The Heavy Stuff

Hello, welcome to The Heavy Stuff; my blog in which I take on some of the `heaviest’ ideas. And, as you can see from the title of today’s posting - the ideas of Carlos Castaneda will be my focus. But, before that - a little background about my `influences’ from Castaneda.

I first became aware of Carlos Castaneda, the writer, - when I encountered Joseph Chilton Pearce’s book `The Crack In The Cosmic Egg’ in late 1973 - a book which focused on the `miracles’ of Don Juan (the Mexican Man of Knowledge in his books - an Indian Sorcerer) and the miracles of Jesus (it also focused on hot coal walking miracles).

Now, Pearce’s book happened to be the first HEAVY book (incredible ideas) that I had ever encountered. I felt that way because it literally tried to `explain the reality we see’ - in a new way to me. It felt as if my mind was suddenly stimulated in a non-ordinary way; which was part of the appeal he described about the ideas of Carlos Castaneda. So, of course, I got and read and read over - Carlos Castaneda’s first book.

Eventually, I read nearly all of his books over the next several decades; most of his early ones within days of release. I had multiple friends in the 1970’s with which we would share our Castaneda ideas together. I even had an anomalous event with one of those folks that was seemingly directly related to the Castaneda ideas

Now, before you think I was or am an outright cheerleader for Carlos Castaneda - let me say that in 1976 I got the Richard De Mille book (and still have it) called `Castaneda’s Journey’ `the power and the allegory’. And, I largely accepted De Mille’s research into the `realness’ of the esoteric Yaqui Indian Knowledge that Carlos supposedly encountered. Indeed, to me, it seemed that perhaps all but the first Castaneda book (at that time in 1976) was fiction. And, perhaps, even the first book.

So, with that in mind - let it be said that this post is NOT going to be about the incredible non-ordinary worlds that Carlos goes on to describe in book after book - for decades. And, if you want to read more about Castaneda as an overview, use this link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Castaneda. However, this link, at no point talks about - what is to me - my favorite REAL Castaneda `idea’.

And, that `idea’ was/is `controlled lucid dreaming’ — something that I was able to experience using the very method described in the early Castaneda books. Basically, the initial step of that `method’ involved boosting one’s awareness in the dream INTO the lucid state (where you know you are dreaming while in the dream) thru `looking for your hands’.

More specifically, in his book `The Second Ring Of Power’ on page 269 of the hardback edition is this:

“…He only gave me pointers. Finding my hands in my dreams was the first pointer; then the exercise of paying attention was elongated to finding objects, looking for specific features, such as buildings, streets, and so on. From there the jump was to `dreaming’ about specific places at specific times of the day. The final stage was drawing the `attention of the nagual’ to focus on the total self“

Now, Carlos goes onward - but - that is not the purpose of the post - what is the purpose is to bring you notes from my `notebook’ at the time - literally a diary of some of the non-ordinary that Carlos’s words seemed to have inspired. And, in that regard - let me bring you verbatim - some of those experiences.

Jan. 30th, 1975 - “1st success in partial setting up of dreaming. I tried to go to Euclid (ohio) on a sidewalk next to my fathers firestation and my old (high) school. My very next dream - I was in Euclid and became conscious of my dream when I realized IN THE DREAM, that I was very close - a few hundred yards - to my place of the set-up event.”

March 5th - “Yesterday I experienced a multitude of intellectual rushes for about 30 minutes and it was the strongest sustained yet. However, today, I accomplished my finest philosophical experience yet. After reading The 4th Way philosophy (by Ouspensky) for the second time - I shut off my inner dialouge virtually at will for about 1-15 minutes, when after long consideration I realized that `to think - you must listen’ to your thoughts. I have achived the ability not to listen and to hold thereby the thinking to a minumum. But, here, is what I did. I laid down and tried to hold this (special) consciousness as I went to sleep and (to) find my hands. After a vivid and nearly lucid dream of being on high rocks and working in the dream to the edge of the rocks - about 50 feet up - I woke up. Remembered my goal - fell back asleep and the dream continued from the same point. I then, without any difficulty, brought my left hand into view, looked at it, and then my right hand into view. I sustained the sight of them for a few seconds, my right hand went back to a rock and the dream ended. I HAVE DONE IT. This also was a dream in the late morning and in my dream I felt it was the early day. The hands “looked real” enough that I thought “If I bit them they would hurt” They were unlike any ordinary object I’d ever seen in common consensus though.

