Irishman:
I wrote:
<Let’s see now, Jesus was seen walking on water. O.K. He put something in the water to increase the surface tension enough to support his weight so long as he kept moving. Yea, right! NOT!>
Irishman writes:
<<Ridiculous straw men do not help your case. I never said anything about Jesus or “miracles” in the bible. While I doubt that they occurred the way they are described, the ability to study them and find out what really happened is lost to us in time. That is, in fact, often the case with descriptions of incidents witnessed by others. How do you investigate an experience you weren’t there for? The only witness has come to a conclusion, and so their descriptions of the observations are tainted by their conclusions and preconceptions? Their memories are colored by their repeated reinforcing of those conclusions and preconceptions every time they tell the story.>>
I write:
I think you missed the point. If something is truly “miraculous”, by definition it defies all known laws of the universe and therefore science cannot explain it; there is no model, no mathematical equation or solution, no theorem, and no physics. Ditto Castenada’s argument that science cannot explain sorcery for the same reason (at least dJ’s brand). Simply because they are two completely different paradigms. You may not like that but you can’t change it.
But it is becoming increasingly clear that you are not really interested in the CC/dJ controversy; rather, arguing for arguing sake which I am not really interested in.
I had written:
<Don Juan could purportedly shift something called an assemblage point in his luminous cocoon and assemble different worlds. Apply your scientific techniques to analyzing that, please, and give us all an explanation how to go about doing it.>
You replied:
<<I have no idea what you are talking about, and no desire to find out. Did any of this have a varifiable effect on the material world (i.e. levitating an object, making an object appear out of thin air, etc), or was this all within the subjective mind?>>
I reply:
Right here is the problem because it is now apparent you haven’t read CC’s books. How can I debate/discuss the issues with you when you haven’t even read them and all your knowledge on the subject is second hand? Since you have no desire to find out, I have no further desire to take you seriously regarding this discussion.
I had previousl written:
<You’re over analyzing here. Let me simplify. It is my opinion that he wasn’t talented enough to make it all up, especially certain portions. And, yes, while it is my opinion CC wasn’t imaginative enough, it’s also just your opinion to the contrary. Should we have an opinion duel at 12 paces? And to compare his works to L. Ron Hubbard’s preposterous trash is no comparison at all. Never got into Tolkien and Herbert so I’ve no comment there.>
You replied:
<<Your comment about Hubbard gives me a chuckle. My point: you claimed people could not be that creative. Yet clearly some people are that creative. Perhaps CC was that creative, perhaps not, but it is not impossible, and you argued that it was>>
I write:
How would you know if they are that creative if you haven’t read the books to make a comparison? Impossible? I didn’t say that. I simply said IMO he wasn’t that creative. Why do you keep misquoting me?
I had written:
<I never said the Bible was made up and perhaps you’d like to supply the quote where I did.>
You replied:
<<You said in your first post (or rather second post, since the first had a glitch)>>
I reply:
No I didn’t. Your inaccuracy is becoming an issue. I think parts of the Bible may be fictitious but it is simply too historically accurate in many areas to be made up en toto.
I had written:
<It may be true what Cecil says about Carlos making it all up. The topic certainly stirs up a lot of controversy. Why isn’t there similar bashing of the authors of the Bible?>
You replied:
<<I infer from that applying “making it up” to the authors of the Bible. You continue to list several problems with the Bible, including:>>
And referenced my words:
<And evidence for the authenticity and accuracy is dubious at best.>
You replied to that with:
<<Bolding mine for emphasis. Again, that implies to me that at least parts of the Bible are made up>>.
I reply:
There’s a big difference between saying “the Bible is made up” vs. “parts” of the Bible are made up or fictitious. Again, lack of attention to detail.
I had written:
<It didn’t seem to bother the 3 PhD professors monitoring his
work. I distinctly remember reading an account of them reading a rough draft of “The Teachings”. From their own experiences, they decided to allow CC to publish it because they knew he had to have had a Yaqui informant to be so intimately familiar with the rituals in Datura use and preparation.>
You replied:
<<What sources of information did the professors have access to about Datura preparation and use, to make that judgement? And how did CC not have access to those sources, if he was studying in the field?>>
I write:
Why don’t you ask them? Irishman, this is what I gave the SA and SR site links for so you and others could investigate and answer these and other questions for yourself. What I gleaned about the subject came from several sources. But since you can’t even bring yourself to read the books and are prone to sloppiness in general regarding logic, inaccuracy, and misquoting, we shouldn’t hold my breath, should we? You really shouldn’t expect others to do your work for you. You can either agree or disagree but don’t try to make an argument from a position of not knowing anything about the subject and then asking others to spoon feed you. If you were academically trained you would know this.
