Bestseller?

[sacha]

I've been following the sales rank on Amazon.com. TROQ was about #1600 the day after it came out, quite amazing. Then it crawled up to about #1100, then approached #1000, but today I looked, and it says #295 today! -- but yesterday #166!!! :eek: And what's it been, like a week?

[M. Twilite]

It's the BE HERE NOW AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS /MOTORCYCLE MAINTENANCE OF THE GODS for the unplugged generation.

[Led_Zeppelin]

I have only read 150 pages of Daniel's book so far. I'm re-reading some pages. In the meantime, I checked Amazon.com reviews by people who read the book cover-to-cover. I found this one fucking funny. :D

Shirley MacLaine has been reincarnated, May 14, 2006
Reviewer: Gloria Dworkin "New York" - See all my reviews
Like a modern day male version of Shirley MacLaine, Pinchbeck provides his fans with a tour of the world of zany New Agers c. 2000s. Every con artist from an African shaman to ditzy Hawaiian guru-ess fleeces the author of what little money he has left. Eschewing a table of contents and even chapter headings, the reader has no idea where she is headed until the 2nd or 3rd page of each chapter. Each new chapter is a seperate essay only loosely tied to the author's main thesis. If you want to overdose on crop circles, this is definitely the book for you.

The book starts off strong and then quickly becomes bogged down after the fourth or fifth chapter on crop circles. From then on it's all steady downhill going as DP becomes entangled with the shady Hawaiian mother priestess guru-ess whatever. In the final pages, Pinchbeck throws the remnants of his credibility to the winds by announcing that he's the reincarnation of an ancient central Asian philosopher king by the name of Ashoka.

Okeedokee! :D

My main objection to 2012 is the misogyny that flows through its pages as thick as molasses. Chapter after chapter reveals a patriarchal disdain for feminism. If our beta male author had managed to keep himself in check on the misogyny front, my rating would have been four stars instead of three.

[daniel]

hi sacha,

the amazon numbers have been good, and the publisher is happy with sales so far. I don't think there is much possibility of reaching "best seller" status however - the print run is much smaller than many books out there, and publishers pay for display space at the chain stores for the books they think might be big hits, which does not include mine. In the end, I wonder how many people are willing to dust off their Nietzsche and Marcuse to wade through this material? I suppose the book could become a kind of iconic signifier of something or other, and hipsters might want to display it on their coffee tables. Even that seems a stretch to me.

[Dna]

Worst case: Your book will continue to be 'slow burner', which isn't bad. Neither you nor the publisher can predict wether this book is going to take off because it does not follow a perscribed formula. If it does well, the resonating chamber that is the Web/Blogsphere will be what launches it.

I am 1/2 way through. It is a scaffold for thought, a syntheisis and a clarification of numinous something not yet seen clearly, but sensed by many. It will be a significantly helpful book for people dotted throughout the world, including myself.

You can't just like this book, you have to love it because it is an articulation of something not expressed clearly before. Through the use of words, something that was blurred, that was a shadow is now drawing into focus - constellating into our world.

[Caprinardo Delirio]

i'm still waiting for it. my friend who has yet to read BOTH just turned in his assignment on marcuse today, and he will absolutely eat up everything in both books. while reading BOTH, i told myself to get six or seven more copies for friends i have who will love it for very various reasons, and i'm still planning to get a few more copies and circulate them, but i'm afraid that the whole crop circle thing will alienate many potential buyers who would otherwise be very intrigued by the other ideas.

[Dna]

The jury's out on crop circles, and what is written about them reads well. I am not sure what the deal is with them and remain on the fence. They are probably man-made. In my research, I found no convincing evidence to the contrary. This talk about exploded or stretched wheat nodes: I found nothing on it either. One would have thought that this was key evidence that would be trumpeted on every crop circle website, but no. I found nothing to hang my hat on.

[M. Twilite]

If you think all these things were made with some boards and string by a handfull of shroomed out hippies in the dead of night, then you're as crazy as they are. SOme of the more obvious hoaxes, maybe but otherwise, I'm sorry, it's impossible for anyone human to pull off some of those things... especially without the owner of the land's knowledge or permission.

On the other hand, alien light balls from space? Pshaw!

You have to understand, deep in the core of understanding, that you are being TRICKED the way a human might trick a confused dog by pretending to throw a bone, then hiding it in their coat.

If you are waiting for a general consensus that these things are "real" you will have to wait awhile longer. You are essentially asking the lawman if laws aren't real, what's he supposed to say? Is a doctor going to admit medicine is bogus? Is the general going to admit he doesn't know what the lights mean or how to fight them? Of course not, authority figures are like parents to the social order. A good parent won't cry and admit they're powerless in front of their infant children. They have to act like everything is "under control" even if they haven't the foggiest notion what's going on.

Hey, I wrote an article that deals with all this, a review of WAR OF THE WORLDS (http://www.acidemic.com/id54.html)

[Caprinardo Delirio]

i saw a program where a couple of boys were creating some tripped out shit using only sticks with strings tied to boards.. in a couple of hours they were doing what looked like one of the most detailed crop cirles i've seen. anyway, it's not that i don't get the idea of an object of suggestion, that with which one can relate to other aspects of perception and feel the foundation of reality as it were, shaking, i just don't think it's a very good object for a post-x-files pop-culture. if one is willing to go the distance, sure, but people needs to be pampered into bravery, and most people will just take one glance at these waters and freak and head on back to the shores of emotionally potent oversimplifications..

naaah, whaddoiknow!

[Isaiah Mpski]

Twilite,
Is that you surrounded by all those beautiful babes?
If it is tell them there is a wonderful story waiting to be told in Oklahoma.

[brother shamus]

Just finished 2012:The return.., and I am all tingly. Got really trippy during the daime descriptions and I started to get the feeling of being on something, or being at burning man. Reminds me of Critical Path, Buckminster Fuller. Fuller said that we had to act now (1980) to prevent catastrophy. Daniel is saying that it is too late to maintain the status quo and he is embracing the comming change, as we all should and "go with the flow", roll with the punches, and work it out in community. We all know that something's up. Just a feeling,(that everyone seems to have right now).
I really liked working through the discussions of syncronicity. Looking at my crop circle poster, I have some to throw out; I have been reading the Wooden Books for about a year, I recently finished, Graham Hancock's book "Fingerprints.." and Eliade's, "Myth of the Eternel Return", and I am in the middle of "Shamanism". I am preparing for my fourth year at burning man, (I guess I will be a senior, can I major in the burn?),
I have listened to radio orbit with Mike Hagen interviewing John Major Jenkins, Graham Hancock, and Terrence and Dennis McEnna, among the myriad guests which share quotes in 2012: The Return... It really is the right time for this. Speaking of which, I like the 'time' discussions as well. Wrapping my head around different aspects of time, physics and time outside of physics is a very good exercise. The best part is the no punches pulled climax of the communication with the big Q! Takes lots of balls to throw that out. All in all, BRAVO! Well done, and good timing!
brother shamus

[tana]

yes, it does take balls. daniel is an honest and fearless writer...he shows great integrity in his work. (much more important than being a "best-selling" author.)

[Caprinardo Delirio]

i completely agree with that..

[sidecross]

"...it does take balls"

I would say it takes 'nerve' or 'courage'; 51% of us have no 'balls'.

[brother shamus]

Feminism aside, great courage was needed to make the bold statements that were made in the book. Apologies to all the humans who have no 'balls'.
brother shamus

Hey wait a minute! Daniel is a man and I can use that phrase without fear of reprisal from ANYONE!

[ May 24, 2006, 05:02 AM: Message edited by: brother shamus ]

[M. Twilite]

I personally thought Daniel's "misogyny" was totally liberating.

I was educated on a very rigid feminist dogma as an English major in the late 1980s. You come away from a liberal arts re-programming like that thinking that if you are a white male you owe it to the world to castrate yourself.

It was actually Camille Paglia's SEXUAL PERSONAE in the early 1990s that helped me crawl out of that hole.

Fundamentalist feminist will throw the misogyny label around like it's a frisbee. I found Daniel's "realizations" about female guilt-mongering to be very interesting and liberating, and I'm sure Camille Paglia would agree!

