|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 21, 2013 20:54:41 GMT -5
Chanced upon it yesterday, on Amazon, E-book only. Jed McKenna's Theory of Everything: The Enlightened Perspective, March 28, 2013. Finished 33%, good stuff, same ole Jed. Thought I'd drop by and see if anybody had posted about it, guess not.
sdp
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 21, 2013 22:22:22 GMT -5
Chanced upon it yesterday, on Amazon, E-book only. Jed McKenna's Theory of Everything: The Enlightened Perspective, March 28, 2013. Finished 33%, good stuff, same ole Jed. Thought I'd drop by and see if anybody had posted about it, guess not. sdp Well, I did, but not here, I guess. *************************8 It seem folks have all sorts of ideas about what 'knowing nothing' means, but what it really means is that there's nothing to know. "I know that I know nothing" Socrates Of course, we're talking in the sense of knowledge that is ultimately true, and there isn't any. This actually makes the realization of truth very simple even as our clinging to ideas makes it very difficult. I like Jed Mckenna's approach as it manages to avoid anything particularly woo woo about this realization and focuses on challenging what we think we know. "Remember, there's nothing to know. Kill the guru. No head full of spiritual knowledge or wall full of spiritual books can ever be other than an anchor.All forward motion depends on release, not gain. Only that knowledge which destroys knowledge facilitates progress. Don't seek external validation, be your own guru. Students don't make journeys and travelers don't sit in classrooms. This little caution bears emphasizing because our compelling tendency toward spiritual inertia is why the most spiritually knowledgeable, respected, and dedicated, are not themselves awake." Jed McKenna's Theory of Everything Read more: realizinghappiness.freeforums.net/index.cgi?board=philosophy&action=display&thread=70#ixzz2R9tnzJRw |
|
|
|
Post by gooseone on Apr 26, 2013 9:25:50 GMT -5
Well, i have read it, and i kinda wonder why he even attempted to try and "describe" the moon instead
of pointing to it. Maybe he needed some money or something...
I usually try to get the gist of what someone is saying, but if someone claims a theory of everything
it is an invitation to go into the semantics of it.
Language is already an expression of an underlying intention and it is a limited one at that, so to accurately
describe a theory of everything is bound to fail.
Then, with the use of logic he deducts that "Truth exists" while not noticing logic is something which applies in "Maya's great palace of delusion" , sort of like gravity. Aside from the obvious observation that it is applicable
in our conscious experience there is no way of determining if it is an absolute quality.
He keeps saying that I am / Consciousness is all there is , the so called "C-Rex" which supposedly supersedes the
Universe or "U-Rex" ( With which i guess he means the material realm , which is not necessarily evident for everyone ).
Then he goes on mentioning that perceiver,perceived and perception are the same.
I could agree, yet if the perceiver is C-Rex , perceived is U-Rex , and they combine to form perception,
why choose C-Rex ? At least admit your choosing one side of a coin in that case.
And i would like a disclaimer that the only thing one can know: "There appears to be experiencing going on"
only applies when one is awake and conscious.
Seeing everyone has some experience with going unconscious, it's a finite experience so that makes the
I am / Consciousness statement a relative one compared to non-existing , which i admit , is hard to say something about.
I guess he really did not think much in the past years because his sword seems to need some sharpening.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2013 12:16:25 GMT -5
Jed is funny and challenging. But it is still just grist for the mill, and I think that as I read his or other books, I am still searching scripture thinking they will give me life. I swear the only thing that gives me just the slightest relief from this pattern is doing the excercizes devised by Douglas Harding.
