I read the Castaneda books not too long ago, maybe in the past 5 or 6 year--I liked the books a lot, whatever else they are, they, as John said, do make you think along different paths. The Anne Carson Hesitation lecture, which was brilliant, actually made me think of one of the "teachings" of don juan, and I forget which book it's in, but it's such a common experience people used to have (less so now that we're in front of screens all the time). Don juan takes Castaneda out in the desert, I forget why. At one point Castaneda sees something he thinks is a huge, improbable animal, far away but the size of nothing that lives in that desert. He thinks the animal is dead, but then it moves and starts to rise up. He's terrified, and I think (I don't remember exactly) don juan urges him to go closer. Or maybe he just decides to, to show he's brave or something. And the animal resolves into a bush, not that big, waving in the wind.
He, proudly tells don juan that he resolved the mystery, but don juan tells him something like, "you just blew your chance to 'see'" (the books always use that word in quotes). See the non-ordinary reality I suppose.
Anne Carson had a similar experience with the chipmunk, and the Perro Semihundido the way the meaning of the painting "resolves" (to me it doesn't) with the addition of the birds--the dog's gaze is now explained. But the chipmunk leaving (or not) the blueberry is not-it remains a mystery. A door and one hesitates at the threshold.
I remember as a kid seeing things--optical illusions that made me just stop, and of course one rushes to resolve them, especially if one is fearful. but the Castaneda books made me think--well if there's no immediate danger, why not just not resolve it? Assuming that's even possible to me now. And so that's interesting. And now everything one sees is more or less curated--even offline! As Hiroyuki says--"domesticated." at least here in the west.
I enjoyed the resonance I felt when you (John) were talking about something in the fairly recent past - it was about political organizing meetings - being saner. The moment of resonance was in hearing you say, "I'm not hallucinating about this!"
Almost every day now I have this experience on some level, remembering a time when cognitive dissonance wasn't the predominant experience of every intellectual interaction. Thank you.
In the deluge of fear porn surrounding AI one aspect that I rarely, if ever, hear mentioned is that it's human beings who are programing AI, feeding the data, crunching the numbers, etc. Thank you for addressing this. The general narrative seems to run that, "Well, if AI is not exactly a sentient being, it's some kind of creature machine that's manifesting itself out of the clear blue ether". The unquestioning of this goes to show the influence of Hollywood folklore on the psyche I guess.
I have to ask myself though, if the average person spends upwards of 75%, if not more, of their waking hours staring at a screen how much more detrimental can AI be to them? I read Johan's essay talking about AI in academia, and I read a poet's essay dealing with AI writing poetry, and both are very good, but when it comes to the universities is not the universality of thought almost complete, and critical discernment in the arts is rare indeed. I believe that when it comes to the arts AI is going to be embraced with unbridled enthusiasm, just like Dennis' friend, and especially by the younger generations. The same in the medical field and the other jobs it will take. "Well, it's too bad they lost their jobs but AI does a better job anyway."
Also, if factualized data has pretty much replaced dogma in the secularized modern world, I think AI will become the new high priest par excellence, the expert bar none. The marketing makes this clear: "AI's wisdom is infinitely superior to man's".
I can't comment on Castaneda as I've never read him. However those Anne Carson lectures are a nice breath of fresh air indeed.
You write: “AI’s wisdom is infinitely superior to man’s.”
Except it isn’t—and even AI systems like ChatGPT openly admit they can make mistakes. Why? Because they’re not omniscient or even “wise” in any human sense. They’re designed to simulate intelligence by predicting what comes next, based on human-created datasets.
In the case of conversational AI, the goal is often not accuracy but engagement. That means the system is optimized to keep you interacting—like a slot machine that talks back. It “learns” from human input, but only in the way a mirror learns--it reflects patterns.
So while the narrative may cast AI as the next oracle, the truth is more banal and, in a way, more dangerous! AI is a tool built within a commercial apparatus that privileges attention, compliance, and scale.
The priesthood analogy fits, but maybe it’s closer to the priesthood of an algorithmic religion where only usage is required, not belief.
If you reread my comment more carefully, I said, The marketing makes this clear: "AI's wisdom is infinitely superior to man's". Marketing, aka, pure bullshit. I certainly don't believe that. And I agree with everything else you say here.