[Caprinardo Delirio]

aren't we overdue (at?) the point where we all agreed upon acting like we were all actually transdually sexual and spiritual under this cursedly consistent biological casting, and release the masculine/feminine de dicto from it's de re, and let all aspects and attributes attribute to all, regardless of who's stuck with whatever chromosomic clichés!? at least as an ideal attitude in intention..

it's curious how many proponents of progressive reviewing of the standards often seem to be the ones most trapped within the traditional confinements of the parts of the culture they propose we could and should liberate ourselves from, and make it somehow seem both improbable and undesirable.

goddammit, as much as i'll care to claim I to be as much the light as the eyes awaring it, i'll claim to have just as gigantic metaphysical titties as any of the goddesses!!!

i believe it's my rightful truth as an animatedly americanized gestalt!

[sidecross]

It is less than 100 years that U.S. women have had the right to vote.

All the bible thumpers and religious zealots are far from seeing the ‘light’.

As for ‘guilt’ felt by feminists making their point, if the shoe fits, it is your problem.

[brother shamus]

Funny how the review of a book gets transformed into a feminism discussion. And now back to the book...

[Caprinardo Delirio]

well, i haven't read it yet, but i'd love it if someone sketched out some of the patriarchal elements, so-called...

[M. Twilite]

As for ‘guilt’ felt by feminists making their point, if the shoe fits, it is your problem. Well of course, sidecross. It's my "problem" that I was born a white male. guilt by association. And if you dont think such a thing exists, tell me where you live and consider me moving there.

One aspect, for me, of what makes Daniel's writing, in both books, so interesting is how we weaves autobiographical experience with collected and digested/summized research.

At a certain point, the two gel and one is able to understand how his own perspective slants some of his approach to the subjects. This is as it should be, as the book's chatper on quantum theory and the impossibility of an objective spectator makes clear. His own awareness of this actually enhances the value of the work, as he is able to incorporate it into both the facts and his experience... proving almost accidentally that all genuine truths are un-provable.

Inner voyaging via drugs--as opposed to a lifetime of disciplined meditation--is sort of like being sent off to war when you're still a "green" recruit. You come back with a thousand-yard stare and acute awareness of the separate sources of evil in your soul, but without first learning the patience and decades of zen wisdom that might help you cope with them. The trick to "surfing" this sea of demons and angels is to be a little crazy, a little self-righteous, able to see that your foot is melting and still keep whistling like its no big deal, so you don't end up in the nuthouse. Daniel's narrative voice comes from this place; it sings with the raw terror and triumph of roaming the inner wilderness without a guide, honestly and without apologies. I vastly prefer that sort of warts and all honesty to, say, someone who posits themself as an authority on the subject, from which we all must learn, and I won't name names.

I'm sure the thing that sticks out as misogynist is a) his declaration that women are equally to blame for the mess we're in, via the way they sexually gravitate towards dumb conqueror types even as they lip service how much they value "sensitivity" and intelligence in men -- and b) that it is "okay" for him to desire many sexual partners, and that the institution of marriage is an outdated bunch of crap... or, as Burt Lancaster put it in THE LEOPARD, "marriage is six month of fire and thirty years of ashes."

[ May 24, 2006, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: M. Twilite ]

[sidecross]

I have no problem, M. Twilite, with the very nice piece you wrote; if anything we might have a misunderstanding of our content and intent.

As for "marriage is six month of fire and thirty years of ashes", I would say justplaincross & sidecross have been the exception to the rule that your quote exemplifies accurately.

We have been together over 41 years, and sadly we know no others like ourselves.

[M. Twilite]

Wow, congratulations!

I have no doubts though, enlightened as you clearly are, that your happiness and long life together results from attention to signs you may be beginning to take each other for granted and working on preventing that from happening, constant self-actualization and maintaining a certain level of individuality even as you have shared goals, spiritual path, etc.,

You'd be amazed to see the amount of otherwise very hip and intelligent people who assume that marriage and child raising means they get to retire their notions of difference and uniqueness and cease trying to understand who they are, since their goal in life does not extend beyond finding a mate, having kids and getting the good car and house and job.. and now they have all that. So they go about fixing their mate, since it must be an imperfection in the mate that is the reason they are not content like the magazine said they would be... (or the car's not big enough and the house is the wrong color).

Of course I'm incredibly biased on the subject, being childless (thank god) and divorced. For me, living alone has been essential to finding myself, yet I at 39 and living alone in a Manhattan studio apartment I feel sometimes like I'm in between the cracks, that I'm not with the program. Yet I can honestly say that this is where I feel most like me; I've NEVER been happier.

[tana]

M. Twilite said:

"I vastly prefer that sort of warts and all honesty to, say, someone who posits themself as an authority on the subject, from which we all must learn..." me too! for instance, i can't read K. Wilber's stuff...i just can't.

[ May 25, 2006, 02:04 AM: Message edited by: tana ]

[daniel]

it may be that some people are naturally monogamous while others are not. I am happy for anyone who has found happiness, in any condition. The problem is that our society only condones and supports those who are monogamous, and not only its ideology but its institutions actively work against other possibilities.

Part of the problem here is a language problem: We will need new articulations to help us realize a range of other possibilities in how personal and erotic relations could be conducted and constellated.

[M. Twilite]

On a personal level we can help with this by just being aware of how we unconsciously perpetuate the status quo and then consciously working to change it.

For example: A recently divorced female friend of mine has found happiness with a woman, a very butch, lifelong lesbian who lives upstate with her lover. The lover knows about her relationship with my friend and approves, so the three sort of live in a weird sort of shared connubial bliss.

For my part, I assure her what she has going is beautiful and sanctioned and approved and OKAY and she and her friends are paving the way for a more enlightened future.

In saying this, I am embodying a social voice, a new one. This is the opposite of just lamenting about how "society" doesn't support this decision (several of her other friends have said, "yeah but when this chick phase is over you'll be ready to get married again, I hope.")

We have a choice between judging the judgers in a never ending circle of judgment, or simply dropping the notion that there's an "us" and "them" and assuming responsibility for the social order, now. Assume the role of the social signifier and be free!

[sidecross]

At least one primate, the Bonobo, has a non-monogamous and full sexual life with little or no difficulty as explained by Frans De Waal in his book Our Inner Ape.

Human’s on the other hand have a possessive streak that runs the full range between land ownership and partner ownership. This form of ‘regression’ is intellectually defended by a great number of different dogmas.

[M. Twilite]

Daniel mentions them Bonabos in the 2012 book.

He's always one jump ahead, that one!

[sidecross]

My local book store just got in more copies of daniel's new book (first group of copies sold out); I am eager to read it!

[tana]

there are limitless subtleties of sexual expression. (more that just gay/straight/bi, or monogamous/non-monogamous.) in my opinion, none of them are debatable as "right or wrong"...it is simply a matter of personal preference. sexuality is fluid, and it should be a realm of total personal freedom. (all parties involved being consensual, of course.)

(Daniel) "The problem is that our society only condones and supports those who are monogamous, and not only its ideology but its institutions actively work against other possibilities." labelling non-monogamy as "wrong" (and therefore treating it as societally invalid) is no different than labelling homosexuality as "wrong"...but there is probably more social resistance to non-monogamy than to homosexuality.

[ May 25, 2006, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: tana ]

[wandering1]

Originally posted by tana:
there is probably more social resistance to non-monogamy than to homosexuality.Isn't that interesting? It seems that the sexuality issues addressed in the book may be the most radical and controversial of all.

I find this particulary interesting because some of the other issues are indeed quite radical:
- the prospect that the planet is being taken over by gray aliens
- the prospect that we are shifting to a level of reality that is "less dense"
- the prospect that some form of higher intelligence may be creating some of the crop formations
- the prospect that it is possible to be in communication with an archetype such as Quetzacoatl

[ May 25, 2006, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: wandering1 ]

[waterthere]

Gray Aliens I can accept (why not) but this is one aspect of Daniel's urgent message that I can't buy into: there's nothing at all radical about his views regarding non-monogamy and I have no interest in his bonabo-like 'erotic constellations'...

It's some same old adolescent male narcissism...

Whatever,

waterthere

[daniel]

good point, wandering1!

i am increasingly aware that this question of sexuality may be the deepest key to unlocking the necessary planetary transformation of consciousness (I always look where the repression is greatest). The greatest amount of our shadow material is tangled here.

As an alternative possibility to what we now have, what if men and women:

1. agreed that sex in itself was beautiful, good, and positive, and that more sexual activity of various kinds was excellent and advantageous (with all proper health precautions taken, of course), given a fully consensual relationship.