|
|
|
|
Post by topology on Apr 26, 2013 12:33:21 GMT -5
Jed is funny and challenging. But it is still just grist for the mill, and I think that as I read his or other books, I am still searching scripture thinking they will give me life. I swear the only thing that gives me just the slightest relief from this pattern is doing the excercizes devised by Douglas Harding. Yep, the DH exercises do a lot more than merely reading words. You're actually shifting your attention instead of hoping that some magic sequence of words will hit you in just the right way to cause you to shift your attention. Art Ticknor asked DH how long it took for his ego to completely capitulate after entering into this direct seeing. DH's response was on the order of many years. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 26, 2013 22:00:26 GMT -5
Well, i have read it, and i kinda wonder why he even attempted to try and "describe" the moon instead of pointing to it. Maybe he needed some money or something... I usually try to get the gist of what someone is saying, but if someone claims a theory of everything it is an invitation to go into the semantics of it. Language is already an expression of an underlying intention and it is a limited one at that, so to accurately describe a theory of everything is bound to fail. Then, with the use of logic he deducts that "Truth exists" while not noticing logic is something which applies in "Maya's great palace of delusion" , sort of like gravity. Aside from the obvious observation that it is applicable in our conscious experience there is no way of determining if it is an absolute quality. He keeps saying that I am / Consciousness is all there is , the so called "C-Rex" which supposedly supersedes the Universe or "U-Rex" ( With which i guess he means the material realm , which is not necessarily evident for everyone ). Then he goes on mentioning that perceiver,perceived and perception are the same. I could agree, yet if the perceiver is C-Rex , perceived is U-Rex , and they combine to form perception, why choose C-Rex ? At least admit your choosing one side of a coin in that case. And i would like a disclaimer that the only thing one can know: "There appears to be experiencing going on" only applies when one is awake and conscious. Seeing everyone has some experience with going unconscious, it's a finite experience so that makes the I am / Consciousness statement a relative one compared to non-existing , which i admit , is hard to say something about. I guess he really did not think much in the past years because his sword seems to need some sharpening. I haven't read anymore of the book yet, still at 33%, but I can speak to the point here. The Whole is U-Rex (not just the material realm, but everything. It doesn't matter what's evident or not). C-Rex is 'my' particular consciousness, my POV. Every-body has their own C-Rex. You can only know any part of the Whole or even the Whole itself through your own C-Rex. That's what Jed is saying and, to me, that's as clear as can be. If Jed says beyond 33% (no page numbers) that C-Rex supersedes U-Rex......well...that's just not possible, I think you must be misunderstanding what he's saying (or give me a direct quote.....I'll be getting back to the book tomorrow).... Perceiver, perceived and perception ARE the same (for any particular C-Rex). What you say, "There appears to be experiencing going on" applies to everyone, not just for one who is awake and conscious. You have not pointed out any contradictions here, Jed is dead-on philosophically here, no sharpening needed (up to 33% and what you've reported here). Perceived is U-Rex (the Whole) only if one perceives the Whole. For me that would be every tiny piece of all that exists (for me that's pretty-much God Territory, that's how I see perception of The Whole of U-Rex......anyway...). I don't know why all this isn't clear, but I do know that it's not-clear to everyone. Aside, a "Cosmic Consciousness" experience of some-type of unity consciousness is not an experience of U-Rex, The Whole (which, again, is God-Territory, IMO). Saying that to say that I think you are wrong in saying Jed says perceived IS U-Rex (perceived would be a part of U-Rex, the part we perceive). Why choose C-Rex? We can't do otherwise. If I've gotten anything wrong here, according to Jed, or just wrong period, I'll post again at 100%. sdp |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 26, 2013 22:19:25 GMT -5
