Untold Stories of Castaneda

6

Anthropology of Consciousness, Vol. 16, Issue 1, pp. 6–24. ISSN1053-4202, © 2005 by the AmericanAnthropological Association. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permissions tophotocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press’s Rights andPermissions website, www.ucpress.edu/journals/rights.htm.

Whither Psi and Anthropology?An Incomplete History of SAC’sOrigins, Its Relationship withTranspersonal Psychology and theUntold Stories of Castaneda’sControversy

mark a. schroll, ph.d

[email protected]

with

stephan a. schwartz

[email protected]

abstract

This essay (written by Mark in dialogue with Stephan and including supportingcommentary by Stanley Krippner and others1) is not a comprehensive survey ofpsi and anthropology, nor does it contain a thorough overview of Castaneda’swork. Rather, it seeks to explore two primary questions. First, whatever became ofthe interest in psi and anthropology that led to the founding of the Society for theAnthropology of Consciousness? Second, what is the relationship between theanthropology of consciousness and transpersonal psychology? Answers to thesequestions offer a glimpse into the historical origins of SAC as well as a historicalunderstanding of the relationship between SAC and the Association for Transper-sonal Psychology2.keywords: psi, transpersonal psychology, shamanism, SAC

The concerns of this essay have given me many sleepless nights since I becameinvolved with SAC at its 20th Annual Spring Meeting in Tucson. Ensnared bypast-president Geri-Ann Galanti’s call for a resurgence of interest in psi research3—an effect not unlike hearing the song of a siren (Krippner 1975)—I becameenraptured with psi.4 In the quest to sleuth out answers to my questions about

AoC_16-1.qxd 30/9/05 04:11 PM Page 6

psi, anthropology, and transpersonal psychology, dialogue became an essentialguide and an invaluable method to my inquiry. Examples of dialogue, and its lim-itations, appear later in this essay.

Following the meeting in Tucson, I soon confirmed Galanti’s consternation,finding only a few papers and book reviews tangentially related to psi and anthro-pology in the Anthropology of Consciousness journal from 1990 to 2000.5 I realizeSAC’s diversity represents much more than a search to understand the elusiveexistence of psi; still, I began asking why a group tracing its originto the 1974 Rhine-Swanton Symposium on Parapsychology and Anthropology,AAA Session 703, would all but lose interest in the topic (Schwartz 2000). “Wisemen say, only fools rush in . . .” It has taken me most of my life to realize thatElvis was a philosopher.

defining psi and the potential misuse

and misinterpretation of psi research

Before proceeding, I want to clarify my position on psi and to briefly summarizemany of the potential ways that psi research can be misused and misinterpreted.First, this essay should not be viewed as a definitive exposition on psi and anthropol-ogy. Michael Winkelman’s essay “Magic: A Theoretical Reassessment” (Winkelman1982)—which includes significant commentary from 18 luminaries including ErikaBourguignon, Marlene Dobkin de Rios, Jule Eisenbud, Felicitas D. Goodman,Joseph K. Long as well as Winkelman’s reply—has already addressed many of theseconcerns. Sadly, no one has written a significant follow-up essay to Winkelman 1982,and for that reason the questions I am asking in this essay find support.

Returning to this essay’s main focus, it was fortuitous that a few months after the20th SAC meeting, I learned from AoC editor Grant Jewell Rich that Varieties ofAnomalous Experience: Examining the Scientific Evidence edited by Cardena,Lynn and Krippner (2000) had been published. Rich asked me to review it for AoC(Schroll 2001b), which further clarified many of my technical questions.

Concurrently, I began publishing and presenting my personal travail with psiresearch (Schroll 2000, 2001a6) and its potential misuse, which activities weresummed up by Lourdes Giordani in a review for Anthropology News:

Concerned about the negative implications of materialistic philosophicalapproaches, the misuse of science and technology, Mark cautioned us aboutthe potential misuse of consciousness research. Mark even questioned whetherwe should publish some of our research given that it could be co-opted by themilitary-industrial complex.

[Giordani 2002:51]

The present essay does not violate my own code of ethics, but lends itadditional support by clarifying terminology and providing a brief overview ofgovernment-supported psi research in the United States.

whither psi and anthropology? 7

AoC_16-1.qxd 30/9/05 04:11 PM Page 7

“Psi,” according to Stanley Krippner, “is used by parapsychologists to encom-pass so-called ‘extra-sensory perception,’ ‘psychokinesis,’ and the purported post-death survival of parts of ones personality” (Kierulff and Krippner 2004:30);anthropologists refer to psi as “spirits” (Turner 1993). These antiquated concep-tual references continue to be necessary, as Krippner knows, because psi’s moreprecise technical discernment and its theoretical caveats have filled volumes(Krippner 1977). As we discussed psi and the absence of an adequate theory toexplain alternate states of consciousness (ASC) on January 13, 2001, Stephan A.Schwartz referred to Professor Jessica Utts, Department of Statistics, Universityof California Davis. Utts’ research is significant because she was commissionedin the summer of 1995 by the CIA to review the now declassified two-decadeUS government psychic research program. According to Utts:

Using the standards applied to any other area of science. . .psychic functioninghas been well established. . .Arguments that these results could be due tomethodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. . .[Effects of psy-chic functioning] have been replicated at a number of laboratories across theworld. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws orfraud. . . [P]sychic functioning. . .appears to be in the range between whatsocial scientists call a medium effect. . .[Meaning] that it is reliable enough tobe replicated in properly conducted experiments, with sufficient trials to achievethe long-run statistical results needed for replicability.

[Schwartz 2005:8]

Utts drives this message home by telling us that:

A number of other patterns have been found, suggestive of how to conduct moreproductive experiments and applied psychic functioning . . . Precognition . . .appears to work quite well. . .Given that physicists are currently grappling withan understanding of time, it may be that a psychic sense exists that scans thefuture for major change, much as our eyes scan the environment for visualchange . . . It is recommended that future experiments focus on understandinghow this phenomenon works, and how to make it as useful as possible. There islittle benefit to continuing experiments designed to offer proof, since there is littlemore to be offered to anyone who does not accept the current collection of data.