2. agreed that sexuality was an inappropriate area for moral judgement, that jealousy and possessiveness were actually adolescent and negative emotions, albeit deeply rooted, and that overcoming these emotions through careful conscious work presented an extraordinary opportunity for individual spiritual growth.

3. decided that they, being essentially of the same human species, might as well trust each other and support each other and act with careful consideration as well as deeply felt generosity and compassion toward each other at all times.

4. made a pact to help each other to a new level of integrity and authenticity by no longer allowing any falsity or untruth or half-truth to linger or fester, preferring to judificiously and fairly "call each other on our shit" as soon as such course correction was necessary, thereby constantly clearing the often unpleasantly stale and stagnant air.

5. recognized that procreation was a secondary use and function of the sexual impulse (especially at a time of global overpopulation), and chose to work together to channel the powerful altered state experiences available, freely, through eroticism to the purpose of enlightened consciousness.

[wandering1]

Originally posted by daniel:

i am increasingly aware that this question of sexuality may be the deepest key to unlocking the necessary planetary transformation of consciousness (I always look where the repression is greatest). The greatest amount of our shadow material is tangled here.
I think that this is a possibility well worth considering.

Originally posted by daniel:
jealousy and possessiveness were actually adolescent and negative emotions, albeit deeply rooted, and that overcoming these emotions through careful conscious work presented an extraordinary opportunity for individual spiritual growth.
I see this as a really key issue. I see jealousy and possessiveness as core blockages.

Particularly in the area of sexuality because they may be unrecognized - or strongly defended as "the way it has to be".

The level of taboo is so great that one needs to be careful in even bringing up the topic.

And yes, it may be easy to dismiss the idea as narcissistic or shallowly hedonistic.

And of course, it may not be for everyone. There can be a large range of possibilities and the bonobo monkeys can be seen as being towards one end of the spectrum. The powerful emotions behind and around these issues may be a clue to their importance.

This could be another area that we could look at indigenous groups for models and possibilities.

[ May 25, 2006, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: wandering1 ]

[waterthere]

Ridiculous...

Promoting hedonism as 'generous and beautiful' is laughable---there are obvious karmic repercussions to this sort of selfish/shallow behaviour that you're glossing over. For example: Daniel, how do you think your daughter will feel about your indulgent 'freedom' in a year or two, when she's old enough to start misunderstanding things?

And you present your argument as if the world needs more encouragement in this direction, as if it's somehow not hedonistic enough...

Wank on,

waterthere

[Steve C]

Originally posted by daniel:
i am increasingly aware that this question of sexuality may be the deepest key to unlocking the necessary planetary transformation of consciousness (I always look where the repression is greatest). The greatest amount of our shadow material is tangled here.IMHO, simply convincing people to accept personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions is far more crucial. This directly addresses the root of so many of the challenges that we all face, including the sexual neurosis and the resulting 'shadow material' to which you refer.

[johnny]

i'm with waterthere on this.

parts of this discussion and the "sexuality and gender issues" highlighted in 2012 reads to me like Revenge of the Nerds. Pretty much just reinscribing All Women as the Kali/Mother who refuses to give you a blowjob after a hard day at work saving the planet.

My problem with it is that your referencing of failed past relationships and disasterous communications between the Women and Men (i'm capitalizing because youre universalizing what's just pretty much a personal history of perceived wrongs and initiating experiences gone wrong or otherwise.)

you're making an essentialist argument that seems well rooted in blueballs. Also, if you're going to address all this you might as well address homosexuality, which you will probably fail utterly at because you simply have no reference point for it, since whatever revolution you profess to want seems not to include subleties of love, and all Real Masculine Men and all Real Feminine Women don't screw around with that shit, their too busy eating eachothers anima or animus to care. Unless you really figure out what sexuality is, you have no business making broad statements about it. the world is not a failue between men and women per se. it's a failure of imagination.

there. i just made a really broad statement.

[johnny]

As to why happenings in relationships like this when we give a them a negative connotation, I would venture a guess that as human beings we tend to put more merit into things we perceive as “negative or bad” before other happenings because they make a greater impression on us and we see them as more of a threat.

An investigation in to who may have blueprinted the ‘censoring’ voice in our heads that stop us being creative or communicating or opening up. The answer is : you did. It’s the story you made up about what happened. When actually, the only thing that happened is you got divorced or your girlfriend had a problem with nonmonogamy. Only you can say what the story you made up is.

The sad thing is that we carry these stories around in our heads and they affect a lot of things we do. The great thing is, once you identify them, you can avoid falling into a racket you’ve made up about it.

[sidecross]

The Bonobo do not flirt with mp3 players, computers, and the whole litany of human possessions.

The human concern with sexuality is a perfect example of Neoteny, which is the inability to reach maturity.

Our culture is frozen in keeping us in a forever young mode selling everything they can come up with to keep us from aging and reaching a maturity that might advance our thinking to a state beyond sexuality and reaching the full potential of being human.

Sexuality, ‘The Mystery Dance’, is truly a conundrum; I am glad to be past its attraction as an all consuming commodity. Anyone past 30 who is still infatuated with sexuality, and is not willing to explore what lies beyond ‘The Mystery Dance’ is truly an example of how strong the pull of Neoteny is in our culture.

[Sans Fromage]

ugh...some people here need to realize they're projecting their own agenda (quite hubristically at times) and it's often quite tiring to read.

likewise, i'm sure there are many message boards i could poke my head into and easily leave condescending, disrespectful and hateful messages, but i don't because i don't like being a troll.

[daniel]

sidecross, johnny, waterthere, etc. -

i would just note the judgemental tone of your emails, and ask you to look at where this rush to judgement is coming from. To me it is strikingly similar to the reactions I received about psychedelics and crop circles - a reactionary urgency to cast aspersions in order to keep the area closed to deeper conscious attention.

i recommend a few books: "Secrets of the Golden Flower," a text on Taoist sexual alchemy with a forward by Jung. "Sex Matters: From Sex to Superconscious" by Osho. "Demons of the Flesh" by Nikolai and Zenia Shreck. "Nature, Man, and Woman" by Alan Watts.

I am not advocating "hedonism" - I am suggesting there might be a discipline that would make use of eroticism for consciousness evolution.

[sidecross]

I have read some of the books daniel made in reply to ‘rush to judgment’. In fact my remarks are not ‘a rush to judgment’; they are the culmination of many years of thinking, reading, and observing our culture and its values.

I do not feel troubled if daniel or others do not agree, but is not unfair to label disagreement on this issue ‘a rush to judgment’?

If Sans Fromage’s comment was meant to include my posts, I would have to say you do not like to read differing opinions that are made in sincerity.

[johnny]

i think the book fails on some level. that's not a rush to judgement, that's a critique. i think it fails especially in the area of proposed theories of relationships between men and women. and so-called conciousness aligned with either gender, i think those theories are based in a probably skewed and wrong vision of his own relationships. but whatever.

i'll state again: it's reductive and essentialist. and covers the ground that a good freshman course in whatever various "paradigms" need to be shifted would cover, and could be debated in a coffee shop.

nothing he asserts in this area speaks to me on any level. that's all. and it derails an otherwise enjoyable read.

[johnny]

and daniel, i would suggest you read:

anything by shakespeare, especially midsummers night dream , and richard III

and american psycho by bret easton ellis. one of the best satires on the male psyche written in the last 20 years

tristam shandy as well, it takes him 120 pages or so just to be born. hilarious.

[dragonfly]

I just finished reading TROQ, and I too am deeply disturbed by the sections discussing gender and sexuality. I've started jotting down notes and will write something more as soon as I get past a few pressing deadlines, but for now I just wanted to say that someone who criticizes those sections of the book is not necessarily "rushing to judgment."

[johnny]

and yes, sans fromage, arguing on the internet can be trying at times. it's like the special olympics. no matter who wins, they're still retarded.

