Stage plays and movies have given us many versions of the story of The Tempest. Within our cultural history, and over the centuries we have received varied interpretations of this play.
Calvin is offering a fun-filled and insightful conversational evening to engage you in what otherwise is dry reading of Shakespeare. But this participatory experiences of The Tempest will be anything but that.
Some of Shakespeare’s fundamental themes of this play have gotten lost, The video will present them a new and our subsequent discussion are always a fun, deeper dive into the material – that will have you come away with a personal connection to the material and perhaps the writer himself; to introduce ideas about the themes that you may not have thought about before.
We’ll discuss an archetypal understanding of the play’s characters, represented as three areas of Mind or Consciousness as they pertain to the characters Caliban, Prospero, and Ariel. Shakespeare seems to present us with much to discuss – magic, self-deception, betrayal, sex, revenge, and the ability to give for ( that goes beyond forgiveness), to redemption, and love.
This Zoom Presentation of Shakespeare – ‘The Tempest’ – will introduce you to where the group, the Prosperos®, got its name.
Mark your calendar – Zoom Event
Friday, June 27, 2025
Time: 4:30 p.m. Pacific Time to 7:00 p.m.
Link and additional information to follow
And for those who have attended Calvin’s Salon events, you know it is going to be a good time…
A local startup says their flying car is now operable, they’ve got a hype video for it, and insist they are now taking pre-orders for this $300,000 vehicle. But there may not be many places in the Bay Area you can legally fly it.
Whatever progress they may have made is shown in the brief hype video above. But now KTVU reports that Alef Aeronautics is taking pre-orders on this $300,000 flying car, the Alef Model A that they call the “first true flying car in history.” It’s sort of a hybrid driving and flying car that the company says is “Designed to drive on the street, take off vertically when needed and fly overhead above traffic.”
Image: Alef Aeronautics
This Batmobile-looking contraption has “vertical takeoff and landing capabilities” according to KTVU, so it does not need a runway to take off or land. It’s an all-electric vehicle, and can supposedly drive 110 miles (or fly 200 miles) on a single charge.
That’s a pretty limited range as far as electric vehicles go. But hey, it can fly! The company insists in a press release that “On average, the Alef flying car uses less energy per trip than a Tesla or any other EV.”
Image: Pacific Coast Dream Machines Show via Facebook
There are other apparent drawbacks. The car’s pre-order page notes that “Alef ‘Model A’ is a Low Speed Vehicle (LSV) which has legal speed and other limitations in most states.” These low-speed vehicles can generally only go about 25 miles per hour, so this may not be a regular, daily-use kind of car.
And as KTVU adds, it is flight-legal in some areas, but only during daylight hours. That station also notes that these flying vehicles are “prohibited from going over congested or densely populated areas like cities or towns.” So that’s…. most of the Bay Area?
Either way, you can get on the pre-order list for $150, or the “Priority Queue” for $1,500. Again, the car itself — whenever it’s ready — will cost $300,000.
So when will it be ready? Alef Aeronautics tells KTVU that “If everything goes according to plan, and no major external changes, Alef plans to start production of the first vehicle by the end of 2025 or Q1 of 2026.”
New Thinking Allowed with Jeffrey Mishlove Jun 6, 2025 This video is a special release from the original Thinking Allowed series that ran on public television from 1986 until 2002. It was recorded in about 1986. It will remain public for only one week. The late Gay Gaer Luce, PhD, is author of Body Time and founded and directed the Nine Gates Mystery School. Here she describes the importance of the mystery school tradition within modern society. Now you can watch all of the programs from the original Thinking Allowed Video Collection, hosted by Jeffrey Mishlove. Subscribe to the new Streaming Channel (https://thinkingallowed.vhx.tv/) and watch more than 350 programs now, with more, previously unreleased titles added weekly. Free month of the classic Thinking Allowed streaming channel for New Thinking Allowed subscribers only. Use code THINKFREELY.
