Yes, I definitely agree we must strengthen both. And integrate both.

And I like the poem!

i sent geoff this response to his review:

Hi Geoff,

Thanks for your careful analysis of the errors in the details of my new book. While working on it, I often longed for the help of a researcher, especially one competent in mathematical and numerical specifics. I had to produce the work under a low budget and facing extreme deadline pressure – from the publisher, but also from myself, as I felt a great urgency to have these ideas in circulation before the “end of the cycle” could come any closer. I will seek to fix the inaccuracies in future editions.

In your review, there is one shocking error, which I would ask you to rectify right away. I do not support Jose Arguelles’ calendar as the solution of the calendar problem. I do not understand where you got that idea, as it is not stated in the text – quite the opposite, in fact. In the book’s last chapter, I argue that we will need a global meeting of minds from different cultures and different disciplines – astronomers, indigenous shamans, physicists, etcetera – to assemble for the purpose of deciding on a new harmonic calendar (or “timing frequency”) for the Earth. I suggest that a logical place to hold such a conference would be Glastonbury, and it might be a conscious fulfillment of the myth or archetype of “thirteenth tribes” coming together to create a “New Jerusalem.” I am hopeful that you and others from the UK crop circle research world, such as John Martineau and Allan Brown, will contemplate this prospect, and perhaps organize such a forum within the next few years. In this way, we might move from passive contemplation of these ideas to active engagement with them, in service to humanity. As the last line of the book puts it, “We are the ones we have been waiting for.”

As for your other critiques, I would argue that the breadth of the book, as well as the autobiographical elements and the attention to style, are crucial to convey these ideas outside of the narrow and circumscribed realms in which they have lingered. If this consciousness transformation has any real meaning, then it must be realized as a qualitative shift that changes one’s inner nature and one’s perceptions, rather than just a flat tabulation of scientific data and hypothesis. My hope is that the book will convey the process that I had to go through, as a flawed individual, to integrate an entirely new system of thought and a new way of relating to time and being. “The more abstract the truth you want to teach, the more you have to seduce the senses to it,” wrote Nietzsche. By following my process, the reader has an opportunity to work through his or her own relationship to this material.

You also quote an enthusiastic reader of the book on tribe.net, who felt I had not suggested any tangible solutions. For the sake of clarity, I have posted his note and my answer to it below, with the hope that you will include it, along with this letter, with your review on your website.

Yours,
Daniel

#
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?

"Was the error on p.286 with the Fibonacci sequence a misprint or mental burp?

An error like that is open to critical, cynical reviews. "

There is no error with the Fibonacci sequence. I saw that "error" mentioned in a review and went to the book to look it up (p 287). The reviewer read carelessly. Daniel is describing the formula for Phi, the "golden ratio," and he describes it correctly. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

Hoopes,

You might criticize Daniel for his lack of research. There is very little actual research on the Maya underpinning this book. You might (or someone might) criticize Daniel for writing about Mayan prophecies without ever talking to a Mayan person (which to me would be much more important than talking to academics; it is to me the greatest disappointment in the book -- he doesn't even talk to anyone who has had direct connection with traditional Mayas.. You might criticize Daniel for "gullibility" in connection with statements like the following, quoting Graham Hancock:: "...these civilizations [Egypt and Mesoamerica] may have descended from a common predecessor -- where Plato wrote of 'Atlantis, Mayan legends tell of 'Aztlan,' their ancient home -- perhaps located in once-temperate Antarctica." If that is an example of the quality of Hancock's research, then it is gullible indeed for Daniel to be using him as a source (and Daniel characterizes him as "one of the better alternative archaeologists). (Someone with the most basic knowledge of Mesoamerican history would know that "Aztlan" is an Aztec, not Mayan word and legend, the very name Aztec-atl meaning 'people of Aztlan" -- and the word Azthan is native to Nahuatl, meaning, Place of the Herons -- and its legendary location is =northward= -- likely the Four Corners Area. This is an example of how some writers cherry-pick among ancient traditions the pieces that fit their speculations, leaving out whatever doesn't fit. The most egregious practitioner of this was von Daniken, who removed bits of tradition from their contexts, recombined them in illogical and inconsistent ways, freely invented nonexistent traditions, and had racist attitudes toward indigenous people -- fortunately, Daniel didn't use =him= as a source.) You certainly might criticize Daniel for basing his "research" into quantum physics solely on New Age sources, which make no distinction between what is =actually established= by quantum physics and the speculations that are simply =consistent= with quantum physics -- a crucial distinction to scientists.

