![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
How To Declare Yourself God
(And Get Away With It!)
Over on my not completely functional forums (I swear I am in the process of working that out!), there has been an on-going conversation regarding Daniel Pinchbeck’s claims in his newest book that he is some kind of prophet of Quetzalcoatl or reincarnated Buddhist emperor or something weird like that.
There is a worthwhile review of the book and of Pinchbeck’s pronouncements over on the Daily Grail, written by Greg Taylor (who is a sympathetic fan of Pinchbeck’s work in general, I surmise) that gives more of the sordid details:
By this time in the book - especially upon his return to the Burning Man festival - Pinchbeck is the epitome of a psychedelic burnout, going many days without sleep or sustenance, and begins believing that he may be one of these ‘routers’. He receives ‘transmissions’ from an entity describing itself as Quetzalcoatl, heralding a new dawn of consciousness. At this point unfortunately, my ‘reasoning mind’ was beginning to feel a little insulted (I think any self-respecting deity would realise, by this point, that channeling prophetic material would just add to the past few decades of similar static which the New Age scene is full of).
In his favour, Pinchbeck is capable of self-analysis, and mentions a number of times the fallibility of apocalyptic fervour (seen throughout history, not just in our times), as well as the ‘messianic complex’ which so often accompanies psychic burnout - he praises McKenna for being able to approach this very subject with humour. He also considers the option “that I was sliding down a slippery slope toward an unusual form of madness,” and notes that apocalyptic prophesy is “a classic symptom of megalomaniac ego-inflation.” However, in the end, his internal rage against the current world, combined with what could be his own psychological need for importance, seems to overwhelm these warnings, as he grasps for something that will ‘make things right’.
Anyway, some comments in the original forum thread by Jacob, along with some of my own recent strange archetypal experiences have made me see this in a new light. Originally, I was decidedly skeptical of Pinchbeck’s claims, but was willing to accept the experience he claimed he had on face value. He had them; I did not, and thus have no way to validate them or invalidate them. The larger point that I have come to grasp though is that running around saying that you’re god or a prophet isn’t something that people willingly enter it. At least, not so far as I can tell.
Because what happens when you tell people that God has touched you on the shoulder? If you’re part of a religious group that finds such things acceptable, then you might be okay. But if you’re trying to make it in the regular world, you really don’t want to be saddled with that. You don’t want to have to deal with people talking behind your back at the water-cooler, being like, “Oh here comes the prophet! Watch out or he might smite us!” People in ordinary society (and even in not-so-ordinary society) start thinking you’re nuts when you make pronouncements like that. It threatens work, family, friendships, social status and credibility.
What I’m saying is I don’t think it should be taken lightly when somebody feels compelled to publicly come forward with transpersonal experiences. Sure they might be misinterpreting a private revelation as a public one, or they might be subject to ego-inflation or any number of other fancy terms. But the thing is, in any case, they are driven to come forward and to share. There is passionate intensity behind it. And even if you can’t recognize or accept what it is that they are claiming to be or to have experienced, if there’s one thing we can all respect and relate to, it is passion. It is the burning desire to share our lives with one another. And hopefully we can see that above and beyond everything else.
- Prev: Show Off Your Dick!
- Next: The CSI Theory of History
July 6th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
Quetzalcoatl is an asshole anyway, so who cares?
July 6th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
i respect that position but, personally, i disagree completely. too many people spouting messianic nonsense just dilutes the info-sphere with noise, making it harder to find information of real value (Q. what’s the magical power of Malkuth? A. discrimination.) frankly, i believe that any value such experiences have is solely of a personal sort. the only use, externally, will come as a result of the personal empowerment the experience provides. preaching about it practically guarantees that one is using it incorrectly, in my opinion. kill all gurus!
July 6th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Well, that’s part of my point, I think. It’s supremely important to that person. But just how individualized are we really? Do we all fractally or holographically contain one another? Do we all share a collective unconscious?
If nothing else, we could argue the simple fact that we all have the common experience of being humans and struggling through life. Therefore the record of any one person’s struggle is automatically of value to everyone else - no matter the form or the content. Maybe the important thing is simply the sharing of these struggles….
July 6th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
My best friend went through what you might call a dissolution experience (kundalini, what-have-you) a few years ago. She had a very difficult time, hearing voices, seeing things, etc. Worse, she was job hunting, and really freaked out that interviewers would cotton that something wasn’t right.
