11-26-2011, 12:01 AM
There's a wee problem with “I experienced it.” And that is, the same “I” interpreted the experience. It's quite possible the interpretation could be flawed, let alone that possibly not all of the experience was recalled correctly, or that all aspects of the experience were paid attention to or even recalled. IOW, memory being selective, it's quite conceivable personal bias has colored the experience.
What books like Castaneda's are helpful for, minimally, is corroboration. If the data used for corroboration is proven to be, or even suspected to be, fraudulent, what then of the potential validity of one's recollected experience?
In my opinion, the books are most helpful in presenting techniques for valuable explorations of self leading to better understanding of self, and perhaps even to what I consider a most worthwhile goal, that of attaining the totality of self. Whether or not CC was a fraud, in this case, is irrelevant. The techniques provided work. It's easy to ignore the hooks that draw many, that of super powers and abilities and magical nonsense.
What books like Castaneda's are helpful for, minimally, is corroboration. If the data used for corroboration is proven to be, or even suspected to be, fraudulent, what then of the potential validity of one's recollected experience?
In my opinion, the books are most helpful in presenting techniques for valuable explorations of self leading to better understanding of self, and perhaps even to what I consider a most worthwhile goal, that of attaining the totality of self. Whether or not CC was a fraud, in this case, is irrelevant. The techniques provided work. It's easy to ignore the hooks that draw many, that of super powers and abilities and magical nonsense.