[sire_012]

damn sidecross... if you enjoy sexuality after your 30 your a victim of neotony??? all respect, but that's fucking crazy, i don't even know where to start unpacking that.

sex is the greatest gift and perhaps the most potent psychedelic humanity has. i am constantly overwhelmed by the continual unfolding of surprises that await when exploring the human body & mind interplay.

can sex be a trigger toward higher evolutionary consciusness? beats the shit out of me. but i certainly feel a shift in my consciousness similar to a long psychedlic romp or extended meditation after a particularly intense sexual adventure. if more people felt the ability to a greater, more open and more frequent orgasm it's safe to say that there would be some noticable shifts in interhuman relations for just a start.

if you want to try something pretty amazing, next time you have a roll in the hay with someone, keep your eyes rolled up into your brow and imagine that is the starting point of a glowing ring of energy running dwon your spine, thoruhg your genitals, into your partners genitals and out their forehead back into yours. it's a basic excersise, but it's an easy in to feeling the transformative powers of sex.

personally, my experiences with polygamy have been a bit less than successful, though i think many of those failures were as much a result of the place the people who were involved were at at the time as it was a flaw in the design. presently i'm a very happy and very blessed monogamist, but that is essentially because i am totally satisfied with what my partner offers and we have enough trust that should one of us need some rope to wrassle with it would be offered.

i feel like what is need is less a revolutionary writ to any one approach to sexuality, but perhaps more vital is a drive for people to be a bit more respectful of the needs and the longings of one another. how do you go about that? for some that comes in challenging the boundries of the self, for others the boundries of a relationship, for others the boundries of family, work, art, etc.

my impression after reading about 95% of ROQ is that daniel successfully put his skull on the dinner table once again in the name of exploration. it doesn't always make for great self-promotion, but i think he needs to be given props for being rather unflatteringly honest about his experiences. i found it pretty empowering to see somebody honestly addressing their flaws and using that search as a means to uncover alternative and perhaps better systems of living *and then making that available to the public*.

it seems much more appealing to see an honest struggle turn up some rather negative or at least unflattering pathways than reading someone ridicule the search in service upholding a personal abstraction like who you should or should not fuck, and at what age your libidinal alarm clock should go off and wake you from your very human 'perversions'.

[sidecross]

“if you enjoy sexuality after your 30 your a victim of neotony???”

Talking about jumping to conclusions! I never said sexuality can not be enjoyed after 30; I did imply that sexuality and its pleasure should not be paramount or the main self defining paradigm of being human. Sexuality is but one pleasure of life.

I would examine why you feel so threatened by my comment.

[Steve C]

As far as male/female balance issues go, I think the fact that about half the people on the planet are actively discouraging female births is a pretty big issue. Do the psychic energies of these people not contribute to the whole?

Then there's the U.S., Israel and whoever else they can convice to come along for the ride tooling-up for a nuclear war with Iran (and their Russian and Chinese allies?). Ruthless corporations destroying the planet. Depleted oil, fresh water, farmable land and rain forests. Meanwhile most of North America seems more concerned with who won the game or which stretch-suv riding douchebag will be crowned the new 'Idol'. Everything seems just so fucked-up. I just don't see how re-structuring male/female relationships is all that significant in the grand scheme of things.

It would be a mighty hard sell to the average Joe and Janes that make up most of the population in the west at any rate. Never mind the aforementioned parts of the world where women seem to be considered some kind of undesireable sub-race.

[craazyman]

Get a good woman Steve and it won't seem so bad. The one thing we could do is resurrect the Temple of Ishtar & the whore of Babylon. Back in the old days it was quite a sacred thing to be hot on the trot and then it all morphed into the Vestal Virgins and the Roman insanity before reaching it's apotheosis (or nadir) in the nunnery.

But even if we make it that far, all it takes is a Lionel Ritchie to come along and it's everyone back to the nest . . .

Stuck on you
I've got this feeling down deep in my soul that I just can't lose
Guess I'm on my way
Needed a friend
And the way I feel now I guess I'll be with you 'til the end
Guess I'm on my way
Mighty glad you stayed

I'm stuck on you
Been a fool too long I guess it's time for me to come on home
Guess I'm on my way
So hard to see
That a woman like you could wait around for a man like me
Guess I'm on my way
Mighty glad you stayed

Oh, I'm leaving on that midnight train tomorrow
And I know just where I'm going
I've packed up my troubles and I've thrown them all away
'Cause this time little darling
I'm coming home to stay

I'm stuck on you
I've got this feeling down deep in my soul that I just can't lose
Guess I'm on my way
Needed a friend
And the way I feel now I guess I'll be with you 'til the end
Guess I'm on my way
I'm mighty glad you stayed

[waterthere]

I am not advocating "hedonism" - I am suggesting there might be a discipline that would make use of eroticism for consciousness evolution. Uh...right...this sounds like Aleister Crowley to my ears...always an admirable role model...

:rolleyes:

I agree with sidecross---it's time to grow up and shuck the sex obsession. Whatever the 'secondary function' of our sex drive might or might not be, I have yet to meet or hear about anyone who's benefited from this sort of focus in the longterm. High-minded magickal swingers (or whatever) always seem to acquire an unpleasant air of sour/thin vanity. It doesn't work.

And, yes, Daniel,'I'm calling you on (your) shit' with the best of intentions...

Move on up,

waterthere

[waterthere]

ugh...some people here need to realize they're projecting their own agenda (quite hubristically at times) and it's often quite tiring to read.

likewise, i'm sure there are many message boards i could poke my head into and easily leave condescending, disrespectful and hateful messages, but i don't because i don't like being a troll. Sans Fromage?

I don't think anyone here (at present) is being a troll---if you can take the time to click on the number of posts at the bottom of any given message and read what we've written in the past you'll probably find that we all tend to write (again) with the best of intentions.

Isn't sharing our various agendas the point of the message board? If you find someone's opinion tiresome don't you have the choice to simply not continue reading that particular opinion? Are you projecting our projection? Are you being a troll in accusing others of being trolls?

Hmmm,

waterthere

[M. Twilite]

I've been away from this board for no more than 24 hours and everyone's skirts are in an uproar over what now?

Aint no need to come down against tantric sex, that's a whole wonderful world of exploration.

Why you are hating on it is--in my humble opinion--you've either not had the opportunity to try it or are just plain scared of that level of intimacy.

Sidecross, I'm pretty sure Daniel is not saying that sex and gender relations are the be all and end all of what we need to focus on. He is just saying, if it makes you uptight and freaked out to talk about it, then that's the thing you need to talk about.

That's the nature of repression -- it's a slippery little devil.

Johnny and Waterthere, you guys seriously need to loosen up. Daniel's "nerdy white guy" need to sleep with a bunch of women and do tantric crazy creepy crowley stuff is a need you both must have repressed deep in yourselves. Otherwise his statements wouldn't have you in such an uproar.

The sex thing is the final thing, the final knot you have to untie before the rope goes slack and disappears, that and fear of pain.

Get rid of the desire for sex and the fear of pain and death... and it all just blinks off. You'll see.

Instead of books, I'll recommend movies: Mel Brooks' YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN and James Whale's original FRANKENSTEIN. Note the difference between the doctor's approaches to the monster in each and how this approach reflects the sexuality of their respective decades.

[tegr]

I haven’t read Daniel’s new book yet, but I think the sexual thing is pretty important, though maybe not on the Big levels. Basically, from what I’ve heard here, I’d say I’d have to agree that there’s a lot to be gained by loosening of restrictions on monogamy, etc. for a lot of the same reasons Daniel mentions. It is pretty obvious that societal shit sits pretty deep in our mentalities, and its so thick I think its pretty hard for any of us to see down to a coherent truth. But here’s the rub. Now my second marriage; like the first, a definite dropoff in sexual energy between us after the third, fourth year. So, because our friendship is extraordinarily deep (first time around didn’t touch it) we’ve decided to do an ‘open marriage’ coincident with her spending a year abroad for school. So far so good, but still I feel this gradual unhitching of our many connections. What I’m trying to say that is for all their good sense, I’m not sure this kind of idea is commensurate with, well, marriage. Which has a lot of good about it too.

[Steve C]

Originally posted by daniel:
... To me it is strikingly similar to the reactions I received about psychedelics and crop circles - a reactionary urgency to cast aspersions in order to keep the area closed to deeper conscious attention.Good point, I'll check out those books you recommend (the book by Osho sounds poetic and mystical just from the title). I'm fairly ignorant regarding tantra although I can remember a few trippy things that just sort of happened on occasion.

The thing I've noticed about calling one another on our shit is that sometimes we're in no mood for it, seems like something that needs to be done very tactfully.

Craazy... got one, but still it sure seems like we're in for a hard rain - awesome post though =)

[ May 26, 2006, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: Steve C ]

[Dna]

I have finished Daniel's book and am now 'sitting with it'.