[Schwartz 2005:8]

Additional details on recent evidence, and a favorable and a skeptical assess-ment of the US government experiments can be found by consulting the Journalof Scientific Exploration, 10(1), or http://www.stat.ucdavis.edu/users/utts.7

I want to digress briefly to address the frequent practice of lumping togetherthe careful research on psi with the New Age Movement. I, too, have made thismistake (Schroll 1988) and now consider the New Age Movement to be theepitome of pseudoscience, encompassing all that is faddish, flaky, and occult-oriented. Thus, I disagree with Melton, Clark, and Kelly’s inclusion of

8 anthropology of consciousness 16 . 1

AoC_16-1.qxd 30/9/05 04:11 PM Page 8

parapsychology in their New Age Encyclopedia (Melton et al. 1990) and do notlike using the words paranormal, supernatural, divine and miraculous for thesame reasons that Stephen Toulmin pointed out in his essay “The New Philosophyof Science and the ‘Paranormal’” (Toulmin 1986). Further clarification of thesepoints, language, and the philosophy of science associated with a precise discus-sion of psi exceeds this essay’s limits. I intend, however, to continue this clarifi-cation in future essays and presentations (Schroll 2005d), because our collectiveability to move forward with a clear focus can only be achieved by building on afirm and unambiguous foundation.

I want this essay to spark a resurgence of interest in psi and anthropology by anew generation that is aware of past mistakes. My understanding is that theseconcerns first began to come into focus when Constantine Hriskos invited meto write a column on “SAC and Transpersonal Psychology” for AnthropologyNews (Schroll 2005a). Deciding to expand on this discussion, I sent an earlyversion of the essay to Stephan Schwartz and received a considerable amount offeedback.

an incomplete history of sac’s origins and its relationship

to transpersonal psychology

Mark, your essay reads like revisionist history; re-read “Boulders in the Stream”[Schwartz 2000]. The biggest influence in the early years that you do not evenmention was Carlos Castaneda’s doctoral dissertation, and the other two of hisfirst three books. This was a parallel activity to ours, but a significant factor, forboth SAC and the AAA as a whole.

[Comments on draft essay from Stephan Schwartz, February 27, 2005]

I subsequently told Schwartz that his comments would be woven into a revisedessay, and that I had organized a SAC symposium in 2003 on Castaneda largelyshaped by his discussion in “Boulders.” (We shall return to a discussion ofCastaneda’s influence later in this essay.) I also told Schwartz it was good that hewas still around to help me answer my questions, because so little had been writ-ten on SAC’s origins. The following, presented as a virtual dialogue, interspersesdirect (though not actually contiguous) quotes from Schwartz and Geri-AnnGalanti with a synopsis of my responses to them.

� Stephan A. Schwartz: I wrote “Boulders” because I knew someday someonelike you would come along that wanted to write an accurate appraisal ofwhat happened. [March 1, 2005]

� Mark A. Schroll: Accurate yes, though this essay’s revision will be incom-plete, due to limited space and because a complete history of SAC is not itsintention. I have sought primarily to expand my understanding of SAC’s rela-tionship to transpersonal psychology, a wish that has been granted ten-fold.


AoC_16-1.qxd 30/9/05 04:11 PM Page 9

I encourage others to read Schwartz’s account in “Boulders” to get the fullhistorical zeitgeist. SAC and transpersonal psychology share an interest in theinvestigation of anomalous phenomena, such as psychic healing, psi, and thestates and stations of consciousness associated with these phenomena. This inquirybrought together such diverse researchers as Schwartz, Joseph Long, J. B. Rhine,Charles T. Tart, Abraham Maslow, and Stanley Krippner. As separate researchcommunities, they established their closest bonds when the Association forTranspersonal Anthropology (ATA) was formed in 1980.

� Schwartz: Actually this all traces to 1974, and 1978. ATA was just one resolu-tion of this [that] survived to become the SAC. [February 27, 2005]

� Schroll: This is true with regard to SAC, but I am also speaking here aboutthe way SAC is related to transpersonal psychology, whose origin is com-pletely separate from SAC. The politics of science eventually created divi-sions between these groups.

� Schwartz: The issue was whether the group that became the SAC shouldfocus on just experiential activities, or should it include both the experientialand the intellectual. All of this is covered in “Boulders.” [February 27, 2005]

� Schroll: Okay, but I am now referring to transpersonal psychology—thatemphasized the ontological importance of psi phenomena as real—whichresulted in its 1986 application for divisional status in the American Psycholog-ical Association (APA) being rejected by the APA’s Council of Representatives.

� Schwartz: The group that became the SAC never applied to the APA formembership as a group. [February 27, 2005]

� Schroll: True, but I was referring to transpersonal psychology, not SAC, andam trying to figure out if SAC shifted its ontological position on psi when itapplied and became a division in the American Anthropological Association(AAA) in 1990.

� Schwartz: SAC reached a consensus and I took the time to file the paper-work to make SAC part of AAA, which culminated after my term as Presi-dent ended; Geri-Ann was President when SAC was accepted; see theoriginal application filing. [February 27, 2005]

� Schroll: I would like to see this, and think some enterprising graduatestudent should find this original application so we can see what is in it.

Prior to this time, to try to clear up if SAC did shift its ontological position onpsi, I had brought Geri-Ann Galanti into this “conversation.”

� Geri-Ann Galanti: What we were doing [as anthropologists] seemedsimilar to transpersonal psychology. We dropped the name [transpersonalanthropology] because there was a political split in the group . . . between the


AoC_16-1.qxd 30/9/05 04:11 PM Page 10

more academically-oriented and the more “touchy-feelies,” so we had to forma new group, with a new name. [September 13, 2004] The split . . . was largelya personality conflict . . . [not] an ideological conflict. [September 14, 2004]

� Schwartz: Geri-Ann and I, and others wanted to have the experiential be afactor but, as she correctly observes, for various reasons we also had interestsin academic association. My concern . . . was to construct an organizationthat acknowledged and used the experiential, but did so within a context ofintellectual rigor. [March 6, 2005].

