...So, did DJ and his party really existed? (sorry for the ruthless "2" options)


Author Topic: Hello.  (Read 25042 times)


  • scout
  • *
  • Posts: 32
Programmed to receive...?
« Reply #30 on: 11 April 2013 03:30:04 AM »
-Philosophy ...

From the famous Eagles' song.

Are we programmed to receive?
« Last Edit: 11 April 2013 03:32:52 AM by card9ats »


  • scout
  • *
  • Posts: 32
Re: Programmed to receive...?
« Reply #31 on: 11 April 2013 03:41:21 AM »

I used to say No,

from my anarchy-resistance upbringing

but I find myself saying "oh, we 're programmed to receive." ...

what do you think about it ? Of the lyric or in general .



  • scout
  • Posts: 284
Re: Programmed to receive...?
« Reply #32 on: 11 April 2013 10:24:42 PM »
Por el camino del desierto
El viento me despeina
Sube el aroma de colita
Luna, luna de nadie
Ella a lo lejos
Una luz centela
La idea de mi estar
Quedar por la noche
Alli estaba a la entrada
Y las campanas a sonar
Y me di con llamarme mismo
Que es puerta del cielo
Ella enciende una vela
En muestra del camino
Suenan voces en el corredor
Y lo que indican diciendo

Welcome to the Hotel California
Such a lovely place
Such a lovely place (2x)

Ella al lado que brillaba
Tenia una Mercedes
Rodeada de chicos guapos
Ella llamaba amigos
Cuando viene despacio
Del tumba de verano
Aquel era pa’recordar
Y otro pa’ olvidar
Le pedi al capitan
Que sirve el vino
Y pedi con un amor
Tenido este alcohol
De este sesenta y nueve
Famosa y que llamando
Pues me va a despertar
La noche para decir


El espejo en el techo
Champana en el hielo
Y ella dijo somos todos prisioneros
De propia voluntad
Y en los cuartos principales
Hacen sucias esta
Hasta aca a la bestia
Pero no la logra a matar

Mi ultimo recuerdo
Corria hacia la puerta
Ver una candela en el camino
Por donde habia llegado
Relax dijo el portero
Por mi es honor recibir
Puede salir cuando quiere
Pero nunca yo partir

Mr X

  • unpinged
  • Posts: 306
Well maybe beals just thought he sounded like an generic shaman. 1968 seems pretty early on, its

Waving datura smoke around could be from anything, maybe an book he read or an hippy / drug culture
thing. i think the behaviour changes are more interesting, as and lot of the casta magic that isnt
paranormal or magic reliant is behaviour based, such as warriors and stalkers.
it would be interested to see and anthropology guy look at casta things an different way. such as put
it through the filter of cold brutal darwinism / evolution as an starting point for example. an lot of
the no magics parts seem to involve manipulation, total disconnection from the social order while being
an part of it, and not caring / sweet ruthless in an predatory world, all while not being an sociopath.

i find it interested whether he had an informant or whether he made it up, how did he come up with
those ideas. doubly interested that regardless, he did spawn some sort of strange semi spiritual
movment. what is that movement, what do those "toltec warriors" get out it ? is in any way similiar to
the coldness of don juan, or more like how christians dont reflect baby jesus ?
i can imagine old crusty anthros thinking of of stock standard ways to interpret something that have no
frame of reference for, and getting annoyed when it doesnt fit their stock frames of reference.

sr do seem to mess up at times with their zest. it is understandable that at an certain point they
would just want to win, after months or even years of daily belifers saying stupid things. even if
winning an arguement involves bring up incredibly stupid things like "har har , castaneda like to have
sex with women, so he was an pervert". what ever it takes, just to win, it seems quite human really.
after long enough, they might even forget the little comprimises they took along the way, the little
lies they told themsleves, just to win that day, and in the end they blocked out all sorts of paths of

for the casta question, it seems there is still some unsolved mystery, it would be good to know the
full story even if it just something as medicore as he read some books and came up with some stuff,
or met an stoner who called himself don juan.

the "what is castanedas legacy ?" question is still may favourite one despite everything.
beals, meighan, sorry for the mix up. i dont know who either of them are.



  • scout
  • Posts: 284
Hi x.  Do you understand what nick is saying?

"As long as one becomes a skeptical being .. the battle is lost."

The word 'becomes' is puzzling in that context.  Perhaps he simply meant 'is' ... i.e., as long as one *is* a skeptical being, the battle is lost ...

and if one could somehow stop being a skeptical being, then the battle might begin to be won, or at least be less lost.