I have been following this thread. It is interesting how the issue of 'sex' still fires up such a reaction. There is more to life. I have come a long way from a position of repression regarding carnality. I am not now judgemental regarding others' mores.

Daniel may or may not have issues to work out, I don't know. I may have though. That this thread has ignited no desire on my part to 'call him on on his shit' possibly reflects a nagging ambivilence on my part regarding these matters..

[ May 26, 2006, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: Dna ]

[sire_012]

“if you enjoy sexuality after your 30 your a victim of neotony???”

Talking about jumping to conclusions! I never said sexuality can not be enjoyed after 30;here's your quote:

"Sexuality, ‘The Mystery Dance’, is truly a conundrum; I am glad to be past its attraction as an all consuming commodity. Anyone past 30 who is still infatuated with sexuality, and is not willing to explore what lies beyond ‘The Mystery Dance’ is truly an example of how strong the pull of Neoteny is in our culture."sidecross:

I did imply that sexuality and its pleasure should not be paramount or the main self defining paradigm of being human. Sexuality is but one pleasure of life.

I would examine why you feel so threatened by my comment.i appreciate the invitation to a deeper examining of your startling profound statement. after thinking about it, absorbing it, it still sounds ludicrous and full of rather ill informed, moralistic palm thumping.

i suppose i see why you so easily write off the 'mystery dance' as you call it; you simply see it as "but one pleasure of life", one among many i would presume. by placing it onto the table as simply another 'pleasure' comparable to a well prepared steak, delicious beer or great film does offer a window into the limitations of your pallette. i don't know how often a great belgium beer has had the power latent within it to manifest life in this world, nor actually be a self-contained mechanism for an autogenerating and still very misunderstood system of neurological, sentient, and electro-magnetic responses in the body, or trigger spontaneous dissolution of body and instigation of hypnogogic dream states, but if you know of one i'd love to hear the name.

i suppose what created the response in me that you undestood as "being threatened" was the surprise and dissapointment that someone could debase one of the true infinite mysteries of the human condition into simply being yet another pleasure to chase. and if i was 'threatened' it's because ignorance typically gets my ears to stand on end.

[Caprinardo Delirio]

just a quick note:

sexual activity is also a frequent neurotic solution to sexual repression..

&:
come on, let's try not to piss eachother off anymore than to what is needed for good hearted discussions..

[sidecross]

"...gets my ears to stand on end"

Maybe you are an elf!

[M. Twilite]

Tegr writes: I feel this gradual unhitching of our many connections. What I’m trying to say that is for all their good sense, I’m not sure this kind of idea is commensurate with, well, marriage. Which has a lot of good about it too. You may be right and you may be wrong, Tegr, I'd hang in there. There's a saying which I can't remember where it attributes to now, about how infidelity exists as a support beam to marriage, not necc. as its destroyer. Sooner or later the one who wanders ends up defending their own marriage against the encroaches of the interloper, OR just appreciating their spouse's merits now that they've got some distance. "The only way to fight temptation is to yield to it." - I forget where that quote is from.

By point of reference, I know my parents did a lot of partner swapping in the seventies when I was 5-8ish. The times seemed to encourage it, something everyone was doing and it was okay. They made no real attempt to hide it from the kids, and therefore we didn't think there was anything wrong with it. In fact, we kids liked it, as our parents would sleep over each other's houses and we'd all have this giant informal slumber party. The feeling of intimacy between two sets of parents and two sets of kids who've been up all night experiencing delirious freedom, now watching the dwn together... man, that was something I'll never forget.

And ALL of the couples who did this later stopped -- with the advent of the churlish 1980s. And ALL of these couples are still married. Of the ones who did NOT experiment, but would go home early and pray, or whatever, NONE of them are together.

(this excepting those who died of natural causes).

[ May 27, 2006, 06:10 AM: Message edited by: M. Twilite ]

[willoweyes]

As far as unfaithfulness in my mate is concerned, I could endure the whole thing pretty well if it wasn't for the concomitant scapegoating--ie it's my fault he's screwing around.

Also, I'm wonder how many of these horny guys give equal attention to sagacious older women, as opposed to young attractive ones. If you find yourself gravitating mainly toward the fresh and pretty ones, it is that old demon Reproduction riding your animal body, not any metaphysical desire to raise the Kundali of all womanhood. You are attracted to fertility.

A man who adores woman, in all her archetypes and avatars (I'm seeing Benjamin Franklin) is far different from the man who makes jokes such as, "if they didn't have a c--t, there would be a bounty on them"--and engenders a far different reaction to infidelity.

[Dna]

And ALL of the couples who did this later stopped -- with the advent of the churlish 1980s. And ALL of these couples are still married. Of the ones who did NOT experiment, but would go home early and pray, or whatever, NONE of them are together. Most interesting. Any research on this?

Peace,

Dna
---------
(Make love not war!) ;)

[Dna]

Willoweyes,

The women I find attractive can be of different ages.

Dna.

[M. Twilite]

No research, aside from my pretty clear memories.

I've always been able to remember back being very young. My parents totally deny anything, I think they actually blank it from their minds through some kind of repressive power, though up until lately my dad still had special hellos to other wives, that involved big long kisses, grabbing holding and all sorts of lusty growling... again, right in front of everyone, nothing to be ashamed of.

You see that often in 1970s cinema, women's lib, a general okayness of sex.

Somewhere along the line, it ended, voluntarily...

Actually, it ended the week John Lennon was shot. That was a HUGE event which I don't think a lot of people really acknowledge... radio stations played Lennon and Beatles songs 24 hours a day, without commercials,... Yoko asked for a 15 minute period of silence, and I remember all of us in the car, my mom about to drive us to the mall or church or wherever, sitting very still in the car, deeply absorbed in this shared pop culture grief.

Lennon's death seemed to somehow end the party. In a way, the Beatles were bigger than Jesus. Lennon was like a pop Gandhi, and his sanctioning of it made it okay, that lifestyle. When he died it was like they killed the king of the kingdom of No Shame.

[Gift Horse]

I haven't read the book yet, but have heard/read some of Daniel's ideas of monogamy vs. non-.
I don't have alot to say.
BUT
I have experience.
I have been the pregnant young girl left by her partner who decided that being supportive company to a pregnant person and be there and help through the birth and care of an infant put a cramp in his "spritual and Free" life style.
Being pregnant and alone really sucks.
Giving birth and caring for an infant is a daunting task and makes so much more sense to be shared by the father.
The child needs care, usually 24 hour care for 18-19 years.

[Dna]

I have been the pregnant young girl...Would this happen in a matriarchal society?

[sidecross]

Originally posted by Dna:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I have been the pregnant young girl...Would this happen in a matriarchal society?</font>[/QUOTE]It would not happen in a Partnership Society.

[drew hempel]

What really impresses me about this forum is that Daniel has been willing to openly discuss issues as equals and he's really put himself on the line as an author. He's even tried to help out other struggling authors who've posted on BOTH. Wow -- that's really amazing.

I think that's awesome!

Also it's all really funny as well but whatever.

[sire_012]

gift horse:
I have been the pregnant young girl left by her partner who decided that being supportive company to a pregnant person and be there and help through the birth and care of an infant put a cramp in his "spritual and Free" life style.
Being pregnant and alone really sucks.
Giving birth and caring for an infant is a daunting task and makes so much more sense to be shared by the father.
The child needs care, usually 24 hour care for 18-19 years.
i'm sorry, this is terrible, i think no one would disagree with that. and no one would disagree that people hang all kinds of excuses on spirituality and that's horse shit.

but please don't confuse one person's irresponsibility with a fair examination.

on the other hand i do think much of what is 'wrong' or troubling about monogamy is not so much that salve that is polygamy but the two people's rush for a mono-answer in lieu of an honest appraisal of their needs and abilities to offer to another. i'm willing to bet anyone who feels too terribly stifled by monogamy will, given the time, find similar reasons to be stifled by polygamy.

it's humans we're dealing with, it's far from a clean operation.

[snow]

how to come to any equitable re working of sexual commitments without re working out labor and economic systems?

[Gift Horse]

quote:...."but please don't confuse one person's irresponsibility with a fair examination."

I agree.

But I did notice in the interview I heard Daniel speaking in, totally lacked addressing the Fact that having sex often produces a pregnancy.