� Schroll: I am curious if the focus of the original SAC charter with AAAincluded any mention of SAC’s research interests on psychic readers, Tarot,or parapsychology? Or was the mention of investigating any aspect of psi leftout of SAC’s AAA charter due to its controversial nature? I mention thisbecause Joseph Long’s original emphasis was on “Psi and Anthropology”(Long 1977).

� Galanti: My bottom line answer: I don’t really remember. But my guess isthat we did not exclude parapsychology. [September 14, 2004]

� Schwartz: Parapsychology very specifically was not excluded. The othergroup led by Philip Staniford wanted to use Transpersonal and the moreacademically inclined group led by myself, Joe, and Geri-Ann, settled onConsciousness as an all-inclusive word that would cover all aspects. Hencethere was no need for parapsychology. Go back and look at the originalapplication papers I filled out. [February 27, 2005]

� Schroll: Well, I’m glad we were able to get this question cleared up. Whenthe group working on creating a division of transpersonal psychology in theAPA in 1986 included the word parapsychology in its charter, this led theAPA’s Council of Representatives to reject this application.

� Schwartz: I do not even remember this application being made. If such anapplication was made it was very secondary to joining the AAA, which wasthe impulse that led Joe [Long], Norman Emerson, and myself to create thisidea in Mexico City in 1974, in the first place. [February 27, 2005]

� Schroll: My fault, the transition in my discussion was too tangential. I wasnot referring just now to anyone (that I know of) involved in the origins ofSAC. I was comparing the efforts to create SAC’s AAA division with the workof a separate group of psychologists to create an APA division to recognizetheir research. Just now I was remembering a telephone conversation thatI had with Miles Vich in January 1987 regarding the outcome of the votetaken by the Council of Representatives on the Association for TranspersonalPsychology’s [ATP] proposal to become a division in the American Psycho-logical Association.


AoC_16-1.qxd 30/9/05 04:11 PM Page 11

My completely separate—yet inextricably related—concern about psi andtranspersonal psychology preceded my joining SAC. I had been tracking theprogress of psi within the APA ever since a two-hour conversation with Vich thatI had had at the 13th Annual Meeting of the Association for Transpersonal Psy-chology at the Asilomar Conference Center in Pacific Grove, CA, on August 5,1985. Among the many topics we discussed, Vich mentioned that the ATP wouldsoon be seeking its own division within the APA at its forthcoming national meet-ing in 1986. This news allowed me to leave that meeting with a renewed sense ofhope. In my youthful optimism I believed that within a year transpersonal psy-chology would establish its membership within mainstream science (as Maslowhad originally conceived it), thereby ending its days of exile as “something out-side and exclusive of” scientific legitimacy. Achieving this kind of legitimacywould (I believed) resolve transpersonal psychology’s confrontational status withmainstream psychology, thereby allowing me to pursue graduate research onseveral questions I had about “peak experiences” and their influence on culture.But the history of transpersonal psychology ended up taking a slightly differentdirection (Minelli and Schroll, in press)8.

An earlier draft of ATP’s application for divisional status had been approvedbefore the word parapsychology was included. Rollo May protested this APA divi-sion of transpersonal psychology, yet May supported research on psi and religionfrom an anthropological perspective. To this day no one is really sure why Mayopposed transpersonal psychology, nor has transpersonal psychology yet estab-lished an APA division; instead, humanistic psychology has continued to extendits focus to include the transpersonal. Krippner has pointed out that the inclu-sion of parapsychology in the charter for transpersonal psychology proposed aserious threat to the definition of psychology as a science (Krippner 2004:28),hence its rejection.

� Galanti: The focus [for SAC] was never on verifying or disproving para-psychology, but looking at people’s beliefs regarding precognition, etc.[September 14, 2004].

� Schwartz: Absolutely right. The thrust of our group was to find ways to inte-grate together the rigorous study of extraordinary human functioning that wasbeing studied by parapsychology, with the cultural insights provided throughresearch in anthropology. This synthesis potentially offered something thatneither of these disciplines, alone, could provide [February 27, 2005].

� Schroll: I support the emphasis placed on bringing studies of parapsychologyto bear on understanding spontaneous occurrences of psi that anthropologistsencounter during their field studies; but this is not the same as studying peoplethat “believe in the paranormal.” Actually, Krippner prefers the term psychoen-ergetic systems instead of paranormal [Krippner 1975:141; Schroll 2004b9].People can believe in things that are not real—like the Easter Bunny


AoC_16-1.qxd 30/9/05 04:11 PM Page 12

[Schroll 2005c]—making them a social fact, a folk belief that can be part of alarger explanatory belief system; but this is totally different than a physical fact.It is also the difference between superstition and empirical fact.

� Schwartz: SAC was conceived of as an interdisciplinary organization whichprovided a common meeting ground for consciousness researchers from sev-eral disciplines, notably parapsychology, cultural and medical anthropology,and transpersonal psychology, to gather. The hope was, from the exchangesthat evolved, a synthesis would emerge that was more insightful than anysingle discipline alone could provide. [February 27, 2005]

� Galanti: I don’t think it’s the role of anthropology to prove or disprove psi,but rather to look at how it operates in peoples’ lives. For example, do peoplefrom various cultures share a belief in reincarnation? How do they see itoperating? [September 14, 2004]

� Schwartz: Yes, I agree with Geri-Ann. This was definitely a part of the originalimpulse and catches its flavor. [February 27, 2005]

� Schroll: We are having a misunderstanding now, which is different than dis-agreeing. Of course anthropologists can investigate how psi operates in peo-ples’ lives as a belief; but this is not the same impulse that led to the 1974AAA symposium in Mexico City. If SAC is only interested in studying “beliefsystems,” and not interested in establishing any “ontological” truth to psy-choenergetic systems, I can accept this. But this approach will not lead tonew metaphysical truths that challenge the existing scientific paradigm.

