Tom, I don't think that you
Tom, I don't think that you can blame Dan Carpenter's death on Daniel. I don't know the details of Carpenter's death, but implying that Daniel is somehow leading people to fatal demise is a real leap in logic. I don't think friends are responsible for other friend's suicides.
With Daniel's writing, I take what's useful and leave what isn't useful ... See Moreto me. What's important in what Daniel does is that he bridges the analytic and the intuitive in his writing. He writes of the spiritual sterility of Western culture from his direct experiences of growing up in it.
As far as Quetzalcoatl goes, he claims to channel this spirit at the end of 2012. I don't believe this in the literal sense it was written. I believe unconsciously Daniel was tapping into something deeper in himself- and genuine. But I guess what you're getting at here is what his responsibility as a writer towards his audience? It's a good question. As a writer, I believe that Daniel's focus in his work is very much about an internal quest that he realizes is deeply intertwined and connected to the larger cultural forces that shape all of us. I think his contribution to the education of his reader goes well beyond channeling a spirit to channeling a cultural zeitgeist. And his activities beyond his writing, are visionary. Evolver is a social movement that connects spiritual discovery/journey with fostering community and building grassroots connections. You know this. The traveling in the space of consciousness is the catalyst for coming back to do direct action in the world. I guess maybe I'd like to hear him write more about direct action. Perhaps that's the next book now that Evolver is evolving... who knows...
Thanks for your thoughts Robin.
Thanks for your thoughts Robin.
Please note that I was careful not to use the words "blame" or "responsibility" in discussing the relationship between Pinchbeck, and Carpenter's death. Pinchbeck encouraged certain behaviors and attitudes on Carpenter's part. (I cannot interpret the forward he contributed to Carpenter's book as anything except encouraging -- you can read it in full at the link and judge for yourself.) Those behaviors and attitudes contributed to Carpenter's death, leading him into a mental space which resulted in suicide. (This conclusion based on the Grigoriadis article I cited, and also on the comments of Carpenter's mother found here: http://www.erowid.org/library/review/review.php?p=235 )
If I say I like to drive fast and recklessly, and you say, "yeah, driving fast and recklessly is cool!", and I then I die in a fiery car crash, is that your responsibility? I don't think so. But it would be a case of irresponsible behavior on both our parts. It would have been much more responsible, in such a case, for you to say, "Hey, driving fast can be fun, but you should do it at a racetrack and take some lessons and wear a helmet and five-point harness."
I don't see much that's analytic in Pinchbeck's writing. Looking at the example from his blog I cited, a person with a reasonably strong grasp of analytic thinking is not going to attribute the accidental fireworks from a misfired rocket to an echo of the end of the world traveling back in time, or believe in some supernatural explanation for crop circles rather than the confessions of the pranksters , or be sucked into extreme 9/11 conspiracy theories.
There is, I think, a *lot* of potential good in things like Evolver, which is why I come out. But social action that's disconnected from a solid grounding in rational thinking is likely to not only fail to help, but can actively do damage. And that's my concern.
Tom Swiss - proprietor, unreasonable.org
Intellectually Lazy argument
This attack on Pinchbeck is mean-spirited and intellectually lazy.
"Now, we know that crop circles are in fact created with boards and rope, in combination with good planning and simple surveying techniques (and you can learn how to do it yourself by searching the web), and well-informed people with intact critical thinking skills recognize that Building 7 did in fact fall as a result of the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers."
Both are patently, and demonstrably, false statements. Just because you think you know something doesn't make it so.
Re: Intellectually Lazy argument
Both are patently, and demonstrably, false statements.
Then by all means, please demonstrate their falseness.
However, if you'd really like to learn about the hoaxers behind crop circles, I suggest starting at www.circlemakers.org. See also here and here.
If you'd like to see the facts about how WTC was destroyed, you might look here and here and here and here.
