The position that views the world as the center of descriptions is quite natural. Virtually every one of these descriptions inevitably enters into conflict and discovers a compromise in maintaining a certain kind of "blindness" as Canetti - the child, truly, is raised based on the descriptive side of reality provided to him not so much by relatives (which of course include parenting figures) as by people more or less close to him in age. Attempts to shield from the "corrupting" influence of youth only serve to reconfigure the sensitive mind to the tune of the parents' ideas about "corruption", from which, incidentally, the latter are not so far removed as their reaction to the phenomena of generational "immorality" is crude and blatant.
The essence is that the description by Carlos Castaneda of Don Juan's judgments only serves to the detriment of the very foundation of the teaching ("bear service", Bärendienst) - because attempts to avoid "glosses" (as mentioned in the attached abridged interview with the author in 1972) through the recreation of the concept of "liberation" - are no more than the recreation of those "glosses" in their original form, closing the circle of movement of the arrows on the dial; an illusion of movement in accordance with the imposed perception of time is created - that is, the movement of the hour hand, indicating the approach of the daily norm to dusk - the "crack between the worlds". But this "crack" loses its nature with the very emergence of a definition in the consciousness of the individual who has decided to witness its existence - all the more so since the definition comes from a source that has boiled up in the memory due to the complexly defined authority of the opinion. And yes, the interpretation only strengthens the fundamentality of the positioning of the dogma - in essence, if we endow the latter with life (and why not, if there are quite enough examples of communication, of life devoid of?), then we should also speak of its self-sufficiency, and therefore the interpretation is simply necessary for it (including, this indicates the need to renounce "biblical truths" for the penetration of the natural foundations of "morality") as a guarantee of inaccessibility, and as a product of its "creative realization" (since we endow the dogma with life, and every life has a creative beginning - that is, the dogma - we make the corresponding conclusion).
"Don Juan was sitting on a wooden box from under the milk bottles". The milk bottles jingled softly in time with the bells on the door flapping in the wind. I stopped the car almost at the very threshold, opened the door and looked out, studying the deep road dust for the presence of snake skins in it. Over the roofs of the little houses standing a few dozen feet away from Don Juan's dwelling, a dozen large birds were hovering, in which it was difficult to recognize vultures because of the sun blinding the eyes - their reflections could be seen more successfully in the windshield and side windows of the car. I had never had to see such a number of them gathered near a human settlement.
Don Henaro will not find his way in Ixtlan, just as no one will ever write a book that would contain all the knowledge of humanity (let's not talk about technologies including "data" - at least until they invent at least one "innovation of the spirit" that has a purely utilitarian purpose) - Don Henaro did not see (without quotes and capital letters) Ixtlan (he was *there*), so he has no possibility of subjecting it to description (in order to "return" - for an unknown reason, however, Ixtlan is attributed with stagnation - it does not move "together" with Don Henaro), he got rid of the need to perceive phenomena through description (prescription?), to pass a death sentence on the phenomenon ("10 years without the right to correspond"), convincing himself with terminology in order to occupy the corresponding niche in the dictionary of the public's explanatory dictionary (terminology of the independently misinterpreted Other). Don Henaro is that very "best writer" Henry Miller who did not write a single book (..and no, my dear ones, this does not mean at all what you might imagine about yourself ;)).
People, truly, turn into ghosts after the passage of thought-time - we can laugh with them and create the impression of good will in them, we can maintain immobility of the facial muscles when meeting and cause a reaction of pretentious rejection, we can pour out anger on them that has no justifying reproduction (like a magnetic tape) motivation, and become witnesses of their instinctive striving to avoid conflict - in the end, we can allow ourselves to be the subjects of such character experiments - they can laugh with us, they can ignore us, they can attack us with clearly discernible intentions - we are ghosts in the lives of these people to the same extent as they are in ours. But people just as successfully take the form of "living beings", without the introduction of any circumstances - when they are deprived of description, "personal history", which necessarily includes every interaction with the surrounding world in a deliberate act of individual disarray (false nails, eyelashes, beards and manes of greenhouse complexes).