Response to Cleargreen's Mexico Answers
By Jeremy Donovan
My name is Jeremy Donovan. I say my name before addressing Cleargreen-speak (CG-speak), because it lends magical power to my verbiage. You do believe me, don't you?
Ha hey--then let's go. Today I've selected these excerpts for attention...
"The Nagual told us there is no way to get rid of our longings, and that we won't be able to give up our socialization either. We avoid them, but we also use them for our profit. Why not work together as men and women for increasing our awareness, instead of keeping confined to rigid roles and behavior patterns that impede our dreaming?"
This will seem tedious to many, and often I wonder if it's really necessary, but another part of me feels it is necessary to actually answer this stuff in detail, to make sure no one is just swallowing it. So let's discuss some of the main things to watch for in a given specimen of CG-speak. First, one should always take care to notice the ever-present assumptions being made. For instance, in the seemingly innocuous sample above, the main oft-repeated assumptions are:
Carlos Castaneda was a "Nagual," a special being of great power. And he wasn't. He was just another man, who died like any man. In fact, both of my rather ordinary parents outlived Carlos Castaneda. And since he has also been shown recently to be something of a con artist who was borderline abusive to boot, I really don't see why he should ever be regarded as any sort of authority on human conduct.
The claim that we should avoid "our longings" and "socialization" yet simultaneously "profit" from them (bless their little non-merchant non-minds) is such an amazingly vague remark that it is remarkable it is not expanded upon in any detail. Socialization happens to a human child very early (learning to eat with silverware, pee in a toilet, speak a language, etc.). But if the people at Cleargreen want to "avoid it" and eat with their hands, pee on the floor and grunt at one another, it is certainly okay with me. Maybe that WOULD be fun for awhile, but hardly meaningful or enlightening (notwithstanding the "antisocial theatre" they seem to believe shocking--which isn't).
CG-speak often appears to be saying something, but usually is not. You will forever see them tossing their glosses around without full explication, implying great significance. The real effect of that is, for example, to avoid ever having to really look at the intracacies involved in socialization (there are whole disciplines devoted to this), or at how most normal adult humans naturally learn to make a wide variety of choices related to their socialization. Much could be said on the subject, but as usual, Cleargreen is not really trying to communicate anything we may not know, they are just tossing their usual glosses around, and when those glosses hit the SoB (Sort of Believer) brain cells, their eyes glaze over and they say nine Intents!.
Another assumption above is that we are ALL confined in rigid roles and behavior patterns. Speaking for myself, about the best way I know to "impede dreaming" is to do a lot of Tensegrity. And one of the most time consuming "rigid behavior patterns" I have recently rid myself of is doing hours of Tensegrity and recapitulation every day. This point highlights the further assumption that ALL well-defined roles and behavior patterns which are non-sorceric are "bad". But they may not be at all--one must be discerning.
Now look at the statement: "Why not work together as men and women for increasing our awareness?" The assumption here appears to be that ... we don't want to ... or ... that we wouldn't want to ... or something. But who the hell wouldn't agree that it's a good thing to "work together as men and women for increasing our awareness"? Just about everyone would agree with that! What they wouldn't agree on is HOW to do that. And the problem is ... what Cleargreen really means by that, which is that men and women should: band together in the rigid behavior patterns prescribed by THEM (an endless series of practice groups and workshops).
Furthermore, any other form of relating (aside from cult approved free-sex?) will be seen to be actively discouraged. So as far as I'm concerned they are DISCOURAGING "working together as men and women for increasing awareness"--indeed, to the point that I (or any other non-cultie man) could very likely not even get NEAR their indoctrinated women at all. It is not possible to "work with" one them, period--unless of course one adopts the truly rigid behavior patterns already mentioned. All the "rules" are for "insiders". They are themselves attempting to "confine" relationship between men and women to rather rigid cult-approved behavior patterns. And personally, I won't have any part of it.
Of course, there is the continual assumption that dreaming is the be-all and end-all--the goal of goals. And this may well be the most insidious assumption of all, for it's basically escapist in nature, and tends to minimize "daily life" in favor of glorifying "altered states". The continual implication is that such altered states are much more significant and desirable than ordinary consciousness. Merely note that this itself is an assumption, a BIG assumption.
Now you see how much I had to write just to uncover the assumptions contained in one simple paragraph of the CG-speak? Imagine how tedious it would be to have fully analyze ALL of the CG-speak, in order to highlight the inherent assumptions, distortions, and flaws. It would be an exhausting task, and a boring one as well, so I must leave it as a simple caution to the reader: be attentive and LOOK for the ever-present assumptions in the CG-speak. Don't just swallow the barrage of glosses. They told you your mind is not your own because they are afraid you might actually use it. Think for your freakin' selves!
(BTW, as a child, that was one of the things my ordinary daddy often told me on my way out the door: "do your own thinking".)
