I stopped by the Rolling Stone office and picked up an advanced copy of the new issue (Sept 7, 2006), which contains a substantial feature on me, titled “Daniel Pinchbeck and the New Psychedelic Elite”, by Vanessa Grigoriades. It will be hitting the newsstands in a few short hours.
My reaction to this article is extremely mixed. For the most part, I am happy that it has seen the light of day, as it is no doubt going to feed discussion around shamanism, psychedelics, my books, the concept of a global consciousness shift as we approach the year 2012, etcetera. From my perspective, the growing awareness of this alternative paradigm is, in itself, part of the prophecy – a necessary step in the process of bringing a new world into manifestation.
I find myself in a peculiarly bittersweet relationship to fame, worldly success, etc., as part of the concept I am promoting is of a shift in consciousness that will be so swift and so profound, when it arrives, that it will annul our current categories and conventional reward systems. As I noted in “2012,” I sometimes feel like I am communicating “backwards” from this future state of “time freedom,” and it is a peculiarly uncanny sensation. From that impersonal perspective, I am simply watching a process unfold in linear time – the process of the accelerated evolution of consciousness. As a messenger or prophet (certainly not a "guru"), I am simply sending out a signal to be picked up by those who are ready to receive it.
The article, despite its five-page length, is impressively shallow, almost ignoring the ideas in my new book entirely, to concentrate on semi-salacious details of my personal life. I learnt, to my surprise, that I have “buck teeth,” and some undefined similarity to Austin Powers. The article has that seamy tabloid vibe of scandal, sin, and shadowy disgrace. Perhaps the best thing about it is the Matt Mahurin illustration of me facing myself as forked-tongue serpent.
The most frustrating aspect of the piece is the impression I get, while reading it, that most of my ideas (as well as salient details of my life) were carefully, almost meticulously, distorted or disconnected from each other so that they would seem unfounded and insignificant. There were crucial aspects of my thesis in “2012” that Vanessa seemed unable to understand – for instance, I explained to her over and over again the Calleman model which reveals the Mayan Calendar as a precision timing device for the development of consciousness on Earth, from more than 16 billion years ago to 2012, in a nine-stage process that accelerates by factors of twenty in relation to linear time. Clearly, she was too busy seeking out quotes from disaffected former lovers to follow such an argument.
In retrospect, I feel that my mistake in my fencing match with Vanessa was to reveal my own frustrations over the predictable mechanisms of the mainstream media, which I discuss in my books and know well from my own struggles as a freelancer. The rigid formats and tone of articles such as hers make any honest or integral dialogue utterly impossible. Everything has to be branded in some immediately recognizable way, as if any idea that was new or different might threaten the entire system that the media is propping up. To take one of many examples available paragraph by paragraph, she writes that I am “actively bidding to become [my] generation’s Timothy Leary.” First of all, I scrupulously critique Leary and his approach to psychedelics in Breaking Open the Head. Second of all, I do not behave in any way like a “high priest” of psychedelia, and have a completely different way of framing my discourse and the results I am hoping to help bring about.
Vanessa almost entirely ignores my efforts to start a new company, Evolver (with EVO as its membership organization), which is actually a deep-seated effort to put the ideas developed in “2012” into practice by creating a supportive infrastructure for social transformation (it is far more than just a magazine), using the tools of business. She couldn’t be bothered to look into it. The article ignores my hypothesis on 2012 and the meaning of Quetzalcoatl as an archetype – representing the integration of spirit and matter, or the coming together of the Western rational and empirical mindset with the intuitive, shamanic, or mystical way of knowing and being. She also writes, incorrectly, that I promote the notion of a psychedelic “elite” that will be saved somehow when the world goes haywire. In actual fact, I am committed to a compassionate transformation of our planetary situation that would benefit everyone.
And of course Vanessa takes the easy opportunity to smack me around on the subject of my sex life and my views on sexuality – a subject about which I would love to open a serious debate in the mainstream media, but which Rolling Stone is not likely to allow. The fact that I propose monogamy is not the only solution to human sexuality automatically means I am a sleazebag. It is not even conceivable that one might explore an open approach to sexuality in a positive or non-demeaning way. It seems apparent that Vanessa’s own shadow material is wrapped up in this area, as she describes herself, unjustly, as a “not-hot enough girl” with “disbelieving eyes.” The lack of dignity, grace, or empathy in her writing reflects her own limitations, as well as her ambitions, at least at this point in time.
Ah well… soon the specifics of the article will be forgotten, and Rolling Stone wil have given the psychedelic renaissance a useful push.
As Jack Kerouac put it, long ago, “Fame is like old newspapers blowing down Bleecker Street…”