Some of us seem to be incredibly fertile. Even with precautions.

I think multi partners can work providing there is unconditional love for ones self, first and foremost and then an incredible amount of compassion and respect for all parties involved.

When one has unconditional love for ones self, alot of the grasping and possessiveness disappears.
Because my source of love is my self, not the other.

[daniel]

snow asks, "how to come to any equitable re working of sexual commitments without re working out labor and economic systems?"

yes, exactly, it all has to happen together.

[M. Twilite]

Mandatory vasectomies for all males upon the age of 16,

They can then pay to have the vasectomy "undone" on their own, when they request a "father" license... for which they would have to show a certain amount of financial promise or viability.

[sidecross]

Originally posted by M. Twilite:
Mandatory vasectomies for all males upon the age of 16,

They can then pay to have the vasectomy "undone" on their own, when they request a "father" license... for which they would have to show a certain amount of financial promise or viability.Hopefully that was a limp sense of humor!

[sidecross]

“I think we are well advised to keep on nodding terms with the people we used to be, whether we find them attractive company or not. Otherwise they turn up unannounced and surprise us, come hammering on the mind’s door at 4 a.m. of a bad night and demand to know who deserted them, who betrayed them, who is going to make amends. We forget all too soon the things we thought we could never forget. We forget the loves and betrayals alike, forget what we whispered and what we screamed, forget who we were.”

This quote is from Joan Didion; it is from an article that appeared on the web site http://www.expectingrain.com/ concerning the recent death of Bob Borselino.

[M. Twilite]

That's a nice cross, sidequote, but don't you think we should be thinking about avoiding being suffocted by our past problems as they continue to multiply until every last drop of green is gone?

Think about it... thing about if If pharmaceutical companies decided to make pills that would reduce cravings for sex and/or children.

We urge teenagers to repress the urge for sex, but we don't dare ask them to repress the urge to have children. Isn't it just kind of the same urge, just a bit more disneyfied?

We have to face some hard facts if we want the planet to survive. We've destroyed natural selection in our own species;, soon the whole world will be walled up rich estates and third world slums full of zombies like in LAND OF THE DEAD. This place will be one giant LORD OF THE FLIES crossed with THE TIME MACHINE.

Goddamnit, we have to get past looking at death as this thing that it is our constitutional right to be protected from... like it's evil. Of course we should fight it if we can, but if we can't, it's a brave adventure. Why not give terminally ill people psychedelics? Let them see where they're headed, like a travel brochure.

Grief is natural; It's freedom at its absolute worst, but that pain of loss makes the psyche soft and able to change itself, to reform for the better. If you let it. Without lots of deaths, lots of births lose their charm... there's no big thing at stake. Individual egos get obsessed about their "lineage" or their "likeness" or "someone to raise better than my parents raised me." but they don't take into consideration the unborn soul's feelings, or the planet's.

China's not afraid to deal with this situation! We better take a lesson.

Without global conflict we just get too thick thanks to all this crazy medicine and detente policy. It's like tthe invention of antibiotics and the a-bomb dammed up the flow of water down the river to Hades. The system's jammed.

By "We" I mean It, God, Us, the shebang of DNA that includes every living thing on the earth and is, according to the COSMIC SERPENT (which I highly recommend), one giant organism, which constantly changes, shifting energy from place to place, creating and destroying with equal love and speed.

Do I mean what I say? Am I just playing devil's advocate or saying what everyone thinks? I do not know. If it sounds right to you than it's right, if it sounds like the ravings of a dude who is still up at seven AM, then it is that. I'm going to bed!

[ May 29, 2006, 01:25 AM: Message edited by: M. Twilite ]

[sidecross]

Pleasant dreams M. Twilite!

[johnny]

m twilite,
i think you misread me. i was and am appalled by daniel's misogyny and essentialist reading of gender. it destroyed any pleasure or relevance i might have found in his ideas or speculations, and in particular for me, gave me serious pause. i just think he's dead wrong.

that doesn't mean i hate sex or am deeply disturbed by his explorations, i just tend to dismiss misogyny out of hand, because it's tired.

and believe me, i could write a book about my sexcapades, but you know, so what?

[sire_012]

johnny:
and believe me, i could write a book about my sexcapades, but you know, so what? seriously, you walked away from ROQ thinking this was some bragging torch on his sex life? wow.

it's interesting i've seen so many people on this board respond to ROQ with a 'problem' with this, or being 'appalled' by that, or thinking crop circles are explicitly fake, or greys are definitely a real threat, and having just finished the book, i was not overcome by any need to fight any position daniel took in the book... i was never overtaken by the assumption he was asking for my complicensy in his exploration. i might not agree with all of his quesitons and subsequent hunts for answers, but i don't think he really put the book out there attempting to create holy writ absolutes and answers for people to nod in muddy eyed affirmation of, quite the opposite.

in many ways i found much greater existentialist angst woven into the personal narratives of ROQ than was ever in BOTH. i felt this book in many ways deserves a place on the shelf closer to Henry Miller and Jack Kerouac than it does to Terrance McKenna or Jeremy Narby. my feeling setting the book down was that ROQ was compiled as one person's exploration of many divergent systems and paradigms in a somewhat sad, lonely, and desperate hope to uncover some kind of meaning in an increasingly alienating world. rather than an extension of what appeared to be a fairly sure minded and perhaps even superficial path of exploration that was BOTH, ROQ seems to take a darker, and honestly a more interesting and exciting and human and appropriate turn. It seems a very logical extension from BOTH, more complex and more troubling.

but for some reason people seem to be getting so hung up on particulars of his search that your missing the greater narrative, the self-organizing universe. he went in search of a narrative on prophecy and, much like what he found in the crop circles, he found himself creating that prophetic narrative within his own reality tunnel. he went in search of greater freedoms from cultural moores and found more of himself, most of it not necessarily comforting i wouldn't think.

it's mind boggling to me - and a faire lithmus test on where we are as a species - that even the members of this board, who read daniel's posts day in and day out, and are of a typically self-proclaimed more open bent, even you missed a deeper discovery of the nature of consciousness and the human condition because you had your beliefs tickled the wrong way for a bit.

wasn't his thesis implying beliefs are more of a symbolic artifact to create reality rather than something that is absolute? and yet here we are working so hard for our beliefs that we fail to see the deeper contours existence.

is everybody just looking for a book to support whatever belief structure they have so they can sing along choir style and be comfortable or are you actually open to explore and maybe see some ugliness you might rather not bring up to your fellow 'tribesman' while you pass another bowl?

i saw ROQ not as a proclamation from a self-aggrandazing 'messiah', but the honest exploration of a phenomenon many poeple have on psychedelics but few talk about for fear of sounding like a meglomaniacal asshole. i saw ROQ not as a flag flying for fucking everything that moves, but a very personal struggle with giving and receiving effection, an investigation we could all stand to participate in. i saw ROQ not as a book to hold up to show how successful humanity can be at existing, but more a mirror to show how familiar it is to fail and how important it is to still continue looking.

and in a sense i think ROQ does offer a certain forclosure of evidence on how to survive the coming days ahead of us, or at least how to live in them. there is a certain aggressive zen wedded into the language of the text. a calling to put one's house in order as the mercury rises on all the world's cultures. there were not many hard answers offered, but certainly there was a template for asking some of the right questions.

i feel like many people's problem with the book is that they expected somebody to give them some rallying cries to crawl up on and sit comfortably through future conversations on. i think people really expected some kind of prefabbed hippie morality to hang onto and talk about with other hippies. i think people expected some strange abstraction of their own heads to come along and strike them as new found wisdom.

well, i'm not sure how much wisdom is available in ROQ, though it is overflowing with bravery and honesty, and it seems to me that if you've got the latter two in spades wisdom is not long behind.

huge props daniel, it was a beautiful, brave, and tarnished read, you can take your seat amongst some of the greatest american writers and explorers as far as i'm concerned. god speed.

[Dna]

it destroyed any pleasure or relevance i might have found in his ideas or speculations Johnny - don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The world is not black and white, you know. Someone can behave in a way you disagree with and still have something valid to offer you, if you look.

Sire_12 - good post. On the money. Daniel comes across as someone who allows themselves to feel what they feel, which requires courage and which can be very shitty.

Dna.

