I just submitted a response to a commenter in your /EBEs SubReddit post who was attacking Castaneda. It may have been a mistake, we'll see. But it prompted me to write on how I see detractors, not just of Castaneda, but of anyone who brings new and controversial ideas to society.One has to only look at the quality of life of these individuals, and at their psychology.
First are those in a gilded cage. If they are comfortable in their social standing, well off financially, and believe they have everything in hand and under their own control...then they will attack anyone and anything that seeks to upset that illusion of control or the source of their standing. This includes belief systems that they cannot profit from. Losing followers from an existing one that does profit them would be a undesirable trend that must be invalidated at it's source, the originator/guru/prophet.
If they are lost and without a rudder, they will attack out of spite and loneliness; hoping to draw others into their lost and powerless condition. Misery loves company.
Some just enjoy pushing people's buttons and attacking beliefs for shits and giggles. They may see themselves as agents of chaos, poking holes in the world to see others scramble to patch them up, or fail and see them bleed. It's one of the few joys they get in life. They may also secretly want to see if people succeed, letting others do the dirty work only to swoop in after it's been "proven" and surreptitiously join the herd.
There's also the "ignorant know-it-all" that seeks to invalidate things they don't understand or that make them feel weak, unaccomplished, stupid or out-of-the-loop. Think moon-landing hoax types.
Another subset are the learned and authoritatively egotistical know-it-all's convinced that they are righteous and always right and everyone else it bonkers; a response to information overload and a type that the internet and universities seem to be churning out in droves.
[-]
u/danl999
4 points2019-08-26 15:57
It's all true, but you can't fight against it. It's pointless. And it'll keep you from having your own cool experiences everyday.
You have to get free from it, which does not include fighting it.
And the range of people exhibiting this bad behavior isn't limited to the categories you mention. It's EVERYONE.
As best I can make out, the rules are designed to keep our assemblage points in a very narrow range.
The odd thing about that is, you can't just make rules about what's "real", and what's "delusion". Those aren't enough to prevent the second attention from leaking in.
You also have to make rules designed to mess up our motivations. For example, the range of things you can discuss in a mixed person setting. Some of those rules completely pull the wool over everyone's eyes, so if you threaten that with what you say, you'll get attacked by even a nun. Mother Teresa herself would assault you, if you broke one of her coveted speaking rules.
Just give it up and learn to get silent, so you aren't doing the same thing to yourself in your head all day long.
[-]
u/TechnoMagical_Intent
1 points2019-08-26 16:48
Since u/orionstarseed posted his new linked post here I felt a tiny obligation to offer a response to aid a potential beginner in their initial doubts. I hate to see momentum squashed before it gets a chance to become something, certainly not from an undiscussed challenge to it's validity from a Troll.
But I do NOT seek them out for conversational sport. My "withhold attention from those who crave it" motto still holds.
[-]
u/danl999
1 points2019-08-26 15:51
> probably the only one that I will ever have in my life
I have experiences wilder than that everyday. Why exactly can't you learn to do it also?
4 Comments
I just submitted a response to a commenter in your /EBEs SubReddit post who was attacking Castaneda. It may have been a mistake, we'll see. But it prompted me to write on how I see detractors, not just of Castaneda, but of anyone who brings new and controversial ideas to society.One has to only look at the quality of life of these individuals, and at their psychology.
First are those in a gilded cage. If they are comfortable in their social standing, well off financially, and believe they have everything in hand and under their own control...then they will attack anyone and anything that seeks to upset that illusion of control or the source of their standing. This includes belief systems that they cannot profit from. Losing followers from an existing one that does profit them would be a undesirable trend that must be invalidated at it's source, the originator/guru/prophet.
If they are lost and without a rudder, they will attack out of spite and loneliness; hoping to draw others into their lost and powerless condition. Misery loves company.
Some just enjoy pushing people's buttons and attacking beliefs for shits and giggles. They may see themselves as agents of chaos, poking holes in the world to see others scramble to patch them up, or fail and see them bleed. It's one of the few joys they get in life. They may also secretly want to see if people succeed, letting others do the dirty work only to swoop in after it's been "proven" and surreptitiously join the herd.
There's also the "ignorant know-it-all" that seeks to invalidate things they don't understand or that make them feel weak, unaccomplished, stupid or out-of-the-loop. Think moon-landing hoax types.
Another subset are the learned and authoritatively egotistical know-it-all's convinced that they are righteous and always right and everyone else it bonkers; a response to information overload and a type that the internet and universities seem to be churning out in droves.
It's all true, but you can't fight against it. It's pointless. And it'll keep you from having your own cool experiences everyday.
You have to get free from it, which does not include fighting it.
And the range of people exhibiting this bad behavior isn't limited to the categories you mention. It's EVERYONE.
As best I can make out, the rules are designed to keep our assemblage points in a very narrow range.
The odd thing about that is, you can't just make rules about what's "real", and what's "delusion". Those aren't enough to prevent the second attention from leaking in.
You also have to make rules designed to mess up our motivations. For example, the range of things you can discuss in a mixed person setting. Some of those rules completely pull the wool over everyone's eyes, so if you threaten that with what you say, you'll get attacked by even a nun. Mother Teresa herself would assault you, if you broke one of her coveted speaking rules.
Just give it up and learn to get silent, so you aren't doing the same thing to yourself in your head all day long.
Since u/orionstarseed posted his new linked post here I felt a tiny obligation to offer a response to aid a potential beginner in their initial doubts. I hate to see momentum squashed before it gets a chance to become something, certainly not from an undiscussed challenge to it's validity from a Troll.
But I do NOT seek them out for conversational sport. My "withhold attention from those who crave it" motto still holds.
> probably the only one that I will ever have in my life
I have experiences wilder than that everyday. Why exactly can't you learn to do it also?