New Thinkin Jun 5, 2025 Sasha Chaitow, PhD, is a British-Greek cultural historian, author, artist, and lecturer whose work explores the rich intersections of esotericism, philosophy, and the arts. An internationally exhibited artist, she is the author of several books including her translation of The Hieroglyphica of Horapollon Niloos, the topic of this video conversation. Her other books include Son of Prometheus: The Life and Work of Joséphin Péladan and Atalanta Unveiled: Alchemical Initiation in the Emblems of the Atalanta Fugiens. Here she discusses the history of this fifth century Greek manuscript that originated in Alexandria, Egypt. A copy was discovered during the Renaissance that was believed, at that time, to be of great antiquity. It purported to interpret the Egyptian hieroglyphs and was extremely influential in the development of Renaissance emblems and symbols. Subsequent scholarship has revealed that the interpretations of ancient Egyptian writing were largely inaccurate. 00:00:00 Introduction 00:02:37 Who was Horapollon Niloos? 00:10:22 Renaissance impact 00:17:38 Fifth century Alexandria 00:30:28 Paganism never died 00:42:34 How accurate was the Hieroglyphica? 00:46:34 Ancient myths as allegories 00:54:14 Academic disputes 01:03:07 Middle eastern cultural fusion 01:07:53 Summary and conclusion New Thinking Allowed host, Jeffrey Mishlove, PhD, is author of The Roots of Consciousness, Psi Development Systems, and The PK Man. Between 1986 and 2002 he hosted and co-produced the original Thinking Allowed public television series. He is the recipient of the only doctoral diploma in “parapsychology” ever awarded by an accredited university (University of California, Berkeley, 1980). He is also the Grand Prize winner of the 2021 Bigelow Institute essay competition regarding the best evidence for survival of human consciousness after permanent bodily death. He currently serves as Co-Director of Parapsychology Education at the California Institute for Human Science. (Recorded on May 1, 2025)
New Thinkin Jun 4, 2025 Darryl Robert Schoon is a financial analyst famous for having predicted the 2008 market crash. He is author of Light in a Dark Place: The Prison Years. He has also written a novel titled You Can’t Always Get What You Want. He is a minister with the Temple of Universality in Tucson, Arizona. His website is www.drschoon.com In this video, rebooted from 2019, he shares his unusual journey, as a student of metaphysics, working with affirmations and processes for obtaining inner wisdom. Although he was able to achieve enormous financial success, ultimately he ended up in prison with a ten-year sentence for drug dealing. While in prison, he expanded his meditation practice, achieving a state of oneness, and began questioning the subconscious factors that were running his life in spite of his conscious intentions. New Thinking Allowed host, Jeffrey Mishlove, PhD, is author of The Roots of Consciousness, Psi Development Systems, and The PK Man. Between 1986 and 2002 he hosted and co-produced the original Thinking Allowed public television series. He is the recipient of the only doctoral diploma in “parapsychology” ever awarded by an accredited university (University of California, Berkeley, 1980). He is also the Grand Prize winner of the 2021 Bigelow Institute essay competition regarding the best evidence for survival of human consciousness after permanent bodily death. He is Co-Director of Parapsychology Education at the California Institute for Human Science. (Recorded on October 31, 2019)
• This cycle is based on empirical data meaning enough data was observed and recorded to make it possible to suggest attitudes and reactions. Keep in mind that we all have free will and thus results will vary from one individual to another.
• The graph shows the energy high at the beginning of the cycle (not unlike any other astrological aspect) followed by a slow down before it gets strong and again this reflects years of tracking and noting feedback from our many students.
• If you are making a decision during this time you might want to let it set for a day or two then check your decision again to see if it still makes sense. However, you can feel into the ebb and flow and find good times to work on self emotionally in both the low and high points. Impatience, emotion and acts without thinking are common.
• With practice you can feel when the energy is there to help bring completion to tasks, goals and projects you may be working on.
New Thinking Jun 2, 2025 William Van Gordon, PhD, is a Chartered Psychologist who lectures and conducts research in psychology at the University of Derby in the United Kingdom. He sits on the editorial board for various academic journals including Mindfulness and Mindfulness and Compassion. He is also co-editor of two academic anthologies: Mindfulness and Buddhist-derived Approaches in Mental Health and Addiction, and The Buddhist Foundations of Mindfulness. William has over 100 academic publications relating to the scientific study of meditation. Prior to joining academia, William was a Buddhist monk for ten years. In this interview, rebooted from 2019, he suggests that, while biological pathogens are well-known and understood, little attention has been given to the possibility of psychological pathogenic agents. Nevertheless, some conditions — such as obesity — that are not considered communicable have been increasing globally at an alarming rate. Van Gordon postulates that inverse hallucinations, i.e., mindlessness (the opposite of mindfulness) are the source of many public health problems, as well as other social problems. New Thinking Allowed host, Jeffrey Mishlove, PhD, is author of The Roots of Consciousness, Psi Development Systems, and The PK Man. Between 1986 and 2002 he hosted and co-produced the original Thinking Allowed public television series. He is the recipient of the only doctoral diploma in “parapsychology” ever awarded by an accredited university (University of California, Berkeley, 1980). He is also the Grand Prize winner of the 2021 Bigelow Institute essay competition regarding the best evidence for survival of human consciousness after permanent bodily death. He is Co-Director of Parapsychology Education at the California Institute for Human Science. (Recorded on October 9, 2019)
noun: A person who is dangerously obsessive and vengeful, especially when spurned.