Well, i have read it, and i kinda wonder why he even attempted to try and "describe" the moon instead of pointing to it. Maybe he needed some money or something... I usually try to get the gist of what someone is saying, but if someone claims a theory of everything it is an invitation to go into the semantics of it. Language is already an expression of an underlying intention and it is a limited one at that, so to accurately describe a theory of everything is bound to fail. Then, with the use of logic he deducts that "Truth exists" while not noticing logic is something which applies in "Maya's great palace of delusion" , sort of like gravity. Aside from the obvious observation that it is applicable in our conscious experience there is no way of determining if it is an absolute quality. He keeps saying that I am / Consciousness is all there is , the so called "C-Rex" which supposedly supersedes the Universe or "U-Rex" ( With which i guess he means the material realm , which is not necessarily evident for everyone ). Then he goes on mentioning that perceiver,perceived and perception are the same. I could agree, yet if the perceiver is C-Rex , perceived is U-Rex , and they combine to form perception, why choose C-Rex ? At least admit your choosing one side of a coin in that case. And i would like a disclaimer that the only thing one can know: "There appears to be experiencing going on" only applies when one is awake and conscious. Seeing everyone has some experience with going unconscious, it's a finite experience so that makes the I am / Consciousness statement a relative one compared to non-existing , which i admit , is hard to say something about. I guess he really did not think much in the past years because his sword seems to need some sharpening. I haven't read anymore of the book yet, still at 33%, but I can speak to the point here. The Whole is U-Rex (not just the material realm, but everything. It doesn't matter what's evident or not). C-Rex is 'my' particular consciousness, my POV. Every-body has their own C-Rex. You can only know any part of the Whole or even the Whole itself through your own C-Rex. That's what Jed is saying and, to me, that's as clear as can be. If Jed says beyond 33% (no page numbers) that C-Rex supersedes U-Rex......well...that's just not possible, I think you must be misunderstanding what he's saying (or give me a direct quote.....I'll be getting back to the book tomorrow).... Perceiver, perceived and perception ARE the same (for any particular C-Rex). What you say, "There appears to be experiencing going on" applies to everyone, not just for one who is awake and conscious. You have not pointed out any contradictions here, Jed is dead-on philosophically here, no sharpening needed (up to 33% and what you've reported here). Perceived is U-Rex (the Whole) only if one perceives the Whole. For me that would be every tiny piece of all that exists (for me that's pretty-much God Territory, that's how I see perception of The Whole of U-Rex......anyway...). I don't know why all this isn't clear, but I do know that it's not-clear to everyone. Aside, a "Cosmic Consciousness" experience of some-type of unity consciousness is not an experience of U-Rex, The Whole (which, again, is God-Territory, IMO). Saying that to say that I think you are wrong in saying Jed says perceived IS U-Rex (perceived would be a part of U-Rex, the part we perceive). Why choose C-Rex? We can't do otherwise. If I've gotten anything wrong here, according to Jed, or just wrong period, I'll post again at 100%. sdp I'm pretty sure you're getting U-Rex and C-Crex reversed. U-Rex is our shared paradigm of reality. The way our reality is normally experienced. C-Rex is consciousness as reality, and the universe appearing within it. U-Rex is people territory sand C-Rex is God territory. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 26, 2013 23:13:55 GMT -5
I haven't read anymore of the book yet, still at 33%, but I can speak to the point here. The Whole is U-Rex (not just the material realm, but everything. It doesn't matter what's evident or not). C-Rex is 'my' particular consciousness, my POV. Every-body has their own C-Rex. You can only know any part of the Whole or even the Whole itself through your own C-Rex. That's what Jed is saying and, to me, that's as clear as can be. If Jed says beyond 33% (no page numbers) that C-Rex supersedes U-Rex......well...that's just not possible, I think you must be misunderstanding what he's saying (or give me a direct quote.....I'll be getting back to the book tomorrow).... Perceiver, perceived and perception ARE the same (for any particular C-Rex). What you say, "There appears to be experiencing going on" applies to everyone, not just for one who is awake and conscious. You have not pointed out any contradictions here, Jed is dead-on philosophically here, no sharpening needed (up to 33% and what you've reported here). Perceived is U-Rex (the Whole) only if one perceives the Whole. For me that would be every tiny piece of all that exists (for me that's pretty-much God Territory, that's how I see perception of The Whole of U-Rex......anyway...). I don't know why all this isn't clear, but I do know that it's not-clear to everyone. Aside, a "Cosmic Consciousness" experience of some-type of unity consciousness is not an experience of U-Rex, The Whole (which, again, is God-Territory, IMO). Saying that to say that I think you are wrong in saying Jed says perceived IS U-Rex (perceived would be a part of U-Rex, the part we perceive). Why