Now, I believe that I have about 8 other `controlled lucid dreams’ in my notebook that I may share with my readers at some point; nearly all of them involving using Castaneda’s `hand method’ into controlled lucid dreaming.

Nowadays, you can buy tapes that seem to induce `lucid dreams’ - where you know you are dreaming in the dream. And, again, nowadays, some even encourage you to use that as a starting point to control your dream destiny and even your real destiny. Ideas that Carlos Castaneda brought forth in the 1970’s - ideas that do link to some non-ordinary reality state. And, one I’ve experienced.

Are you experienced?

I’d love your comments too - bookmark my blog please too. And, please visit my front page so that you register on my stats www.theheavystuff.com - and, have a look around.

You can also find the link to EVERY post I’ve done on The Heavy Stuff right here http://www.squidoo.com/theheavystuff#module2462278
Sell Used Books - Ship Your Books For Free And Get Fast Cash Back!

When one is reading a website that has as its positioning statement references to `Reality’ - one may already be treading on a slippery slope - nevertheless, The Heavy Stuff thanks you - and wants you to know you are not alone. While recently posts have been somewhat rare here - in the summer when posts were at two a month or so - The Heavy Stuff actually showed up in the Alexa numbers (and still shows but is off due to infrequent posts) — some summer months had over 10,000 unique visitors — so, thank you again. And, thanks to the various great websites that post many of the writings from here and keep them in your archives. I also appreciate the support of those of a `like mind’ who like reading about phenomenology and its concepts.

One of the concepts related to ontology is the idea of `finding real’ - the real real. The flowing `note’ of a series of `notes’ in a song. The `moment’ of videotaping some paranormal event - thereby proving that IT was in the real with us. We KNOW we `reside’ in the real. It is one of the most compelling things about the experienced reality structure we all accept. When WE are in the presence of another person or thing - with our eyes open - we never question the authenticity of the shared experience of space and being in the same area of `space’.

But, this idea of real has always had a `rub‘ - something that doesn’t quite explain all events - especially those loosely described as `paranormal’. Indeed, one of the fondest questions the writer of The Heavy Stuff ever asked in a public setting occurred about 31-33 years ago (some hazy times then, right?) - the occasion was on a college campus in the Midwest. The Heavy Stuff decided to ask one of the hottest `Reality’ writers of the time - a `reality’ question.

At that time, The Heavy Stuff’s writer had been spontaneously writing phenomenology concepts independently without ever having encountered such writing before — and had been taking in very `heavy’ writers of the day (and yesteryear) including Castaneda, Watts, Tart, and the author about to be asked this question:

Could you please compare for me the `reality or realness’ of the controlled lucid dreamstates of Carlos Castaneda - compared - to the `subjective mutual realities’ that seemed to be shared in the Mutual Hypnosis of Charles Tart?

Joseph Chilton Pearce just starred at The Heavy Stuff’s face - but - calmly gave the questioner a compliment for the detail requested - and then - proceeded to give pretty much a non understandable response (that is not to say that the answer wasn’t of value). At the time of this encounter, Mr. Pearce was touring in support of either Crack In The Cosmic Egg - Or the follow up - Exploring the Crack In the Cosmic Egg = both books still worth a read.

But, it occurs to The Heavy Stuff that some readers of these posts may not be aware of the `details’ of both of the paranormal `realities’ that were being asked about in the above question. Specifically, first, let’s look at the `subjective mutual reality’ experienced under Tart’s Mutual Hypnosis sessions. Indeed, much of the material about to be quoted comes from Tart’s 589 page book `Altered States of Consciousness’ - this material is found over pages 297-315 and featured a review of two individuals who on three occasions entered what seems to be a `real’ reality. You decide.