These are all criticisms one could make of Daniel's book. Your own criticism seems to center on Daniel's lack of scientific rigor.

But all these criticisms would be missing the point. I think that you are approaching this book as though it were another report about "phenomena," or else an academic work; either way, claiming to be talking about the world of facts.

But you go far beyond simply scrutinizing the book under fact-based microscopes. That, even if it misses the point of the book, at least has some factual basis. "How are we supposed to determine that you're not a zealot, condemning any infidel who doesn't bow down and accept what you believe to be the truth?" How are we supposed to determine that =you= are not? How are we supposed to determine that you, or Daniel, is not a pink elephant? You, as a scientist, know about the impossibility of disproving a negative, but Daniel is not a scientist, so you have him jumping through disproving a negative hoops.

How do we know? How about the fact that there is no evidence for it, and indeed, throughout the book tells the reader that he is not trying to ask the reader to believe him, only to follow him on his thought journey. Pat Robertson is not a zealot because he gets personal revelations -- he is a zealot because he is a fundamentalist. There are plenty of zealous fundamentalists who don't get personal revelations, and plenty of cross-cultural examples shosing that personal revelation does not lead to zealotry and persecuting "infidels," so one might as well say that you think the same as Pat Robertson because you and he both have central nervous systems.

But in your zeal to group Daniel with religious literalists you stretch points almost incredibly beyond recognition. For example, you say that Christians, like Daniel, consider themselves to have "transcended false dualism" -- but Christians themselves would vehemently deny this charge. Their universe is based on a radical separation between Creator and creation. In fact, their universe might even be called "triadic" since in addition to the separation between God and manifest creation, it posits a separation between consciousness (our consciousness as experiencing created beings) and the material world -- you and Pat Robertson posit the same separation -- as well as a separation between our consciousness and God; that is to say, God exists "objectively," independently of our consciousness. Thus, that kind of religion is in competition with science, because it competes for the same slot.

Many people in modern times forget that the notion of religious literalism -- of objective spiritual realities that are separate from consciousness that belong to the realm of "facts" -- far from being a universal, intrinsic characteristic of religion, was a unique innovation introduced by the monotheistic religions of the Middle East. Ultimately that religious innovation became the foundation of modern science, because some people started to think, "If we are talking about facts, here, let's try to get the facts right." This kind of religion is in a way the parent of modern science, and they speak the same language, compete for some of the same slots in the culture and psyche I could write an analysis of how your belief system is closer to that of Pat Robertson than Daniel's is, but that might be a future post.

Throughout your posts you attribute beliefs to Daniel, with little or no foundation, and then challenge him to prove negatives. (And your willingness to twist others' beliefs to make your point is not limited to Daniel -- as see the example of "Christian nondualism" above.) I submit that that is a tactic unworthy of an honest scientist and am glad that you have resolved to eschew comparisons and deal with the evidence at hand.

I believe that you fundamentally misunderstand Daniel's book, and Daniel's point of view

If you approach indigenous spiritual systems, including the Maya, with the assumption that they have the same assumptions as Western "objective" religions, you will see them through a very distorted lens. So, in spite of having less command of "facts" about the ancient Maya than an academic scholar might, Daniel is closer to their point of view in some ways than the "objective scientists." He comes from a Western background himself as well, of course, but like many psychedelic explorers has started "breaking open his head" and seeing those cultural separations as illusory.

You ask if Daniel considers science a belief system. Presumptuous as it is for me to speak for Daniel, let me try to address that question as though it were asked of me.

Science (in the sense of modern science) is not a belief system, but a method: a method of distilling what is consistent and predictable in our world.

Science is not a belief system -- but the belief that reality is limited to what can be studied by the scientific method IS a belief system. Science is not a belief system, but materialism -- "the materialist paradigm" -- IS a belief system.