"The challenge of interacting with each other without mutually trying to control or own each other is much greater than the challenge of following the beaten track of courtship. It requires much more imagination."
Like so many of their statements, the main problem with above statement is that it pretends to be "revolutionary," but in fact almost any good relationship counselor would FULLY AGREE with the statement, that is, if one were merely to remove the insidious and nebulous phrase "the beaten track of courtship." And this is another characteristic of the cult-speak, to pretend to have invented some limited version of a concept which is actually widely known, welding it together with their own control mechanism in order to give the control mechanism the appearance of truth.
So where is the control mechanism? Well, the statement implies that trying to control or "own" someone MUST be a part of courtship, and that is just not true at all. What it does is play on one's FEARS of what happens in BAD relationships, and implies that ALL (non-cultie) relationships must be that way. It even implies that all courtship is "bad"--or at very least "unimaginative," Once again, as I have so often illustrated, they are making a serious attempt to limit or discourage intimacy between men and women. And why? Well, isn't it obvious that they are trying to control the behavior of practitioners? THEY are clearly the ones regulating behavior at every turn and then they talk about learning to interact without controlling people. Hypocrites.
That pisses me off, because it is hard enough to arrive at real intimacy as it is, without having to fight off cult control mechanisms to boot. I dunno, maybe I'm just overly sensitive and everyone else is ignoring this crap and having their relationships any way they want them while bowing and paying homage to the CG-speak when necessary? No, that can't be, I've heard too many tales of damaged or aborted relationships here.
And oh yes, what requires "imagination," it would seem, is not to let anyone near you (unless it be another cultie wanting only a casual fuck with no dread "expectations"?)--so you can just recapitulate and do Tensegrity all day every friggin' day of your life--so you can put all your attention on doing dreaming every night of your friggin' life. Oh my, how "imaginative"! Sorry, but that's about as one-dimensional as life gets.
And I have news for you--maintaining a healthy intimate partnership, which by the way some people DO have (including prior courtship of course), is actually a far greater challenge than staying all by yourself, having casual sex when horny, and practicing a few cult-approved techniques every day. Almost anyone could do that.
Castaneda controlled and "owned" his groupies by lying to them and convincing them that everyone ELSE was only bent on controlling and owning them. Us vs. Them. Don't let THEM control you--don't let THEM own you (so I can control and own you instead). LOL.
"Seers recommend celibacy to the young practitioners because we are trained to face sexuality from an investor's point of view: "I do this for you if you do that for me."
You mean like ... I pay you some money, if you spend the weekend teaching me Tensegrity?
Replica Watches Replica Watches
Or do you mean like ... I say you are the Electric Warrior if you don't make what I consider to be any mistakes and keep your baby thing reserved just for me?
Surely you don't mean to suggest that the limit of "ordinary" sexuality is ... I suck you off if you suck me off? :-) You've gone beyond that haven't you--I mean, you are so aware and enlightened that you suck them off and they don't even have to suck you off back, right? Wow, now that's enlightenment! :-) In other words, what the fuck are you really talking about? Yes, I'm being sly, because I know exactly what you're trying to imply, in your usual weasel way, but I submit that, if you fully spell it out, it will not stand the light of day. And I stand here ready and able to prove that.
Again, the assumption they are pumping you with above is that any form of "investment" or "expectation" is automatically wrong. And that's just plain stupid. While there are situations where expectation turns into demand or where an obsessive sense of ownership makes for a control freak, certain conceptions of investment and expectation are just normal life activities, and there is nothing inherently wrong with them. One only need put these things on a mundane level to see this. I say to my partner, I am going to do the dishes, will you clean the bathroom? If she says "deal", then I now have the expectation that we are each going to do the job we said we would do. It's just simple daily functionality. If we put our salaries together in order to be able to make a payment on a nice house each month, then of course that is an investment we are both making, one which depends on continuing the partnership. I could give a million simple examples. Expectation in love is the same way ... if I say I love you, then one expectation you might naturally have (and should have) is that I won't behave in an abusive fashion toward you on a regular basis. Etc.
But what they are doing is normal cult practice. Here is the basic game played by all cults--they're all the same (and I should know, I've been in three or four of them now...):
This is what you are now [insert list of stereotyped ordinary human
activities presented in the worst possible light] and it's wrong, it's bad.
This is what you should be [insert list of nebulous idealities and exaggerated abilities of the guru], and it's so grand, it's so divine.
And you will become like this grand, divine being too, if only you will [insert list of cult techniques and cult proscriptions for living your life]
That's the simple formula. But ... the guru never turns out to be so grand or divine... gee.... And most of the techniques and dictates, while some may be beneficial, never turn out to be all that great either.
Or: "I love you madly and forever until you look at another person."