choose C-Rex? We can't do otherwise. If I've gotten anything wrong here, according to Jed, or just wrong period, I'll post again at 100%. sdp I'm pretty sure you're getting U-Rex and C-Crex reversed. U-Rex is our shared paradigm of reality. The way our reality is normally experienced. C-Rex is consciousness as reality, and the universe appearing within it. U-Rex is people territory sand C-Rex is God territory. I was pretty sure I was expressing what Jed wrote correctly, but I went back and checked. For clarity. U-Rex stands for universe is king. C-Rex stands for consciousness is king. "The difference between U-Rex and C-Rex is simple. Imagine a sheet of white paper and put a dot somewhere in the middle of it. The white page is infinite.......label the infinite sheet of paper Universe, and label the dot Consciousness. That's what I'm calling U-Rex, our shared paradigm of reality. ........I am consciousness, and my consciousness is one small thing in a great big universe. (18%) So how do we arrive at this other paradigm of yours? (Jed says) Just switch labels. No, he says through his smile, I don't think so. Oh yea, definitely. C-Rex: Consciousness is King. Consciousness is the superset of the universe, not the other way around or any other way. Once we make that one minor adjustment in our thinking, reality resolves into a prefect clarity. ......C-Rex, Consciousness is King; the one true comprehensive, bulletproof, foreproof, idiotproof, geniusproof theory of everything. Okay, wait a minute, says Karl. Do you know what you're saying? I think I do, I say. That would mean that there is no universe.......... Something like that, yes. (19%) ........................ In the U-Rex paradigm, Universe is the superset....... Consciousness is also a subset of the universe; my consciousness, your consciousness, innumerable discrete consciousnesses. In short, U-Rex is reality as everyone knows it. (25%) In the U-Rex paradigm, universe is the superset of consciousness. C-Rex simply swaps the two, putting consciousness in the superset position. With that one minor adjustment, everything resolves into perfect clarity. As a consequence of C-Rex, the universe as we know it ceases to exist. Absolutely. This might be the tricky part to grok; no universe, no time and space, no energy or matter, no duality or causality. All gone. Everything is inside consciousness and nothing is outside. There is no universe, there is only consciousness. I'd like to repeat that last bit. There is only consciousness. Whatever exists is merely appearance within consciousness. There is no universe out there at all, there, is no out there at all, there is only the universe in here. There is only consciousness. (25%) .............................................. I got everything right. The swap he talks about is slightly confusing, but not really (it helps that this subject has been a passion for me (self/conditioned mind) for years, the philosophical understanding.....actually, in fact, pretty useless, even can be an obstruction to seeing what is, but a passion nontheless........ '-)....:-( ....... Jed says that all this stuff had to be in the trilogy, but not articulated. Had to be because it's where he operates from....... Your post is partly wrong but partly right (first and last sentence wrong, the rest right). You're confusing what gets swapped from U-Rex to C-Rex, easy to do. (I suppose I should not have brought God into the conversation). U-Rex can't be people territory because no person can be conscious of The Whole. The dot on the paper cannot encompass the Whole sheet of paper. sdp |
|
|
|
Post by gooseone on Apr 27, 2013 9:58:08 GMT -5
I did mention i was getting into semantics.
After the chapters in which he talks about the U-rex en C-Rex he does try to define consciousness,
when doing so he mentions perceiver / perceived and perception are the same and starts distinguishing between Atmanic consciousness and Brahmanic consciousness, of which there is little to be known on Brahmanic consciousness.
He mentions himself it's a tricky bit to explain, and indeed i have noticed myself how something which seems self - evident gets distorted when trying to give expression to it.
But it does kinda make the previous chapters obsolete in the TOE department.
In the department of enquiry into the nature of reality it is a very worthwhile exercise. (In my view.)
I intended to again mention something about applying logic in "Maya's palace of delusion" to sift through
falseness while logic is as much part of the whole delusion seeing it generates the outcome.
( If used objectively )
Then i had that bit of the "I am" not applying when there is no waking consciousness , which in turn
gets evoked by ...uhm...Infinite awareness, Primordial Chicken Soup, the Brahmanic Consciousness or whatever
and how when the "I am" applies there is no way of knowing what is outside and inside other then concluding that they combine to form ...Captain Planet ! ( sry i meant experience.)
