What are your thoughts regarding Carlos Castaneda?

Great Debates
161

tomndebb –

I feel the sting in your comments. I’m at a disadvantage because you’re like a ruling god in this place … and thus I suspect that if I were to continue in the manner I’ve been going – i.e. kicking the daylights out of the “arguments” that all these people make to support Leftdorkness, you’ll be mean and give me a permanent boot so I can’t participate in this site. Is that about right? Is that how it works in this place?

Your recent posts disputing the things I say will have to go unchallenged (by me) due to my fear of the poison that’s been created, as I do enjoy this place.

If I didn’t think I would be too out of line, I’d love to post a question over in the General Questions Forum so that people unfamiliar with what’s happened here, i.e. me being bullied around in an atmosphere in which the mob psychology resents me for being so on the money about everyhing, … and let their unbiasness decide what constitutes the most solid form of methodology in searching for truth. And if it were to happen that they mostly come down agreeng that you and all your cronies are right – i.e. that standing mere words up against tangible materials (yes, even if I can’t hand them through the screen) is the better way – then I’d shut up and concede defeat.

Of course, IF they just so happened to agree with me … then there’s no question that you might not think it fun to have all that egg on your face(s). Not trying to be smart, just think you should know is all.

By the way, do I understand that you feel that I’ve made no points whatsoever on this thread? It would surprise me if that’s what you honestly think.

My attitude that you speak of hasn’t been so bad, has it?? After all, I can hardly think of anything more unkind to say to another than to tell them that their mental stability is questionable. I mean I really think THAT was hitting below the belt.

Thanks for letting me know about how to do the quotations, I’ll study it and see if I can figure it out.

162

Nobody’s bullying you because they fear the truth-they’re calling you on your attitude and your unwillingness to play by the rules.

163

I’d prefer that you not just concede defeat, but that you re-examine this thread in the light of people’s reviews of it, if folks mostly say that your method of presenting evidence is unacceptable. And I’ll make you the same offer: if you start a thread that references this one and asks folks to say whether they found me or you more rational or persuasive, and if the majority of folks say you’re more persuasive, I’ll shut up and concede defeat. I’d offer to dance like a monkey, too, but I don’t want that to prejudice the results :).

And hey! If you pose your question in lyrical format, you could even post it in Cafe Society–couldn’t he, Tom?

Daniel

164

That last bit about Cafe Society was a joke, incidentally: I think such a thread would go in In My Humble Opinion, as a poll, or in the BBQ Pit, as you say what a doodoohead I am.

I’ll go even one further, though: as long as you start the thread with a post beginning with the following question: “Who do you think was arguing more fairly, logically, and persuasively in this thread: Left Hand of Dorkness, or Graham Wellington?” I’ll stay out of the thread entirely. You can argue, cajole, and delight people all you want to get them to side with you. We will then keep a running total of respondents. After three days, or after forty different posters have responded (whichever comes first), we’ll review the results, count up the clear answers, and declare whatever victory that entails. And one of us will concede defeat and make a major effort to re-examine his attitude toward facts.

Does that sound fair?
Daniel

165

I admit to being a bit exasperated at your posts–claiming great logic while demonstrating only flawed logic and not taking the time to learn the vB coding to make your posts intelligible–but I am not in the habit of using my awesome Moderator powers simply to inflict pain.

If you would like to open a thread in the BBQ Pit to rebuke me, feel free. Neither I nor any other staff member will impose sanctions for that action. (I suspect that you will still find yourself the target of a fair mount of ridicule, but that will be the result of individuals responding to your words; I would not encourage them in that action.)

I will note that posters who claim to have received secret instructions from supernatural beings regarding great conspiracies have not fared well, here, in the past. This board simply does not have the proper audience to hear those “messages.” Since you are now aware that your message will not be received, you may wish to avoid discussions of that topic, but that is your choice.

166

Left –

I basically like your offer. The only problem is that you’re an established fellow in these parts, thus you’d have me at a disadvantage for that reason. (In animal psychology, such as it applies to horses, for example, it’s a well known fact that putting a new horse among horses that have spent time together is a bad idea; as the newbie will be bitten to shreds!)

