Red Feather's Comment Two Days Ago

Jo Red Feathers comment two days ago deserves careful consideration.  In case you didn't read Jo's comment it was as follows.

"WOW!!!! You have truly lost it! You are almost as weird as Carlos Castaneta. He was not only weird but a total fraud. In The Power and the Allegory, De Mille compared The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge with Castaneda's library stack requests at the University of California. The stack requests documented that he was sitting in the library when allegedly his journal said he was squatting in Don Juan's hut. One discovery that de Mille made in his examination of the stack requests was that when Castaneda was alleged to have said that he was participating in the traditional peyote ceremony—the least fantastic episode of drug use—he was sitting in the UCLA library and he was reading someone else's description of their experience of the peyote ceremony. Other criticisms of Castaneda's work include the total lack of Yaqui vocabulary or terms for any of his experiences.
Let us examine Red Feathers comment beginning with the observation that there was a total lack of Yaqui vocabulary in terms of Castaneda's experiences.  First off Castnaeda didn't use a journal as Red Feather claims, instead he used  "field notes" which is what sociologists and scientists use for research and he wasn't a Yaqui Indian.  Why would he use Yaqui language in field notes unless Don Juan used the language?  If Red Feather wishes exact vocabulary then using"journal" as a substitution for "field notes" is a pretty serious vocabulary error, and some would claim it was an intentional attempt to negate the importance of field notes for studies of anthropological nature.  Red Feather apparently has not read Castaneda's wife's book where she writes that Castaneda's field notes were destroyed in a flood in her basement which I can relate to personally as my operations were hindered by a flooded, damp environment.  Now let us examine Red Feathers vocabulary in terms of  Castaneda.....spelled Castaneda rather than Castaneta.....allegedly sitting in a library rather than participating in the "traditional" peyote ceremony.  Did we read the same book Red Feather?  What part of the experience that you read, and I read was "traditional".  It seemed rather impromptu to me from what I have read about traditional peyote ceremony.  Much like any other drug deal and subsequent experience.  One guy shows up, another guy has the dope....and they get stoned together all threee, and the new guy drinks out of the dog bowl as the onlookers howl in laughter.  That doesn't strike me as traditional at all and once again your attempt through language to discredit him is transparent in the vocabulary you use.  "The least fantastic episode of drug use" is of course subjective to the user, not the evaluator Red Feather.  Who are you to say that Carlos Castaneda's episode with peyote and the porch dog, wasn't as spectacular as your best LSD trip.  We don't know.  Your judging the profound experience of one man by the writing of another.  You should be ashamed of yourself.  And while it is true that without the "field notes" to back up Castaneda's PHD, he was published across the street at a Berkeley Puliching House and on the best seller list before the committee decided to give him his degree.  I think that is a sort of magical feat and the fact that his "character" Don Juan Mateus ended up in Who's Who In America books but Castaneda was not in the book, even more of a magical trick.  I applaud the trickster that comes through in all of Castaneda's mentors throughout his books rather than label Don Juan, Castaneda, or me for that matter as a fraud.  Go read Castaneda's wife's book, then read Castaneda again, and then if you want reread De Milles work.  Work on your own vocabulary and descriptions, judge less, and steer clear on name calling.  Beware of the pitfalls of your own thinking.  You remind me of my landlords workman that tried to give me an illusion of a dry basement prior to me moving into my house on Paul Drive.  He supposedly is an Indian also...but my impression of him is tainted by memories of him trying to steal my tools.  I watched him carefully and at times, I believed I was watching a man stop the water from ruining my tools and equipment.  Instead, he was drawing a paycheck, creating the illusion of stopping the water and walking off with my push broom.  Not bad for a days labor!  But it was an illusion to lure me into the space, and then to extract money from me every month continuing to create the illusion of dry.  If I had only watched Mark the "alleged" Indian and his remedies for the floods, then I would have had no need to go down into the basement each time it rained to see for myself.  She was a fraud, he was a fraud, and what they created was an illusion together.  Perhaps you think that is weird.  But no it is not weird.  It is the way that lazy people problem solve, and avoid telling the truth.  Like Castaneda wrote that Don Juan said "this world is illusion".  Much time was spent between the two of them trying to hash out what was real and what was not real.  My landlord and her workman only tried to make the illusion of dry basement.  I am grateful that I have read enough to not trust what I am told, and not everything I see....otherwise my tools would be destroyed and I would have been $2000 poorer.  Castaneda's books point to being able to really see vs. just ordinary seeing.  Had I not had those books under my belt, I could have been tricked into seeing a dry basement while standing in two inches of water.  Red Feather, stop pissing down my neck and telling me it is raining!