� Schwartz: This may be true now; it definitely was not true in the beginning.Joe [Long] and I definitely saw ourselves as helping to birth a new paradigmof understanding concerning the nature of consciousness. [February 27, 2005]

� Schroll: Yes, in the beginning, you and Joe were seeking to understand theepistemology of psychoenergetic phenomena and its relationship to con-sciousness. But I am not aware of anyone in SAC that is working on this now,and if someone is working on this I would like to know who it is. All I seenow are people studying belief systems or people trying to understand con-sciousness neurophysiologically. These are noble pursuits, even though I amconcerned about the application of knowledge regarding consciousness stud-ies within the military-industrial complex. This differs from an attempt tounderstand the modus operandi of the farther reaches of cognition and itsrelationship with the physical universe, which is what Tart, Krippner andothers like them in transpersonal psychology are doing. But others in transper-sonal psychology do not share this interest. To be more precise, it is my inter-est as a philosopher of science and social-transpersonal eco-anthropologist tounderstand the varieties of experiences that produce psychoenergetic cogni-tion and the corresponding internal states that are created as a result.


AoC_16-1.qxd 30/9/05 04:11 PM Page 13

� Galanti: I don’t think SAC had the same issues as you describe for Transper-sonal Psychology. [September 14, 2004]

� Schwartz: Geri-Ann is correct. [February 27, 2005]

This inquiry into SAC’s relationship with transpersonal psychology, especiallytheir respective treatment of psychoenergetic systems, is an ongoing discussionthat will continue to push the boundaries of each group. Also, in keeping with theoriginal focus that Schwartz details in “Boulders” (Schwartz 2000), and to sup-port what I have said, it’s important to recall Long’s methodological emphasis inExtrasensory Ecology which specifically references Tart:

Altered states not only could lead the personality into different reality fieldsbut. . .these new realities could actually be studied by the behavioral scientistwho dared to enter these same other-reality boundaries.

[Long 1977:2]

This methodological stance supports an empirical laboratory approach toASC and psi, and the need for anthropologists in the field to become partici-pants, or as Edith Turner put it, to “go native” (Turner 1993) to fully understandthe conceptual gestalt that produces these experiences—though “going native”had become associated with controversy surrounding Castaneda. Willis Harmanclarifies the broader philosophical issue at work here:

[Objective] . . . prediction-and-control knowledge has come to be clearly predom-inant, mainly because it is the form most useful for generating new technologiesand the ability to control the physical environment. . .[whereas subjective knowl-edge of] purpose and meaning are not concepts that refer directly to things that arephysical and measurable. . . There has often been the added implication thatsuch knowledge, not being scientific, must be either illusory or unimportant.

[Harman 1981:5]

The challenge, in which I am in full agreement with Schwartz, is to create abalanced perspective that provides a composite or integrated full spectrum viewof both extremes, taking care to remember Maslow’s caution regarding the studyof religion: “As the more Apollonian type veer toward the extreme of beingreduced to the merely-behavioral, so does the mystical type run the risk of beingreduced to the merely-experiential” (Maslow 1970:84).

� Schwartz: All of this, to the degree it was a factor at all, was part of the cul-tural soup in which we were all swimming. I introduced Joe to Willis Harmanand, I think, Maslow, but all of that was years after the AAA meetings in Mexico;and during the early years these developments in transpersonal psychologywere at best an indirect influence.

[February 27, 2005]


AoC_16-1.qxd 30/9/05 04:11 PM Page 14

� Schroll: We could therefore say our adherence to the objective perspectivedoes protect mainstream science from infiltration by “New Age” shamanslike Lynn Andrews, J. Z. Knight’s purported channeling, and Uri Geller’squestionable psi abilities.

� Schwartz: None of these people, with the possible exception of Geller, due tohis short visit at the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) in the 1970s, have hadany impact on science at all. They are never even discussed. [February 27, 2005]

� Schroll: Egad, another caveat! Let’s not even go there, or this brief excursionthrough the history of SAC will become even more irreverent. Let’s end onsomething we can both agree on. That our sole reliance on the objectiveperspective fails and even prohibits us from investigating the source of religion:subjective encounters with ecstatic mystical experiences, shamanic journeysto other worlds or states of consciousness, seeing and feeling the energyfields associated with psychic healing. Turner reminds us that subjectiveencounters with “the source of religion” are still taboo in Euro-Americanscience (Turner 2003); however, she cites the work of anthropologists suchas Jeanne Favret-Saadda, Bruce Grindal, and Paul Stoller as pioneering anemerging subjective perspective—a perspective that would create a newunderstanding of what it means to be human (Turner 2003) and therebytruly unite SAC and transpersonal psychology.

castaneda: shaman or sorcerer?

All of the above leads us to Carlos Castaneda and his work, succinctly historicizedby Long:

Although anthropologists have occasionally shown an unabashed interest inpsi, or paranormal phenomena, in primitive cultures since the days of AndrewLang, it was not until the appearance of Castaneda’s work that anthropolo-gists were forced into making some concerted effort to understand the paranor-mal aspects of culture.

[Long 1977:1]

What parapsychologists dub psi, belonged to the pantheon of pre-modern beliefswe now refer to as animism: a worldview of our universe as conscious, multidi-mensional, and alive with spirits. Shamanism, as Nevill Drury tells us, is reallyapplied animism (Drury 1989). Shamans frequently refer to having conversationswith trees, plants, animals, as well hearing the voice of the earth—claims thatseem preposterous to Euro-American science. Prejudice against animism createsa climate of fear and skepticism toward people that possess the ability to accessstates of anomalous cognition (like a witch or shaman) and the very existence ofsuch anomalous cognition reveals the limits of Euro-American science. This


AoC_16-1.qxd 30/9/05 04:11 PM Page 15

institutionalized prejudice has also encouraged the belief that anomalous cogni-tion represents “some kind of special sensory ability” beyond that of ordinarypeople. Many anthropologists of consciousness (Krippner, Ralph Metzner,Terence McKenna [who died of a brain tumor April 3, 2000, while this essay’sfirst draft was being written], Holger Kalweit, and others) are continuing to inves-tigate the degree of truth associated with this claim that shamans possess “somekind of special sensory ability.” It is worth pointing out that there are other waysof understanding how it’s possible to hear the voice of the earth without needingto possess any “special sensory ability.”