See how they keep doing it? Tossing out some little stereotypical view, and asserting that it applies to every situation in the "ordinary world". They have to do that, because they don't want you to think about the true intricacies involved in real relationships in the real world. They want your brain to stop working right there--they want you to say: "MY GOD, if I was to let myself love another, my partner would ABSOLUTELY NEVER let me LOOK at another person--I'd better do two extra hours of Tensegrity!" That's the stupid level this stuff stays on. Now I'm not advocating it, but I can tell you there are plenty of long-term marriages out there where the partners let each other have other sexual partners. You really don't have to be in a cult to play the old free-love game. Really.
(Personally, I consider it to be a flawed and shallow approach to relationship, but I'd have to write a great deal to thoroughly explain why. All I can say is that these matters do not submit to a stereotyped line or two quickly designed to fit into the wall of control mechanisms..)
"Carlos Castaneda considered this a parody: Can we mix the best of our energy with another being as an investment? No, he said."
No, he said. But he doesn't really ever explain in detail either exactly what he means by that, or why that is. If he did explain in any detail, the position could be easily refuted. The implicit assumption is that the fundamental defining characteristic of ALL ordinary relationship is that it is "only an investment". While there may be elements of some relationships related to investment (and that may be just fine), there are many other aspects to relationship which are as important--every bit as "fundamental"--but you will find that those aspects will be ignored because they are not amenable to quick dismissal in CG-speak. They just want to be able to dismiss non-cult-approved relationship as quickly and effortlessly as possible.
"For seers, the only way to have sexual union with another being is from the position of total affection, without expectations. He used to say this requires an iron will, and that it is not for 'baby warriors.' "
So who would argue that it would be great to have "total affection" for loved ones? That is the main ideality above. What is debatable is that anyone associated with the guru ever actually achieves anything like such a state. It is also highly debatable that it is desirable or possible to relate to a person on any kind of deep level without having any expectation whatsoever. Let's just be honest--it's not, but that won't stop the culties from pretending. They'll just repress it every time they have a "non-cult approved feeling".
So in reality, there will be no deep affection, no deep love. Most of the time there will be precious little intimate interaction at all. Just empty idealities, plenty of running away, and sex. In reality, there is nothing easier than saying: okay, no committments, no expectations, just free love when you feel loving, and free sex when you're horny, with whoever you can interest. Unfortunately, that is also the epitome of shallowness, but it is as easy as pie, as long as one basically has no need for real partnership or intimacy, that is. You "love totally" (LOL) while everything is easy, but if there's any real problem at all, then hey, I'm gone, no expectations baby--I'm on to the next infatuation to do my "total love" schtick again. And this is exactly what Castaneda did, over and over.
All the real issues in such so-called relationships will be avoided and will never be dealt with, while the participants have fun having sex and pretending to be "so free". Fun to play for a while, it will eventually fall apart and leave them with nothing. Such people will also never know that relationships can go much deeper than that (perhaps they do not even believe such depth exists--their problem...).
What requires an "iron will" is a mutually desired committed intimate partnership (especially if the partners have children to care for) which is not based on controlling behaviors, which allows interaction with others outside the partnership, and which is not based on some outside-imposed ideology such as "the warrior's way", but is, rather, based on the partners' own philosophies of living, freely arrived at. Now THAT is what requires an iron will.
Speaking of "baby warriors", notice how in all their talk of sex there is no talk of having children. That doesn't really fit in their world of fictions and idealities. Hey, I'd love to see two people conceive, birth and rear a child together without any "expectations"! LOL. Okay it might be possible to pretend, but I submit that the kid would be real fucked up. All Cleargreen could do was make up lies and wild stories about having children, but they would avoid actually having one like the plague because it might mess up their "ideal" free fucking scene. As you can probably tell, I'm not very impressed.
The real reason for the above pronouncement by Cleargreen is that Castaneda just wanted to be able to fuck anyone he wanted with no consequences (if there are no expectations, there can be no real consequences). He could call that "freedom", and in a totally limited sense I suppose it is, albeit a parody of freedom. He brainwashed his disciples to follow in his footsteps, and I'd imagine the free sex among "approved" culties probably makes it all seem a pretty cool and powerful experience for a while. After all, at least the sex is real. :-)
And they can get all emotional about how they're going to "total freedom" together, just like Christians headed for heaven. There definitely are real appeals to being the "special ones" inside a cult, that's why so many people get hooked into it. Ain't it grand?
"There are in the sexual act energy lines; lines of affection that arise between the partners. If both of them are not empty of personal expectations, these lines break and cause a tumult in the body, especially for the woman. Add to this two, three or even more sexual partners and you'll have a true problem there."