Also, I seriously doubt that you’d find even ten people willing to peruse through all thats been said here. And frankly, I’d be pretty concerned about you and all the mods and those that you’ve befriended over the span of time that you’ve been posting in this wonderful place, as you people might be a little tempted to have others make sure that the tally comes out in your favor. Sorry for saying that, just being honest.

Now having said all of that, I’d be willing to go along with it anyway, providing that in the (HIGLY UNLIKELY EVENT) that a bunch of uncorrupted people do take the time to do all the required reading, and that you can arrange for the mods to make it happen. Sure, why not!

I’d like to add that “if” I should come out the winner of this fun little battle, then I’d like for you to commit to doing all that which I asked from the start – FOLLOW MY INSTRUCTIONS TO THE LETTER. But, then again, perhaps it’s best that we don’t, as I doubt you’d do it because it’s too much effort for you … and you’d have to shell-out a little change to buy the materials I have in mind.

Okay, Lefty, please go ahead and arrange (my idea) and let’s see what happens! And don’t worry, I’ll NOT try and take any unfair advantages (as you offered), it’ll all be fair and square.

167

I can’t really help you out with that. You’ll find that I’ve got folks who hate me around here, too; and you’ll also find that folks around here aren’t shy about expressing their disagreement with one another. If they think you’re arguing more persuasively, they’ll tear me a new one, have no doubt.

Again, I can’t help you with that. You either need to step up and take a risk, or back away. I have not seen any evidence that the Mods would tweak results or try to browbeat people, and I don’t think you have, either. But the second thread was your idea, so if you want to stick with it, I think you should.

Uncorrupted? Don’t start to use weasel-words here. You either take things at face value, with my promise that I won’t interfere (and I am certain that the Mods won’t either, unless you set it up in the wrong forum); or you decide that this board is thoroughly corrupt, in which case you probably ought to go elsewhere on the Net. But you need to make that decision and stick to it in advance: if things don’t turn out your way, it’ll be immensely unfair of you to start making excuses, e.g., calling everyone corrupt or cheaters.

I will make you this deal. Take this offer, and if you win, I will be willing to spend up to $20 to take a look at your materials, and will spend up to 10 hours reviewing them. If you have convinced me that there might be something to your theory by that point, I will continue following your instructions.

HOWEVER! I will only make you that deal if you will make me a deal. If things come out against you, you must do some research on paranoid delusions, and tell me the state you live in; if I am able to find publicly-provided mental healthcare for people living in your state, you must promise to go for at least three sessions of such care.

Do you agree to this additional deal?

Daniel

168

Yes, it’s a deal!

But because you’re familiar with how this place works, and because the Mods will be more inclined to do what you ask, please arrange to have this whole thread set-up in the manner described, okay? Please??

169

One of us will need to start the thread. I am happy to do it, but I want to give you the chance to do it if you would prefer. Setting it up in the BBQ Pit would be best. Give it a descriptive name, e.g., “Left Hand of Dorkness vs. Graham Wellington” or something like that. (You can call it “Left Hand of Dorkness is a blithering idiot” if you’d like, but my advice would be not to).

Link back to this thread. Type [ url=http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=6670912#post6670912]Look at this thread[ /url], only remove the spaces before url and /url. Does that make sense?

If you want to link to specific posts that you think represent the argument best, or that you think show best how you’ve out-argued me, just find the post you want, and find the number to the upper-right-hand corner of the post. Right-click on that number and choose “Copy Shortcut.” Then you can paste the shortcut into your thread, so that it looks like this: [ url=http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6669536&postcount=131]This post shows me out-arguing Left Hand of Dorkness[ /url]. Without the spaces before url and /url, it will look like, This post shows me out-arguing Left Hand of Dorkness.

Finally, if you decide to start this thread, please let me know what you’ve titled it, so that I can find it. (If you would like to make a link to it in this thread, so much the better).

That should be enough information for you to start the thread, and I want to give you every opportunity. That said, if you would prefer for me to start it, just let me know; I’ll start it with as neutral a post as I can.

Be aware that I believe, very strongly, that not many people are going to perceive your argumentative style as being more logical, persuasive, or fair than mine. If you follow through with this, I truly expect that it’s going to give you a lot to think about, and it’s not going to be, at least in the short term, very pleasant. I could be wrong, but I do not believe I am.

Daniel

170

Gosh you love to flatter yourself.

Ah, yeah, just go ahead and set it up – I’ll be fine with however you want to do it.