Just by their very existence, natural landscapes, rivers, trees, plants, and ani-mals are able to serve as “triggering devices” that assist us in awakening ourancestral memories. Using this heightened sensitivity and awareness of all natu-ral systems provides witches, shamans and the rest of us with an ability to free-associate and remember. This makes it possible for all of us to hear the voice ofthe earth without any kind of “special sensory ability” beyond that of ordinaryconsciousness, by learning to read the language of myths and dreams and utiliz-ing archetypal methods.

I organized the opening symposium, Castaneda’s Controversy: ExaminingConsciousness Studies Future, at SAC’s 2003 Annual Spring Meeting at theUniversity of Las Vegas—which not only provided an opportunity to re-examineCastaneda’s legacy, but harked back to the 1974 Rhine-Swanton Symposium onParapsychology and Anthropology (Schwartz 2000). Timothy L. Hubbard’s pres-entation, “Suggestive Similarities and Correspondences of Shamanic Cognitionand Nonshamanic Cognition” (Hubbard 2003a; 2003b), provided a thoroughoverview of cognitive science’s understanding of consciousness. I agree withHubbard’s thesis— as far as it goes—that elements of shamanic cognition are pos-sible without possessing any “special sensory ability;” yet I also suggested toHubbard at the time that alternate, expanded, somatic-mystical states of con-sciousness represent the essential origin of all religious expression (Schroll 2005b).

Curiously, while Hubbard and I were out hiking in the mountainous red rockarea outside Las Vegas, an “aha” opportunity took place for him when the land-scape “spoke” to Matthew Bronson (who was hiking with us), thereby providinga perfect example of the landscape serving as a triggering device that allows us tofree-associate and remember our ancestral memories.

Stanley Krippner’s participation in the symposium provided a marvelousopportunity for him to recollect his longtime interest in Castaneda, aptlysummed up in his presentation’s title, “Castaneda: Shaman or Sorcerer?” (Ourconversations at SAC’s 2002. Annual Spring Meeting, and subsequent emails,actually evolved into the abstract for the Castaneda’s Controversy symposium.)Krippner began his presentation by reminiscing on a guest course he had taughtat Sonoma State University which examined objective and subjective states ofreality and asked the question, “Did Carlos really fly?” He also recalled inviting


AoC_16-1.qxd 30/9/05 04:11 PM Page 16

Richard DeMille, well known for his criticism of Castaneda’s research, to addressthe Humanistic Psychology division of the American Psychological Association.

Krippner’s main contribution to the SAC symposium was, however, morethan anyone could have hoped; he provided a thorough overview of the unpub-lished work of Douglass Price-Williams (an anthropologist and psychotherapist)on his extraordinary relationship with Carlos Castaneda. Price-Williams’ workon Castaneda is, without question, the most significant contribution to havebeen written on this subject. In this essay, I will only briefly summarize Krippner’scomments to the symposium about their association and want to note espe-cially that Price-Williams is justifiably sensitive to the way in which his unpub-lished ideas are used. Krippner believes that Price-Williams’ research providesclear evidence that Castaneda consistently and significantly “borrowed ideas”from Douglass without ever asking and without acknowledging their source.Price-Williams has yet to publish on the full extent and significance of his friend-ship with Castaneda. If Krippner’s suspicions prove to be true, perhaps Price-Williams should be proud that Castaneda chose to exploit him. The counterculturewas ripe in 1968 for Castaneda’s tales of a seemingly uptight middle-class Latinowhose encounters with an old Mexican Indian unveiled a non- ordinary reality, anuminous state of consciousness and corresponding way of life that provided aserious challenge to rational secular science (Castaneda 1968; 1971; 1972). His“tales of power” also provided a psychological sense of “personal empowerment”for a generation seeking an alternative paradigm to Euro-American science’sdominant story that, as Kremer aptly summarizes:

Has led to well-known consequences which are highly problematic—for example,the threat of nuclear holocaust and the possibility for ecological catastrophessuch as the destruction of rain forests and the ozone layer, the pollution of airand water, nuclear accidents, and so forth.

[Kremer 1988:189]

Consequently, and I think Price-Williams will understand where this statementis coming from, it was more believable to this rebel generation for Castaneda totell the tales than to hear the message from a white establishment anthropolo-gist. Considering the importance of raising both public and scientific awarenessof shamanism, if Castaneda had not bestowed the discussion with his charisma,we might not even be talking about shamanism now. Indeed, Price-Williams andcolleagues such as Michael Harner (1980; 199310) might have had to invent him.

The double irony is that it was a white establishment anthropologist that hadsome unique insights into the clash that was becoming increasingly acknowl-edged between the worldview of indigenous people and the scientific view of theworld. I first began to write about this “clash” when a description for a course onecopsychology and indigenous science was due. The words and images influ-encing my thoughts at the time were a series of essays by Kremer.


AoC_16-1.qxd 30/9/05 04:11 PM Page 17

Ecopsychology and indigenous science can be understood as an emerging21st century psychological awareness, and a growing cultural response, to themark and wound of Euro-American science’s imperialistic grasp for the con-trol of a reality experienced as an external other comprised of isolated parts(Kremer 1997). Other is the splitting from our indigenous origins that contin-ues to be colonized and manipulated in a rationalistic dissociated worldview(Kremer 1994): a worldview dominated by masculine heroes whose quest forknowledge has excluded heroines from this quest, thereby eliminating femi-nine capacities for knowing (Kremer 1992a). How can we learn to think and bein the world in a way:

That breaches this dissociation—without abandoning the achievements of‘scientific thinking’? . . . How can we determine what is real and true in ourworld without subscribing to a rationalistic imperialism? . . . What is thedirection in which the masculinized hero needs to go in order to integrate thefeminine, the wild, and the awareness of participation in world creation?