This assertion is obviously designed as another control mechanism to make women even more afraid to have sex outside of the cult. It's a good way to get women to leave their lovers or husbands and come into the cult. The cult leaders can then dictate who is "totally impeccable and empty" and who is not, and can thus even get into dictating sex partners. What fun. So many control mechanisms!
"All the magical passes help us to be more aware about the nature of our longings, most particularly the series named "The Code of the Shamans of Ancient México," which we are going to present and practice in this seminar. These magical passes give us the awarness of the fact that everyone of us has a "mommy" and a "daddy" inside of us."
Isn't it interesting the way the shamans of ancient Mexico give them knowledge that pretty much any licensed psychologist would completely agree with? What a "revelation"! Of course, the down side is that it is stated in the usual clipped, stereotypical fashion, without actually elaborating anything interesting about the topic. Get off it! You don't have to do "magical passes" to see that to varying degrees people internalize their parents.
Can't you just see Castaneda sitting around combing academic materials all the time? Oh, hey! Here's something that's true, some general fact about life! I give it some little mystical twist! I make up a wild story or two, and voila! More dogma, er, myth is born.
"They [the Code passes] help us leave the pattern of a bored conception, the being that looks outside of himself for the vitality that he already has, but doesn't employ."
That's right, don't look outside of yourself boys and girls. Only look to yourself (and to us). You are all that matters. Don't look to another (unless it's an approved cultie of course). Don't have relationships unless they are based on practice groups and workshops. Let us control you.
The assumption above is that what one is primarily doing when wanting to relate to other human beings is "looking for missing vitality". But I am confident that every member of this list, with just a little thought, can see for themselves that this really isn't why one desires to relate to others at all. I'm sure you could each list more significant reasons quite easily...
"Scientists tell us we make use of a very low percentage of our DNA, less than 5%. What happens with the remaining 95%? Why not find out what's there?"
This is hilarious. I wonder who came up with this one. Even with my limited knowledge on the subject I can state with a fair amount of confidence that the above remark stems from a misunderstanding of the fact that as of yet they do not know what 95% of the DNA is doing. That does not mean we don't make use of it. It does not mean it is for us to go "find out what's there" (like we have to learn how to use the rest or something). It is very, very likely that the DNA remaining IS being used for something, they just have yet to find out what it is being used for. Sheesh...
(For many years it was common to hear the popular belief that we only use 10% of our brain. And that is not true at all.)
A while back there ... there was more substanceless rhetoric from Cleargreen:
"In following the path of the navigator, we are aiming to move away from our meaningless repetitions of behavior, something that Carlos Castaneda said was elucidated by the story of "figures in front of a mirror," "
In most of those practice group rooms, there are mirrors on the wall. And what Castaneda has people repeating in those rooms, over and over, is a series of "figures". Nice trick.
Cleargreen talked about:
"...finding out what it means to be a man or a woman in the daily world."
You SoB's won't find out, because you are too filled up with CC's idealities about what it means to be a man or woman to just BE one.
"The battle is beyond the horizon, in infinity, where man ceases to be a man. And it is not even a battle, he said. It is an adventure!"
You keep repeating that, so I'll keep repeating: the adventure is right here, right now. Always. It may well involve one's fellow men and women.
"We enter this adventure-the adventure of dreaming--not as a man or a woman, but as a being that is going to die."
We enter this adventure as a helpless baby of definite sex, AND as a being who is going to die.
As far as your obsession with dreaming goes, while I am almost positive you people will not go to "other worlds", I am beginning to hope you DO. If so, please do the rest of us a favor, and STAY THERE.
"each of us is alone in front of infinity."
Yes, your favorite repetitive gloss. In a way yes, and in a way no. As I've mentioned, if we were truly alone, we would not even survive. You certainly would not be able to issue your "great and powerful Oz" statements on the net. It is also true that we stand here side-by-side in front of infinity. Of course, in the sense that we each have our individual perception we are alone, so why don't you stick to saying what you really mean--that we must each learn to directly perceive all that is possible (then go ahead and feed us your crap descriptions of what we're supposed to perceive and the cult how-to on arriving at those perceptions)? What's so hard about that, do you need me to write your material for you?
You keep implying that it is so very hard to be alone. But it isn't. It is the easiest thing in the world to be alone. That is why you'll find the most defeated members of society--for example, the delusional street people--in exactly that condition: all alone. Establishing healthy and satisfying human relationship is much more difficult than being all alone. But for a "warrior", that is, for someone who only gives a damn about themselves, it is best to be alone, that way YOU have complete say over everything in life ALWAYS, and there is never anyone else to consider or have to work things out with. Your word is law, and there's no one to dispute it. What could be easier than that? But there is no real growth in it...
Castaneda has you repeating these slogans about how you're "all alone" because he wanted you to feel alienated and stay out of non-cult-approved relationships with others, so you would be responsive to his multitude of control mechanisms. We will not allow you to similarly brainwash others without a fight.