The Heavy Stuff will not go into the method used, but, suffice it to say that each participant was hypnotising the other and `taking them deeper’ often `taking them with them deeper’ and often `ending up in a subjective reality of mutual consensus’. Meaning - they `saw’ the same phenomena and described the `location’ (afterwards, in post hypno session) as having the same `events’ which included full interaction with each other in this separate reality. These mutual realities included when they were asked to `take the other one into a dream’ - and - when they simply were taking each other deeper in the hypnotic state (without being told any dream cue).

In one of the Mutual Hypnosis sessions a person who had entered the room `became’ hypnotised and also `joined’ the mutual `shared reality’ of the test subjects — she literally, could `see’ them `ahead’ of her. Of interest is that the original test subjects (especially the male) strongly disliked the `extra’ persons presence and also disliked `contact’ by Tart `from the outside’ — when he tried to control the level each subject was experiencing.

The Heavy Stuff asks still — is that reality - `real’? Does, real have degrees? Are the `spaces’ (including the human consciousnesses) within that reality - real? Does a `shared space’ define REAL? Just where ARE these spaces `normally’? Are they the part of Space that The Heavy Stuff implies may be more timelike - more having the able-to-not-be `actualizer’ than the normal space actualizer of Not-able-to-be. A different description of space. Part of the virtual being actualized `somewhen’.

Finally, The Heavy Stuff will simply refer quickly to the famous method laid out in the first Carlos Castaneda books about `dreaming’ - it involved finding your hands in your `dream’ - and staring at them - then looking OUT into the space around you - finding objects - then, back to the hands for a reference point - then back out into the space around you, finding more and more objects. Building a reality as you go - or - even `going’ to a reality you desire.

This `shared’ reality seems to be of the individual and the ontological structure around them. Literally, the description of `how to gain a foothold in another description of real - of reality’. A reality well beyond the dreams of the ordinary consciousness(that said, this may all be but another qualitative description of the dreamstates potentials).

Frankly, The Heavy Stuff finds both of these `states’ to fill the criteria for `being real’. Being capable of creating `real experience’ - perceivable real experience. Being capable of a ontological structure with volume to `do actions’ within phenomena. Observable actions. The reality have a `here’ and a `there’ - a `before’ and an `after’ - mutually felt as a duration with location.

Notice how the question isn’t `was the subjects bodies in the room with Tart not real’ - of course - they are in our agreed space. No, the question is `are the subjects bodies, their spaces, IN THE OTHER REALITY real?’

And, that brings us again to those other examples The Heavy Stuff has explored before (delve into this site) - of human spaces with `unusual’ space origins - The Ghosts of Flight 401, a showing by Jesus, Doppelgangers, and the other few recorded examples of human simultaneous bi-location(co-existence) (solid human forms of the same individual in two locations).

Perhaps these other spaces are real all the `time’ but only `actualize’ in the rarest of `normal spaces’. Perhaps, these other `able-to-not-be’ spaces have real duration beyond our detection. A real that exists beyond or as part of this reality. A real that calls into question just `how real is real’?

Thanks for reading, leave a comment and join the subscription to The Heavy Stuff - show your support by visiting the daily website of The Heavy Stuff at www.squidoo.com/anomalyman and buying some books. Then, visit the other squidoo sites - all designed to be a 11 minute vacation.

Recently on my Squidoo lens (website) at www.squidoo.com/anomalymanI carried the link found elsewhere on the web about the research study which attempted to find out if common fruit flies had `freewill’ - or - did they `act’ `randomly’. They conducted this research by gluing the fruit fly to a copper wire that left it `free’ to beat its wings. The fruit fly was then immersed in an all white environment which was`free’ of `cues’. The scientists were trying to determine if the beats of the fruit flies wings were `random’ within this environment which had `no cues’ — or — did the beating of the wings, which yields a `direction’ for the fruit fly - result from something other than random movement.