[Kremer 1992b:4]

The call to reinvent our narrative construction of science and culture is oneof ecopsychology’s many attempts to create a more integral/essential science.11

I view the focus on ecopsychology and indigenous science as complementary,and congruous, with the investigation of psi/transpersonal dimensions of theanthropology of consciousness. It may be that the untold tales of Castaneda’scontroversy do not so much discredit Castaneda, but rather, help contextu-alize the conceptual and cultural landscape within which A Separate Reality(Castaneda 1971) originated.

Krippner (2003) believes that Castaneda’s practice of borrowing Price-Williams’ ideas began almost immediately after Price-Williams accepted afaculty position at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). Followinghis interview with the department Chair, they happened to see a short, darkman that was studying. The Chair pointed to this man, mentioning a last namethat sounded Spanish, and asked if Price-Williams would like to meet him.During their first encounter this dark stranger demonstrated no interest inPrice-Williams’ research but, instead, kept referring to someone called Don Juanand how he had learned sorcery from him. Baffled as to why the Chair wantedhim to meet this strange but interesting man, Price-Williams chose to spendsome time that afternoon browsing in a local book store. To his amazement, hehappened upon a book with the title Conversations with Don Juan, and therebylearned that it was the author he had met earlier in the day. (It was some timelater that Price-Williams discovered Castaneda’s doctoral committee chair wasalso the department Chair).

As Krippner unraveled Price-Williams’ detailed saga of his association withCarlos, it became increasingly clear that sorcery, not shamanism, is what


AoC_16-1.qxd 30/9/05 04:11 PM Page 18

Castaneda had studied. Introducing this argument, that Castaneda was a sorcererand not a shaman, Krippner referred to Michael Winkelman’s (1992) classifica-tions in Shamans, Priests and Witches. Krippner believes that Castaneda (1) wasnot interested in healing, which anthropologists have established as a primarycharacteristic of shamans; nor did he (2) have any outreach into the communityexcept for his interaction with Don Juan’s other students—even though theresponsibility to serve as a group’s spiritual advisor is second only to a shaman’spractice as a healer.

Krippner went on to describe the growth of an intimate friendship betweenCarlos and Price-Williams that led Castaneda to begin confiding in Douglass.Castaneda related a story that he had once handed in a paper on shamanism fora class. This paper received an A+, with the comment “good work” from his pro-fessor. Revealing his wry sense of humor, Castaneda disclosed that one page ofthis paper had purposely been omitted, two stuck together, and two others hadbeen inverted. One might at first perceive these oddities as some kind of school-boy prank, which Castaneda could easily have claimed had been perpetrated bysomeone else if these irregularities had been discovered; but Price-Williamsclaims these manipulations were a test Carlos invented to ascertain if anyonehad actually read his paper. This was Price-Williams’ first indication that he wasdealing with a trickster.

One of the most significant stories Krippner told about Castaneda and Price-Williams’ relationship involved an experiment that Carlos said would demon-strate the power of sorcery. Carlos told Douglass that he possessed the ability totransmit a spirit ally in a dream. He then encouraged Price-Williams to verify hisabilities by having him contact certain people to find out what they had beendreaming about. Price-Williams contacted these people, and each person didindeed remember one or two dreams that involved small animals. Thelma Moss,a rather well known parapsychologist, was one of them. Moss recalled havingdreams about a toilet with fish and rats in it—which were images that were veryintrusive to her—and went on to say that according to her assessment, thesedreams were “obviously sorcery” and that “you should not dabble in this kind ofsorcery” (Krippner 2003).

Krippner raised several questions in response to this experiment: (1) Why, ifCarlos had been serious about wanting to demonstrate his powers of sorcery, didhe not cooperate with a parapsychological laboratory? (2) Considering the appar-ent vindication of this demonstration, why did Carlos fail to present this infor-mation in a scholarly journal? (3) Why did Carlos not present this account to theAmerican Anthropological Association? Both Krippner and Price-Williams haveconcluded that Castaneda failed miserably when it came to getting his ideasinto academia.

Krippner went on to conclude that this point bore upon the theme of thesymposium, especially the question of whether or not we really need to study


AoC_16-1.qxd 30/9/05 04:11 PM Page 19

shamanism, or sorcery, in order to understand it. His answer was, “Well, yes andno,” because there are always several levels associated with understanding. Wecould pose this same question to an obstetrician and ask, “Do you have to have ababy in order to understand giving birth?” The answer of course is no—if, that is,you are a female obstetrician. Krippner believed that Castaneda did not seem tounderstand the difference between shamanism and sorcery since he used thesewords interchangeably in all his books; moreover, Carlos never provided a defi-nition for either of these two terms.

Throughout their many conversations, Price-Williams noted that Carlosrepeatedly mentioned a book he really wanted to write, The Art of Sorcery. Thisbook would explain why sorcery is an art and not a science. Krippner said heconsidered sorcery to be a technology—neither science nor art. He also statedthat Price-Williams had concluded that Castaneda was the embodiment ofhis own (Price-Williams’) shadow and trickster personality; thus, knowingCastaneda benefited him toward the integration of his own shadow.

In sum, while Price-Williams and Krippner apparently agree that Castaneda’sbooks are not important anthropological documents, they did play an importantrole in furthering anthropology’s investigation of shamanism. More importantly,Castaneda’s books continue to have an influence on our thinking about objec-tive and subjective states of consciousness. Castaneda’s authenticity, however,remains a mystery.

concluding thoughts

From the perspective of neurochemistry (Hubbard 2003a; 2003b), there is nogreat difference between shamanic and nonshamanic consciousness.12 But, merelyfocusing on the physical differences in cognition misses the essential point ofshamanism, and transcendence in general, which is an attitudinal shift. It is ashift in ethics, and in the way that one approaches problem solving. It is a shift inthe way that one relates to other people and the nonhuman world: a shift in thethoughts, words, and deeds of one’s daily life. Shamanism’s revival is thereforecontributing to animism’s resurgence; that is, the growing interest in earth-basedspiritual traditions that have broadly been referred to as paganism, Gaia conscious-ness, Goddess spirituality, psi, and modern witchcraft.