I gotta get to a zillion things now. Later.

171

Here’s the thread. We’ll check back in three days or forty posters.

Daniel

172

Sorry, Dorkness. You are going to lose that debate. Not because your posts in this thread have any holes in them (Which they don’t.) But because with my posting habits, I will be the first on that thread, and everyone knows, the side I argue on behalf of always looses. :smiley:

What that you say? It won’t be my place to argue? I’ll just post a Graham or Dorkness vote? Never mind, then. Dorkness wins, hands down.

173

I should add that i’m not sure that the other thread is a good idea, but I am hoping that, by convincing Graham that he’s far out of line with other people in terms of what he perceives as real, it might convince him that the therapy sessions he’s agreed to attend will be worthwhile.

I could easily be wrong, though.

Daniel

174

[QUOTE=GrahamWellington]

Yes you did ask a benign question about Castaneda. Then when people pointed out how thoroughly Castaneda has been debunked, you made an assertion that mysticism was real, but that you “were not at liberty” to say why you felt this to be true. When pressed instead of laying out your reasons you insisted that people engage on a long treasure hunt starting with reading an obscure and roundly debunked book cover to cover, and then looking for cryptic comments in the movie The Doors. I have no doubt that if Diogenes hadn’t lost interest at this point there would have been other, equally obscure, clues in this treasure hunt.

This is not how people defend a position. Heck, I’m not even sure what your position is, since you refuse to clearly explain it, and instead leave cryptic clues that involve a lot of legwork. If you were really interested in defending your assertion you would first have stated your position clearly and succinctly. Then you would have laid out arguments and facts that supported that position. you would have supported your position with cites either on the internet or in published material. If the latter you would have mentioned specific things in the books that would support your postition, prefeably with page numbers.

The fact is, Graham everything you write displays someone not arguing for a belief, even an eccentric and controversial belief, but someone laboring under paranoid delusions. The secret messages in movies, the belief that you are a “messenger and revealer of things sent into the world by Jesus,” the vague assertions that there are malevolent conspiracies out to silence you, and your general tone and statements revealing exhaustion and depression; All these things speak of someone fighting a battle in their own mind.

Again, my intention is not to insult, though I realize you make take this as an insult. As I said, I’ve had family experience with paranoid delusions, and they are not pleasant for the sufferer. I hope you find what you need.

175

I think I may have set some sort of personal worst for spelling/grammer errors and typo’s in that post. :smack:

176

Larry, I’m paying a lot of attention to your comments, here and in the Pit thread. I don’t have any experience with paranoid delusions; I’m starting to worry that making this offer to Graham was a very bad idea.

If the mods think it was a bad idea, I’d appreciate the thread’s being closed. I genuinely didn’t open it to hurt Graham, although I acknowledge that that might be its short-term effect. If folks with more knowledge and savvy than me agree that it’s unlikely to have any beneficial long-term effects, then I apologize for it, and would like its ending.

In any case, I really hope folks who post there will do so without vitriol: vitriol in this case is horribly inappropriate and unhelpful, I think.

Daniel

177

I heard the perfect summary for this thread while watching a DVD the other day:

“Carlos Castaneda can blow me.”

  • Topher (on Six Feet Under)
178

**Graham ** is playing checkers while LHOD plays chess. It’s not a fair match.

179

It’s looking as though I’m about to be searching for public healthcare resources. Graham earlier suggested that I’m in over my head, and frankly, I’m starting to think he’s right. Those of you with experience/ideas as to what I should do next: help!

Daniel

180

I wish I could help, you LHoD. Unfortunately, I think this is something that can really only be approached through family or close friends, barring a court order–and I am not confident of the ability of court ordered therapy to work. If I were you, I’d just let the bet go as something that probably shouldn’t have been entered into in the first place.

I didn’t mean to set myself up as some sort of expert earlier. Like I said, most of my info re my aunt’s case came second hand from my Mom. It was the new anti-psychotic meds that really helped. Clonapil, I think it was called. It really takes desire on the part of the afflicted to get better. You can’t force meds down someone’s throat, and I’m not even sure if you should, barring a few extreme cases. My WAG–and it really is only a WAG–is that Graham is more high-fuctioning than my aunt was. I don’t think he has the motivation to seek help for something he doesn’t even perceive to be a problem.