But although the intention was certainly there and i sort of extinguished it with mentioning the above, i digressed into utter nonsensical rambling to no end. Maybe the point had to do with my distaste for the
"Consciousness is King" camp which utilises such proclamations merely to relieve cognitive dissonance... or
to give some idea as to what might be an entertaining occupation while having an experience.
So i have again digressed into nonsensical rambling, my apologies.
|
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 27, 2013 21:38:40 GMT -5
Greetings..
If the observer understands the message these words reference, there would be no discussion about what C-Rex, U-Rex, and other such mind-play 'means'.. from my perspective, the quote referenced above resonates as a very fundamental and consistently appropriate understanding.. rather than using the phrase "are not themselves awake". i understand the reference as, 'are attached to the illusion of self-imagery'.. further, i sense that the 'idea of spirituality', like the 'idea of enlightenment', is a degree of separation from what is actually 'happening'..
Be well..
|
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Apr 27, 2013 22:12:29 GMT -5
C-rex and U-rex seems to rehash Freud's id theories.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2013 4:22:29 GMT -5
Greetings.. If the observer understands the message these words reference, there would be no discussion about what C-Rex, U-Rex, and other such mind-play 'means'.. from my perspective, the quote referenced above resonates as a very fundamental and consistently appropriate understanding.. rather than using the phrase " are not themselves awake". i understand the reference as, 'are attached to the illusion of self-imagery'.. further, i sense that the 'idea of spirituality', like the 'idea of enlightenment', is a degree of separation from what is actually 'happening'.. Be well.. Yes. Any idea, is downstream of what is actually happening. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 28, 2013 8:29:34 GMT -5
Greetings.. If the observer understands the message these words reference, there would be no discussion about what C-Rex, U-Rex, and other such mind-play 'means'.. from my perspective, the quote referenced above resonates as a very fundamental and consistently appropriate understanding.. rather than using the phrase " are not themselves awake". i understand the reference as, 'are attached to the illusion of self-imagery'.. further, i sense that the 'idea of spirituality', like the 'idea of enlightenment', is a degree of separation from what is actually 'happening'.. Be well.. Yes. Any idea, is downstream of what is actually happening. yups |
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Apr 29, 2013 10:48:47 GMT -5
Yo! Guess who this is. So I've read the ~20page books.google preview of Jed's new book and was a bit shocked because of the low quality. Usually I don't care, but this is an author with a large following and he speaks with such authority that I couldn't help but expose the guy for the charlatan that he is. Well, that and I also wanted an excuse to post again.
- A trick question, though not a surprising one, considering that he introduces his book by quoting Socrates, the father of all trick questions. What is the "truth" that Jed is speaking of? A fool's mind here will immediately start spinning a tale of epic proportions. Looked at closely "truth" will reveal itself to be nothing more than a function of a class of sentences. Other kinds of sentences don't contain this function and still remain operational.
- Let's be very precise here, because if we're not then this will distort the entire contemplation. If within the sentence the true/false-function operates, then this function can't be absent within the same sentence, for then the sentence would be in self-contradiction. However, we have to clearly recognize that such is the function of these particular kind of sentences, the function is not universal, it does not extend beyond this class of sentences.
- Look at the insanity of this. There is supposed to be some kind of mysterious truth-entity, we believe to know that it must exist, but we haven't the faintest clue about what it could be. It's an entirely abstract entity that insists not because we have positive evidence for it (we don't, because we have no idea what it could be) but because we can't imagine it not to be. Isn't that strange? The mystery is solved when you understand that truth is not a universal entity of some sort but instead merely a value of a true/false function within a sentence, and that this function necessarily insists whenever you instantiate it within the sentence, but it is completely unwarranted to extrapolate this function beyond the sentence and imagine it to be a universal entity.
- And this is the tale of epic proportions that I hinted at earlier.
- Don't be deceived by "absolute certainty", it simply articulates the inability to doubt, which in this case isn't representative of anything other than the constraints of the structure of the sentence which one is thinking in. "I know that I exist" is simply the swapping of one abstract term for another, same with "I am conscious". The strenght of "I" and "conscious" comes not from understanding, it comes from the dominance of intuition, which is the same as the inability to doubt, which is the result of a lack of understanding. He who does not understand whereof he speaks has the strongest intuitions. He who understands whereof he speaks requires no intuition.