Or perhaps he meant that it is a long-drawn-out process of *becoming* a skeptical being which is the real battle-loser.

i.e. if one could simply manage to complete the process of *becoming* a skeptical being, and actually *be* one, then there might be an improvement in one's military fortune.

Anyway, what is this battle he is talking about?  I tried asking "what battle is lost as long as one becomes a skeptical being?", and the answer was (or appeared to be),

"You get to think."

Is he saying that skeptics "get to think", and that this somehow constitutes losing a battle?

Or perhaps he wasn't actually answering my question.  Perhaps he was pointedly not answering it, and thereby was giving me an opportunity to think.

Which is what I've been doing.  Here is the thought I've come up with:

Nick, please consider posting in Greek.  Your meaning might become clearer.


  • scout
  • *
  • Posts: 32
Οταν ένας άνθρωπος γίνεται ένα σκεπτικό ον, δεν υπάρχει ακριβής όρος γι' αυτό,
Δεν εννοώ ότι παύει να σκέφτεται, παύει να βρίσκεται σε ισορροπία με τον κόσμο.<Τώρα μιλάω λίγο σα φιλόσοφος ..

θα το μεταφράσω και στα αγγλικά.

When a man becomes is a way a skeptical being, finds himself disconnected from the real world.

Ο άνθρωπος είναι σώμα, μυαλό και πνεύμα, για να λειτουρήσει ως πρέπει πρέπει να μη χρησιμοποιεί το μυαλό του ξεχωριστά, ή αν προτιμάς σαν κάτι ξέχωρο γιατί αυτό τον διαχωρίζει.Όχι μόνο από το σώμα και το πνεύμα του, αλλά σαν άνθρωπο.

Δε χρειάζεται να μιλάμε χωρίς λόγο.

Mr X

  • unpinged
  • Posts: 306
i dont read greek but - how would a man be able to determine the real world if he was not skeptical. he needs some way of filtering the countless unreal worlds. being skeptical towards the many unfounded things seems like an good idea. even religious people are atheists towards all the other gods that are not their own god.

some people think dinosaur bones are put in the ground by satan to test the belifers faith, as they think the world is 6000 years old. if those people were suddenly skeptical, the battle would be just starting for them.



  • scout
  • *
  • Posts: 32

There is being skeptical and being-becoming a skeptical being. -I used the word becoming as a final outcome of the being/state of being of somebody.



  • scout
  • Posts: 284
The way you expressed it in Greek is fascinating: Οταν ένας άνθρωπος γίνεται ένα σκεπτικό ον (skeptiko on) ... when a man becomes a skeptical being  ... ον (on) 'being' ... that is, presumably, 'on' as in 'ontology' (οντολογία: onto-, from the Greek ὤν, ὄντος 'being; that which is') ... one is reminded especially of Anselm's ontological proof of the existence of god,

It is one thing for an object to be in the understanding, and another to understand that the object exists. When a painter first conceives of what he will afterwards perform, he has it in his understanding, but be does not yet understand it to be, because he has not yet performed it. But after he has made the painting, he both has it in his understanding, and he understands that it exists, because he has made it.

Hence, even the fool is convinced that something exists in the understanding, at least, than which nothing greater can be conceived. For, when he hears of this, he understands it. And whatever is understood, exists in the understanding. And assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For, suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater.

Therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, exists in the understanding alone, the very being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one, than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Hence, there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality.

~Saint Anselm


  • scout
  • *
  • Posts: 32

I have somewhere hidden a philosopher in me .


  • scout
  • *
  • Posts: 32
You may like this.

Post by female warrior


  • scout
  • Posts: 284
No I don' t think anyone liked that.  Do you like it?  I had a quick look.  I noted that it is written by a member of the fairer sex.  But even after switching off most of my skeptical faculties, as is appropriate when dealing with such a situation, I couldn't figure out what it could be about it that you might have liked.

σκεπτικός (skeptikos, “thoughtful, inquiring”)


  • scout
  • *
  • Posts: 32

σκεπτικός (skeptikos, “thoughtful, inquiring”)

Things are more simple than you think ...


...On the other hand, -do what you love. ---
« Last Edit: 07 June 2013 08:35:30 AM by card9ats »


  • scout
  • *
  • Posts: 32

I 'm off this place, enjoy.


  • scout
  • Posts: 284
Goodbye, take care, u2enjoy