I believe it is dangerous and misleading to assume that researchers enthusias-tically championing a “science of consciousness” will succeed in mending thedivision of matter and spirit and heal humankind’s dissociation from nature.Healing this division will not be possible until we have confronted the shadowtendencies in ourselves and Euro-American science. Before humankind pro-ceeds any further in its investigation of consciousness, it behooves us to addressthe need for an evolutionary transformation in our responsibility toward this kindof knowledge and its application.


AoC_16-1.qxd 30/9/05 04:11 PM Page 20

endnotes

1. Krippner’s comments are drawn from a manuscript written by Douglas Price-Williams. This essay also includes comments by Geri-Ann Galanti and suggestionsoffered by George P. Hansen and Michael Winkelman.

2. Parts of this essay appear in a column in Anthropology News (Schroll 2005a:48–49).

3. Geri-Ann Galanti’s comments were made at the Annual Spring Meeting of the Soci-ety for the Anthropology of Consciousness, Tucson, April 15, 2000 in a panel sessionorganized and chaired by Michael Winkelman and entitled The History of the Soci-ety for the Anthropology of Consciousness. Other participants were Dan MoonhawkAlford, John Baker, Constantine Hriskos, Jeff MacDonald, and Stephan A. Schwartz.

4. My personal travail of dream telepathy (Schroll 2000) is slated to be reprinted in aforthcoming chapter focusing on “ESP in Children” in The Gift: ESP, The Extraor-dinary Experiences of Ordinary People, Sally Rhine Feather and Michael Schmicker,eds., St. Martin’s Press.

5. The only published papers on the SAC website at the present time that addressaspects of psi are Bronson 1987a and 1987b; Schwartz 1987 and 2000.

6. I organized and chaired this two-and-a-half-hour session at Bastyr University (Schroll2001a), available for educational purposes on VHS or DVD from [email protected] Moonhawk Alford tells the story of how he became involved in SAC. (This washis last SAC meeting.) Also included are a discussion with John Baker, ConstantineHriskos, Edith Turner—and the infamous T-shirt incident.

7. Utts’ research raises the additional question as to why people are uncomfortablewhen they discuss the existence of psi. How does the existence of psi challenge notonly our scientific view of reality but also our religious view of reality? These ques-tions exceed the limits of this essay but have been taken up elsewhere (Hastings1986; Tart 1992; 2004).

8. See note 8, Schroll 2005b, in this issue. See also Minelli and Schroll (in press), espe-cially essays #44 (The Historical Context of Transpersonal Psychology) and #47 (TheAnthropology of Consciousness: Investigating the Frontiers of UnexplainablePersonal and Cultural Phenomena).

9. This one-hour presentation is available on audiotape from Conference RecordingService, Inc., 1308 Gilman St., Berkeley, CA. 94706. (800) 647-1110. http://www.con-ferencerecording.com.

10. Harner 1993 is also available as a one-hour audiotape presentation from ConferenceRecording Service (see note 9 above).

11. For a definition of integral/essential science, see Introduction (this Issue).

12. Metzner 2004 offers support for my thesis that it is the boundary-dissolving experi-ence of psychedelic substances that creates the cultural phenomena of shamanism,whose subjective understanding enables us to remember that everything is a socialconstruction. (Metzner’s 20-minute presentation is available on VHS and/or DVD forresearch and/or educational purposes from [email protected]. His completeessay has been published in Mind-Altering Drugs: The Science of Subjective Experience.Mitch Earlywine, ed., Oxford University Press, 2005.) He points out that merely


AoC_16-1.qxd 30/9/05 04:11 PM Page 21

looking at the pharmacology of psychedelics does not tell us anything that is veryinteresting about the contents of the experiences one has. Instead, set (our attitudes,intentions, expectations, belief systems, motivations and stage of personal psycholog-ical maturity) and setting (physical environment and social context) determine thecontents of our experience with psychedelic substances (Metzner 2004). See alsoSchroll 2004a.

references cited

Bronson, Matthew1987a Joining the Medium’s Table. Association for the Anthropological Studyof Consciousness Newsletter 3(3):3–5.1987b Joining the Medium’s Table: Part II. Association for the Anthropological Studyof Consciousness Newsletter 3(4):5–7.

Cardena, Etzel, Steven J. Lynn and Stanley Krippner, eds.2000 Varieties of Anomalous Experience: Examining the Scientific Evidence.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Castaneda, Carlos1968 The Teachings of Don Juan. Berkeley: University of California Press.1971 A Separate Reality. New York: Simon & Schuster.1972 Journey to Ixtlan. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Drury, Nevill1989 The Elements of Shamanism. Bridgeport, CT: Element Books.

Giordani, Lourdes2002 Review of 2002 SAC Tucson Conference (Part 2). Anthropology News43(9):50–51.

Harman, Willis1981 Science and the Clarification of Values: Implications of Recent Findings inPsychological and Psychic Research. Journal of Humanistic Psychology 21(3):3–16.

Harner, Michael1980 Way of the Shaman. New York: Bantam Books.1993 Shamanism and Transpersonal Healing. Keynote address with a brief drum-ming session presented at the 25th Anniversary Convocation of the Association forTranspersonal Psychology, Pacific Grove, August 26.

Hastings, Arthur1986 A Counseling Approach to Parapsychological Experience. ReVision 8 (2):61–73.

Hubbard, Timothy L.2003a Suggestive Similarities and Correspondences of Shamanic Cognition andNonshamanic Cognition. Paper presented at the Annual Spring Meeting of theSociety for the Anthropology of Consciousness, Las Vegas, April 3.2003b Some Correspondences and Similarities of Shamanism and Cognitive Science:Interconnectedness, Extension of Meaning, and Attribution of Mental States. Anthro-pology of Consciousness 14(1):26–45.