While I will have the link to the story at the bottom of this post (or you can go to my Squidoo site) — the results indicated the fruit flies had something between `freewill’ and `determinism’. (It quibbled about whether the `pattern of movement - which was similar to an algorithm’ qualified as real intentionality.)  But then it seemed the study then concluded that any freewill was `freewill’ - and even if limited, the fruitfly had it. And therefore so did humans the research seemed to extrapolate. Hmm. How nice. I wonder how many would have read the article if it had said humans had no freewill.

Interestingly, the article did spend some time talking about the freewill vs determinism `issue’ of philosophy — a rarity in today’s dumbdown media positioning of avoiding anything `too heavy’. But, as you know, HEAVY is this blog’s middle name — and freewill and determinism qualifies as topic material. It also goes right into the area my mind likes to explore — phenomenology. That’s right, the stuff of Edmund Husserl and others. To me, combining the ideas of 1910 phenomenology and just the basic of physics known today, seems to point to at least a way to grapple with the freewill vs determinism issue. IF it really is an issue.

My hope is that readers of The Heavy Stuff are at least familiar with the basics of phenomenology - but if not - one dictionary definition is:

• the study of the development of human consciousness and self-awareness as a preface to philosophy or a part of a philosophy
• a philosophical movement that describes the formal structure of the objects of awareness and of awareness itself in abstraction from any claims concerning existence

How’s that for heavy? All I can say is that Phenomenology has been the heaviest idea I’ve ever encountered. In addition to that, amazingly, I’ve had my own phenomenology ideas before I encountered Husserl’s works in 1975 or so. But, all that is for another post — this post is about freewill and determinism ——- and  — The Heavy Stuff’s as always unique take on the issue. READY? Get that mind open now, breathe deep, use what you have and do what you have  to do to  arrive at an altered state to receive this phenomenology take/positioning  on one of mankind’s intellectual issues.

Here the idea is. Ordinary physics tells us about `how’ humans `gather’ our information to even perceive the reality around us. First, we as a human being, have a `space’ which is us. Me. You. A space. A group of atoms organized by DNA to represent a human and all the characteristics of a specific human `space’. This `space’ (our body) has a relationship to `other spaces’. The computer we sit in front of - the garbage can in the kitchen - the trees outside. Even the locust in the tree. Even to the sounds from a train whistle.

Those other `spaces’, those other `things’ — `are representations of their actual now a `moment ago” — THEY are NOT in OUR `space-now’. The `light’ from `where their space is’ travels to our perception. THEIR space that we see has already occured and THEY are actually IN another `space’ - of which will travel to our perception too. What this means my dear readers is that `the space we see is DETERMINED’. Even the `space’ we see that is OUR OWN body - is DETERMINED. The nature of consciousness is that we can only be aware of things that have been determined. And are therefore `past’ things in comparison to our `now placed-spaced consciousness’.

Does that mean that we all need to `embrace despair’ as suggested by J.C. Pierce in his 1970’s books on `The Crack Of The Cosmic Egg’? No, not at all. The fact that `the space we see has been determined’ does NOT mean we `didn’t participate in THAT SPACE’. Indeed, not only did we participate in that space —- OUR `real now space’ — ISN”T even a part of it — we exist in a `real space’ which has our intentionality and duration exclusively.

It’s this `real space’ that we possess - that has our `freewill’ NOT the `space’ we `project’ onto `others spaces’. What we need to grasp as human beings or what any space needs to grasp as a being with life in reality - is that we can `change’ our `relationship’ (the `next’ actual space location) to any space — by moving our actual space. And, we do THAT in OUR `space’ with our intentionality’s - and freewill that has NOTHING to do with other spaces.

The Heavy Stuff positioning on this philosophical issue is —- Every Space Becomes A Time Point For Other Spaces.

The link to the article directly is http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18684016/ – and, just to ask, if fruit flies have freewill, should they be glued to copper while alive? Just kidding. Thanks for reading, leave a comment — and hey, I’ve got the best of the links of 2006 on www.squidoo.com/anomalyman2006.