[ May 30, 2006, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: Dna ]

[johnny]

hey guys, i was responding to m twilite's assumption that i and someone else had some sex hang-ups. who's zooming who and how is really beside the point

not throwing the baby out with the bathwater either, i'd just like daniel to clear some things up in this strange area of gender assignment he's stumbled into.

my suggestion is he sit down with the Mother and the Magdelene or ramakrishna or auribindo and posit some of those same theories, and you know, see what the response is. it's not flying with me, is all.

i think my response is fine, actually, and doesn't speak to a shutting down or closing off of his other ideas and experiences i've never mocked a doctrine of oneness or an experience of love, in fact i might be it's most passionate exponent. and i know there are others. i just really don't think you can lump any gender into any archetype and not get into trouble. things simply don't work that way, no matter what the elves tell you.

[johnny]

and i think daniel should also read some judith butler.

hate to do that to you kid, but if i have to plow through osho, you should read judi.
judith butler on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Butler)

[johnny]

ok last thing and then i'll shut up.

i TOTALLY sympathize with daniel. i dated some people from wesleyan. freakshow central.

peace out.

[Douglas]

Sex without commitment is, well, immature and selfish. It's not a sign of enlightenment or superior insight or knowledge.

[sidecross]

I found the points brought up about daniel’s point of view, either for or against, to be quite legitimate. No one was slamming daniel as a writer; I find his writing to be way above average. But to confuse good writing with its content is miss represent the purpose of a bath; the ‘throwing out the baby with the bath water’ is a misrepresentation of those of us who have made critical comments in good faith.

I have begun reading the book and have no doubts on daniel being an exceptional writer, but this does not mean one has to agree with his position on everything he writes.

What I found troubling about his view towards monogamy and a multi sexual partner alternative was demonstrated before I ever reached the introduction.

The book begins at the bottom of the first page with “For my daughter”.

I found the “my” to be symbolic of patriarchy; the words “our daughter” would have been better. Best would have been to just write “For” and then just insert his daughter’s name.

Terrance McKenna often said the beginning of “Patriarchy” began when the male deduced his sexual activity with a certain woman 9 months previously was “his” child. The long slog into Patriarchy was thus begun.

[Thom]

Good post sire. I haven't finished the book yet, but so far i've found it a lot more complex than I had anticipated after reading the DailyGrail review.

It deserves more than one reading certainly.

[Gift Horse]

You voiced some of my sentiments very nicely, Sidecross.

This is a "discussion" board.

Because I wish to respond to some threads and not others does not mean I am not interested to read and learn from other subjects.

If I wish to voice an opinion about what I have actually heard Daniel say on a radio interview, I think that its appropriate.

If fact, I am grateful that Daniel has a discussion forum. When I heard him on the radio, I thought, "Man, I'd like to have the opportunity to ask him some questions!"

Over the last couple of years I have participated on this forum, rarely has Daniel answered me.

I have accepted this, and I am very happy when others on this forum have responded. I appreciate everyone's input and have enjoyed the sharing.
peace

[daniel]

gift horse,

i am sorry if i haven't replied to your posts - i don't usually think about whether or not i am responding to a particular person's posts. i just lob something into the discussion when i feel i have something to say.

sire,

thanks for that beautiful write-up. i would love it if you would post some version of this on amazon.

on the question, of possible answers or "solutions" offered in the book (a long digression: i have been skimming Al Gore's book that is a companion to the new film, and I find him so depressingly disingenuous, saying in the beginning that there are "solutions" for the current climate crisis - it is so clear he is simply repositioning himself for a bid for president, after spending 8 years supporting NAFTA and the World Bank as Vice President, this feels shameless. I am seeing the film tonight and will then write more), I have been discussing this in a forum on tribe.net on "year2012". Here are the relevant posts:

http://2012.tribe.net/thread/cf327756-acae-4251-9ebc-5b1c1b8d2c98

Re: Pinchbeck's Book
Fri, May 26, 2006 - 12:12 PM
so i finished the book...

...im not sure what i learned or if i learned anything tangible that can
be described with words...as t mc k once said: the brighter the bonfire
the more surrounding darkness is revieled..

so i dont think i walked away with any anwers
im just more suspicious of how i view things
from a rational standpoint...maybe more trusting of my intuition

i'll say this..those radio interviews with the sirus guys and art bell jr
were painfully obtuse...so even thought im clueless about the world(s)
i feel im a little better of than those schumcks
reply to this post
#

*
Daniel
Daniel Pinchbeck
online 91
Re: Pinchbeck's Book
Sat, May 27, 2006 - 12:26 PM
Hi Xodman,

I want to say I appreciated your log of thoughts and impressions while reading my book. I will try to answer your questions.

As to why I omitted Leary, I just couldn’t cover everything! I had to go with what I was drawn toward – I also omitted Nostradomus, plus a number of prophecies from other Native American cultures (such as “White Buffalo Girl”) that would have supported my thesis. The eight circuit model seems interesting, but I have not yet explored it in depth. I am more drawn toward Stan Grof and his model of the perinetal matrices, and the relationship between birth trauma and transpersonal experience (also its relationship to astrology, via the work of Richard Tarnas), but wasn’t able to incorporate that in the book either.

As for “answers”, I feel that I do provide a number of possible conclusions, but I also leave it up to the reader to sort through these possibilities. I didn’t want to impose my answers, but let people work it through the material on their own, so they can integrate the new perspective or paradigm I am offering. If I try to separate some of these hypothetical “answers”, they include the following:

1. Perhaps I am offering a kind of “system software upgrade” for the modern mind, which has been trapped in dualism, literalism, and rational materialism. I am saying that “rationality” has to open up to include actual, tangible factors of reality that are left out of the materialist paradigm – psychic phenomena, for instance, and transpersonal experience, and the “reality of the psyche.” By making this shift in perspective, you reorient yourself in relationship to the world and the cosmos. Because we create systems and technologies based on our perspectival relationship to time and space, this might allow for a deepseated shift in the nature of our world.

2. Our civilizational crisis is based on a wrong relationship to time, and this can potentially be overcome through a new calendar that would place us in a new “timing frequency.” This is Arguelles’ idea – but I carefully critique the calendar he has created. I argue that we will need a global meeting of minds – astronomers, physicists, shamans, mystics, astrologers – to create a new calendar and harmonic timing frequency, meshed with the physical reality of the surrounding universe. A new timing frequency would be retroactive as well as projective, so we would be able to do away with nationstate charters, Third World debt structures, unfair legal codes, etc. We could create a new harmonic template for a compassion-based planetary civilization without artificial borders or boundaries.

3. My own narrative suggests that those of us who are currently outside the power structure and have been intensifying our consciousness and deepening our awareness over the last decades may turn out to constitute a new “elite class” that will supplant the current political and economic leadership during an imminently approaching crisis. As previous revolutions – such as the French Revolution – indicate, there is a natural process in which a ruling class becomes increasingly out of touch with visceral reality, until that class can no longer maintain order. At that point, the class that has attained a deeper attunement to the truth of their time naturally emerge into prominence. Although this was a violent and chaotic process in the past, if we can understand and integrate the pattern at a deeper level before the crisis happens, we can ready ourselves for being leaders in this shift to a new form of social organization. I believe this process is also carefully explored in Tao do Ching and the I Ching.

4. We co-create reality through the activity of consciousness and our directed intention. Therefore, we have to take careful stock of our intentions and how we direct our psychic energy. If we are obsessed with apocalypse and collapse, or enmeshed in paranoid conspiracy, we help to bring those results into manifestation. I agree with Arguelles that the “job” of the visionary is to envision the best possible outcome for humanity – by realizing and holding the higher frequency, we help to bring new possibilities into manifestation.

5. The importance of psychedelic investigation and the transpersonal domain: The book suggests that what is taking place is a nondual process of consciousness evolution – we have to simultaneously do the painful work on ourselves, master ourselves, in order to bring about positive transformation of the world.

6. A huge amount of trapped and wasted psychic energy is embedded in sexuality and love relationships, and we need to bring this area up to a much higher level of conscious awareness and articulation. Women have as much work as men in realizing and reintegrating their shadow projections – much of the feminine “will to power” manifests in the arena of personal relationships, with devastating consequences. This turns out to be very hard work on a personal level. A transformation in our realization of eros – also a resacralization of eros - may be necessary before we can make a positive transformation of the world.