Tom Swiss - proprietor, unreasonable.org
quick responses
i found a number of mistakes in your piece.
i didn't kick off the idea that 2012 could be transformative. Terence McKenna and Jose Arguelles were responsible for this, as I discuss in my book. I also never say that I believe definitively something transformative will happen in 2012 - or on Dec 21, 2012, to be more exact. I do believe that we are experiencing a paradigm-shift, and that there is compelling evidence for psychic phenomena and psychic capacities, and also compelling evidence for phenomena such as reincarnation, which as it is integrated and accepted will fundamentally change our relationship to the earth and the cosmos. We are also facing species extinction, accelerating climate change, and our own actions are threatening to bring an end to our species, unless we change to another way of life. I do think it is quite fascinating that this paradigm shift corresponds with a time-frame that the Classic Maya indicated from more than a thousand years ago.
in everything i write, i try to take care to state where i am speaking from direct experience, and where i am making a speculation, offer a theory, or creating a hypothesis. it seems to me that speculative thought has value, as it expands our capacities to imagine and envision what may be possible. our scientific worldview is the product of a few century's of human thought. therefore, it might eventually be proved to be too narrow, just as previous ideas and belief systems eventually proved faulty and had to be amended to match the evidence. Anastas kind of compressed my ideas and, in doing so, distorted them, typically, in the New York Times Magazine. As I write repeatedly, I believe we will see an integration and reconciliation between intuition and rationality, not just dropping rational thought entirely!
although i have been called a "psychedelic advocate," i actually don't advocate the psychedelic experience for everyone. I do think that these substances should be available to adults as other consciousness-changing substances like anti-depressants are. In the case of the two people on my breakingopenthehead discussion board who ended up committing suicide, I think that I advised both of them to slow down on their use of substances, as they seemed to be mentally unstable. Obviously, psychedelics are dangerous to people who are unstable, as they amplify your current psychological state. I also urged both of them to consider working with traditional shamans who might help them to heal, rather than continuing to use the substances in an unstructured way, if they were going to continue using them. Neither Carpenter or Michael were part of my "psychedelic circle." I had an open discussion board and they were frequent posters on it.
As for Quetzalcoatl, I was careful when I wrote about it in my book to note that I might also be delusional, and also examined the history of characters like Crowley or even McKenna who felt they got these amazing visionary downloads, but then nothing much happened to back it up. However as a writer I feel it is necessary for me to express authentically what happens to me, and this experience of receiving this transmission was an authentic and powerful experience, so I felt that not writing about it would be wrong.
thanks for finding my work worthy of your attention.
yours,
dp
2012, psychic phenomena, and whatamores
Well, I have to say I'm a bit flattered that you care enough my little efforts to respond here.
While you certainly didn't initiate the 2012 meme -- I can remember it being mentioned in the on-line psychedelics community back in the 1990s, in the Usenet days -- I think we can safely assign you credit for helping it snowball. Before 2012:TROQ came out, all in all I probably heard about 2012 less often than I heard about 2038.
We are indeed experiencing a paradigm-shift, a very fundamental one. But it began hundreds of years ago as we started the transformation from an agrarian society to an industrial one, and it will take at least another century to play out. (If we survive it. I do agree that it is possible we won't -- but that's not a thought original to either of us.) We're dealing with a change whose magnitude can only be compared to the dawn of civilization itself. It's a long, drawn-out affair, and doesn't match the year 2012 any better than it matches 2000, 2038, 1970, or 1945.
2012 will have special meaning if and only if a bunch of people assign it one. It is a lovely example of what Camden Benares called a "whatamore":
Today I heard about a new thing called whatamores. I now believe in whatamores. If you can believe in whatamores and if we can form a mutually acceptable definition, we will discover large amounts of circumstantial evidence proving the existence of whatamores. When we believe enough, there will be whatamores. Do we really want any?
As for psychic phenomena -- if you have real solid evidence, well let's set up some well-controlled, double-blind, objectively scored tests (I'm not an expert but I'd be happy to volunteer some time to help you out, it'd be a hoot and I could probably get a good article out of it) and then call up the JREF and collect that million-dollar prize. (You certainly have the "media presence" they require of claimants.) If the money's not an incentive, you could donate it to charity, but the benefit to the world of providing clear and convincing evidence would be immense.