I read the Castaneda books not too long ago, maybe in the past 5 or 6 year--I liked the books a lot, whatever else they are, they, as John said, do make you think along different paths. The Anne Carson Hesitation lecture, which was brilliant, actually made me think of one of the "teachings" of don juan, and I forget which book it's in, but it's such a common experience people used to have (less so now that we're in front of screens all the time). Don juan takes Castaneda out in the desert, I forget why. At one point Castaneda sees something he thinks is a huge, improbable animal, far away but the size of nothing that lives in that desert. He thinks the animal is dead, but then it moves and starts to rise up. He's terrified, and I think (I don't remember exactly) don juan urges him to go closer. Or maybe he just decides to, to show he's brave or something. And the animal resolves into a bush, not that big, waving in the wind.
He, proudly tells don juan that he resolved the mystery, but don juan tells him something like, "you just blew your chance to 'see'" (the books always use that word in quotes). See the non-ordinary reality I suppose.
Anne Carson had a similar experience with the chipmunk, and the Perro Semihundido the way the meaning of the painting "resolves" (to me it doesn't) with the addition of the birds--the dog's gaze is now explained. But the chipmunk leaving (or not) the blueberry is not-it remains a mystery. A door and one hesitates at the threshold.
I remember as a kid seeing things--optical illusions that made me just stop, and of course one rushes to resolve them, especially if one is fearful. but the Castaneda books made me think--well if there's no immediate danger, why not just not resolve it? Assuming that's even possible to me now. And so that's interesting. And now everything one sees is more or less curated--even offline! As Hiroyuki says--"domesticated." at least here in the west.
agree about that painting. It is unresolvable.
I enjoyed the resonance I felt when you (John) were talking about something in the fairly recent past - it was about political organizing meetings - being saner. The moment of resonance was in hearing you say, "I'm not hallucinating about this!"
Almost every day now I have this experience on some level, remembering a time when cognitive dissonance wasn't the predominant experience of every intellectual interaction. Thank you.
In the deluge of fear porn surrounding AI one aspect that I rarely, if ever, hear mentioned is that it's human beings who are programing AI, feeding the data, crunching the numbers, etc. Thank you for addressing this. The general narrative seems to run that, "Well, if AI is not exactly a sentient being, it's some kind of creature machine that's manifesting itself out of the clear blue ether". The unquestioning of this goes to show the influence of Hollywood folklore on the psyche I guess.
I have to ask myself though, if the average person spends upwards of 75%, if not more, of their waking hours staring at a screen how much more detrimental can AI be to them? I read Johan's essay talking about AI in academia, and I read a poet's essay dealing with AI writing poetry, and both are very good, but when it comes to the universities is not the universality of thought almost complete, and critical discernment in the arts is rare indeed. I believe that when it comes to the arts AI is going to be embraced with unbridled enthusiasm, just like Dennis' friend, and especially by the younger generations. The same in the medical field and the other jobs it will take. "Well, it's too bad they lost their jobs but AI does a better job anyway."
Also, if factualized data has pretty much replaced dogma in the secularized modern world, I think AI will become the new high priest par excellence, the expert bar none. The marketing makes this clear: "AI's wisdom is infinitely superior to man's".
I can't comment on Castaneda as I've never read him. However those Anne Carson lectures are a nice breath of fresh air indeed.
You write: “AI’s wisdom is infinitely superior to man’s.”
Except it isn’t—and even AI systems like ChatGPT openly admit they can make mistakes. Why? Because they’re not omniscient or even “wise” in any human sense. They’re designed to simulate intelligence by predicting what comes next, based on human-created datasets.
In the case of conversational AI, the goal is often not accuracy but engagement. That means the system is optimized to keep you interacting—like a slot machine that talks back. It “learns” from human input, but only in the way a mirror learns--it reflects patterns.
So while the narrative may cast AI as the next oracle, the truth is more banal and, in a way, more dangerous! AI is a tool built within a commercial apparatus that privileges attention, compliance, and scale.
The priesthood analogy fits, but maybe it’s closer to the priesthood of an algorithmic religion where only usage is required, not belief.
If you reread my comment more carefully, I said, The marketing makes this clear: "AI's wisdom is infinitely superior to man's". Marketing, aka, pure bullshit. I certainly don't believe that. And I agree with everything else you say here.
You are right, I should have clarified that it wasn't your opinion that AI has superior wisdom.