Kierulff, Stephen and Stanley Krippner2004 Becoming Psychic: Spiritual Lessons for Focusing Your Hidden Abilities. FranklinLakes, NJ: New Page Books.


AoC_16-1.qxd 30/9/05 04:11 PM Page 22

Kremer, Jurgen W.1988 Shamanic Tales as Ways of Personal Empowerment. In Shaman’s Path: Heal-ing, Personal Growth and Empowerment. Gary Doore, ed. Pp. 189–199. Boston:Shambhala.1992a The Dark Night of the Scholar: Reflections on Culture and Ways of Know-ing. ReVision 14(4):169–178.1992b Whither Dark Night of the Scholar? ReVision 15(1):4–12.1994 Seider or Trance? Toward an Archaeology of the Euro-American Tribal Mind.ReVision 16(4):183–191.1997 Mind on Fire. ReVision 19(3):42–48.

Krippner, Stanley1975 Song of the Siren: A Parapsychological Odyssey. San Francisco: Harper & Row.1977 Advances in Parapsychology. New York: Plenum.2003 Castaneda: Sorcerer or Shaman? Paper presented at the Annual Spring Meet-ing of the Society for the Anthropology of Consciousness, Las Vegas, April 3.2004 Review of The Art of Living: Discovering the Transcendent and the Transper-sonal in Our Lives. Association for Humanistic Psychology Perspective,April/May:27–28.

Long, Joseph, ed.1977 Extrasensory Ecology: Parapsychology and Anthropology. Metuchen, NJ: TheScarecrow Press, Inc.

Maslow, Abraham H.1970 New Introduction: Religions, Values, and Peak-Experiences. Journal ofTranspersonal Psychology 2(2):83–90.

Melton, Gordon J., Jerome Clark, and Aidan A. Kelly1990 New Age Encyclopedia. Detroit, MI: Gale Research Inc.

Metzner, Ralph2004 Psychedelics, Psychoactive and Addictive Drugs and States of Consciousness.Paper presented at the Annual Spring Meeting of the Society for the Anthropologyof Consciousness, Berkeley, March 27.

Minelli, Mark J. and Mark A. SchrollIn press The Areté of Living: Discovering the Transcendent and Transpersonality inOur Lives. 2nd edition Champaign, IL: Stipes Publications.

Schroll, Mark A.1988 Developments in Modern Physics and Their Implications for the Socialand Behavioral Sciences. In The Religion and Family Connection: Social Sci-ence Perspectives. Darwin L. Thomas, ed. Pp. 303–323. Salt Lake City:Bookcraft Publishing Co.2000 Personal Encounter with Paranormal Dreaming. The Archives of Scientists’Transcendent Experiences 73(Nov. 29):1–3.2001a Hypotheses In Search of a Paradigm: A Conversation Forum. Presentationat the Annual Spring Meeting of the Society for the Anthropology of Consciousness,Seattle, April 6. 2001b Review of Varieties of Anomalous Experience: Examining the ScientificEvidence. Anthropology of Consciousness 12(2):63–65.2004a Psychedelics. Anthropology News 45(8):53.


AoC_16-1.qxd 30/9/05 04:11 PM Page 23

2004b Dream Telepathy and the Shadow Consequences of a Science of Conscious-ness. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Transpersonal Psychol-ogy, Palo Alto, February 15. 2005a SAC’s Relationship with Transpersonal Psychology. Anthropology News46(2):48–49.2005b Toward A Physical Theory of the Source of Religion. Anthropology ofConsciousness 16(1):— 2005c Shamanism’s Taboos, the Easter Bunny and Reality. Paper presented at theAnnual Spring Meeting of the Society for the Anthropology of Consciousness,Amherst, April 15.2005d Transpersonal Lessons in Philosophy of Science from an 11-Year RecurringDream. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Association forthe Study of Dreams, Berkeley, June 27.2005e Reflections on Albert Hofmann’s Epistemology of Consciousness. Electronicdocument. http://www.maps.org/avarchive/hofmann_birthday_essay.pdf.

Schwartz, Stephan A1987 The Mystery of Healing: Science and An Ancient Art Come Together. Associationfor the Anthropological Study of Consciousness Newsletter 3(4):4.2000 Boulders in the Stream: The Lineage and Founding of Society for theAnthropology of Consciousness. Electronic document, http://www.sacaaa.org/historyofsac.htm, accessed July 5, 2005.2005 Remote Viewing: The Modern Mental Martial Art. 3rd edition. Nemoseen:Minneapolis.

Tart, Charles T.1992 Perspectives on Scientism, Religion and Philosophy Provided by Parapsychology.Journal of Humanistic Psychology 32(2):70–100.2004 On the Scientific Foundations of Transpersonal Psychology: ContributionsFrom Parapsychology. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology 36(1):66–90.

Toulmin, Stephen1986 The New Philosophy of Science and the “Paranormal.” In Science Confrontsthe Paranormal. Kendrick Frazier, ed. Pp.13–19. Buffalo: Prometheus Books.

Turner, Edith1993 The Reality of Spirits: A Tabooed or Permitted Field of Study? Anthropology ofConsciousness 4(1):9–12.2003 Fear of Religious Emotion Versus the Need for Research that Encompasses theFullest Experiences. In Selected Readings in the Anthropology of Religion: Theoreticaland Methodological Essays. Stephen D. Glazier and Charles A. Flowerday, eds.Pp.109–117. Westport: Praeger.

Winkelman, Michael1982 Magic: A Theoretical Reassessment. Current Anthropology 23(1):37–66.1992 Shamans, Priests and Witches: A Cross-Cultural Study of Magico-ReligiousPractitioners. Tempe: Arizona State University.


AoC_16-1.qxd 30/9/05 04:11 PM Page 24

Documents

Untold Stories of Castaneda