She interviewed at an SF law firm, and the interviewer took ONE LOOK at her and asked her point blank if she was undergoing ego-dissolution. Turns out he was a Buddhist teacher as well as a lawyer.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
Wow, that’s really crazy. Only in San Francisco would you be asked a question like that at a job interview. Did she end up getting the job or working with the teacher, or maybe both?
July 6th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
good point. having studied these things throughout history and, to a lesser degree, in myself, i guess it was somewhat disingenuous of me to say they have no value outside the self.
rather, i guess, i would say it’s important they be studied rationally, as a type of experience, rather than as a truth or reality. it can be easy to blur the boundaries, as they frequently generate, or correlate with, the most absurd of synchronicities, provide hidden information, are apparantly the cause of effects, etc.; however in regards to providing grand metaphysical explanations, prophecies (especially cataclysmic,) and ego-inflating stories, they can surely be dismissed as falsehoods.
one of the secrets to being a successful magician or serious drug abuser is to have a well tuned filter for separating the gold from the dross, because in this case the dross can be life destroying. indeed, in these cases, the gold is actually in the most apparantly trivial results of the experience.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
She was offered the job but didn’t take it, and not long after she decided the experience was the work of Satan and joined an eastern ortho church.
July 6th, 2006 at 6:23 pm
pmp:
Well, maybe there is no such thing as “outside of the self”. I don’t mean that in a solipsist way, but maybe it’s like we have selves, the universe has selves, it goes all the way up…?
Well isn’t experience a type of truth or reality?
So can the gold, unfortunately!
Jennifer:
Go figure! Case in point about even the gold being destructive…
July 6th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
Transcendental Experience In Relation to Religion and Psychosis by R.D. Laing
July 6th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
it is impossible to discuss or investige this kind of experience rationally. the field of rationale discludes experiences such as kundalini or ego-dissolution or dialogs with god as irrational by default. we are back to the fact that unless you`ve had irrational experiences happen to you, you don`t have a frame of reference. is that crazy-person elitist? oh well, so be it.
July 6th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
Nice link, thanks!
July 6th, 2006 at 10:26 pm
What we need are more SF Lawyers! Lawyers who try cases in the court of Science Fiction or “conspiracy fiction” or what have you. Actually, I guess we’d need “Science Fiction Law” first — laws and cases that present the constraints of precedent into an unknown future and then try to observe this future from within the fictional jars they’ve trapped the future in. Then maybe everybody, algorithms and all, gamble on this position which then determines which future forward fiction is “right”.
Maybe, just maybe you got some good SF in there, but hardly a way to base one’s philosophy and practice of law.
It’s a foregone conclusion that traditional “rule of law” in our society is selective and capricious, albeit steeped in honor, faith by those who adhere to it and susceptible to verbose tampering. What if “law”, like everything else, must eventually succumb to an entropy? Kind of an entropy of anarchy which the forces of social control feel they must bottle up in order to keep the fluid stirred and bubbly — thus why anarchy is synonymous with lack of control, mayhem, robberies, massacres etc. This way you get anarchy to represent that which it is not, which is not a lack of control, but a lack of belief in control. Big difference.
What is belief if not control? What is law? But a belief! Therefore law does not exist anymore than does the emotion of fear over our rational minds and spiritual selves. Which it does exist and so therefore too, must laws exist as well.
What we need then are lawyers who are simulataneously messiahs! Yes. From San Francisco shall they come bearing Google searches!
July 8th, 2006 at 12:28 am
the field of rationale discludes experiences such as kundalini or ego-dissolution or dialogs with god as irrational by default.
Show me where.
July 9th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
hf, i mean that science cannot measure things like kundalini or ego-dissolution etc. the irrational is where we have to go to experience these things…….or, go to church and listen to descriptions of these things read by ministers and priests. kinda like going to a restaurant and having the waiter read the menu and then handing you the bill while you are still hungry.
July 9th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
interesting thing about sir issac. he was made chancellor of the exchequer by the king of england because issac assured the king he could make gold out of base metal. this was important because the king wanted to fund his war with france with gold to pay his mercinary soldiers and if there was a run on the bank while the war was on there could be problems of imperial insolvency. they were still on the gold standard at that time.
amongst other things sir issac claimed to be an alchemist…………