7. The most extraordinary and sophisticated reading of the Mayan Calendar by Calleman suggests that breakdown is coming very soon – 2008, give or take a few months. This may seem over literal- but I think his reasoning is quite sound. This also fits with other predictions I have seen – Peak Oil etc – and also intuitively seems to fit with the sense of accelerating entropy now prevalent. Therefore, those of us who may as I said above become the elite of a new planetary civilization have just until that time to prepare – I would like to see the widespread dissemination of a new paradigm including sustainability, alternative energy and permaculture tools, new media expressing a positive vision of human possibilities, as well as wider dissemination of shamanism and other techniques of personal transformation.

8. We are in the same situation today with psychic power as people were in the 1750s with electricity: They had experienced lightning and static shocks but had no idea how to bring it down into the world to create an industrial grid. Many of us are experiencing upsurges of synchronicity and psychic phenomena (part of the process of the “coming of the self” revealing the “reality of the psyche.”), which suggest that the new “mutational” shift in consciousness will allow us to understand and access psychic energy in new ways, by integrating intuitive and rational modes of cognition. We can begin to envision what support systems for this transformation might be like, as that visioning process will help bring it into realization.

Does this help at all?

reply to this post
*
o
Xodman
Xodman
offline 17
Re: Pinchbeck's Book
Yesterday, 10:44 AM
daniel,
thank you so much for responding
again i think it's really cool to be able to
interact with writers and such in 'real time'
it's like being able to ask Melville about what
he was saying about capt vere's relation to authority
or asking James Joyce "what the hell are you talking about anyways?"

a bit about leary...
as i have noted previously...there seems to be a lot of hostility to him in the
academic psychedellic world...although i suspect a lot of it is posturing...but im glad your omission is not an outright snub

but leary talks about the industrial vs. the post industrial specis of humans
(he is exazerating a lot to make a point)
but one is programmed to work with machines and tools an the other computers
ideas and information. the cut off is around the time of the post wwIII 'kantun'
he claims that certain circuits have been 'tunrned on' and others off
so that perceptions are differnt across the two specis...nothing dramatic like
being able to see depth percetion but minor varation givng rise to the idea that
consciness is flexable AND that an evolution to a higher state is possible

also...
you work is somewhat comprable to john horgan's "rational mysticsm"
although his skepticism in parts is forced and somtimes bordering on bitchy
(you seem to have genuine doubts)
i dont know if you've read this but in one of the last chapters he interviews mc kenna
(a month before he found the brain tumor)
his lens of skepticism is very helpful in understanding t mc k...he usually appears in contexts where
he is not challenged (esalen lectures) or where he has to explain so much that the important stuff has no time to be discussed (art bell...im sure you know the feeling)

anyways t mc k admits (under direct questioning) that he's not totally sold on the timewave either and much of his 'performance art' is just a means of getting like minded (acid heads) people together to grok on stuff like globalism the internet etc....

i dont know (leary's last words)
but i think the important thing is to BE in the question
(i think this is leary too) and the book helped break open
my head more...

horgan also interviews grof
i think i will dedicate another posting to
grof and lilly (also omitted...but i understand why)
but maybe tomarrow...great book...hope to get it signed at
city lights

namaste
Xodman

[daniel]

also on that same forum, i have been engaging in a long running argument with mayan scholar john hoopes, formerly a BoTH boarder, who accuses me of "wide-eyed gullibility", being "manipulative", and reduces the argument of the book to something akin to creationism:

http://2012.tribe.net/thread/348cfd7e-ab99-44c3-8b0d-9928cc2aa858

[sidecross]

Xodman’s quote should have been “the bigger the bonfire the more darkness is revealed” and Terrence was quoting his brother Dennis McKenna.

[sidecross]

Originally posted by daniel:
also on that same forum, i have been engaging in a long running argument with mayan scholar john hoopes, formerly a BoTH boarder, who accuses me of "wide-eyed gullibility", being "manipulative", and reduces the argument of the book to something akin to creationism:

http://2012.tribe.net/thread/348cfd7e-ab99-44c3-8b0d-9928cc2aa858I just read it, and I feel dizzy.

[M. Twilite]

Johnny writes:

i was and am appalled by daniel's misogyny and essentialist reading of gender. it destroyed any pleasure or relevance i might have found in his ideas or speculations, and in particular for me, gave me serious pause. i just think he's dead wrong.
I think you are attempting to deal with feelings on this issue by explaining them away as "sex stuff" which has no bearing on the task at hand.

Henry Miller, Hemingway, Chandler, whomever, all may "be" misogynists, but their stories can be read in such a way as to expose them as such, they critique their own perspectives, the impossibility of a "correct" viewpoint. To judge others as misogynist is to miss the whole point of analysis, to implicate yourself in your own analysis, whether you want to or not.

Don't you feel that, instead of merely responding angrily to material you find offensive, it would be more constructive to explore how and why the subject elicits such a strong response in you?

Instead you seem to want it both ways, on the one hand, you dismiss "sexual conquest" as unimportant and juvenile, then you say it ruined the whole book for you.

Instead of throwing out the baby OR the bathwater, I'd urge you to examine first the unexamined are in your psyche that responds so angrily to a baby in a bathtub.

I don't mean to criticize your response or label it "wrong" -- only that it's one thing to say "This material offended me" and another to say "this material IS offensive."

Of course my own need to convince you of this implicates me in all sorts of ways... of that I am painfully aware. tongue.gif

[ May 31, 2006, 08:01 AM: Message edited by: M. Twilite ]

[willoweyes]

Hey, did somebody in this thread accuse women of being "castrating"?

I thought I read something like that.

The blood libel of being a woman. . . .

It is a statistically validated fact that most castrations are carried out by men on other men.

[johnny]

we're cool, m twilite. that made me laugh.

sure, i'll implicate myself all over in my response. i fully recognize daniel's point about there being repressed and stagnant energies that need tending to between the sexes and in sexuality in general. anybody who's been in relationship to anyone else sees this at work. people work that out in all sorts of interesting ways. or don't.

but i don't like misogyny. that doesn't mean i don't like men. see the difference?

[johnny]

i think m twilite had said that he finished school after undergoing a "feminist" curriculum and felt castrated? that's sad. because gender theory is really fun, i think.

also, i was giggling too hard to answer your questions.

Henry Miller, Hemingway, Chandler, whomever, all may "be" misogynists, but their stories can be read in such a way as to expose them as such, they critique their own perspectives, the impossibility of a "correct" viewpoint. To judge others as misogynist is to miss the whole point of analysis, to implicate yourself in your own analysis, whether you want to or not.

Instead you seem to want it both ways, on the one hand, you dismiss "sexual conquest" as unimportant and juvenile, then you say it ruined the whole book for you. i *love* all those authors you mentioned, unqualifiably and completely. i really do. The Sun Also Rises is one of my favorite books. they don't necessarily critique their own perspectives either, but i find that fascinating too. Look, if you role-play during sex, you're critiquing things as far as i'm concerned and i think that's great. like, who's the pirate tonight, honey?

but i think i stated my point pretty clearly too: both sexes have work to do in regards to one another, yes. but so do men and men and women and women. humans basically need to deal with eachother. you cannot throw archetypal roles around when you are discussing your failures in marriage, relationship or the future of the planet. because basically you didn't want to commit doesn't mean that Kali was in bed next to you, destroyer of illusion. maybe your wife/lover just didn't want to deal with your bullshit.

also, i don't think daniel had a very clear reading of kali. btw. that's not how i've experienced her.

[M. Twilite]

because basically you didn't want to commit doesn't mean that Kali was in bed next to you, destroyer of illusion. maybe your wife/lover just didn't want to deal with your bullshit. I don't see the difference.

Why would anyone want to commit to someone who wasn't willing to deal with their bullshit?

The very language seems to implicate that the man is guilty here, by wanting to "run away" even as the woman gives him endless amounts of shit. She's right, he's wrong... just by virtue of their positions -- the long suffering woman, the no good man.

Daniel's argument is that woman are as to blame as men for the misery of the modern marriage.

KALI!!! KALI!!!

[johnny]

well yes. it would be weird if the woman was saying, "hey krishna, turn your blue love light down, i can't see.". you're missing my point tho: i'm not blaming anyone.

and of course that's what tantra does. the divine inhabits the secular quite nicely in those moments. but it's my undertanding that in tantra or any sacred marriage work, it's best to be with one partner. i could be wrong on this, but i think in some schools that's a rule.