the questions are:  no, no, and ... of course.   
   >> >   
   >> >   
   >> > -Jeremy   
      
   I find it refreshing to see someone else who "knows" the truth about   
   CC and don Juan...that he most likely bunkered himself in some small   
   study room in the basement of the UCLA library and did a lot of   
   reading on what -others- had to say about those things that folks in   
   the 70's were talking about and willing to pay a few bucks for, then   
   proceded to do just that. I wish I could recall a very scholarly   
   book..."The Don Juan Chronicles", perhaps (?) that proved that's   
   exactly where he was, when claiming to be down in mexico. The author,   
   like you, showed just what myths were molded into "Don Juan-speak" and   
   CC's so-called mental journeys into the nagual and the, um....tonal   
   (?)....sorry, it's been 25yrs since I bought into the crap,   
   reconsidered, with study, and have little occassion to dredge the   
   details from long term memory :)   
   I've enjoyed this exchange....thanks, to all.   
   n   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)