ETYMOLOGY:
After a character in the 1987 film Fatal Attraction who boils a pet rabbit belonging to the family of a married man who has an affair with her but then spurns her. Earliest documented use: 1990.
NOTES:
As the playwright William Congreve said in 1697: “Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, nor hell a fury like a woman scorned.” In Fatal Attraction, that fury came with a pot of boiling water.
While the term is vivid shorthand for obsessive behavior, it often reflects a double standard: strong emotional reactions in women are pathologized, while similar behavior in men may be cast as tragic or intense. [e.g., Trump and Musk]
In our hyper-polarized political and social climate, the urge to demonize those we disagree with has never been stronger—and it’s in full force. But what if blanket vilification is actually making things worse? When we deploy a strategy of wholesale demonization, we deepen polarization, halt productive exchange, and make real change unattainable. Drawing from personal experience as a longtime activist, I explore why hate closes the door to the connection and transformation our world desperately needs. This isn’t about being passive in the face of injustice—it’s about finding more effective ways to create the change we’re advocating for. Sometimes the most radical act is refusing to let hate and anger lead the way.
In these charged and honestly frightening political times in America, it can be incredibly tempting to vilify those whose views clash with our own. The stakes feel impossibly high, and the divisions seem insurmountable. From political activists to everyday citizens—and especially among the pundit and political class—hate-filled demonization of our “opponents” has reached toxic levels. It’s a thick fog of dysfunction, and I don’t know many people who aren’t feeling overwhelmed by it.
That urge to continually vent frustration onto the “other side” can feel utterly irresistible. But when hate fills our hearts, there is no room left for anything else. Hate is an intense, consuming emotion that most of us cannot leap over to find common ground or genuine connection. Some trash opponents just to release pent-up frustration, or convince themselves it will help their cause—shock people into seeing the folly of their views or as a means to rally our allies. In reality, it does the opposite. By using personalized attacks and demeaning others, we push them deeper into defensive positions and reinforce the very divisions we claim to want to heal.
As a lifelong activist, I’ve been guilty of this, thinking my anger and vitriol might enroll others or jolt my “opponents” awake. Instead, I began to see that it was counterproductive—it simply built more division. That is not to say there aren’t people doing truly vile things. Calling out real injustice powerfully and forcefully is important. The danger arises when anger-fueled critique becomes our wholesale strategy: constantly demonizing or mocking everyone with whom we disagree. It weakens our ability to speak out when strong criticism is truly justified, and it creates a divide so wide we can never reach common ground. Dialogue stalls, disconnection compounds, and the walls between us rise higher. That toxic cycle can even prompt opponents to take wilder swings, driving us further down the path of entrenched polarization. This approach also alienates potential allies who value collaboration and constructive dialogue—and are exhausted by all the games.
What Lives Beneath the Rage
Don’t get me wrong, strong feelings—even rage—can be completely understandable, especially when confronting profound injustice. However, when anger is our primary and ongoing source of fuel, it burns hot and often peters out quickly, leaving quite a mess in its wake. Festering anger usually (though not always) masks deeper, more vulnerable emotions that haven’t been acknowledged. For instance, what might be lying beneath my anger in any given moment is heartbreak: care for humanity, a longing for genuine community that cares for one another, and a deep fear that we may never achieve it. I often feel heartbroken (along with a healthy dose of rage) by the suffering I see under terrible policy choices and by how far we’ve strayed from a vision of unity. I worry not only for myself, but for the millions who lack the resilience and resources I have.