As you say, "I have nothing against 'inner telescopes.' I just prefer to use instruments than anyone can look through and that permit them to see more-or-less the same things." There is nothing wrong with such a preference -- a preference for the scientific method -- but it IS an emotional preference..

When Daniel sees "indoctrination" in you, I don't think he means indoctrination in any "official line," but rather =cultural= indoctrination that shapes the very questions that one asks.

It is disingenuous to write as though crop circles were what the book is about; it is disingenuous to pretend that Daniel has told anyone what to believe about crop circles, or done any more than suggest that readers might consider the possibility that perhaps not all crop circles are human-made. (If tomorrow it were proven that all crop circles were human-made, that would not fundamentally affect the premise of the book.) And if you actually believe that Daniel is trying to tell readers what they should think about crop circles, then I submit that you have not really read the book. It appears to me as though you are reading the book through an overlay of assumptions that you cannot separate from what is actually on the page.

You claim that Daniel says that science is invalid, and attacks rational thought, but you can't back that with any actual examples out of Daniel's book, other than your identification of "the materialist paradigm" with the scientific method and rational thought itself.

Science claims to have transcended Cartesian dualism, and yet your opposition of "the world of imagination" to "the material world" betrays the dualism that still underlies science.

Nowhere does Daniel attack rational thought or say that "science is invalid" (that just comes out of your circular reasoning of identifying him with creationists). You seem to identify Daniel's suggestion that reality is not LIMITED to what can be studied through rational thought and the scientific method -- that there is a larger picture to be seen -- with an attack on science or rational thought themselves, but that is an emotion-based reaction; there is no "objective" reason for the belief that reality is limited to what can be studied by the instruments of the scientific method, or to the "objective" and literalistic.

I don't see any inconsistency in Daniel's citing scientists on the one hand and on the other hand criticizing their limitations. It is much like saying, "My neighbor saw this too" -- that doesn't mean my neighbor is the final word on everything, it just means that the fact that someone else witnessed it constitutes =evidence=. Daniel is presenting scientific sources as =evidence=, not as =proof=.

It's like having a dream that seemed powerful and significant, and discovering that on the same night many other people had had a dream that seemed powerful and signifcant. And, when you start asking about the content of these dreams, you discover that many of these dreams contain similar elements. Some broadly similar, some similar in specific details. Scientists come across some of these elements in their research, so he cites scientists.

I agree with you that Daniel could strengthen his case with a better grounding in research and better understanding of the scientific method. The scientific method provides an important grounding, and without grounding, consciousness exploration can go in all kinds of unpredictable directions.

But this is not what Daniel's book is actually =about=. I see his book as a =primary= source document. It offers his primary experiences, and his research (as far as it goes) is an attempt to give some context to his experiences, some framework of interpretation.

Gayle

(sacha on the BOtH board)

> I think what's he's written has the potential to cause a great deal of confusion and even harm.

Well! The same could be said of everything from Metallica lyrics to the Holy Bible to Finnegans Wake! (not to mention the user's manual for ProTools 7.0, which recently got me so flustered trying to figure it out I was ready to put my fist into the wall)...


very well said, Ferrara! Metal saved my life when I was a kid, the only way for me to channel my anger and frustration as a kid (school didn't make sense to me at all...way too much left brain activity and just memorizing stuff) has been music and playing the drums, the heavier the better....now I only listen to Ambient music and do Yoga, Bodywork and Tai Qi.........it's all part of the same spectrum.
Who is to say what is good or bad, harmful or useful information?
Everyone is different, taking information in differently (or music for that sake)