Next. What is consciousness? Jed has to give a precise account, otherwise he would violate the requirement of "absolute certainty". So, how can you be absolutely certain about something if you're not exactly sure what it is? "Absolute truth" is an entirely abstract entity and according to Jed it can only be concretized by something of which we are absolutely certain, but it obviously can't be "consciousness" or "self", or "existence", or any other one of these ideas because we're not certain what they represent... and if Jed disagrees, then he contradicts himself and his syllogism falls apart faster than a virtual particle. Moreover, if you try to cheat and say that intuition is enough and that there is no obligation to present a precise account of the involved notions, then what reason is there to prefer consciousness over the myriad other dominant intuitions that we experience each and every day?
- No, Jed has completely confused a poor fellow and robbed him of his precious time and money.
- Do you remember Rumsfeldian epistemology? There are things we know we know. Things we know we don't know. And things we don't know we don't know. But there is also a fourth to this permutation. Things we don't know we know. Be vigilant, the latter is the realm of charlatans.
- But is the "if" correct? Here's the thing. If you are incapable of doubting this syllogism of Jed's then you don't understand it. It's as simple as that. If you agree with the syllogism without being able to doubt it then you're relying on feel-good intuition. What does it mean to doubt this syllogism? It's not only by being able to construct alternatives of similar logical strenght. Instead it means that one should learn to understand how the syllogism functions in each of its parts.
- The "I Am" as such is completely irrelevant for epistemology. When talking about knowledge and belief in regard to fundamental epistemology the distinction of belief/knowledge is misleading. In logic the search for truth reveals itself not to be a hunt for some sort of divine truth but rather as the drawing of a conclusion that follows when certain data is applied to certain rules. Define rules, define relevant data, apply data to the rules, draw conclusion. The conclusion is merely the result of a logical "if-then" operation. One who understands this mechanism will also understand that these operations are virtual in the sense that they are unable to claim to give an account of anything external to them. This is why it is only out of lack of understanding that one is tempted to call logical conclusions beliefs or truths. To talk of absolute truth is nothing more than ideology. The best we can do is look at what rules we agree upon, apply to it what we think we count as evidence and then draw the conclusions - but none of this has anything to do with absolute truths.
Jed is clearly performing logical operations, but he claims that his conclusions are absolute truths pertaining to things far outside the context of notational logic. Either his understanding of logic is indeed so primitive that he doesn't understand his error, or he is knowingly in the ideology business, for egoic or financial reasons. Either way he is either unknowingly or knowingly contributing to mankind's ignorance.
Notice that the background of his idea is the caricature of a material universe with conscious individuals trapped therein. It is a notion so naive and primitive that it is unworthy to be used as contrast for a theory of anything. Both members of the caricature and their relation have been known to be extremely problematic for millenia and no educated thinker would risk the certain embarrassment by publishing a paper that takes them at face value. Not so with Jed. He just switches the labels, solves not a single problem, creates a myriad others, sprinkles it with a bit of irony, anticipates the bewilderment of simple folks aswell as the devastating critique from experts such as myself by playing the role of the misunderstood genius, calls it a "theory of everything" and sells it for seven bucks a piece.
Now, putting it all together there reveals itself a possibility that Jed's fans should be worried about. Years ago I've actually bought and read his first book, and I didn't hate it. There he seemed to be writing mainly from his personal experience, which I trusted was more developed that mine and so I just registered his claims without criticizing them. However, this time his claims are within my field of expertise and seeing that he is wrong not about some complicated details but instead about the most basic of all concepts I cannot help but wonder about the extent of his ignorance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2013 12:45:03 GMT -5
He just switches the labels, solves not a single problem, creates a myriad others, sprinkles it with a bit of irony, anticipates the bewilderment of simple folks as well as the devastating critique from experts such as myself by playing the role of the misunderstood genius, calls it a "theory of everything" and sells it for seven bucks a piece. So far the reviews are pretty mediocre. Didn't he say he wasn't going to write another one in book 3? Guess the universe disagreed. |
|