I don’t deny or try to pretend away anger or rage when it justifiably arises, I just work hard not to live there full time. When I allow myself to tap into the more tender spaces—share authentic sadness or fear when that is what I’m really feeling—others are far more likely to hear me. Most people can connect with those feelings in a way they cannot with unfettered rage. If I approach someone and say, “I’m heartbroken and fear for what’s happening,” they are more likely to pause and hear me than if I barrell in yelling. Operating from a deeper place of vulnerability creates space for genuine conversation.
Do We Really Have to Fight?
There is a pervasive idea that political engagement must be a constant battle, a fight. We watch political pundits lob bombs and insults at each other. Too many of us jump onto Twitter, cable news or podcasts, etc., and consume and/or contribute to the endless vitriol. But does it have to be that way? Can we not engage more respectfully, even with passion?
I grew up on a farm in Texas, where much of my family votes very differently than I do. Early on in my adulthood, I reveled in the fight—trying to win heated arguments felt like the point. That approach wore down our relationships and—honestly—my relationship with myself. The constant stress and disconnection took a toll I didn’t fully recognize until later.
Now I understand that it takes real commitment and emotional regulation to resist fighting fire with fire—or to stop igniting the fire myself in the first place. I’ve found much more peace since stepping back from constant political combat (though still a work in progress).
I do however strongly believe in the power of nonviolent resistance, now more than ever. Especially in the face of frightening anti-democratic movements. We can speak out and act vigorously against vile tactics without demonizing every person on the other side. This is different than the game too many are playing right now. Nonviolent resistance can not only affect real change, but the very nature of it can humanize the resistance—make it more compelling even.
The Distance Effect
When we stand face-to-face with someone, we generally treat each other with kindness and respect. We hold doors open, say please and express gratitude, we reach out a helping hand (without even asking how each other might vote!), we recognize each other’s humanity. Not always, but often. Yet, something shifts when there’s distance between us —whether in traffic, on social media, or in our political discourse. Behind every social and political position stands a real human being with fears, hopes, and experiences. But when they’re not right in front of us, it’s easy to forget that—and become vicious. Such a bizarre and destructive dynamic.
As I said, I still get worked up when I see injustice or hear views that deeply irritate me. I’ll curse, kvetch, feel genuine anger—that’s part of how I process it all at this stage of my emotional development. But experiencing those feelings does not mean I have to lash out or weaponize them. There is a crucial difference between privately processing our emotions and unleashing them as a public strategy. How we handle charged feelings makes all the difference.
A Different Way Forward
What if we brought the same face-to-face, humanizing energy to our political conversations? What if we remembered that even those we vehemently disagree with are fellow human beings navigating a complex world? This doesn’t mean abandoning our values or failing to stand up for what matters. It means advocating for our beliefs without dehumanizing others who see things differently—and accepting that lasting change rarely comes through shame and attack. Instead, it comes through the hard work of building bridges and finding common ground.
I learned this lesson firsthand through my work at The Peace Alliance. Over the past 20 years we have been in operation, we often met with congressional offices to promote our peacebuilding agenda. One meeting—around the time of the Iraq war—stands out. We were speaking with Nancy Pelosi’s chief of staff, who came in guarded: arms crossed, not looking at us, and braced for confrontation. We proceeded anyway. We stayed kind, gracious, and articulate about our cause, leaning on nonviolent communication techniques we had been learning. Halfway through, he paused, he had started to loosen up and he shared something really illuminating. He admitted, “I came in expecting to be berated, because most people show up mad. I didn’t think I’d have a respectful, productive conversation.” From that moment, the dynamic changed. He even gave us more time than scheduled. That meeting showed us how building connection opens doors rather than immediately slamming them shut.
In a time of so much social and political intensity, when the temptation to demonize our “opponents” feels almost overwhelming, perhaps our greatest act of resistance is refusing to let hate win. Perhaps our most radical choice is to keep our hearts open, even when it’s hard—especially when it’s hard. The world we long for—a world of genuine community and connection—will not be built on hatred and rage. It will be built through the brave choice to see each other’s humanity across our deepest differences, to honor those differences, and to engage with respect and care, even when we are working towards different goals. That is more fertile ground. Refusing to vilify may be the most radical act of resistance left to us.
This is a guest post written by Matthew Albracht. You can subscribe to his Substack here. Matthew is the former Executive Director and a Board Member of The Peace Alliance. His writings have appeared on CNN, Salon, HuffPost and other outlets. Follow Matthew on:Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook
Consciousness, spirituality, biography, sexuality, androgyny, futurism, space, the arts, science, astrology, democracy, humor, books, movies and more