I went to see Daniel at two talks in the past week, one in LA and the other just today in Malibu.
It was nice to address some questions I had and to get an impression of him talk.
What I like about his work is that he is combining all these different things, from Crop Circles to Psychedelics to Hyperdimensions to Quantum Physics to Alien Abductions to the Mayan Calendar to Nietsche to Carl Jung, to Pro-Activiy and evolving consciously, etc......and puts it all in one book...and as far as I can tell he's doing an amazing job.(half way through the book). Having studied that material myself for a number of years, I know whow hard it is to really weave together these "alternative-left-filed" areas (where even Jung's amazing work is completley disregarded by the Academic world) weeding out useful information from disinfo and new age crap. Most experts are usually just experts in one field or the other....but no one yet has tried to put it all togtether, particulary in this area.
I think Hoopes is an expert in Archaelogy and Mayan culture, no doubt, we all can learn from him,but I also think that this is just a small fragement of what 2012 entails altogether. And here Daniel's book serves as a catalyst for a new way of thinking of combining thoughts, areas and ideas whcih we never though of combining before.
Even he said to question everyting including his own book, be it academic dogmatic science or new age whishfull thinking....but in both areas there is truth and it is up to us to put it all togteher and transfrom this world. People like Daniel help us to question our own beliefs, dogmas and bias, so we can make room for new ideas and new thoughts and let go of the old paradigm of pure male left brain instituionalized scientific thought. If there is insight and intuition and it cannot be explained through scinetific terms, it still doesn't mean it is wrong or should be dismissed. The contrary, maybe in this day and age, scientific thought needs to evolve as well, beyond the realm of rational thinking.
In retrospect I think Daniel is just like anyone of us. He's trying to make sense out of all that enormous information that is out there, he just has a great gift and talent of words and writing. I truly like his style and his way of thinking. he doesn't claim to be an authority in anything...and no one really is an authority in anything, if you think about it. Even the so-called experst have flaws and tunnel visions. At this point, as we are becoming more and more aware we should learn to listen to our own insight and intuition, not always relying on outside sources.
He also is not afraid to tackle obscure areas (like alien abduction) just because it might offend his or others' belief systems. But just because something does't fit into one's belief system, doesn't mean it doesn't hold any truth. For example, when trufully, objectively and deeply researching the alien abdcution phenomena,one will come across amazing information and facts wich are carefully hidden form the mainstream or the academia, in particular in regards to Hyperdimensional realities. And there is quite a disturbing truth to our reality which most of us like to deny or ignore....but it is there, non the less. The rabbit hole goes quite deep.

And for the new agers who think that just putting themselves in a bubble of love is all that is neccesary for the coming changes, I have this great quote from Carl Jung:

"One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious"

There is work and healing to be done, as we all have to face our personal and collective shadow at one point or another.
Between now and 2012 seems to be the time to come to peace with ourselves.




> I think what's he's written has the potential to cause a great deal of confusion and even harm.

The only book I know of that causes a great deal of confusion and harm is the Bible.

hoopes,

i note that you haven't responded to my post of may 31 above, plus other intelligent posts from others on the very important subjects under discussion, but instead have tried to confuse the issue by posting information about a personal interaction between us and doing it in a manner that is inaccurate, self-serving, dishonest, and exploitative. Then, to further continue your trademark passive-aggressive style of "argument", you see fit to comment on my writing about sexuality, as if that had anything to do with the matter at hand. Of course I am perfectly willing to discuss this subject carefully, as I wrote about it in my book, but the way you have framed it in the post above is yet another sideways attempt to dismiss my work.

By the way, when we spoke on the phone I was not "defensive" in the slightest. I was angry - pissed to have someone who I would now certainly consider a false friend but then considered at least a decent acquaintance utilizing cheap tricks and easy labels to dismiss my five-year effort of critical thought. Nothing you have put forth since has made me any more impressed with your capacity for clear judgment or serious inquiry - but you are showing a talent for the cheap shot that would make Rush Limbaugh proud.

hoopes,

for me there is a lack of clarity in how you are utilizing language, especially when it comes to understanding the difference between "knowledge" and "belief" or "faith." This is evident in your recent posts. It is also evident that you cling to a notion of an "objective reality" that exists outside of the individual perceiving consciousness, and that it is impossible for you to conceive that psyche and matter might be intermeshed and indivisible, aspects of a nondual continuum. It doesn't matter how many decades of study you have made of Mesoamerican cultures - it may be that without being able to conceive of a reality corresponding to these different principles, or variations of them, you could be still trapped outside and incapable of conceiving the "worlding" of the Mayan world.

I find a huge difference between the trance-states of faith-based religions, and the scrupulous disengagement of shamanism, with its emphasis on "chance" and "perhapsness." More on this later...