I had written
:
<The Bible has inconsistencies too. Think this makes a difference to Billy Graham?>
You replied:
<<Irrelevant. Billy Graham could be a blithering idiot. You yourself disparage Hubbard’s writings and Scientology. Yet thousands (millions?) of people accept them and think they are great. Doesn’t make them correct. Doesn’t make Hubbard’s writings true.>>
I reply:
Either you are unwilling or or unable to get the point. Billy Graham is considered to be a respected, intelligent, and well-liked individual, rubbing shoulders with President’s and Statesmen and happens to be a religious Christian man. You could be a blithering idiot as well but let’s give the benefit of the doubt. The point being the inconsistencies in the Bible don’t seem to affect his religious convictions. So why should we expect (No. In fact some demand it!) possible inconsistencies in CC’s writings to affect his believers?
Yes, thousands accept L Ron Hubbards “works” (??) What is your point here? I still say it’s trash but I’ll let you make my point for me. That is, while it doesn’t make them correct or true; conversely, it doesn’t make them not correct or true. (I feel like Pinocchio as I say these words in defending that quack Hubbard). Which is exactly what I’m saying about don Juanism. People can analyze and nit pick all they want but they can never prove one way or another if it’s false or true. It’s a personal issue.
I wrote:
<<It was not CC’s purpose or job to COMPARE dJ’s shamanistic rituals with other researcher’s experiences.>>
You replied:
<<If he was using the material as a basis for a degree in anthropology, then yes it was.>>
Irishman, I know this is difficult for you to accept but NO IT WASN’T. How do I know that? BECAUSE I CAN PROVE HE GOT A PHD FROM THE WAY HE DID IT whether you approve or not.
You continue with:
<< If his dissertation is supposed to be about the way of life of Yaqui indians,…>>
Here you go again. Again, just for you: IT WAS NOT ABOUT THE LIFE OF YAQUI INDIANS. Oh, that’s right, YOU haven’t READ the books.
And continued:
<<… and about the religious rituals of Yaqui shaman, then it most definitely is his duty to verify the information he is giving is, in fact, Yaqui….>>
Geez Louise!! It was not about Yaqui Shaman, it was about ONE Yaqui Shaman. And so what? What does that have to do with the discussion of the validity of don Juanism? He got the frickin’ PhD whether you or anyone else approved of his methodology or not or even if you don’t think he deserved it.
“Another way to look at it. How many sects of Christianity are there? Would you say that Jehovah Witnesses have different rituals than, say, Methodist’s, even though they are both Christians? The former are apt to start speaking in tongues during the service which is certainly unlike the Church of Christ services I was brought up in. In the deep south some churches combine poisonous snake charming via intense dancing, singing, handling and kissing these poisonous creatures all in the name of worshipping god and Jesus. Different rituals, same religion—Christianity. So I’m sure Yaqui shamanism comes in a variety of flavors as well.”
“Short of obtaining a birth certificate, dJ was a bonafide Yaqui Indian. Since CC didn’t mention that he did NOT have the anthropological features of a Yaqui Indian, then there was no reason to doubt his heritage. He was pointed out and referred to him by a known informant as a Yaqui shaman. And in one of the books it was mentioned that it was common knowledge that local townspeople where he had a residence knew him as such. You wouldn’t go down to the jungles in Brazil and hang out with one of those isolated tribes, come home, and then be expected to prove that those people were who they claimed to be, would you? (ie. an isolated Brazilian rain forest tribe)Ludicrous, I agree”.
You continued to write:
<<If his dissertation is claiming that the information is not Yaqui, but some Toltec derivative, then it is important that that point be made, and he should attempt to verify against any other sorces for Toltec beliefs, culture, and ritual.>>
And I reply:
Oh, O.K. Now I understand. Your point is that since he didn’t follow what you feel is the correct anthropological research methodology, despite the FACT that he got a PhD, then this proves don Juanism must be made up. By golly, slit my wrists with Occam’s Razor!
Regarding your statement, he didn’t claim that point in his dissertation. If you read the books you wouldn’t come across so…………hmmmmm…… ill-informed.
You wrote:
<<In fact, there’s a case where anthropologists were fooled by a phony tribe on an island in the Philippines. Turns out it was a hoax. There is also a debate in anthropology circles that Margaret Mead as mislead and fooled, and her seminal works were wrong. (The proponent of that claim is, I gather, not in mainstream anthropology circles on that point.)>>
So, you are inferring that the people in the phony tribe didn’t exist? Otherwise, I don’t see the relevance. But thanks for making another point for me. That is: CC was fooled by dJ in the beginning. That is, don Juan was purportedly much more than a supposed Yaqui Shaman. That was just window dressing.
Goodbye Irishman