Let me assure you that I do not dismiss these things without due consideration or out of some close-mindedness. My mother believes she lived a past life in Atlantis; my father, during the "pyramid power" craze of the 1970s, hung a small cardboard pyramid over his bed. As a kid I was fascinated with UFOs and parapsychology. My brother and I used to play with Zener cards to develop our telepathy; I used to know how to "tell fortunes" with playing cards, though I've long forgotten how.
And then I grew up, and learned about science, logic, and critical thinking. I learned about paranormal frauds, and about selection biases, information leakage, and subjective assessment that have honest parapsychology researchers fooling themselves.
I'd love to see some "integration and reconciliation between intuition and rationality". The tension between them has been going on since the Romantics at least, giving us on the one hand scientifically illiterate artists and writers -- such as yourself -- ready to believe anything, and on the other aesthetically and ethically disconnected scientists and engineers who are capable of doing anything, but incapable of asking what should be done. Obviously this is non-optimal.
But pseudoscience gibberish is not helping. If anything it drives a wedge between the two groups, feeding the irrationality of the first while driving the hyper-rational further away. You are not going to attract rational people to your cause when you seriously propose ideas like your Blue Star Kachina retro-causal echo theory.
You say you "don't advocate the psychedelic experience for everyone" -- is there anywhere in your writings where you make this explicit? There's certainly no "don't try this at home, kids" warning in the enthusiastic preface you wrote for Dan Carpenter's book. Indeed, if you were concerned with his use of psychedelics, why did you endorse it by writing that preface? Or do you always go around promoting the works of random people who just happen to post on your blog?
As for ol' feather-head, yes, you did pay lip service to the "maybe Quetzalcoatl is all in my head" possibility. But it's clear from the tone of your writing that you don't accept that as the most likely -- indeed, the only sane -- explanation. And you are quoted in Grigoriadis's article as saying (of your mother) "that Quetzalcoatl is not just my dream — though she may not know it, it's her dream also". That's not the tone of someone who's thinking "Maybe Quetzalcoatl spoke to me, but that's in the same category with 'Maybe I'm a butterfly dreaming I'm a man.'"
So let me ask you flat out: do you understand that by far the most likely explanation for your Quetzalcoatl experience, Crowley's Aiwass experience, Wilson's Sirius experience, and the many similar experiences had by others, is that they are neurological/psychological phenomena without external referent, indicative perhaps of deep brain/mental structures but not of "objective" or "consensus" reality?
Tom Swiss - proprietor, unreasonable.org
Dan Carpenter
I read with much interest your thoughts regarding my son's suicide and that of Michael. I certainly don't blame Daniel Pinchbeck in any way for my son's decision to hang himself, but I do have a couple of comments to add regarding Daniel Pinchbeck's statement in his reply to you. He said that he advised both Dan and Michael to slow down on their use of substances as they seemed to be mentally unstable. I found his old message board and on August 4, 2005, he stated at the end of his message that he never had any sense from Dan that he was in personal danger. If that's the truth, then why does he now say that Dan was mentally unstable? If you are mentally unstable then you might be in danger of harming yourself or even hanging yourself. The two comments don't match.
My observations mean nothing really. My son is gone and I'll live with that horrible loss every day for the rest of my life. Isn't it ironic though that it angered me to read Daniel's words that my son seemed to be mentally unstable? I suppose it's because I never saw any sign of him being unstable until the very end - shortly before he committed suicide. I loved him so much that it's very painful to read those words.
3 weeks 1 day ago
3 weeks 2 days ago
3 weeks 5 days ago
4 weeks 1 day ago
4 weeks 3 days ago
4 weeks 6 days ago
5 weeks 8 hours ago
5 weeks 8 hours ago
5 weeks 11 hours ago
5 weeks 22 hours ago