Carlos Castaneda’s Don Juan’s Teachings

M: There are always a mix of attributes, of course, however each metaphorical “level” has emphasis of the mix of attributes that efficiently cause progress. While, based on experience, there is some consistency to your comment, the analogy could be express to note that roller skates have wheels, and airplanes have wheels that they use prior to flying, therefore, roller skates can be projected like airplanes because of the commonality they share, “wheels.” Airplanes can lift off the wheels and fly, but roller skates are far better at their purpose of small movements upon the ground in which quick navigational movements are employed, but the user can never fly with only roller skates despite the implied similarity with airplanes.

R: Listening to Rush, generally, the lack of attention that the people in this country pay to the moral and social decay being advanced by liberalism …. I just find it very disheartening.

M: Yes. True. The only caution is that Rush admits that “he is a showman” using his words, so his emphasis needs to be taken with that in the background.

R: I know that you were just pointing out a fact and were not advocating anything based on it.

R: And now I’m calling that fact into question.

M: Yes. That is your approach. Words and interactions, it is observed, are useless against such preconvictions and predispositions.

M: Okay. Your choice. In fact, your agenda. No response.

M: Understanding the “why” and the mechanisms of the “why” are not “justifications” and how these concepts become mixed up, I’ll never understand other than in societal terms. Look at the report(s) that Ed provided about his son. The research that provided the information that really helped Ed and his wife and son, that the chemical changes in the brain were directly attributable, would have at one time been condemned, by the media (in fact it was) because the common wisdom was to “blame the parents” or “blame the psychology” of the person for a physical condition of inherent brain chemistry. We have known for about a decade, that about 7 percent of humanity have a predisposition, genetically, toward alcoholism. If you took 100 individuals and did “anything” to force them to become alcoholics, only 7 would submit after the forced attempt. (With hard drugs, all would become dependent – the chemistry is so pervasive.) Knowing that is not a justification for the alcoholics to BE alcoholics, but “knowing” the genetic fact causes an alert that can assist individuals with the condition that they indeed have a predisposition and carry an added responsibility.

R: Phrase of interest above “we have known” … Have we? in 18 million years I don’t think you will find much agreement about that.

M: In 18 million years, almost all of what is currently understood and considered important or intense in any human endeavour, other than evolution into the third attention, will be irrelevant because the new information base that will follow with be sufficient to replace the current concepts. The third attention is timeless, and the 18 million years exemplified by the above, have no significance whatever.

M: Rick, please look back at this in a few days…

M: Peace, sincerely said.

R: I believe that. And at the same time it does seems like there is a block in place up there in your willingness to look at points I’ve raised. I love you, Michael, Rick

M: There is no point to engaging in exchanges that are formed in the basis that is observed. It is far more appropriate to not engage and not experience the energy inefficiency to promote a dialogue that ultimately will not be of service simply because the focus causing the intensity is irrelevant to evolution of an individual.

M: it is very clear that there is a failure of my communication with you. Once again. The processes seem very clear, well perceived, and yes, there is only silence that is appropriate for me.

————-

R: Hi Michael,

R:I’ve deleted all text but the last responses from you and I’m going to now look at each comment as standing on it’s own, as a guide for me, and in the spirit of the last entry, which, actually, I think I will now place up here as the first of you comments. So here it is, with your last now placed first and the rest in order. You said, “There is no point to engaging in exchanges that are formed in the basis that is observed. It is far more appropriate to not engage and not experience the energy inefficiency to promote a dialogue that ultimately will not be of service simply because the focus causing the intensity is irrelevant to evolution of an individual.”

R: Yes, I see that too. I mostly feel like I don’t even want to look at how it happened the way it did (the last few exchanges). The only thing I can logically attribute it to is the impersonal-ness of emails and the ease with which misunderstanding occurs. An example I’m thinking of too, is my “joke” letter to Jane (not sent, nor intended to be sent). I thought it was funny, but I guess the humor wasn’t there in the E-mail. Anyway, I totally agree with the above, that if “the focus causing the intensity is irrelevant to evolution of an individual,” then it’s the wrong focus.

R: Also you said, “Experience, then, has been replaced with assumptions as preconceptions, and those, in term, form some basis within you.”

R: I assume you meant, “those, in turn.” Yes, it reminds me of the model — Experience leads to the conceptualization of the experience, which then colors the next experience, and you get into, then, a “viscous circle.” But if that is all I have … well…. It doesn’t leave much to say. (I finished all of the below and am now on my rereading of it. I guess I didn’t keep what I just said here in mind very well as I wrote)

R: Also you said, “The questioning of the validity is a theme for your life, by observation. It’s wondered if the questioning itself forms a primary boundary to experience.”

R: I was thinking about that yesterday after first reading it. Are you suggesting that I may be questioning things, but that really what I’ve done is already made up my mind so that the questioning is then a primary boundary to experience. And by that, you mean that my questioning was not really questioning at all, it was my stated belief in the form of a question. Is that what you are saying?

M: Yes.

R: That does seem to fit what I quite often do. (adding on second reading to tie in with what I’ve written below — But it does not preclude an ability to change preconceptions/assumptions)

M: Consider also the possibility that the process indicated above forms a dependency and a point of control, which is also a dependency. Questions can have a form of attempting to exude a form of control over the process of the interaction and the responses from which the answers are solicited. This is a one-way attempt for many to engage in the ego-driven power struggle, but it’s hidden under the guise of “seeking information,” while it’s really seeking power and control. While considering that within contemplation, overview “the subject” where the energy of the questions are being applied. Is it, the subject, relevant to evolution or is it superfluous to the process of evolution/development? If it is the latter, then the subject is only an object of a control drama.

R: I have no interest in controlling anything here with you. But I like the idea of keeping to the question, “Is it, the subject, relevant to evolution or is it superfluous to the process of evolution/development? You invited me to talk about my wife, etc., and this evolved. I agree with your below (coming up) comments about my suspected lack of evolution. I guess I’m guilty of not working very hard to change and have been satisfied to be gathering information through all of these exchanges, thinking, somehow, that that was leading to the change of perception (into 2nd attention), not paying attention to the many times stated “impeccability is all that counts” and how I could — up — my understanding and practice of impeccability through these exchanges.

R: Also you said, ” Nothing can be said that will cause preconceptions and assumptions that form validity in place of experience, to in fact cause validity. The boundaries, the questioning, though appropriate can never be satisfied absent experience.”

R: I see, and in this case (of the past couple of emails) you are talking about the absent experience of actually reading to the point of understanding, certain scientific studies/reports. I see. One of my preconceptions/assumptions is that if I did read the report to the point of full understanding and thereby have that experience, is that it would be found to be not conclusive. Perhaps you sensed that and found it “sad” and the reason I was surprised by that (your finding it sad) was because it didn’t seem to me that your holding my preconceptions/assumptions as “sad” allowed for the possibility that I might not still have those preconceptions/assumptions after reading the report to the point of understand.